Time to crown Novak the GOAT?

[Federberg]

Novak Djokovic, Roger Federer or Rafael Nadal – who is greatest of them all?

 

[Jelenafan]

GOAT is not some apple picking contest, the one with the most apples wins. If it was like that then Laver wouldn't STILL be relevant, his slam count his lower than Fed's, lower than Pete's too. He's considered greater than Pete even though Pete has more slams than Laver.

Federer has been the face of tennis since 2003 till atleast Wim 2019, arguably even till this Wimbledon. That's almost 2 decades he was the face of tennis even with Djokovic and Nadal specially the former taking over from 2011. That's incredible and that shows that he transcends tennis.

Federer plays a brand of tennis that has never been seen before and I'm quite confident will never be seen again. He's a once in a lifetime player. And in a rare instance, his stats back up that claim. 20 slams is 6 more than Pete. It's more than enough to be the GOAT. But little did Fed know that the generation after 1987 would be so shit. Neither Nadull nor fakervic have an ATG challenger whereas Fed had not one but two ultra mentally tough grinders. This is why Faker even though he was third wheel from 2012 to 2014, that's 3 years AFTER hitting your peak, is why he's not getting credit for his post 2015 wins.

Federer plays POSITIVE tennis to win matches. He doesn't keeping pushing and pushing till the opponent implodes. That is by definition negative tennis

Look at any sport. The GOATs are flair players and players who create opportunities. Take football for example - Lev Yashin is the greatest goalkeeper in the world, Paolo Maldini is the greatest defender of all time and yet they're not considered GOATs. It's always been between Pele and Maradona and now recently Messi. All three are attackers.

But Djokovic should get a free pass because what? He's scavenging slams left and right when this useless gen can't hold at 5-4 even when they played the better tennis the entire set? Cmon.

Fakervic stats after 2015 count but they're not impressive. Even if you want to say those stats are impressive, Fine. But his stats after he returned from cuckoo land in 2018 are not impressive AT ALL.

OMG, Federberg, didn’t realize you worked for Rolex…

 

[tented]

Novak Djokovic, Roger Federer or Rafael Nadal – who is greatest of them all?

I enjoyed this a lot. It has a fair, levelheaded perspective, thankfully without the bickering and nastiness which pervades so many of these discussions. I hope everyone here reads it as well. Thanks for sharing.

 

[BratSrbin]

 

[lob]

There is no such thing as GOAT. Here are my subjective rankings by categories that I can think of. Stats are not everything but that is a different conversation.

Overall Stats: Djo, Fed, Nad

Record amongst each other: Djo, Nad, Fed

Sustained dominance on tour: Djo, Fed, Nad

Sustained dominance on a surface: Nad, Djo, Fed

Quality of competition: Impossible to compare

Trailblazing on tour: Fed, Nad, Djo

Longevity: Fed, Djo, Nad

Improvisation: Fed, Djo, Nad

Courage: Nad, Djo, Fed

Attack: Fed, Djo, Nad

Competitiveness: Nad, Djo, Fed

Clean game: Djo, Nad, Fed

Defense: Djo, Nad, Fed

Strategy: Nad, Djo, Fed

Observation and opportunism: Nad, Djo, Fed

Handling pressure/adversity: Nad, Djo, Fed

On court psychological warfare: Nad, Djo, Fed

Effortlessness: Fed, Djo, Nad

Shot making: Fed, Djo, Nad

Variety: Fed, Djo, Nad

Serve: Fed, Djo, Nad

Return: Djo, Nad, Fed

Return game: Nad, Djo, Fed

Net game: Fed, Nad, Djo

Indoors: Djo, Fed, Nad

Handling high/medium bounce: Djo, Nad, Fed

Handling low bounce: Fed, Djo, Nad

Handling power: Djo, Nad, Fed

Adaptability to novel conditions: Fed, Djo, Nad

Fast courts: Fed, Djo, Nad

Medium/slow courts: Djo, Fed, Nad

Accuracy and control: Djo, Nad, Fed

Spontaniety: Fed, Djo, Nad

Point construction: Fed, Djo, Nad

Physical Fitness: Djo, Fed, Nad

Stamina: Nad, Djo, Fed

Tennis IQ: Fed, Nad, Djo

Consistency: Djo, Fed, Nad

Versatility: Fed, Djo, Nad

Humility: Djo, Nad, Fed

Aesthetics: Fed, Nad, Djo

Professionalism: Fed, Djo, Nad

Sportsmanship: Fed, Djo, Nad

Charisma: Fed, Nad, Djo

Likeableness and popularity: Fed, Nad, Djo

Fashionableness: Fed, Nad, Djo

Sexiness: Nad, Fed, Djo

$$ contribution to tennis: Fed, Nad, Djo

Timelessness: Fed, Nad, Djo

Transcendence (this quality cannot be described): Fed, Nad, Djo

 

[Moxie]

There is no such thing as GOAT. Here are my subjective rankings by categories that I can think of. Stats are not everything but that is a different conversation.

Overall Stats: Djo, Fed, Nad

Record amongst each other: Djo, Nad, Fed

Sustained dominance on tour: Djo, Fed, Nad

Sustained dominance on a surface: Nad, Djo, Fed

Quality of competition: Impossible to compare

Trailblazing on tour: Fed, Nad, Djo

Longevity: Fed, Djo, Nad

Improvisation: Fed, Djo, Nad

Courage: Nad, Djo, Fed

Attack: Fed, Djo, Nad

Competitiveness: Nad, Djo, Fed

Clean game: Djo, Nad, Fed

Defense: Djo, Nad, Fed

Strategy: Nad, Djo, Fed

Observation and opportunism: Nad, Djo, Fed

Handling pressure/adversity: Nad, Djo, Fed

On court psychological warfare: Nad, Djo, Fed

Effortlessness: Fed, Djo, Nad

Shot making: Fed, Djo, Nad

Variety: Fed, Djo, Nad

Serve: Fed, Djo, Nad

Return: Djo, Nad, Fed

Return game: Nad, Djo, Fed

Net game: Fed, Nad, Djo

Indoors: Djo, Fed, Nad

Handling high/medium bounce: Djo, Nad, Fed

Handling low bounce: Fed, Djo, Nad

Handling power: Djo, Nad, Fed

Adaptability to novel conditions: Fed, Djo, Nad

Fast courts: Fed, Djo, Nad

Medium/slow courts: Djo, Fed, Nad

Accuracy and control: Djo, Nad, Fed

Spontaniety: Fed, Djo, Nad

Point construction: Fed, Djo, Nad

Physical Fitness: Djo, Fed, Nad

Stamina: Nad, Djo, Fed

Tennis IQ: Fed, Nad, Djo

Consistency: Djo, Fed, Nad

Versatility: Fed, Djo, Nad

Humility: Djo, Nad, Fed

Aesthetics: Fed, Nad, Djo

Professionalism: Fed, Djo, Nad

Sportsmanship: Fed, Djo, Nad

Charisma: Fed, Nad, Djo

Likeableness and popularity: Fed, Nad, Djo

Fashionableness: Fed, Nad, Djo

Sexiness: Nad, Fed, Djo

$$ contribution to tennis: Fed, Nad, Djo

Timelessness: Fed, Nad, Djo

Transcendence (this quality cannot be described): Fed, Nad, Djo

Some very interesting stuff here. I don't agree with it all, but won't debate some of the fine points. I don't see how you put Djokovic anything but last in "Adaptability to Novel Conditions," though. And I'd put Nadal first, because of the margin that he plays with. Djokovic gets flustered in wind, more than many, and the sun and lights bother him. Federer is kind of neutral on this, but has also been bothered by weather. Is that what you mean?

Also not sure how you put Djokovic above Nadal in terms of "longevity" at this point in time. Are you assuming? Because Nadal has been in the game longer, and important longer than Novak.

Other points of contention: "humility?" That's certainly a thing we could discuss, if it's actually important. And if you list "indoor game," you could have "outdoor game." Which statistically is Nad/Djo/Fed. Just some thoughts. But very well thought out.

 

[El Dude]

You forgot solo fist pump, lob.

 

[MikeOne]

I hear what you are saying and am not suggesting that those two are wrong, but...it is two players. We'd have to hear from more, far more. And as monfed suggested, it also depends on the matchup.

i’ve heard more notable people say djokovic attained a higher level. Nick bolletieri is a very experienced and knowledgeable coach, nadal is one of the GOAts. Serena’s coach also coaches tsitsipas and experienced, berdych played both at their peaks.

Regarding match-ups... well. Let’s take federer vs the field and djoker vs the field, both dominated tennis, there really isn’t an argument to be made that against the entire field, federer was better. After all, how can we say such a thing when djokovic has more masters, same slams and more weeks at #1...

It comes down to aesthetic IMO. Djokovic is a smooth player but not as flashy as federer, nadal.. his strokes are more compact, efficient and more consistent. Federer had a violent forehand, tended to go bad every now and then and his bh was shaky on occasion. Rafa’s fh, also violent but not as effective on some surfaces.

the way federer and nadal hit the ball is more attention grabbing but at his peak, novak’s fh is nasty (even seen him outhit federer fh vs fh) and his bh, arguably best ever. His serve is underestimated and his return as good as anyone in history. His defense is prob best ever.. he has become an efficient volleyer and developed a great slice. Federer was smoother, more aesthetically pleasing but better? Not sure

 

[Moxie]

i’ve heard more notable people say djokovic attained a higher level. Nick bolletieri is a very experienced and knowledgeable coach, nadal is one of the GOAts. Serena’s coach also coaches tsitsipas and experienced, berdych played both at their peaks.

Regarding match-ups... well. Let’s take federer vs the field and djoker vs the field, both dominated tennis, there really isn’t an argument to be made that against the entire field, federer was better. After all, how can we say such a thing when djokovic has more masters, same slams and more weeks at #1...

It comes down to aesthetic IMO. Djokovic is a smooth player but not as flashy as federer, nadal.. his strokes are more compact, efficient and more consistent. Federer had a violent forehand, tended to go bad every now and then and his bh was shaky on occasion. Rafa’s fh, also violent but not as effective on some surfaces.

the way federer and nadal hit the ball is more attention grabbing but at his peak, novak’s fh is nasty (even seen him outhit federer fh vs fh) and his bh, arguably best ever. His serve is underestimated and his return as good as anyone in history. His defense is prob best ever.. he has become an efficient volleyer and developed a great slice. Federer was smoother, more aesthetically pleasing but better? Not sure

To me, this is a lot of "recentism." I don't think that Federer and Nadal are more "attention grabbing" by the way they hit the ball than Novak. They just got the attention earlier. Djokovic is plenty flashy. I don't think his serve is in the least underestimated, though you should remember that Nadal is statistically better on return. (That's just something that becomes a truism, that is untrue, and irritates me.) Novak has improved on some things, and still has shortcomings. Is he the "most complete player?" That's the argument. I think he's the best player right now. But he was barely there when it was Roger and Rafa, so what do we do with that?

 

[MikeOne]

At slams:

nole vs fed

ao, dioker 3-1
Fo, 1-1
W - djoker 3-1
Uso, 3-3

10-6 djoker overall in slams
Overall h2h 27-23 djoker

Nole vs rafa

ao 2-0 djoker
Fo 7-2 rafa
W 2-1 djoker
Uso 2-1 rafa

10-7 rafa overall in slams
Overall h2h 30-28 djoker


It’s interesting, we talk about djoker being a bad matchup for rafa? Heck, seems an even worse match up for fed!!!

 

[Front242]

At slams:

nole vs fed

ao, dioker 3-1
Fo, 1-1
W - djoker 3-1
Uso, 3-3

10-6 djoker overall in slams
Overall h2h 27-23 djoker

Nole vs rafa

ao 2-0 djoker
Fo 7-2 rafa
W 2-1 djoker
Uso 2-1 rafa

10-7 rafa overall in slams
Overall h2h 30-28 djoker


It’s interesting, we talk about djoker being a bad matchup for rafa? Heck, seems an even worse match up for fed!!!

Check the age Federer was in most of those matches against Djokovic. Context means everything, especially when you consider most were extremely tough for Djokovic to win against an over the hill, old fart.

 

[backhandslapper]

Novak alone has more hair than Federer, Nadal, Sampras and Laver combined.

 

[Moxie]

Check the age Federer was in most of those matches against Djokovic. Context means everything, especially when you consider most were extremely tough for Djokovic to win against an over the hill, old fart.

Which is a good point. And it leads to the point that basically the only one beating Roger in his salad years was Rafa. Novak had to wait to they'd rather played each other out, at least a bit.

I do think Novak is an excellent tennis player. But it has served him to sweep up at the end of the big 3.

 

[backhandslapper]

Which is a good point. And it leads to the point that basically the only one beating Roger in his salad years was Rafa. Novak had to wait to they'd rather played each other out, at least a bit.

I do think Novak is an excellent tennis player. But it has served him to sweep up at the end of the big 3.

First of all, Novak was the start and the end of the Big 3. He's not lucky by any means. Fedal raised the bar, Novak went right up there and moved it up a notch himself. The fact that neither Nadal nor Federer could really see eye to eye with him ever after is not a luck. It's him being the goat.

I suggest people watch / rewatch the USO 07 final then. Peak Federer faced set points in each of the first two against a twenty year old. Novak was much better in that match than the result suggests.

6 years apart, they allowed for a very, very brief sweet spot where both of them were close to their prime. I think all time great players are better at 28-29 than they were at 21-22. Between Novak's twentieth and Roger's thirtieth birthday (an approach that I think favors Roger, albeit slightly), they played 19 matches, with Roger narrowly leading the H2H at 10-9.

When people talk about context of old Roger holding his own against prime Djokovic, they should also remember that 90% of the crowd cheering and applauding every one of your faults does help your opponent a fair bit. Remember Davis Cup and the advantage of playing at home. Djokovic never faced just Roger. He had to learn the me against the world game on top of it all.

 

[Moxie]

First of all, Novak was the start and the end of the Big 3. He's not lucky by any means. Fedal raised the bar, Novak went right up there and moved it up a notch himself. The fact that neither Nadal nor Federer could really see eye to eye with him ever after is not a luck. It's him being the goat.

This is a bold claim. I'm not sure how you see he is the "start" of the Big 3, or how you figure that. Feel free to back that up. Nor quite how you see neither Nadal nor Federer has been able to "see eye-to-eye with him ever after"...after what? 2011? Because that's not really true.

I suggest people watch / rewatch the USO 07 final then. Peak Federer faced set points in each of the first two against a twenty year old. Novak was much better in that match than the result suggests.

I don't think anyone has ever said that Novak wasn't an emerging talent in 2007. I do think that the match results suggest what it was: 3 tight sets, but that Roger won in straights. It could easily have extended, but it didn't. I'm not sure of your point here.

6 years apart, they allowed for a very, very brief sweet spot where both of them were close to their prime. I think all time great players are better at 28-29 than they were at 21-22. Between Novak's twentieth and Roger's thirtieth birthday (an approach that I think favors Roger, albeit slightly), they played 19 matches, with Roger narrowly leading the H2H at 10-9.

I'm pretty sure Fed fans will debate you on this, but I won't take it on. Still, as you point out, Roger did lead that h2h.

When people talk about context of old Roger holding his own against prime Djokovic, they should also remember that 90% of the crowd cheering and applauding every one of your faults does help your opponent a fair bit. Remember Davis Cup and the advantage of playing at home. Djokovic never faced just Roger. He had to learn the me against the world game on top of it all.

This is not just a ridiculous point, it's a sour one. Crowd support is a minor x-factor, not a major shifter of results. Rather typical of Novak fans to play the chip-on-the-shoulder game. You forget, then, that Nadal had to deal with the same, most particularly at Wimbledon, and even at the French, and managed to beat Roger in his salad days. Actually peak/prime years, not just your version of them. And he had a prohibitive h2h for a long time, and still has a pretty solid one.

Going back to your first statement, I don't know how you calculate that Novak was the "first" of the Big 3. I never said he was lucky, you interpolated that. But it can't be denied that Novak came to full flower much later than the other 2. There was a Big 2 LONG before Novak joined, or crashed, the party. And I'm not sure you can say that Djokovic "raised the bar." He met it, eventually. He took to the challenge. But there was a lot of water under the bridge, and tennis miles in the rearview mirror, when Djokovic took to sprinting past. Remember how long it took him to tie and pass in the h2h with the other two. 2015-16, IIRC, and it's not even comprehensive, particularly v. Nadal. You can try to get everyone to rewatch the 2007 US Open Final, but I think you're trying to rewrite history with 2021 (and Djokovic fan) goggles on.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

This is a bold claim. I'm not sure how you see he is the "start" of the Big 3, or how you figure that. Feel free to back that up. Nor quite how you see neither Nadal nor Federer has been able to "see eye-to-eye with him ever after"...after what? 2011? Because that's not really true.

I guess his point is that before Novak, there was only Big 2 and therefore Novak was there right from the beginning of "Big 3" period.

 

[Moxie]

I guess his point is that before Novak, there was only Big 2 and therefore Novak was there right from the beginning of "Big 3" period.

No, there was a Big 4 before that. I think that person can make their own case, but if that's it, it's pretty weak. I.e., that there wouldn't be 3 if there weren't a Djokovic? But there was already a Big 4, which included Murray, who just got subtracted. Roger and Rafa traded #1 and #2 for 6 solid years unopposed between '05 and '11. Then there was Djokovic and Murray, trading 3 & 4, starting around '07, until Novak got to #1 in 2011, so it's not really a strong argument. Djokovic outlasted Murray, and for that matter delPotro, who fell out in the race for 4th and 5th Beatle, due, primarily, to injury. But maybe @backhandslapper has a different argument.

 

[backhandslapper]

I guess his point is that before Novak, there was only Big 2 and therefore Novak was there right from the beginning of "Big 3" period.

That's exactly what I meant, plus, when he got on top, he kinda dwarfed fedal too.

 

[backhandslapper]

Which is a good point. And it leads to the point that basically the only one beating Roger in his salad years was Rafa. Novak had to wait to they'd rather played each other out, at least a bit.

This is what bothered me, because I believe it's falsifying the past. Novak always caused trouble, even when two-feathered. Also, he was actually considered a better talent than Nadal even by the time Nadal was already winning majors and closing in on Federer's dominance. There were people around and in the game who predicted it would actually be Djokovic who would dethrone Federer some day; not Rafa who was considered a clay specialist. And in a way, they were right. Once Djokovic reached his top, he dismantled Nadal completely. You're talking about a guy Nadal hasn't won a set on hard since 2013.

Novak didn't have to wait till they played each other out. He basically had to fulfill his own potential. After that, Nadal was no longer much of a concern. Federer bothered him slightly more, but Novak's level was just higher.

Your attempt at downplaying the importance of crowd's hostility in cases such as polarized as Federer against Djokovic on Center in Wimbledon, in a game where mental state plays as important role as it does in tennis, basically underlines the fact you're an armchair expert specialized in pontification of Nadal, not much else.

The irony is, now that Nadal's and Federer's balmy fans finally get to see a glimpse of reality, they've somewhat grudgingly united in attempt to push the dubious consensus that Novak at his best wasn't simply the best, but rather lucky "the two had played each other out". You need to get used to it. Novak is better than both, and he's been since he was 23.

 

[Moxie]

This is what bothered me, because I believe it's falsifying the past. Novak always caused trouble, even when two-feathered. Also, he was actually considered a better talent than Nadal even by the time Nadal was already winning majors and closing in on Federer's dominance. There were people around and in the game who predicted it would actually be Djokovic who would dethrone Federer some day; not Rafa who was considered a clay specialist. And in a way, they were right. Once Djokovic reached his top, he dismantled Nadal completely. You're talking about a guy Nadal hasn't won a set on hard since 2013.

While I admire your chutzpah, I think that you like to talk about Djokovic in round terms, and self-serving ones. Consider the bolded above. Who was it actually that considered Novak a better talent than Rafa, when Nadal was winning Majors, beating Roger, and Novak was floundering around? Perhaps you can cite these oracles?

From what I see, no one was believing this, at the time.

Novak didn't have to wait till they played each other out. He basically had to fulfill his own potential. After that, Nadal was no longer much of a concern. Federer bothered him slightly more, but Novak's level was just higher.

Again, this is a round prose claim by you, but it doesn't really deal with the reality or the history. Nadal wasn't much of a concern? Did you watch that FO final last October? Have you noted their h2h at Majors? You can "want" this to be true, but a lot of what you say is a narrative you are putting forward, not actual truth.

Your attempt at downplaying the importance of crowd's hostility in cases such as polarized as Federer against Djokovic on Center in Wimbledon, in a game where mental state plays as important role as it does in tennis, basically underlines the fact you're an armchair expert specialized in pontification of Nadal, not much else.

I didn't "attempt" to downplay it. I actively think it's not a huge factor. I also mentioned that Nadal has also faced crowd hostility when playing Roger, and managed to overcome it, particularly in Roger's prime, which you conveniently ignore. Novak has almost never beaten Roger in his prime. Particularly at Wimbledon. You may have noticed that the match that the Fed fans most hate is the 2008 Wimbledon final. Why? Because Rafa beat a 26-year-old Roger there. Novak didn't even come close.

The irony is, now that Nadal's and Federer's balmy fans finally get to see a glimpse of reality, they've somewhat grudgingly united in attempt to push the dubious consensus that Novak at his best wasn't simply the best, but rather lucky "the two had played each other out". You need to get used to it. Novak is better than both, and he's been since he was 23.

Novak was 23 in 2010. I don't remember him being anything like better than Nadal and Federer at that age. It took him 5 years to pass the h2h on each, or more, and he's still not actively better in all categories. Please tell me how you rank him better than the two of them at age 23. I am curious.