Time to crown Novak the GOAT?

[the AntiPusher]

It could be my partiality or bad eye-sight, but Novak's defense is the best IMO! He gets to balls the others wouldn't even try for and hits clean winners off of his "gets!" You can say all 3 can do that, but IMO Novak does it more and the best; esp. scrambling forward to knock off dropshots hit against him! With Rafa, at times I feel it's more about the racket and surface; some very accidental shot winners!

Nah..you are being way too critical of Rafa's defense...

 

[the AntiPusher]

Why do we need to go back so far? The time is now & Novak's still performing at his best somehow while Fedal are actually limping out!

Ok.. rewatch last year RG 2020 final..tell me your thoughts

 

[Fiero425]

Ok.. rewatch last year RG 2020 final..tell me your thoughts

Please tell me why I'd watch that horrible match again? This year's Semi is a much better watch! If you want to hit history, watch how Nole obliterated Rafa "down under" a couple years ago! Nadal was playing his best with commentators lapping him up about holding serve 60+ times in a row during the tournament! That meant nothing to Novak who was struggling a bit, but playing Rafa he busted out; nailing shots and winners from the baseline making Rafa look old and weary! We can play that game going match to match if you like, but we both know it makes no sense! The year's 2021, going on 2022 and right now all we know is Djokovic will continue his march to greatness while we haven't a clue about what Fedal will be able to handle and do!

 

[El Dude]

Novak's ball striking is better than Rafa's and especially Roger from the BH. Novak's baseline game is better than Roger's and slightly better than Rafa's. Novak's return of service is better than the other two.

Back to overall defense, it may come down to surface: Rafa better on clay, but Novak better on hards and grass.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Back to overall defense, it may come down to surface: Rafa better on clay, but Novak better on hards and grass.

Hmmm. Maybe there is some validity in your analysis in regards to grass and hards..

 

[the AntiPusher]

Please tell me why I'd watch that horrible match again? This year's Semi is a much better watch! If you want to hit history, watch how Nole obliterated Rafa "down under" a couple years ago! Nadal was playing his best with commentators lapping him up about holding serve 60+ times in a row during the tournament! That meant nothing to Novak who was struggling a bit, but playing Rafa he busted out; nailing shots and winners from the baseline making Rafa look old and weary! We can play that game going match to match if you like, but we both know it makes no sense! The year's 2021, going on 2022 and right now all we know is Djokovic will continue his march to greatness while we haven't a clue about what Fedal will be able to handle and do!

Fiero, I will am brutally honest about the positives aspect of Roger and Novak's game.However, you are extremely extraordinary negative about Rafa and Roger's game. Why so bias are you

 

[El Dude]

Hmmm. Maybe there is some validity in your analysis in regards to grass and hards..

I think that's the main thing that makes comparing Rafa to everyone else so difficult: the fact that he is so much better than anyone else on clay, but not as good as the other two on hards or grass, at least over the course of their careers.

 

[Moxie]

Laver did something no one else did: he mastered the amateur tour, then the pro, then the Open Era. Rosewall did the first two, and was good in the Open Era, but he wasn't dominant, just one of the better players of the first few years, closer to Newcombe in level.

To some degree, Laver just happened to be the right age, for certain if Pancho was ten years younger, he'd have been formidable in the first few years of the Open Era, but it still holds a strong legacy element.

One angle on comparing the Big Three is isolating what each of them does better than anyone else. For Roger, it is his finesse and diverse skill set, I think. I just don't think any player has produced as many "wow" moments. This isn't a slight on Rafa or Novak, just the nature of Roger's game, that he has such a diverse tool-set to draw from. For Rafa, it is his indomitable will and competitiveness. How many times has he pushed through any obstacle, and forced victory through his fighting spirit? For Novak, it is probably his "lockdown defense,' or perhaps his ability to calibrate to the level of his competition and just play better enough to win.

All three have just about every quality of greatness in spades, but I don't think it is a slight on the other to to point out the special excellence of one of them.

I hear you about the legacy of Fedal, certainly on the level of mass appeal. It was probably the "sexiest" rivalry since Borg-McEnroe, which in my mind is still unsurpassed. But Novak's legacy has to be the fact that he's the one who took over from Fedal. I know, Rafa had dominance mixed in, even Federer a bit, and Fed fans can claim that Novak took over after Roger was past his very best. But for the last ten years, Novak has set the bar - he's been the player to beat. Rafa, Roger, Andy, and Stan have had their moments of equaling him, but it has always come back to Novak who, like the Dude (Big Lebowski), abides.

Hopefully that's changing, though! Not a slight on Novak, but I'm kind of tired of this era and ready to see the young guys take over. As you know, I think it is clearly happening, just a bit slower than hoped for.

I know you think I always take you on to defend Nadal, but I'm going to say sincerely that your comment that Roger has produced more "wow" moments is completely subjective. Over the years of watching them, the commentator refrain I hear in my head over Nadal shots is often "How in the world does he do that?" or "Don't try that at home." Whereas with Roger, there is a lot of "He makes that look easy, but believe me it's not." I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong, only that we fans are "wowed" by different things. I've said before and including on this thread that we fans find Rafa's tennis "thrilling." For us it's the raised-by-wolves tennis, the weird things he makes the ball do with his spin, etc. Roger's smoothness is less wowing, at least for me. I'm not going to say that they don't all make me gasp at some point. As with Djokovic and his tightrope act ability to paint line after line. All I'm saying is, that no matter how objective you like to think the bolded above statement is/sounds, it is seen through a fan's eyes. I'm sincerely saying that it surprised me when I read that, because I think it's Rafa. Then I realized that Djokovic fans probably think it's him.

As to Borg-McEnroe as the unsurpassed rivalry, again, you surprised me a bit by that one. Surely, it's debatable. I cut my tennis-fan teeth on that one, as a Borg fan, and I think it's a great one. To me, Borg/McEnroe and Federer/Nadal are the two greatest in men's tennis. But still, Bjorn and Johnnie Mac only played 14 matches on the regular tour, and those between '78-'81. Roger and Rafa may stop the span at 15 years, but they do have the record for most Major finals played against each other, amongst others. But I suppose we could leave rivalries for another thread.

 

[Moxie]

I think that's the main thing that makes comparing Rafa to everyone else so difficult: the fact that he is so much better than anyone else on clay, but not as good as the other two on hards or grass, at least over the course of their careers.

But if we're talking about defending, you could also do well to remember that Rafa was the gold-standard for defending for a long time when Novak was still in his proverbial short pants, in tennis terms.

 

[El Dude]

Sure, it is subjective. Of course it is, that's why I wrote "I just don't think..." Not, "It is a fact..." Not to mention the unwritten assumption that anyone I or anyone ever says is "IMO." Of course some don't realize that and cannot differentiate their opinion from fact.

As for the rest....well, I have to chuckle a bit Moxie, because it does seem that no matter what I or anyone says, if it doesn't include "But Rafa is just as great!" then you find a way to defend your guy.

I'd love to start a "Bizarro World" thread in which people only argue for other players and against their own.

 

[Moxie]

Sure, it is subjective. Of course it is, that's why I wrote "I just don't think..." Not, "It is a fact..." Not to mention the unwritten assumption that anyone I or anyone ever says is "IMO." Of course some don't realize that and cannot differentiate their opinion from fact.

As for the rest....well, I have to chuckle a bit Moxie, because it does seem that no matter what I or anyone says, if it doesn't include "But Rafa is just as great!" then you find a way to defend your guy.

I'd love to start a "Bizarro World" thread in which people only argue for other players and against their own.

Oh, come on. I tried to be very honest and forthcoming with you. And yet you always sneer at me and condescend as if I am some monfed or Rafa troll. Yes, you couch your comments in caveats, as I do mine, but you DO expose your own prejudices, as well. Something you are clearly loathe to hear. All I said is that we all look at those things through our own fan googles, and you do, too. Which I know you are disinclined to believe. If you're going to point fingers at me, you can own your own deal. I was trying to discuss your 1-2-3, and your finer points of who's best at what. It's a discussion. And I'm allowed to have my opinion. I'm a bit over you deciding that your opinion is the only one with objectivity and merit.

So you won't debate the "wow" factor...why? Nor the Borg/McEnroe rivalry? And you've just pushed my points into "Bizarro World?" SMH.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Oh, come on. I tried to be very honest and forthcoming with you. And yet you always sneer at me and condescend as if I am some monfed or Rafa troll. Yes, you couch your comments in caveats, as I do mine, but you DO expose your own prejudices, as well. Something you are clearly loathe to hear. All I said is that we all look at those things through our own fan googles, and you do, too. Which I know you are disinclined to believe. If you're going to point fingers at me, you can own your own deal. I was trying to discuss your 1-2-3, and your finer points of who's best at what. It's a discussion. And I'm allowed to have my opinion. I'm a bit over you deciding that your opinion is the only one with objectivity and merit.

So you won't debate the "wow" factor...why? Nor the Borg/McEnroe rivalry? And you've just pushed my points into "Bizarro World?" SMH.

Well, Moxie I knew it wasn't just me who felt El Dude wasn't "governing" with a fair hand in regards to Rafa's place..I wonder if Roger or Novak had captured 13 AOs or SW19 before age 34 would they just be classified ONLY as just the greatest ever on grass or the slower hard tru courts.

 

[Fiero425]

Fiero, I will am brutally honest about the positives aspect of Roger and Novak's game.However, you are extremely extraordinary negative about Rafa and Roger's game. Why so bias are you

Probably counter=balancing how the tennis intelligentsia sucks up to Fedal as if the game began and will end with them! You know it!

 

[Moxie]

Well, Moxie I knew it wasn't just me who felt El Dude wasn't "governing" with a fair hand in regards to Rafa's place..I wonder if Roger or Novak had captured 13 AOs or SW19 before age 34 would they just be classified ONLY as just the greatest ever on grass or the slower hard tru courts.

You may think he hasn't been fair to Rafa. I don't think he's trying NOT to be. He has, in the recent past, recognized that Rafa got squeezed in between Roger and Novak, which is a point I have been trying to make for a long time, when it comes to "dominance," which so many love to embrace. Would only that Rafa had had a few salad years prior to the big 3, like Roger, or at the tail end of them, like Novak. I think Dude tries to be fair, but he refuses to recognize his own bias. If you call him on it, he gets snide. He does say that he'd settle on a Big 3 as GOAT. He's not Darth or Front when it comes to Rafa, but he doesn't quite see that it serves him to play Rafa down. I don't especially hold it against him, except when he treats posters like you and me like trolls. It's the condescension that irritates. @brokenshoelace said it a while back, that Fed fans are the most arrogant, and I'm sorry, but he's not wrong. Even El Dude thinks he's just stating the obvious to say that no one has "wowed" us more than Roger. That is a blinkered comment. When I call him on it, he's all insult, but no reasonable response. Personally, I think I have responded to the conversation, and kept it flowing. Not sure why I deserve to be dismissed out of hand. Or "chuckled" at, as if I were a troll or a child.

 

[the AntiPusher]

You may think he hasn't been fair to Rafa. I don't think he's trying NOT to be. He has, in the recent past, recognized that Rafa got squeezed in between Roger and Novak, which is a point I have been trying to make for a long time, when it comes to "dominance," which so many love to embrace. Would only that Rafa had had a few salad years prior to the big 3, like Roger, or at the tail end of them, like Novak. I think Dude tries to be fair, but he refuses to recognize his own bias. If you call him on it, he gets snide. He does say that he'd settle on a Big 3 as GOAT. He's not Darth or Front when it comes to Rafa, but he doesn't quite see that it serves him to play Rafa down. I don't especially hold it against him, except when he treats posters like you and me like trolls. It's the condescension that irritates. @brokenshoelace said it a while back, that Fed fans are the most arrogant, and I'm sorry, but he's not wrong. Even El Dude thinks he's just stating the obvious to say that no one has "wowed" us more than Roger. That is a blinkered comment. When I call him on it, he's all insult, but no reasonable response. Personally, I think I have responded to the conversation, and kept it flowing. Not sure why I deserve to be dismissed out of hand. Or "chuckled" at, as if I were a troll or a child.

Agreed..He "refuses to recognize his own bias".. Again I'm glad it's not just me who saw through it.

 

[El Dude]

Oh, come on. I tried to be very honest and forthcoming with you. And yet you always sneer at me and condescend as if I am some monfed or Rafa troll. Yes, you couch your comments in caveats, as I do mine, but you DO expose your own prejudices, as well. Something you are clearly loathe to hear. All I said is that we all look at those things through our own fan googles, and you do, too. Which I know you are disinclined to believe. If you're going to point fingers at me, you can own your own deal. I was trying to discuss your 1-2-3, and your finer points of who's best at what. It's a discussion. And I'm allowed to have my opinion. I'm a bit over you deciding that your opinion is the only one with objectivity and merit.

So you won't debate the "wow" factor...why? Nor the Borg/McEnroe rivalry? And you've just pushed my points into "Bizarro World?" SMH.

Moxie, you're overreacting -- I'm not sneering at you, nor am I saying that you can't have your own opinion, etc etc. You're skewing stuff (misinterpreting) I'm saying into an insult, when it is not.

What you call "condescending" is just me feeling that I'm less biased than you are, or at least I generally don't play the game of defending my favorite at all costs, or make everything into a war between fans, while you seem to like to revert back to Fedal (or Djokodal or Big Three) warring. I find the "perpetual war" tedious, and not my cuppa. I obviously enjoy talking about the respective merits of each player, ranking greatness and such, I just find it far more interesting to try to assess them with as little bias as possible, rather than devolving into fannish camps arguing for our guy.

I don't think you are monfed or a Rafa troll. It is a spectrum, and we all exist upon it. If we imagine a scale of 0-5, with 0 being totally unbiased (impossible) and 5 being a raving troll, then I think I'm a 1, maybe sometimes a 2. But because I don't think I'm a 3, I'm not owning it. It is really a matter of degree: I think I'm less biased than you think I am.

So I never claimed that bias doesn't creep in for me, I just think it is minimal, less than most. Does that mean I'm not owning it? No, it just means I see it as a spectrum, with differentiations.

What is there to debate about the wow factor? I've been wowed by all three of them. And Borg-McEnroe? You seem slighted that I haven't taken these up more. What do you want me to respond to?

As with much of what I say, you misunderstand the "Bizarro World" comment and somehow took it as a jab at you. It wasn't. I was merely half-jokingly positing a thread in which we all defended other players, as a fun exercise. That is all.

 

[Moxie]

Moxie, you're overreacting -- I'm not sneering at you, nor am I saying that you can't have your own opinion, etc etc. You're skewing stuff (misinterpreting) I'm saying into an insult, when it is not.

What you call "condescending" is just me feeling that I'm less biased than you are, or at least I generally don't play the game of defending my favorite at all costs, or make everything into a war between fans, while you seem to like to revert back to Fedal (or Djokodal or Big Three) warring. I find the "perpetual war" tedious, and not my cuppa. I obviously enjoy talking about the respective merits of each player, ranking greatness and such, I just find it far more interesting to try to assess them with as little bias as possible, rather than devolving into fannish camps arguing for our guy.

I don't think you are monfed or a Rafa troll. It is a spectrum, and we all exist upon it. If we imagine a scale of 0-5, with 0 being totally unbiased (impossible) and 5 being a raving troll, then I think I'm a 1, maybe sometimes a 2. But because I don't think I'm a 3, I'm not owning it. It is really a matter of degree: I think I'm less biased than you think I am.

So I never claimed that bias doesn't creep in for me, I just think it is minimal, less than most. Does that mean I'm not owning it? No, it just means I see it as a spectrum, with differentiations.

What is there to debate about the wow factor? I've been wowed by all three of them. And Borg-McEnroe? You seem slighted that I haven't taken these up more. What do you want me to respond to?

As with much of what I say, you misunderstand the "Bizarro World" comment and somehow took it as a jab at you. It wasn't. I was merely half-jokingly positing a thread in which we all defended other players, as a fun exercise. That is all.

You misread my post, as usual. And if you think responding, not with comments, thoughtfully, but a "chuckle" comes off as anything other than condescending, you should reread yours.

 

[Jelenafan]

Wading into a discussion that has no "resolution":

I would think in the cases of Rafa and Novak that their careers are not quite over, so it's hard to anoint the GOAT as of now.

For what it's worth, the problem for Roger is that the other two players have head2head advantages over him careerwise. They both have also head2head advantages in Majors finals and in all Major appearances with Methuselah.

When I think of a GOAT, I think of someone who at some point in their career could best all comers on all surfaces. Both Rafa and Novak held the 3 most recent Majors in all surfaces (Nadal in 2010 when he won the FO, W and then the USO) and Novak winning 4 consecutive Majors in 2014/15. Again in 2021. Federer never did that, even when he won the FO in 2009 he lost the AO (HC) to Rafa that year and the USO (HC) to Del Potro, so Federer could never claim that concurrently he was the top dog on all surfaces.

Something else comes to mind with me when talking about the GOAT:

Bud Collins on Pancho Gonzales: "If I had to choose someone to play for my life, it would be Pancho Gonzales."

Arthur Ashe stated that Pancho Gonzales once told him: "If there was ever a Universe Davis Cup, and I had to pick one man to represent Planet Earth, I would pick Lew Hoad in his prime.

So my GOAT criteria has to be someone who at their best combined the physical, skillsets, and competitive (mental) aspects of the game so that person I would bet on with everything on the line. How can you bet on Roger when more often than not, on the biggest stages his two biggest rivals would best him?

I've yet to see someone with Rafa's competitive drive, and Novak's incredible all around game is something to behold. To me it's between those two as far as current players/GOAT discussion.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Wading into a discussion that has no "resolution":

I would think in the cases of Rafa and Novak that their careers are not quite over, so it's hard to anoint the GOAT as of now.

For what it's worth, the problem for Roger is that the other two players have head2head advantages over him careerwise. They both have also head2head advantages in Majors finals and in all Major appearances with Methuselah.

When I think of a GOAT, I think of someone who at some point in their career could best all comers on all surfaces. Both Rafa and Novak held the 3 most recent Majors in all surfaces (Nadal in 2010 when he won the FO, W and then the USO) and Novak winning 4 consecutive Majors in 2014/15. Again in 2021. Federer never did that, even when he won the FO in 2009 he lost the AO (HC) to Rafa that year and the USO (HC) to Del Potro, so Federer could never claim that concurrently he was the top dog on all surfaces.

Something else comes to mind with me when talking about the GOAT:

Bud Collins on Pancho Gonzales: "If I had to choose someone to play for my life, it would be Pancho Gonzales."

Arthur Ashe stated that Pancho Gonzales once told him: "If there was ever a Universe Davis Cup, and I had to pick one man to represent Planet Earth, I would pick Lew Hoad in his prime.

So my GOAT criteria has to be someone who at their best combined the physical, skillsets, and competitive (mental) aspects of the game so that person I would bet on with everything on the line. How can you bet on Roger when more often than not, on the biggest stages his two biggest rivals would best him?

I've yet to see someone with Rafa's competitive drive, and Novak's incredible all around game is something to behold. To me it's between those two as far as current players/GOAT discussion.

Hey JF..this is not an argument but rather to piggy back from your post...Rafa and Roger actually are BETTER all around players than Novak. Rafa's and Roger's front court ( overhead and net games ) are at a different level than Novak can ever dream about..it's just the God's honest truth. Even El Dude will admit it.

 

[Fiero425]

Hey JF..this is not an argument but rather to piggy back from your post...Rafa and Roger actually are BETTER all around players than Novak. Rafa's and Roger's front court ( overhead and net games ) are at a different level than Novak can ever dream about..it's just the God's honest truth. Even El Dude will admit it.

A top player always has something they probably need to work on! When it comes to "who's better," I just look at Connors and Borg! Connors won more titles and has those 5 USO's that Borg only had a sniff at, but when it comes to history and legendary status, Borg's name will always come up 1st! He had a terribly limited game, but was the GOAT early on in the PRO era with 11 Majors! Sound familiar?