Time to crown Novak the GOAT?

[the AntiPusher]

Novak is the only truly great player I know of who gives hostages to fortune this way. There’s something lacking in him, that he seems to yap before he thinks. So he did it at the Olympics, and he did it in New York the day before the final, telling the world and its daughter how he’d treat the final like it’s his last match and if Medvedev was to beat him he’d have to be prepared to fight a Spartan warrior legion in full regalia, when in fact, Novak’s ship sunk on a dry dock.

I can’t imagine Pete Sampras or Rafa or Roger or Bjorn coming out with such statements. And then, to cap it off, he blubbed like Sally Field at 4-5 in the third, because, as she famously said, “you really like me, you really like me!” when he heard the crowd cheering him. I always felt it was a bit of a cliché to say that Novak wants too much to be liked, but when you’re trying to mount a comeback from a bellyflop in the biggest match of your life but you’re suddenly distracted to tears by the cheering of the mob, your head really isn’t in the right place…

Brilliantly posted Kieran.

 

[Kieran]

As impressive as Novak's record, no one else but me seems to acknowledge, he's not only matched or succeeded Fedal, he did it in record time! So many have made such a big deal about the age disparity, but forget to make note he's surpassed Federer over 6 years ahead of him!

I'm surprised at you, brother, playing the numbers game. Even still, and not that I subscribe to goats - there are different opportunities, only - but Rafa reached his twenty in 60 slams, while Novak got there in 65, Roger in about 72. This isn't meant to suggest anything other than to question your "record time" remark...

 

[El Dude]

You a Federer fan hahahahaahha ahahahaha. You're as much a Federer fan as I'm a Joekovic fan hahahahaha!

Comparing Federer to Justin Bieber and calls himself a Federer fan hahahahaha

Federer is the Pink Floyd of tennis = popular AND got the records. Federer's prime = Pink Floyd's DSOTM = greatest album of all time=zenith of tennis!

You sound like those indie music hipsters running around telling everyone that Radiohead is better than Pink Floyd and that we're dumb and stupid for liking Floyd. Go troll someone else, champ. I'll let my eyes and my knowledge and experience in tennis decide who the GOAT is.

Right now it's between Federer and Laver with slight edge to Laver because he has the grand slam but gamewise Federer is and always will be the GOAT. Simples.

I think you mistake fandom with fanboyism. And I'm not comparing Federer to Bieber. I'm saying that just because 90% of people believe something doesn't mean its true.

 

[monfed]

I think you mistake fandom with fanboyism. And I'm not comparing Federer to Bieber. I'm saying that just because 90% of people believe something doesn't mean its true.

And just because the fringe believe something doesn't make it true either. Two can play this idiotic childish game but I'm not interested.

You're a boring pseudointellectual who likes the sound of his own voice and you have no ACTUAL points. None of what you say actually matches with the ground reality. I bet you've never picked up a racquet in your life. Go and play some tennis instead of being a boring windbag on a tennis forum. Clearly you haven't seen anything from Fed's prime other than highlight reels on youtube. I've lived through his entire prime starting from his match against Pete so I know what I'm talking about. I'm literally an expert when it comes to Federer's career.

There's a reason why Federer won 5 consecutive Wimbledons and 6 consecutive finals and 5 consec USOs and 6 consec finals almost side by side. Faker hasn't matched an iota of that level of dominance. That's what I meant by numbers and playing level and that's what I mean when I said he's better than this pusher on grass and fast HC. Indoors also Federer is better.

If anything, Faker is an utter LOSER at USO. 6 finals and semis lost and a lot of them were to inferior players like Murray, Stan, Nishikori ROFL, freaking Medevedev LMAO! Federer OWNS all of them and Federer has and would've destroyed Medvedev yesterday. Nadal would have too.

The way fakervic played in the USO final falling over himself like a bumbling fool pretty much erased all his mythical mental strength argument. He isn't the GOAT and he never will be. Fedal will ALWAYS be greater than him and will always be considered the same by the majority of the tennis world including all the tennis analysts and former players.

 

[El Dude]

Why is it that a certain type of person always resorts to personal attacks and insults?

Monfed, there are so many problems with your latest jewel that I don't know where to start. But for one, I think you are incorrect when you say that "the majority of the tennis world including all the tennis analysts and former players" consider Roger greater than Novak. Can you back that up? Or are you just seeing what you want to see? Not to mention that you conveniently specify "former" players and not just "players."

You also bring up qualifications. You are saying, "I know, because I'm a Federer expert." I am saying, "look at the record." The former is a purely subjective statement, while the latter involves actual facts. In the process, you seem totally unaware of just how biased you are, both in your fanboyism of Federer and your hatred of Novak (didn't it used to be Nadal? Or is it anyone who threatens your hero's standing?)

Meaning, qualifications in and of themselves mean nothing. There is nothing wrong with subjective opinion, but at least try to form arguments based upon something concrete. Or at least don't cherry pick stats so you ignore anything that goes against your wildly emotional narrative.

I think your main error is that you conflate style with ability, or accomplishments, and then it is compounded by your bias. You obviously don't have the capacity to step back and try to approach this issue in an objective manner. As I said, I like Roger's style better, I think he is the most exquisite tennis player I've ever seen and can do more things on the court than anyone else. But, in the end, greatness has to be mostly about actual accomplishments.

You keep talking about Federer back in the day. Maybe you don't realize this, but a player's greatness is not only measured by how good they were at their very best, but also the sum total of their career. We can't just say that Federer is who he was in 2004-07. That's just four years; he's participated in 24 seasons. Obviously the very early years don't really compute in such discussions, but certainly more than just those four years.

Now if you want to argue that Federer at his very best was better than Novak at his very best, I think there's room for debate. But back it up. What makes you say that? What is your support? But as far as career, I think most reasonable people would agree that--at the very least--Novak has equalled Roger. And there's valid reasons to think he's surpassed him already and if not, will do so before he's through. I mean, as far as major accomplishments are concerned, the only thing Roger has over Novak is 1 more WTF and 18 more lesser titles. They are tied in Slams, and Novak has seven more big titles and 28 more weeks at number one. Novak also has a higher W% and a winning head-to-head over Roger.

No single stat tells the whole picture, mind you; the key is to look at them as a whole. So right now we have:

Novak: 20 Slams, 328 weeks at #1, 5 WTF, 61 big titles, 85 titles, 83.2 W%, 27-23 vs Federer (and 30-28 vs Nadal)
Roger: 20 Slams, 310 weeks at #1, 6 WTF, 54 big titles, 103 titles, 81.9 W%, 23-27 vs Novak (and 16-24 vs Nadal)

Meaning, Novak already has a superior resume (though it is close), and he's farther from the end than Roger is.

But again, I do prefer the three-headed GOAT argument over the singular GOAT, at least at this moment. I think there are reasons to consider all three as coeval. But if I had to choose, I think Novak has to get the nod. Or, at the least, it will be clearer in another year or two, once he pads his stats a bit more.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Why is it that a certain type of person always resorts to personal attacks and insults?

Monfed, there are so many problems with your latest jewel that I don't know where to start. But for one, I think you are incorrect when you say that "the majority of the tennis world including all the tennis analysts and former players" consider Roger greater than Novak. Can you back that up? Or are you just seeing what you want to see? Not to mention that you conveniently specify "former" players and not just "players."

You also bring up qualifications. You are saying, "I know, because I'm a Federer expert." I am saying, "look at the record." The former is a purely subjective statement, while the latter involves actual facts. In the process, you seem totally unaware of just how biased you are, both in your fanboyism of Federer and your hatred of Novak (didn't it used to be Nadal? Or is it anyone who threatens your hero's standing?)

Meaning, qualifications in and of themselves mean nothing. There is nothing wrong with subjective opinion, but at least try to form arguments based upon something concrete. Or at least don't cherry pick stats so you ignore anything that goes against your wildly emotional narrative.

You keep talking about Federer back in the day. Maybe you don't realize this, but a player's greatness is not only measured by how good they were at there very best, but their total career. We can't just say that Federer is who he was in 2004-07. That's just four years; he's participated in 24 seasons.

Now if you want to argue that Federer at his very best was better than Novak at his very best, I think there's room for debate. But back it up. What makes you say that? What is your support? But as far as career, I think most reasonable people would agree that--at the very least--Novak has equalled Roger. And there's valid reasons to think he's surpassed him already and if not, will do so before he's through. I mean, as far as major accomplishments are concerned, the only thing Roger has over Novak is 1 more WTF and 18 more lesser titles. They are tied in Slams, and Novak has seven more big titles and 28 more weeks at number one. Novak also has a higher W% and a winning head-to-head over Roger.

No single stat tells the whole picture, mind you; the key is to look at them as a whole. So right now we have:

Novak: 20 Slams, 328 weeks at #1 and counting, 5 WTF, 61 big titles, 85 titles, 83.2 W%, 27-23 vs Federer (and 30-28 vs Nadal)
Roger: 20 Slams, 310 weeks at #1, 6 WTF, 54 big titles, 103 titles, 81.9 W%, 23-27 vs Novak (and 16-24 vs Nadal)

Meaning, Novak already has a superior resume (though it is close), and he's much further from the end than Roger is.

But again, I do prefer the three-headed GOAT argument over the singular GOAT, at least at this moment. I think there are reasons to consider all three as coeval. But if I had to choose, I think Novak has to get the nod. Or, at the least, it will be clearer in another two once he pads his stats a bit more.

I presented you the three headed GOAT argument more than a year ago..why did you become a prisoner of the moment and go rogue trying to anoint Novak the GOAT.. yet last year this time when Rafa's GS titles total were 20 and Novak's at 17, you didn't say a darn thing about Rafa chances of being the GOAT.

 

[monfed]

Why is it that a certain type of person always resorts to personal attacks and insults?

Monfed, there are so many problems with your latest jewel that I don't know where to start. But for one, I think you are incorrect when you say that "the majority of the tennis world including all the tennis analysts and former players" consider Roger greater than Novak. Can you back that up? Or are you just seeing what you want to see? Not to mention that you conveniently specify "former" players and not just "players."

You also bring up qualifications. You are saying, "I know, because I'm a Federer expert." I am saying, "look at the record." The former is a purely subjective statement, while the latter involves actual facts. In the process, you seem totally unaware of just how biased you are, both in your fanboyism of Federer and your hatred of Novak (didn't it used to be Nadal? Or is it anyone who threatens your hero's standing?)

Meaning, qualifications in and of themselves mean nothing. There is nothing wrong with subjective opinion, but at least try to form arguments based upon something concrete. Or at least don't cherry pick stats so you ignore anything that goes against your wildly emotional narrative.

I think your main error is that you conflate style with ability, or accomplishments, and then it is compounded by your bias. You obviously don't have the capacity to step back and try to approach this issue in an objective manner. As I said, I like Roger's style better, I think he is the most exquisite tennis player I've ever seen and can do more things on the court than anyone else. But, in the end, greatness has to be mostly about actual accomplishments.

You keep talking about Federer back in the day. Maybe you don't realize this, but a player's greatness is not only measured by how good they were at their very best, but also the sum total of their career. We can't just say that Federer is who he was in 2004-07. That's just four years; he's participated in 24 seasons. Obviously the very early years don't really compute in such discussions, but certainly more than just those four years.

Now if you want to argue that Federer at his very best was better than Novak at his very best, I think there's room for debate. But back it up. What makes you say that? What is your support? But as far as career, I think most reasonable people would agree that--at the very least--Novak has equalled Roger. And there's valid reasons to think he's surpassed him already and if not, will do so before he's through. I mean, as far as major accomplishments are concerned, the only thing Roger has over Novak is 1 more WTF and 18 more lesser titles. They are tied in Slams, and Novak has seven more big titles and 28 more weeks at number one. Novak also has a higher W% and a winning head-to-head over Roger.

No single stat tells the whole picture, mind you; the key is to look at them as a whole. So right now we have:

Novak: 20 Slams, 328 weeks at #1, 5 WTF, 61 big titles, 85 titles, 83.2 W%, 27-23 vs Federer (and 30-28 vs Nadal)
Roger: 20 Slams, 310 weeks at #1, 6 WTF, 54 big titles, 103 titles, 81.9 W%, 23-27 vs Novak (and 16-24 vs Nadal)

Meaning, Novak already has a superior resume (though it is close), and he's farther from the end than Roger is.

But again, I do prefer the three-headed GOAT argument over the singular GOAT, at least at this moment. I think there are reasons to consider all three as coeval. But if I had to choose, I think Novak has to get the nod. Or, at the least, it will be clearer in another year or two, once he pads his stats a bit more.

First of all noone gives a shit what you prefer and what your bloody opinion is. Have a fucking seat. You give yourself way too much credit. You're the moron who likes to take the moral high ground and quoted me saying "look at his signature" to another poster. If that is not an insult then what is? I'm fucking sick and tired of you acting you like you're better than everyone else here with your retarded posturing everytime you have been proven wrong. Keep riding that high horse, noone cares about your fucking sensibilities when you don't care about others either. Absolutely stupefying!

Ofcourse we measure players by what they do when they're at their best, wins or losses. Federer's prime ended at AO 10. Anything he does after that is a bonus. Ofcourse his stats were going to take a hit against Djokovic who is 6 years younger to him and an ATG. Even a guy with 2 brain cells can see that but ofcouse you have a fucking Fed hating agenda. What the fuck else do you expect? Are you an idiot? Sure sound like one with your unobjective and inaccurate analysis.

Faker's stats haven't taken a hit because he doesn't have an ATG beating the crap out of him everywhere at 34. Federer had two, Nadal who is 5 years younger and Joe who is 6 years younger. Joe didn't do shit in Fed's prime that's why Fed fans don't give 2 fucks about him. He has a bunch of next gen morons who can't string 3 sets together without falling over each other.

A moron like you looks at Fed losing this Wimbledon at nearly 40 and says "SEE I TOLD YOU HE SUCKS ON GRASS".

 

[El Dude]

First of all noone gives a shit what you prefer and what your bloody opinion is. Have a fucking seat. You give yourself way too much credit. You're the moron who likes to take the moral high ground and quoted me saying "look at his signature" to another poster. If that is not an insult then what is? I'm fucking sick and tired of you acting you like you're better than everyone else here with your retarded posturing everytime you have been proven wrong. Keep riding that high horse, noone cares about your fucking sensibilities when you don't care about others either. Absolutely stupefying!

Ofcourse we measure players by what they do when they're at their best, wins or losses. Federer's prime ended at AO 10. Anything he does after that is a bonus. Ofcourse his stats were going to take a hit against Djokovic who is 6 years younger to him and an ATG. Even a guy with 2 brain cells can see that but ofcouse you have a fucking Fed hating agenda. What the fuck else do you expect? Are you an idiot? Sure sound like one with your unobjective and inaccurate analysis.

Faker's stats haven't taken a hit because he doesn't have an ATG beating the crap out of him everywhere at 34. Federer had two, Nadal who is 5 years younger and Joe who is 6 years younger. Joe didn't do shit in Fed's prime that's why Fed fans don't give 2 fucks about him. He has a bunch of next gen morons who can't string 3 sets together without falling over each other.

A moron like you looks at Fed losing this Wimbledon at nearly 40 and says "SEE I TOLD YOU HE SUCKS ON GRASS".

I remarked on your signature because I think such a statement as "Joekovic hater" written un-ironically implies that you're not to be taken seriously as far as tennis analysis is concerned (which makes me engaging with you somewhat ridiculous, but...)

And yes, I do think I'm more objective than you are. I made no such statement about morality or the quality of your person. You could be kind, rational and understanding in real life, although it doesn't show up in your presence here, and that's all I have to go on.

Also, please speak for yourself. Sure, I've had my share of tussles and not everyone likes my posts, but I'm fairly certainly that it isn't "no one."

As for the rest, you're cherry-picking again and just terribly delusional. Fed hating agenda? Haha, that's funny. Dude, he's my favorite player. I'm just trying to be objective and at least making an attempt to eschew tribal fanboyism.

But yeah, I have also argued that we have to take the age difference into account, but again, that is just part of the larger picture. I think the bottom line is that you have no interest in the actual truth, and just want to "prove" that Federer is the greatest. Your Wimbledon comment shows just how desperate and unhinged you are. It is clear that you aren't capable of reasonable discourse, so let's do everyone a favor and end this.

 

[El Dude]

I presented you the three headed GOAT argument more than a year ago..why did you become a prisoner of the moment and go rogue trying to anoint Novak the GOAT.. yet last year this time when Rafa's GS titles total were 20 and Novak's at 17, you didn't say a darn thing about Rafa chances of being the GOAT.

I can't remember what I did or didn't say, but my posting has been sporadic over the last couple years. But that argument goes back much farther than a year ago...I've been advocating it for 5+ years, although mostly with regards to historic players (e.g. you can't easily compare Tilden, Gonzales, Laver, etc, to current players).

This thing shifts year to year. Roger had a clear lead up through winning his 16th in 2012, then Rafa and Novak started whittling away. But it looked like Roger would steal it back and hold on after he won three more Slams in 2017-18, but then he faded and Rafa kept going and Novak surged. it is about as equal as it has ever been.

As for your last, I think Rafa has the weakest argument for singular GOAT. If I remember correctly, after 2013 I did state that I think he would probably surpass Roger and become the GOAT. But then 2015 happened and Novak looked primed to enter serious discussion, and overall has the edge over Rafa.

I do think that Rafa is the "surface GOAT" - the greatest of all time on a single surface. And partially because of that, he's one of the "three heads." But of the three, his argument for singular (overall) GOAT is weakest. IMO.

 

[Kieran]

And just because the fringe believe something doesn't make it true either. Two can play this idiotic childish game but I'm not interested.

You're a boring pseudointellectual who likes the sound of his own voice and you have no ACTUAL points. None of what you say actually matches with the ground reality. I bet you've never picked up a racquet in your life. Go and play some tennis instead of being a boring windbag on a tennis forum. Clearly you haven't seen anything from Fed's prime other than highlight reels on youtube. I've lived through his entire prime starting from his match against Pete so I know what I'm talking about. I'm literally an expert when it comes to Federer's career.

There's a reason why Federer won 5 consecutive Wimbledons and 6 consecutive finals and 5 consec USOs and 6 consec finals almost side by side. Faker hasn't matched an iota of that level of dominance. That's what I meant by numbers and playing level and that's what I mean when I said he's better than this pusher on grass and fast HC. Indoors also Federer is better.

If anything, Faker is an utter LOSER at USO. 6 finals and semis lost and a lot of them were to inferior players like Murray, Stan, Nishikori ROFL, freaking Medevedev LMAO! Federer OWNS all of them and Federer has and would've destroyed Medvedev yesterday. Nadal would have too.

The way fakervic played in the USO final falling over himself like a bumbling fool pretty much erased all his mythical mental strength argument. He isn't the GOAT and he never will be. Fedal will ALWAYS be greater than him and will always be considered the same by the majority of the tennis world including all the tennis analysts and former players.

Monfed,

First off, you weaken your argument fatally when you resort to personal attacks. That's just a hardened fact of debate. The one who goes low gets disqualified, simply because going low is always in lieu of going high, and to win an argument you need to go higher than your opponent.

But also, you seem not to know the Dude too well. I've known him for more than a decade, and though I don't always agree with the cold statistical way of measuring things, he can hardly be accused of lacking objectivity. He has always been a Federer fan for as long as I've known him, and here he is arguing against his player. This is integrity. And as for your own system of analysis, I'd give it some thought if I were you. Behind every statistic is a tale crying out to add some context. Federer's achievements are among the greatest in the game, but even they can bear some scrutiny that might make them look better/worse than the mere statistic tells us...

 

[tented]

Why is it that a certain type of person always resorts to personal attacks and insults?

As Socrates put it, “When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”

 

[El Dude]

Oh my god, really?

Roy Emerson is a bit like a major league baseball player goes over to Japan and dominates.

Or maybe a more apt comparison is if Roger, Rafa, Novak, Andy, and Stan all retired in 2011, and David Ferrer dominated the tour for five years. Maybe that's a tad harsh, but at best, Emerson is more in the John Newcombe, Andy Murray, Mats Wilander, Stefan Edberg range of "lesser greats" than the true inner circle.

 

[Kieran]

I can't remember what I did or didn't say, but my posting has been sporadic over the last couple years. But that argument goes back much farther than a year ago...I've been advocating it for 5+ years, although mostly with regards to historic players (e.g. you can't easily compare Tilden, Gonzales, Laver, etc, to current players).

This thing shifts year to year. Roger had a clear lead up through winning his 16th in 2012, then Rafa and Novak started whittling away. But it looked like Roger would steal it back and hold on after he won three more Slams in 2017-18, but then he faded and Rafa kept going and Novak surged. it is about as equal as it has ever been.

As for your last, I think Rafa has the weakest argument for singular GOAT. If I remember correctly, after 2013 I did state that I think he would probably surpass Roger and become the GOAT. But then 2015 happened and Novak looked primed to enter serious discussion, and overall has the edge over Rafa.

I do think that Rafa is the "surface GOAT" - the greatest of all time on a single surface. And partially because of that, he's one of the "three heads." But of the three, his argument for singular (overall) GOAT is weakest. IMO.

Don’t forget that this “surface goat” is one of only 3 players to have 2 slams on each of the surfaces. That’s diversity Hollywood would be proud of.


And give the chap his propers. He was Rogers only rival when he was still only a bairn, and Novak was crying off injured with SARS, and then he was Novak’s only rival when ol’ Gerontius was nibbling hay in a field and wondering what he could do to get to 2017 earlier. Rafa’s been constantly battling the two others since he was 17. He’s had no easy field in between. And he’s played fewer slams for a reason, but with a greater rate of accumulation. I wouldn’t think of him as the lesser of them if I was having the most negative of my tennis thoughts, and I doubt they would either…

 

[the AntiPusher]

Z

I can't remember what I did or didn't say, but my posting has been sporadic over the last couple years. But that argument goes back much farther than a year ago...I've been advocating it for 5+ years, although mostly with regards to historic players (e.g. you can't easily compare Tilden, Gonzales, Laver, etc, to current players).

This thing shifts year to year. Roger had a clear lead up through winning his 16th in 2012, then Rafa and Novak started whittling away. But it looked like Roger would steal it back and hold on after he won three more Slams in 2017-18, but then he faded and Rafa kept going and Novak surged. it is about as equal as it has ever been.

As for your last, I think Rafa has the weakest argument for singular GOAT. If I remember correctly, after 2013 I did state that I think he would probably surpass Roger and become the GOAT. But then 2015 happened and Novak looked primed to enter serious discussion, and overall has the edge over Rafa.

I do think that Rafa is the "surface GOAT" - the greatest of all time on a single surface. And partially because of that, he's one of the "three heads." But of the three, his argument for singular (overall) GOAT is weakest. IMO.

Thanks EL Dude for your response but I totally disagree with you

 

[Kieran]

Oh my god, really?

Roy Emerson is a bit like a major league baseball player goes over to Japan and dominates.

Or maybe a more apt comparison is if Roger, Rafa, Novak, Andy, and Stan all retired in 2011, and David Ferrer dominated the tour for five years. Maybe that's a tad harsh, but at best, Emerson is more in the John Newcombe, Andy Murray, Mats Wilander, Stefan Edberg range of "lesser greats" than the true inner circle.

He’s a lot less than them, bro. Emerson is one player who we can assign to the old black and white television, he never achieved Technicolor undisputed levels of greatness. But! He held the slam title record for 32 years, and there’s people who measure these things by counting slams…

 

[El Dude]

Don’t forget that this “surface goat” is one of only 3 players to have 2 slams on each of the surfaces. That’s diversity Hollywood would be proud of.


And give the chap his propers. He was Rogers only rival when he was still only a bairn, and Novak was crying off injured with SARS, and then he was Novak’s only rival when ol’ Gerontius was nibbling hay in a field and wondering what he could do to get to 2017 earlier. Rafa’s been constantly battling the two others since he was 17. He’s had no easy field in between. And he’s played fewer slams for a reason, but with a greater rate of accumulation. I wouldn’t think of him as the lesser of them if I was having the most negative of my tennis thoughts, and I doubt they would either…

All of which is why I like the three-headed GOAT and Rafa is right there with the other two.

I'm just saying that if we have to go singular, his case is weakest. The two main flaws in his resume are weeks at #1 and the lack of a World Tour Final title. Some Rafa fans like to downplay the latter, but I think it is significant - but not a deal-breaker in and of itself. The weeks are more problematic, because no other metric expresses overall dominance as rankings, and both Roger and Novak have about two years worth on him, which is significant.

The fact that Rafa has more weeks in the top 2 (579 to Roger's 528 and Novak's 482) than any other player both speaks for and against his case. For, because it means he has spend more time than anyone as one of the top 2 players in the sport. Against, because it means that most of that time he was #2, which means that he was usually not the overall most dominant player. Part of this is missed time due to injury, but I would counter that staying healthy is a skill and thus part of greatness, and further, his greatness is partially why he has struggled with injury. Meaning, a less injured Rafa is probably an inferior player.

As @GameSetAndMath has pointed out, he just didn't have the extended dominance over an era like Roger and Novak did, and his very best years were not as dominant as the best years of Roger or Novak (Novak's 2011 and 15, and Roger's 2004, 06, and 07 were all probably better than any of Rafa's years).

But you make a point that I myself have made, that by spanning the peaks of both Roger and Novak, he never really had an open field to pile up Slams.

Mind you, I don't think Rafa is or was a lesser player. But when I think of GOAT, I put emphasis on career resume, and his is slightly below the other two.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Don’t forget that this “surface goat” is one of only 3 players to have 2 slams on each of the surfaces. That’s diversity Hollywood would be proud of.


And give the chap his propers. He was Rogers only rival when he was still only a bairn, and Novak was crying off injured with SARS, and then he was Novak’s only rival when ol’ Gerontius was nibbling hay in a field and wondering what he could do to get to 2017 earlier. Rafa’s been constantly battling the two others since he was 17. He’s had no easy field in between. And he’s played fewer slams for a reason, but with a greater rate of accumulation. I wouldn’t think of him as the lesser of them if I was having the most negative of my tennis thoughts, and I doubt they would either…

Rafa is Always going to be treated like the bald headed (no pun intended to the KOC rapidly declined hair follicles) step child..by El Dude.. trying to get him to be bipartisan is useless.

 

[Kieran]

All of which is why I like the three-headed GOAT and Rafa is right there with the other two.

I'm just saying that if we have to go singular, his case is weakest. The two main flaws in his resume are weeks at #1 and the lack of a World Tour Final title. Some Rafa fans like to downplay the latter, but I think it is significant - but not a deal-breaker in and of itself. The weeks are more problematic, because no other metric expresses overall dominance as rankings, and both Roger and Novak have about two years worth on him, which is significant.

The fact that Rafa has more weeks in the top 2 (579 to Roger's 528 and Novak's 482) than any other player both speaks for and against his case. For, because it means he has spend more time than anyone as one of the top 2 players in the sport. Against, because it means that most of that time he was #2, which means that he was usually not the overall most dominant player. Part of this is missed time due to injury, but I would counter that staying healthy is a skill and thus part of greatness, and further, his greatness is partially why he has struggled with injury. Meaning, a less injured Rafa is probably an inferior player.

As @GameSetAndMath has pointed out, he just didn't have the extended dominance over an era like Roger and Novak did, and his very best years were not as dominant as the best years of Roger or Novak (Novak's 2011 and 15, and Roger's 2004, 06, and 07 were all probably better than any of Rafa's years).

But you make a point that I myself have made, that by spanning the peaks of both Roger and Novak, he never really had an open field to pile up Slams.

Mind you, I don't think Rafa is or was a lesser player. But when I think of GOAT, I put emphasis on career resume, and his is slightly below the other two.

I don't think being healthy is a skill at all. What a bizarre formulation of words. Is every athlete who gets injured to blame for their injury? For instance, look at his new foot injury. It's an idiopathic condition called Muller Weiss Syndrome. A bone in his foot is rotting, basically. This isn't down to his lacking any skill. Or because of a lack of greatness on his part. It's possibly congenital. He's skipped 2 slams this year because of it. People may shrug at this news, but bear in mind he won 2 of the last 3 USO he attended. 4 of the last 8. And given how much his record in Wimbledon has improved since they gave an extra week to the RG champ to prepare, we can at least acknowledge this year, too, that his chances of adding to his total has been affected by injury.

He has more weeks at number two because he's had more seasons truncated by injury. This is shown in the seasons where he had to bail. But also, it's a good argument for his durability that he's finished the season #1 5 times, which is as often as Roger, but Rafa's are spaced out over 11 years. He hasn't the open field the others have had to boost his weeks at number 1, but nor do I think that was ever his priority. I never think of Novak or Roger as being greater than Rafa, because I think they each have shadowed and pulled and pushed each other, and in a sense, their achievements are symbiotic. Because of Pete we got Roger, and because of Roger we got Rafa and because of Rafa, etc. They fed each other and are necessary components of the others successes.

And quoting @GameSetAndMath on Rafa is a low blow, brother, it's a bit like quoting me on Roger's fashion sense - you'll get a quote, but will it flatter?

 

[the AntiPusher]

If I could play doubles with Rafa there are two people I would choose to be across the net vs ..El Dude and DarthFed..that would be the proper forum to address their concerns

 

[El Dude]

I don't think being healthy is a skill at all. What a bizarre formulation of words. Is every athlete who gets injured to blame for their injury? For instance, look at his new foot injury. It's an idiopathic condition called Muller Weiss Syndrome. A bone in his foot is rotting, basically. This isn't down to his lacking any skill. Or because of a lack of greatness on his part. It's possibly congenital. He's skipped 2 slams this year because of it. People may shrug at this news, but bear in mind he won 2 of the last 3 USO he attended. 4 of the last 8. And given how much his record in Wimbledon has improved since they gave an extra week to the RG champ to prepare, we can at least acknowledge this year, too, that his chances of adding to his total has been affected by injury.

He has more weeks at number two because he's had more seasons truncated by injury. This is shown in the seasons where he had to bail. But also, it's a good argument for his durability that he's finished the season #1 5 times, which is as often as Roger, but Rafa's are spaced out over 11 years. He hasn't the open field the others have had to boost his weeks at number 1, but nor do I think that was ever his priority. I never think of Novak or Roger as being greater than Rafa, because I think they each have shadowed and pulled and pushed each other, and in a sense, their achievements are symbiotic. Because of Pete we got Roger, and because of Roger we got Rafa and because of Rafa, etc. They fed each other and are necessary components of the others successes.

And quoting @GameSetAndMath on Rafa is a low blow, brother, it's a bit like quoting me on Roger's fashion sense - you'll get a quote, but will it flatter?

Haha, sorry.

As for injury, a player isn't (necessarily) to "blame" for any specific one, but they do have some say over the course of time.

The main thing, though, is I don't think we should credit any player for what they should/would have done, if only...I mean, we can do that with almost any player. If only Andy Murray had played during a normal era, he'd have won 8 Slams; if only Roger didn't play alongside the greatest clay courter of all time, he'd have 4 of each Slam. Etc etc.

And yes, I think injury is within that general category. As I said, if Rafa were healthier, it would be because he'd have been a different player, played less hard, and probably have been inferior. I think his healthy streak in 2017-19 saw a slightly less ferocious and potent player than he was in 2008-13, but one who stayed on court (still great, obviously).

Anyhow, where we agree is that there is a conversation worth having, and it isn't clear cut. I think we both agree that three-headed GOAT is better than singular GOAT, at least as of this moment. The one thing that monfed said in another thread that I agree with, and have said as much, is that once you get to 20 Slams (or 15+, really), there isn't a lot of difference between a one or two Slam difference. So we have to examine other factors.