Time to crown Novak the GOAT?

[Jelenafan]

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.

Sorry, I phrased that badly. I was referring to his baseline games as it pertains to his FH and BH groundies, I think that both are incredibly solid.

Yes, that Overhead is marginally competent at best.

 

[the AntiPusher]

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?

No. We are talking about Novak Djokovic..His game is fantastic and his defense makes up for deficiencies in the front court. Borg didn't have any weaknesses that I could recall. He could place his serves wherever he wanted and his net game was A level even though he wasn't a serve and volley player. Had Borg hung around for ten years , We would be having a different GOAT conversation IMO.

 

[monfed]

The GOAT is all about consensus. I or someone else can have whatever opinion we want and think how smart we are for having it but if you dont have the consensus then you cannot call your pick the GOAT. This is GOAT in a nutshell.

Even in the most obvious cases, there will still be 10 people who'll say why that player is not the GOAT. I know some Federer fans who think that Federer is better than Nadal even on clay and that the reason why he lost there is because of Nadal's matchup advantage. I know people who think Borg is the clay GOAT because Nadal just stays on the baseline and moonballs right hander BHs so because of this inherent advantage that Nadal enjoys which Borg or Kuerten don't, he can't be considered the clay GOAT. So should we hand over the GOAT verdict to these folks?

The consensus is with Federer currently and by quite some distance. You cannot dismiss that as a result of a popularity contest. You don't automatically become some shallow pick just because more people think you're great. I find a lot of people specially on the internet have an inflated opinion of themselves that fall into this trap. They use anonymity as a weapon to act like it's their pick that counts the most and everyone else are fools for going with the "popular" choice.

Joe had a golden chance to overcome this consensus by winning the CYGS. Given his lack of popularity/aura and lack of consensus, he needed a standout achievement like the CYGS. He needed the CYGS more than Federer did.

Consensus shouldn't be mistaken for popularity in the way it's understood by the mainstream media which is basically a bunch of fangirls screaming their favourite player's name. That's obviously not what I mean when I say Federer is the GOAT because of his popularity. It's quite clear Federer's fanbase doesn't consist of that, sure there maybe some elements of that but the majority isn't. Take for example Jack Kramer has seen multiple eras of tennis and he's probably more knowledgeable than even regular tennis pundits on ESPN and he considers Federer the GOAT. So it's not only who thinks you're the GOAT, the person who thinks you're the GOAT also matters. And the more pundits are on your side the more the player's stature increases as the GOAT.

I personally think Federer isn't the greatest but his tennis is the greatest. Sure you have niche greatest games like Nadal on clay or Joe on slow HC or Pete on fast grass, but overall Federer's game is the best.

The reason why I think he isn't the greatest even though he has the greatest game is because a majority of the time he'll choke the match against an evenly matched opponent in a close match. This has happened to Federer in too many high profile matches. This is not acceptable because the high profile matches define your career and legacy, good or bad. You can't call yourself the GOAT and lose a majority of them. It's a shame that the player with the greatest game can't be the GOAT. That's bad for tennis because the wrong player became the GOAT. Kinda like a rotten emperor who took the throne, it's bad for the kingdom.

And for that reason, I think Laver is the GOAT. I was never fully convinced that Federer is greater than Laver but after Wim 19, the GOAT title went back to Laver. After USO 21, Laver's GOATness was solidified.

tldr ; Federer has the greatest game, but Laver is the GOAT.

 

[El Dude]

That's a more reasonable offering, monfed, and I hear what you say about "consensus" vs. "popularity." The problem, though, is that I don't think there is consensus.

A quibble: Jack Kramer died on Sept 12, 2009, and only experienced Roger's rise and at the peak of his powers, not really the rise of Rafa, nor the rise of Novak. At that time, it made sense to call Roger the GOAT: he had won 15 of 25 Slams from Wimbledon in 2003 to 2009., and 11 of 16 in 2004-07. That was extended dominance unlike the tour had ever seen in the Open Era. It was also 12 years ago, so doesn't take into account what Rafa and Novak did since, and we don't know what Kramer would think today. My guess is that he'd say what many of us are saying: It is just too hard to tell.

In other words, at the time of Kramer's death--the beginning of the 2009 US Open--the Slam count was Roger 15, Rafa 6, Novak 1. Since then it is Novak 19, Rafa 14, Roger 5.

In a way, Roger made the GOAT a thing by surpassing the guy (Sampras) with the best claim--at least of the Open Era---but Rafa and Novak unravelled it. It took about ten years, but here we are.

That said, I basically agree with you that Roger has "the greatest game" but also an unfortunately greater penchant for choking than Novak and Rafa. I mean, one could argue that he "should have" won WImbledon in 2008, 14, and 19, and the US Open in 2009, and if he had won all four matches, we wouldn't be having this conversation, as he'd have 24 Slams, and Novak 18, Rafa 19.

But Novak and Rafa were the reason he lost three of those matches, and it isn't like the other two haven't blown some big matches. While Roger has lost the most Slam final 5-setters with 4, Rafa is just one behind him with 3. Novak has only lost 1.

At one point some years ago I made the comment that, in some ways, Roger fell victim to his earlier dominance. For four years, 2004-07, he was rarely challenged. Yes, he lost some matches and Rafa had his number on clay, but was overall quite far ahead of everyone else, even Rafa. When Rafa reached a new level in 2008 and then Novak in 2011, Roger faced one and then two "equals" - something he wasn't used to, and he never fully adjusted, just for brief periods (like his dominance over Rafa in 2017, which did a lot to balance the scales between the two).

I've also pointed out that as dominant as 2007 was, he started losing lesser matches to random players - guys he wouldn't have lost to in 2006 (he lost as many matches in 2007, 9, as 2005-06 combined, and the uptick wasn't just to Rafa and Novak, but to lesser players: two losses to Canas, one to Volandri, two to Nalbandian). Maybe this was "dominance fatigue," and he started taking his pedal off the gas, except when it really mattered. This, of course, came at the worst time, as Rafa surged in 2008 and, coupled with Roger's illness and perhaps somewhat blase attitude, led to him losing the #1.

I also like your point about Laver reclaiming it due to Roger's inability to consolidate, and Rafa and Novak's inability to fully claim it. It is almost as if because the three are basically equals, it goes back to Laver by default.

But here's the thing: Of the three, Novak still has the best chance to single himself out. He could have done it at the US Open but didn't. But he's almost certainly not done. Rafa also has a chance, but probably less so. Roger's legacy is, at least, 99% complete. Unless Swiss scientists discover the flower of life, I don't imagine him doing more than winning Basel or maybe a Masters.

 

[monfed]

Mostly agree with everything you said, El Dude. Not much to add but there's a slight difference on the interpretation of Kramer's words.

While I agree that Kramer isn't up to date on the current state of the tour namely Djokovic being equal/ahead in the numbers, I feel Kramer was calling Federer the GOAT because of his tennis, he says " he had never seen any player do more with a ball than Federer", more than winning an X amount of slams or other statistics (Kinda like Borg) and I don't think he would've changed his opinion even knowing how much Novak has caught up or gone ahead in numbers since his opinion was published.
BTW Kramer called Federer the GOAT when he was behind Pete in the slam count and was tied with Emerson.

I don't know if this makes me biased or fannish but I think Novak doesn't transcend tennis as much as Federer and sportsmen of other sports like Jordan, Ali, Senna etc. This leaves me unconvinced to call him the GOAT even if he goes ahead in numbers. Now is transcending suddenly a new goalpost? No but it's an unsaid requirement, it's unconsciously assumed that because in our mind the benchmark have been players who transcend their sports like Ali, Jordan etc. I hope that made sense.

Anyway I'll leave Kramer's discussion here and leave it to your own interpretation.

(By Todd Woodbridge)

IS ROGER Federer the best of all time? It's a hot topic at present.

I have always erred on the side of caution when asked who is the greatest. I think it is disrespectful to the champions of the past to compare.

Having played in a successful doubles partnership with Mark Woodforde, I understand what it is like to be compared.

Some say we were the best. Others liked John McEnroe and Peter Fleming. Look back further to John Newcombe and Tony Roche, but then don't forget Frank Sedgman and Ken McGregor, the only team to win a Grand Slam in doubles, and so the argument goes.

As I have too much respect for all the great teams before us, I think it fair to say that you can beat only whom you come up against at the time and leave it at that.

Yet recently I had reason to say Federer is the best singles player to have played the game.

Just before Christmas, I had the opportunity to interview American Jack Kramer about his life in tennis. A life that's included being a multiple grand slam winner, member of a winning Davis Cup team, a promoter, commentator and an official -- the father of professional tennis has covered every facet of the game.

For an hour and a half he gave me fascinating insights into the game.

Kramer, 86, was visiting Australia for the 45th time as a surprise guest at the 80th birthday celebrations of Sedgman.

Kramer was responsible for the professional game as we know it today. After winning the US and Wimbledon championships in 1947, he saw there was no future for himself in the amateur game.

With a young family to take care of, and no money in the game to support it, he had a vision to turn the game professional. He set about his idea at the beginning of the 1950s.

He signed Sedgman in 1953 to a 100-match series against Pancho Gonzales. In 1954 Lew Hoad signed up, followed by Ken Rosewall the next year.

It wasn't until 1969 when tennis became open that Kramer's vision became a reality. We in the current era have much to thank him for.

Nearing the end of our chat, I broached the subject of Federer and asked if he compared with the greats of Kramer's era.

Federer is tied with Roy Emerson on 12 grand slam titles and looks set to pass him on Sunday week. You would think Pete Sampras's record of 14 titles looks likely to tumble soon, too.

Having played against and watched every champion since the 1930s, I thought there was no one better credentialled than Kramer to answer the question.

Kramer said Don Budge, Gonzales or Hoad might have been the equal of Federer if they had been able to use Federer's racquet.

Yet he had never seen any player do more with a ball than Federer.

Federer, Kramer said, was the only player he had seen with the complete package; he is a fantastic offensive player, a super server and can play defence.

We all have our dream match-ups we would have loved to see play against each other in their prime.

Mine would be Rod Laver and Federer playing on Centre Court at Wimbledon.

Kramer's is Gonzales taking on Federer using the same racquets.

Kramer finished the interview by saying Federer was simply the best player he had seen play the game.

With credentials as good as his, who are we to argue?

 

[El Dude]

Mostly agree with everything you said, El Dude. Not much to add but there's a slight difference on the interpretation of Kramer's words.

While I agree that Kramer isn't up to date on the current state of the tour namely Djokovic being equal/ahead in the numbers, I feel Kramer was calling Federer the GOAT because of his tennis, he says " he had never seen any player do more with a ball than Federer", more than winning an X amount of slams or other statistics (Kinda like Borg) and I don't think he would've changed his opinion even knowing how much Novak has caught up or gone ahead in numbers since his opinion was published.
BTW Kramer called Federer the GOAT when he was behind Pete in the slam count and was tied with Emerson.

I don't know if this makes me biased or fannish but I think Novak doesn't transcend tennis as much as Federer and sportsmen of other sports like Jordan, Ali, Senna etc. This leaves me unconvinced to call him the GOAT even if he goes ahead in numbers. Now is transcending suddenly a new goalpost? No but it's an unsaid requirement, it's unconsciously assumed that because in our mind the benchmark have been players who transcend their sports like Ali, Jordan etc. I hope that made sense.

Anyway I'll leave Kramer's discussion here and leave it to your own interpretation.

Yeah, I hear you and also what Kramer and Woodbridge are saying. I have said similar things, even in light of Rafa and Novak equaling Roger's Slam record, and Novak's overall resume likely to end up being better (if it isn't already).

I am also reminded of David Foster Wallace's essay on Federer, which I know someone here decried as rabid Roger fanboyism (can't remember who, but it doesn't matter), but I think it is a very well-written paean to his tennis ability.

In the end, I think much of the problem comes down to how we define "GOAT," specifically the word "greatest" (the "all-time" debate is silly; some say, "but all time hasn't occurred, so how can we know?" Obviously the term means so far).

It seems people oscillate between "best career resume" (and then quibble over which ones to emphasize) and "best tennis ability." The former can be approached somewhat objectively, although we're still left with issues like the changing context of tennis and how to weigh the statistics. The latter is more subjective but, I tend to agree with you that the "consensus" gives the nod to Roger.

This is also why I have teased out mentality and competitive spirit as distinct components of a tennis player's ability, because I think that Roger lags a bit behind Rafa and Novak in that regard. But if we separate out his ability--what he can do on court, with racket and ball--I do tend to think he surpasses the other two, and anyone that I've ever seen.

Another axis is career as a whole vs. peak. This is where we get into debates about David Ferrer vs. David Nalbandian, or Tom Okker vs. Miroslav Mecir (to pick two random guys from the past). Or how much weight to give Slams, and the problem that "Slam-emphasis" leads us to (everyone agrees that Marcelo Rios was better than Thomas Johansson or Gaston Gaudio).

Again, I don't think there is a right answer. There may be better answers--ones that take into account more subtlety, context, and a range of factors--but unless we nail down and agree upon what "greatest" means, what factors to consider, and how to weigh them, then we'll end up debating endlessly.

So I'm reasonably certain that we'll end up debating endlessly!

 

[BratSrbin]

Is it time for all which negate Noles succes to accept that he is GOAT?

 

[El Dude]

Is it time for all which negate Noles succes to accept that he is GOAT?

Haha, but I don't think one more Masters changes things. I started this thread before Wimbledon, so that changed things somewhat: it clarified that he is "first among near-equals," with an equal or better record to both Roger and Rafa in almost every way.

My current top 10s:

Open Era Only
1. Djokovic
2. Federer
3. Nadal
4. Sampras
5. Borg
6. Lendl
7. McEnroe
8. Connors
9. Laver
10. Agassi

All-Time
1. Laver
2. Djokovic
3. Federer
4. Nadal
5. Gonzales
6. Sampras
7. Rosewall
8. Borg
9. Tilden
10. Unsure, but candidates are McEnroe, Connors, Lendl, Budge, Kramer, Wilding, maybe one or two others.

My questions going forward re: the GOAT debate, as far as my own assessment, are:

• Can Novak pad his record enough to make him the incontrovertible GOAT over Laver? It is hard to compare their careers, but I think once Novak reaches 22 Slams, 70 big titles, 100 titles, and 400 weeks at #1--all well within reach, if he can keep on like he is for another year or two--it is going to be hard to argue against. If he reaches 25 Slams, I don't think there's any way to deny it, especially if Roger is stuck at 20 and Rafa at 20-22.
• Does Nadal have enough left in the tank to push himself past Roger, and what would that entail? With the lack of weeks at #1 and tour finals it is hard to say what this would be, but without those he probably needs to separate himself from Roger by 2-3 Slams. Meaning, he has a couple routes to surpassing Roger: One would be adding a TF and 50 weeks at #1 and at least one more Slam; or, adding 2-3 Slams above Roger. I don't think 1 alone is enough; two is debatable and would depend upon the rest of his record, 3 I'd probably have to give it to him, regardless of other factors.

 

[Moxie]

Is it time for all which negate Noles succes to accept that he is GOAT?

Nope. Better wait until Roger and Rafa retire.

 

[El Dude]

My post one before Moxie's all with the caveat: Assuming GOAT means greatest player according to career accomplishments, not greatest peak or the player you'd want to represent you in a tennis version of Marvel's Secret Wars (for comic nerds from the 80s), or any other variation of the term.

The variations are endlessly debatable, but the former is a bit more reachable, with the main problem being comparing before and after the Open Era started.

 

[Moxie]

My post one before Moxie's all with the caveat: Assuming GOAT means greatest player according to career accomplishments, not greatest peak or the player you'd want to represent you in a tennis version of Marvel's Secret Wars (for comic nerds from the 80s), or any other variation of the term.

The variations are endlessly debatable, but the former is a bit more reachable, with the main problem being comparing before and after the Open Era started.

So here arrive the caveats. Can I presume that the "greatest peak" is Roger, in your opinion? "Fight for your life/represent you in Marvel's Secret Wars" is Rafa? So what does Novak have to do to overcome these "caveats?" In my very strong opinion, he basically can't. Not because I don't want him to, (though I don't.) What I'm saying is that the Fedal fans won't let him. (You can abdicate from that position, if you like.) There will aways be the argument that he came late to the party, and didn't face either at their best, particularly Roger. Also in my opinion, the powers that be will always push for the Federer argument, and that the Fedal rivalry will be the one for the ages. (It made them a lot of money, let's face it.)

Which brings us back to your notion that they will always be known as the Big 3, or, as you like it, the "Holy Trinity." IMO, it doesn't really matter how it shakes out in the end. And Laver is in there just to prove that there was life in men's tennis before this era, and even as he straddled the Open Era. Call that cynical, but that's they way I see it getting recorded down the road.

 

[El Dude]

So here arrive the caveats. Can I presume that the "greatest peak" is Roger, in your opinion? "Fight for your life/represent you in Marvel's Secret Wars" is Rafa? So what does Novak have to do to overcome these "caveats?" In my very strong opinion, he basically can't. Not because I don't want him to, (though I don't.) What I'm saying is that the Fedal fans won't let him. (You can abdicate from that position, if you like.) There will aways be the argument that he came late to the party, and didn't face either at their best, particularly Roger. Also in my opinion, the powers that be will always push for the Federer argument, and that the Fedal rivalry will be the one for the ages. (It made them a lot of money, let's face it.)

I basically agree with your Roger and Rafa comments, at least in a general way. We can always critique them. I mean, I think it is safe to say that Roger's 2004-07 was the best four-year span in the Open Era, but what if we narrow it? Novak's 2015, Laver's 1969, and maybe even McEnroe's 1984 were all as good or better than Roger's best year, 2006. What if we expand it to six years? Roger's 2004-09 is great but then we have to consider Borg's 1975-81, Sampras' 1993-98, Nadal's 2008-13, Djokovic's 2011-16. My point being, even "peak" has a sliding meaning to it.

And yeah, as a general rule about the Secrets Wars scenario, I'd take Rafa. But what about surface? On clay and slow hards, Rafa would be my guy (Novak's overall record on slow hards is better, but we're talking Secret Wars). But on grass or fast hards? With apologies to Roger and Novak, I might have to go with Pete.

Now here's where I think we can fit Novak in. A "wheel of fortune" scenario: you don't know what version of a player you're going to get, or what court type, but you have to choose just one. I might go with Novak, because his overall floor--at least from 2011 on is just so damn high.

Which brings us back to your notion that they will always be known as the Big 3, or, as you like it, the "Holy Trinity." IMO, it doesn't really matter how it shakes out in the end. And Laver is in there just to prove that there was life in men's tennis before this era, and even as he straddled the Open Era. Call that cynical, but that's they way I see it getting recorded down the road.

Laver's in there because tennis involves 145 years of history, not 53. I know ancient history gets problematic, especially the pre-professional era of 1877-1925ish, but I don't think we can ignore 90+ years of tennis history just to get a "clean break" (ahem). Even if we want to ignore the players who never or barely played in the Open Era, Laver and Rosewall, but also Newcombe, Ashe, and others straddles the eras. Laver's Open Era career began when he was 30 years old (or just before), and even those numbers alone put him in a similar company as "lesser greats" like Edberg and Becker. And he had a solid ten years before that.

And then, if we're going to consider Laver and Rosewall's pre-Open Era careers, why not Gonzales? And if Gonzales, why not Kramer and Budge and Tilden? And if Tilden, how about Wilding? Etc.

So from my perspective, Laver's in there because he's arguably the greatest of all time (in terms of accomplishments).

 

[BratSrbin]

Nope. Better wait until Roger and Rafa retire.

“I feel sometimes (that Novak is not considered as Federer or Nadal). But unless haters, people start to notice what he has done and that he can do more…” said Medvedev in the interview.

 

[Moxie]

“I feel sometimes (that Novak is not considered as Federer or Nadal). But unless haters, people start to notice what he has done and that he can do more…” said Medvedev in the interview.

It's not down to "haters." It's down to what has been done, and will be. Wait until it's over, my impatient friend.

 

[BratSrbin]

It's not down to "haters." It's down to what has been done, and will be. Wait until it's over, my impatient friend.

The race is over. Who is the best - is the best. I'm rejoicing.

Whoever has another opinion has the right to wait. Maybe he'll get lucky.

 

[Moxie]

The race is over. Who is the best - is the best. I'm rejoicing.

Whoever has another opinion has the right to wait. Maybe he'll get lucky.

As El Dude points out, you're rejoicing over a MS win and, yes, another YE#1. But the story is not over.

 

[Fiero425]

The race is over. Who is the best - is the best. I'm rejoicing.

Whoever has another opinion has the right to wait. Maybe he'll get lucky.

Novak acquired a few notorieties by winning Paris Masters; a 6th title, won Paris Clay event too, & now holds the rec. for 37 Masters & 7th YE #1! ;-)

 

[MikeOne]

The idea that federer had the greatest game is highly debatable..

nadal and berdych played both at their peaks and this is what they say:

Nadal. "I played against a player who did everything perfectly. I don't know anybody who's ever played tennis like this. Since I know this sport I've never seen somebody playing at this level. (On djokovic after getting demolished at doha)

both Toni and rafa have always admitted that they never could find a strategy vs novak but had one vs federer

berdych:

“I probably played maybe over, what, 600 matches in my career, and I met guys like Andre (Agassi), Roger (Federer), all those probably in their best times. But I have never, ever experienced anything like that.”
(Berdych after getting crushed by novak in china open)

bolletierri:

“I’ve had the privilege of watching, I believe Novak’s overall game, including the mental and physical parts, may be as perfect as I’ve seen.”

“He is the best constructed player, pound by pound, shot by shot, in that way he is the best in history,"


Others have said the same, that djokovic attained a higher level than federer. The stats sort of prove it. Novak has all the records and has been as dominant as federer ever was. Novak was able to win all 4 slams in a row and almost won calendar slam, federer could never do it. Novak has beaten federer in 3 wimbledon finals and bested nadal twice at RG.

i do not see much evidence to support federer had a better game, more aesthetically pleasing, yeah. Nalbandian also was more aesthetically pleasing. Even nadal’s game is more aesthetically pleasing than novak. Novak is the most efficient and complete of all goats.

 

[Moxie]

The idea that federer had the greatest game is highly debatable..

nadal and berdych played both at their peaks and this is what they say:

Nadal. "I played against a player who did everything perfectly. I don't know anybody who's ever played tennis like this. Since I know this sport I've never seen somebody playing at this level. (On djokovic after getting demolished at doha)

both Toni and rafa have always admitted that they never could find a strategy vs novak but had one vs federer

berdych:

“I probably played maybe over, what, 600 matches in my career, and I met guys like Andre (Agassi), Roger (Federer), all those probably in their best times. But I have never, ever experienced anything like that.”
(Berdych after getting crushed by novak in china open)

bolletierri:

“I’ve had the privilege of watching, I believe Novak’s overall game, including the mental and physical parts, may be as perfect as I’ve seen.”

“He is the best constructed player, pound by pound, shot by shot, in that way he is the best in history,"


Others have said the same, that djokovic attained a higher level than federer. The stats sort of prove it. Novak has all the records and has been as dominant as federer ever was. Novak was able to win all 4 slams in a row and almost won calendar slam, federer could never do it. Novak has beaten federer in 3 wimbledon finals and bested nadal twice at RG.

i do not see much evidence to support federer had a better game, more aesthetically pleasing, yeah. Nalbandian also was more aesthetically pleasing. Even nadal’s game is more aesthetically pleasing than novak. Novak is the most efficient and complete of all goats.

Quotes from players are the least reliable of anything, because they basically say anything in a given moment, as we know. But reducing Roger to Nalbandian? Ouch. I can see why you feel the need to bolster Novak against the opposition. But the verdict isn't in yet. And random remarks don't really help. We could all supply quotes from over the years.

 

[the AntiPusher]

The idea that federer had the greatest game is highly debatable..

nadal and berdych played both at their peaks and this is what they say:

Nadal. "I played against a player who did everything perfectly. I don't know anybody who's ever played tennis like this. Since I know this sport I've never seen somebody playing at this level. (On djokovic after getting demolished at doha)

both Toni and rafa have always admitted that they never could find a strategy vs novak but had one vs federer

Seem like Rafa found a strategy that works this day







berdych:

“I probably played maybe over, what, 600 matches in my career, and I met guys like Andre (Agassi), Roger (Federer), all those probably in their best times. But I have never, ever experienced anything like that.”
(Berdych after getting crushed by novak in china open)

bolletierri:

“I’ve had the privilege of watching, I believe Novak’s overall game, including the mental and physical parts, may be as perfect as I’ve seen.”

“He is the best constructed player, pound by pound, shot by shot, in that way he is the best in history,"


Others have said the same, that djokovic attained a higher level than federer. The stats sort of prove it. Novak has all the records and has been as dominant as federer ever was. Novak was able to win all 4 slams in a row and almost won calendar slam, federer could never do it. Novak has beaten federer in 3 wimbledon finals and bested nadal twice at RG.

i do not see much evidence to support federer had a better game, more aesthetically pleasing, yeah. Nalbandian also was more aesthetically pleasing. Even nadal’s game is more aesthetically pleasing than novak. Novak is the most efficient and complete of all goats.