Time to crown Novak the GOAT?

[monfed]

This is absurd and easily refuted as such. All of those players are TEAM sports, where players specialize on offense and defense. Tennis (singles) is not a team sport. A player must attack AND defend.

End of story.

Not end of story. Offense is more important than defense. faker is a pusher, not an attacker for sure, always outwinnered by his opponents even on grass. It would be acceptable if it was in his slow HC or clay, not grass. What a disgrace.
TT is not a team sport. Ditto for badminton again it's between Dan Lin and Taufiq Hidayat, both flair players.
Even in a team sport like say football, we can't objectively say the goalscorer is more important than a goalkeeper. So my point stands. Flair players are the GOATs, pusher like fakervic cant ever be the GOAT. The mere fact that he's so unpopular and is always booed is a good sign of that.

 

[Mile]

The problem for believers will be when 2 Shepards will say to 3rd, yes, you are the GOAT. What will sheep do ? Shepard dog is not always on the place, i saw lost ones quite frequently. We might get Rod Laver new list. But Steve Tignor will keep his job.

 

[monfed]

For Federer fans to call another player better than him, two things need to happen -

1) This player has to have a better game than Federer which is simply not true in Djokovic's case. Pound for pound prime Federer is a superior player to prime Djokovic. Sorry if that hurts your feelings but that's the truth.

2) Have better numbers than Federer. Djokovic is great on this front even though we strongly believe his stats are inflated thanks to inflation era. No ATG after 1987 to stop him from running away with everything.

You have to meet both criteria for us to say your favourite player is better or the GOAT or whatever else moniker you want to use.

I'm not saying I'm right or wrong, all I'm saying is this is how most Fed fans think so please don't scold me, I'm just a messenger.

 

[shawnbm]

I respect MikeOne and his analysis in most cases and statistically he is correct here. Certainly since 2011 he is the unquestionably dominant player with Rafa taking a year or two and the same with Roger’s 2017-18 resurgence. Other than that, he won 19 majors in that period compared to Roger winning 4 and Rafa 10. He has gone 14-3 in majors since he started off 6-7, which shows he has owned the last decade for the most part. The thing is that Roger and Rafa are showing some wear and tear and Novak is not. I can see him winning big events into the next two years.

 

[don_fabio]

The thing is that Roger and Rafa are showing some wear and tear and Novak is not. I can see him winning big events into the next two years.

Novak's physical shape is better than everyone on tour IMO. I had doubts before about his physical decline in 30s, but he can surely keep going like this for another 2 years given the smart scheduling and less tournaments played.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

There are three components to physical fitness: Cardio, Strength Training and Flexibility Training (and after one gets old balance training also). Most often men don't pay much attention to the third one. It appears that Novak paid "flexibility component" its respect and thus reaping rewards. I think Fedal did not do too much of flexibility exercises.

 

[rafanoy1992]

There are three components to physical fitness: Cardio, Strength Training and Flexibility Training (and after one gets old balance training also). Most often men don't pay much attention to the third one. It appears that Novak paid "flexibility component" its respect and thus reaping rewards. I think Fedal did not do too much of flexibility exercises.

It's not that Federer and Nadal did not do too much of flexibility exercises is that their body style is probably not suited to do some super sliding exercises that Djokovic can do every match.

 

[MikeOne]

Federer fans tend to be the most delusional and i think it’s because aethetically, federer had the most beautiful game. There is this thing with federer, he played a beautiful, artistic game and so was looked at as a GOD, i recall an insane article where a writer described federer as a ‘religious experience’. Given this, it’s impossible for fed fanatics to accept anyone can be better... how can anyone be better than a god?

nadal are djokovic have never been worshipped like this, they have been look at as machines, cyborgs...

But aesthetics doesn’t translate to best game ever...

Djokovic’s game, can be argued, is most complete ever. He has a game that is best suited for all surfaces... better than federer’s on clay and better than nadal’s on grass. On hards, edges both. Everything he does, is strong, no weaknesses. Federer was artistic and creative but nadal exploited his bh for years, against djokovic, nadal had admitted to having no answers, no clear strategy.

statistically, djoker is goat and there is no denying it and based in his accomplishments, on all surfaces, most complete game, arguably.

it doesn’t matter how more beautiful federer’s game was, then nalbandian should be brought into goat debate.

 

[El Dude]

For Federer fans to call another player better than him, two things need to happen -

1) This player has to have a better game than Federer which is simply not true in Djokovic's case. Pound for pound prime Federer is a superior player to prime Djokovic. Sorry if that hurts your feelings but that's the truth.

Why would it hurt my feelings? I'm a Roger fan!

Anyhow, this is arguable. But the main point is that prime/peak greatness is not the same as GOAT. A player's peak is harder to define - I mean, what do you mean by that? How long?

The point being, "GOAT"--if we want to answer the question--has to be something measurable and definable, and for that we can look at a player's total career. That is the only thing that has definite boundaries.

2) Have better numbers than Federer. Djokovic is great on this front even though we strongly believe his stats are inflated thanks to inflation era. No ATG after 1987 to stop him from running away with everything.

1987? What are you talking about? And what is Rafa, chopped liver?

But yes, I hear you that Novak hasn't had to deal with two greats coming up behind him like Roger, but he did have to deal with two greats overlapping. It all kind of evens out. If anything, Rafa had it hardest because he had to deal with peak Roger and peak Novak.

You have to meet both criteria for us to say your favourite player is better or the GOAT or whatever else moniker you want to use.

I'm not saying I'm right or wrong, all I'm saying is this is how most Fed fans think so please don't scold me, I'm just a messenger.

I'm a Fed fan and started this thread. While I love Roger and doubt I'll love any player as much, I prefer truth to being right. Or as Meister Eckhart said, "truth is something so precious that if truth and God were ever to separate, I would leave God and follow truth." Replace "God" with your favorite player and what you want to believe about them. And yes, I think diehards tend to be religious about their favorite, which blinds them to the actual truth. I appreciate your fervor for Roger, but it is blinding you from the actual truth.

 

[El Dude]

Federer fans tend to be the most delusional and i think it’s because aethetically, federer had the most beautiful game. There is this thing with federer, he played a beautiful, artistic game and so was looked at as a GOD, i recall an insane article where a writer described federer as a ‘religious experience’. Given this, it’s impossible for fed fanatics to accept anyone can be better... how can anyone be better than a god?

nadal are djokovic have never been worshipped like this, they have been look at as machines, cyborgs...

But aesthetics doesn’t translate to best game ever...

Djokovic’s game, can be argued, is most complete ever. He has a game that is best suited for all surfaces... better than federer’s on clay and better than nadal’s on grass. On hards, edges both. Everything he does, is strong, no weaknesses. Federer was artistic and creative but nadal exploited his bh for years, against djokovic, nadal had admitted to having no answers, no clear strategy.

statistically, djoker is goat and there is no denying it and based in his accomplishments, on all surfaces, most complete game, arguably.

it doesn’t matter how more beautiful federer’s game was, then nalbandian should be brought into goat debate.

Ha...we just posted something similar about God. But...I disagree about Roger fans being the only group that are delusional. Rafa fans can be equally zealous. I suppose Novak fans too, but there are fewer of them.

But I agree that aesthetics doesn't translate to best game/results ever, and that Novak has the best argument for GOAT. I felt that before he won Wimbledon and now it is just a bit more clear. If he wins the US Open, we can really separate the nincompoops out, because some will still be denying it.

Again, I think GOAT--to be an answerable question--has to be centered on career. We can argue until the cows come home, who was better at their peak. That said, I would take peak Roger on grass and fast hards, peak Novak on slow hards (or hards as a whole), and peak Rafa on clay. Simple enough.

 

[monfed]

Why would it hurt my feelings? I'm a Roger fan!

Anyhow, this is arguable. But the main point is that prime/peak greatness is not the same as GOAT. A player's peak is harder to define - I mean, what do you mean by that? How long?

The point being, "GOAT"--if we want to answer the question--has to be something measurable and definable, and for that we can look at a player's total career. That is the only thing that has definite boundaries.

1987? What are you talking about? And what is Rafa, chopped liver?

But yes, I hear you that Novak hasn't had to deal with two greats coming up behind him like Roger, but he did have to deal with two greats overlapping. It all kind of evens out. If anything, Rafa had it hardest because he had to deal with peak Roger and peak Novak.

I'm a Fed fan and started this thread. While I love Roger and doubt I'll love any player as much, I prefer truth to being right. Or as Meister Eckhart said, "truth is something so precious that if truth and God were ever to separate, I would leave God and follow truth." Replace "God" with your favorite player and what you want to believe about them. And yes, I think diehards tend to be religious about their favorite, which blinds them to the actual truth. I appreciate your fervor for Roger, but it is blinding you from the actual truth.

I don't remember you being a Fed fan. But if you are then that's awesome.

Coming to my analysis - Fed is clearly better than Novak at WB and USO. Novak is clearly better than Fed at AO.

Now let's come to RG. RG is complicated because Novak is better at beating Nadal on clay than Roger so that translates to more RGs but Fed is better than Novak on clay against the field. The only match that they played closest to their peaks was RG 11 and Fed won that so I'm going with Fed here.

So overall Fed is better than Novak other than AO that's why Fed is the GOAT and not Novak.

We always measure prime to prime otherwise what's the point? Then you may as well get Pete out of retirement and make him lose to Novak or Fed and say he's not as good as them. Would that be fair to Pete? Cmon mate, It's illogical and this is my point of disagreement with you.

 

[monfed]

Players to play for life -

AO - Djokovic 11
RG - Nadal 08
WB - Federer 06/Sampras 96 depending on fast/slow grass
USO - Federer 06

 

[BratSrbin]

"Now let's come to RG. RG is complicated because Novak is better at beating Nadal on clay than Roger so that translates to more RGs but Fed is better than Novak on clay against the field. The only match that they played closest to their peaks was RG 11 and Fed won that so I'm going with Fed here."
After 2011 Roger was in the end of tournament in RG (where he can meet best players) only twice. Next year Nole in semifinal won 3 - 0, and few years latter Roger lost, also 3 - 0, from King of clay.
Just to show how thin is "argumentation" of somebody here.

 

[El Dude]

I don't remember you being a Fed fan. But if you are then that's awesome.

Coming to my analysis - Fed is clearly better than Novak at WB and USO. Novak is clearly better than Fed at AO.

Now let's come to RG. RG is complicated because Novak is better at beating Nadal on clay than Roger so that translates to more RGs but Fed is better than Novak on clay against the field. The only match that they played closest to their peaks was RG 11 and Fed won that so I'm going with Fed here.

So overall Fed is better than Novak other than AO that's why Fed is the GOAT and not Novak.

We always measure prime to prime otherwise what's the point? Then you may as well get Pete out of retirement and make him lose to Novak or Fed and say he's not as good as them. Would that be fair to Pete? Cmon mate, It's illogical and this is my point of disagreement with you.

You are drawing conclusions from singular (and rather selective) events. For instance, we cannot say that Roger is better than Novak on clay based upon one single match. Also, you focus on Slams only, when there are many other tournaments - and they mean something, especially the WTF and Masters.

Now of course, what you are arguing is what can be argued, because it is not clearly factual. Meaning, if you want to say that Roger--at his peak--was the best player ever, you can do that and it isn't entirely absurd. It is debatable. On the other hand, GOAT has to be based on something quantifiable, and the best overall measure is career results. Novak, right now, is roughly equal to Roger in career accomplishments, but is still going strong and almost certainly will surpass Roger in almost every way that truly matters.

 

[BratSrbin]

"Now let's come to RG. RG is complicated because Novak is better at beating Nadal on clay than Roger so that translates to more RGs but Fed is better than Novak on clay against the field. The only match that they played closest to their peaks was RG 11 and Fed won that so I'm going with Fed here."
In previous 4 years Nole was in Rafas half and lost in semis three times.

 

[monfed]

You are drawing conclusions from singular (and rather selective) events. For instance, we cannot say that Roger is better than Novak on clay based upon one single match. Also, you focus on Slams only, when there are many other tournaments - and they mean something, especially the WTF and Masters.

Now of course, what you are arguing is what can be argued, because it is not clearly factual. Meaning, if you want to say that Roger--at his peak--was the best player ever, you can do that and it isn't entirely absurd. It is debatable. On the other hand, GOAT has to be based on something quantifiable, and the best overall measure is career results. Novak, right now, is roughly equal to Roger in career accomplishments, but is still going strong and almost certainly will surpass Roger in almost every way that truly matters.

Federer dominated the 2000s, Novak dominated 2010s with Nadal taking apples from both trees. What is inflating Novaks' records is that he's getting a free pass to maul kids in the 2020s and he's already added 4 slams without breaking a sweat playing well below his normal level. That is abnormal and that my friend is textbook vulturing.

Never in the history of tennis have we seen such an aberration. You want to give him a free pass for 2015 and 2016 for his tough draws from 2011-2014? Sure go ahead. But he doesn't get a free pass from 2017 onwards. That is vulturing because of the lack of an ATG after 1987, hell there isnt even a tier 2 Murray or Stan or Delpotro type player these days. So what meaning do these numbers have? They dont impress anyone. Post prime Roger would've spanked these kids but he got Djokovic and Nadal at the end of every slam run. Hell even at USO 14, he got an unplayable Cilic.

If there was an ATG after 1987, he would not be a freaking lock for a CYGS at age 34. Please open your eyes! And please spare me this talk about numbers as if we're not allowed to add context to them and challenge their impressiveness.

Context is EVERYTHING in a GOAT debate. Numbers tell only half the story. You have to factor in everything. And when you factor in everything Novak's GOATness is found wanting.

 

[monfed]

"Now let's come to RG. RG is complicated because Novak is better at beating Nadal on clay than Roger so that translates to more RGs but Fed is better than Novak on clay against the field. The only match that they played closest to their peaks was RG 11 and Fed won that so I'm going with Fed here."
In previous 4 years Nole was in Rafas half and lost in semis three times.

Could you name those 4 years please? And which among these 4 years do you think Novak would've beaten Fed?

 

[Fiero425]

You are drawing conclusions from singular (and rather selective) events. For instance, we cannot say that Roger is better than Novak on clay based upon one single match. Also, you focus on Slams only, when there are many other tournaments - and they mean something, especially the WTF and Masters.

Now of course, what you are arguing is what can be argued, because it is not clearly factual. Meaning, if you want to say that Roger--at his peak--was the best player ever, you can do that and it isn't entirely absurd. It is debatable. On the other hand, GOAT has to be based on something quantifiable, and the best overall measure is career results. Novak, right now, is roughly equal to Roger in career accomplishments, but is still going strong and almost certainly will surpass Roger in almost every way that truly matters.

That's how some of these dullard fans roll; desperate to make a point after the result of one match from 10 years ago! Federer winning that FO SF in 2011 is so overused; esp. after Nole's owned Fed's arse the last decade taking 3 Wimbledon finals over him! IT's pathetic and I'm embarrassed for these people who are truly "reaching!"

 

[BratSrbin]

"Could you name those 4 years please? And which among these 4 years do you think Novak would've beaten Fed?"
If somebody does not know to subtract 4 from 2011 does not deserve explanation here. It is better to go again in primary school.

 

[Vince Evert]

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Is there no end, or likely ever will, to these meaningless Federer - Nadal - Djokovic G.O.A.T debates ?