Time to crown Novak the GOAT?

[MikeOne]

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.

who said i reduced Fed to Nalbandian?

So let me get this straight. Nadal has played Federer 40 times and Djokovic 58 times but we are to put more weight on a bunch of coach potatoes who sit and watch them play than players like Nadal. If anything, Nadal should have the most weight of anyone and to discredit him, well, then our opinions are pretty much sh$t...

crazy logic here..

The reality is that it's debatable which game is the 'greatest' 'most complete' or who attained 'highest level ever'. This is highly subjective. What is not subjective is who is most accomplished statistically, that's Djokovic, hands down.

One way to try to assess 'highest level' or 'most complete game' is to zone in on dominance. Nadal has been the least dominant of the 3 so it's fair to have him sit this one out. Between Fed and Novak, it's debatable who has been more dominant in short periods. Djokovic's 11 season was nuts, so was his 15-16-17 run where we won 4 slams in a row. In one of those years, he, i believe, reached the biggest gap between #1 and #2 ever. Federer;s 04-07 run was equally dominant, it's a toss up.

In terms of completeness, Djokovic gets the edge across surfaces. He is incredible on hardcourts, one of the GOATS at Wimbledon (6 wins) and has better results on clay than Roger, besting Nadal twice at RG (only player ever).

To me, Federer was more flashy and in spurts more overwhelming but over course of a match, Djokovic slightly more consistent, with less ups/downs. Djokovic's defense was better than Federer but Djokovic also employed an aggressive, offense baseline game; in fact, regularly dictating rallies from baseline even against Federer. Federer averaged more winners, but more UFEs... UFEs matter. What some fail to comprehend is that UFEs were part of Federer's game, the idea that it was just 'mental' and applying logic of 'If he just would've missed less' is totally illogical. He took more risks and naturally made more UFEs. So many times he lost to Nadal and Djokovic and the excuse was 'mental midget, missed too much'. WRONG. Djokovic and Nadal made Federer take the extra risks, hit the extra shots and this was reason for UFEs... it was a natural part of Federer's game, period. We can never say 'if he just would've missed less, he had the greatest game', this is just stupid in a gross way.

Federer's game was flashier but shakier... Djokovic's game more consistent and overwhelming too, he crushed opponents too, notably Nadal on big occasions and by employing offense as much as defense. Djokovic's complete game was on display vs Madvedev at Paris, he served and volleyed and came to net often to use variety to deconstruct Medvedev. He has used his complete game to be successful everywhere... yes, Federer was more overwhelming in spurts but would also GIFT you points more often. Who attained highest level, who had most complete game? debatable, Fed fans think it's clear, it was Fed. I would take Nadal's opinion over any Fed fan sitting on a coach trying to dismiss Nadal's opinion (who played fed/djoker almost 100 times combined).

My reference to Nalbandian is to show how someone with a flashy game sometimes is seen as better than they were. There are those who think Nalbandian had the greatest game ever, far from it... he was flashy and aesthetically pleasing and when on fire, great, mainly on indoors, but he was far from having greatest game ever.

 

[Kieran]

Well, brother Cali is the real expert on Nalbandian and he'll tell you, Fatso was a genius on the practice court - and the kitchen.

Novak is great but to elevate him above the other best is a little bit of a stretch. A GOAT should leave everybody chewing dust, and he hasn't done that, despite having more opportunities than Rafa to buff up his resume, by having not had to skip a half season and plenty slams a few times along the way. He's great obviously, but I think GOATS are mythical creatures. Novak is the best of the last ten years, Rafa has had a longer tougher career and Roger rolled drunks to load up his booty sack when there was nobody else around.

Apart from this, Sampras, Borg, Laver and the rest all get their names placed among the GOATS...

 

[Fjaka2.0]

To keep it as objective as possible (statistically), yes Novak is the GOAT for now.

 

[Fjaka2.0]

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.

Amen!

 

[El Dude]

And around and around we go.

We're never going to all agree, partially because of fan bias but also because the term "GOAT" can shift, even if just slightly.

Which leaves us with career resumes. So if we have to decide on a GOAT, it should be based on that which we can weigh and measure: the numbers they leave behind that represent what they did on court. We can adjust that somewhat for subjective qualities (e.g. the writings of analysts for historical players), but I think the further we go from what they actually produced on court, the more dubious the GOAT becomes.

@Kieran likes to bring up Lew Hoad, because various contemporaries said he was the most formidable opponent when playing his best. This is fun to consider, but diminishes in historical context. By any reasonable, measurable way of analysis, players like Pancho Gonzales, Ken Rosewall, and Rod Laver had career accomplishments that dwarfed Hoad's and should be considered much higher on the list. Plus, I think these quotes from Pancho and Kramer say a lot:

Gonzales said that Hoad was the toughest, most skillful adversary that he had ever faced and stated in a 1995 interview that "He was the only guy who, if I was playing my best tennis, could still beat me.".[383][384] "I think his game was the best game ever. Better than mine. He was capable of making more shots than anybody. His two volleys were great. His overhead was enormous. He had the most natural tennis mind with the most natural tennis physique."[363] In a 1970 interview he stated that "Hoad was probably the best and toughest player when he wanted to be. After the first two years on the tour, his back injury plagued him so much that he lost the desire to practice. He was the only man to beat me in a head-to-head tour, 15 to 13."[385] In a 1975 issue of Sports Illustrated, Arthur Ashe was quoted as relating a remark which Pancho Gonzales had said to 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."[386]

Kramer, however, had mixed feelings about Hoad's ability. In spite of calling him one of the 21 best players of all time, albeit in the second echelon, he also writes that "when you sum Hoad up, you have to say that he was overrated. He might have been the best, but day-to-day, week-to-week, he was the most inconsistent of all the top players."[387] Kramer compared Hoad to Ellsworth Vines. "Both were very strong guys. Both succeeded at a very young age.... Also, both were very lazy guys. Vines lost interest in tennis (for golf) before he was thirty, and Hoad never appeared to be very interested. Despite their great natural ability, neither put up the outstanding records that they were capable of. Unfortunately, the latter was largely true because both had physical problems."[388] Kramer stated in 1981, "Everybody loved Hoad, even Pancho Gonzales. They should put that on Lew's tombstone as the ultimate praise for the man.... Even when Hoad was clobbering Gonzales, Gorgo wanted his respect and friendship."[389]

(From Wikipedia)

I post all that about Hoad because I think he essentializes the problem with overly focusing on the subjective, as well as the idea of "best player at his absolute best." I have no doubt that Hoad was as great as people say he was, but that lack of consistency, longevity and, perhaps, drive, really brings him down a notch. I think he belongs more in the "third tier of greats" along with guys like Edberg and Becker, and not even in the "second tier" with the Lendls and McEnroes.

Greatness must include consistency and longevity as factors. Actually, we could say that greatness involves three major factors: peak level, consistency, and longevity. You don't have to have Rosewall longevity or Lendl consistency, but Hoad was really only truly great for a few years, and it didn't translate to the pro tour, where he went 0-7 in Pro Slam finals, though he did win two Tournament of Champions titles. He also never won the World Pro Tour Championship, which was arguably more important than the Slams during the 40s-50s (Gonzales won it 7 times). This was partially due to back problems, but I think health is a sub-set of longevity.

Anyhow, if you're looking at career resumes alone, you really only have seven choices, in my opinion: For older players, Tilden, Gonzales, Rosewall, and Laver; for Open Era, Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic. There are greater peak players than Rosewall and perhaps Tilden, but none of them have the career resumes.

I'm dabbling with a system that weighs pre-Open Era accomplishments with Open Era. It is inherently problematic and will always include my own subjectivity--specifically, how to weigh things relative to each other--but I'll see how it comes out and share my findings when I get there.

I'm thinking something like this:

Pre-Open Era: Slams (amateur and pro), Pro Tour Championships, other significant titles that are equivalent to big titles or more today (to what degree I can assess them), and number 1-2 rankings (as ranked by journalists). Optional: overall titles, bonuses for multiple Slam years, and Slam finals.

Open Era: Slams, big titles (tour finals, alt tour finals, Olympics, Masters), #1-2 rankings. Optional: overall titles, bonuses for multiple Slam years, Slam finals, and H2Hs.

 

[Fjaka2.0]

And around and around we go.

We're never going to all agree, partially because of fan bias but also because the term "GOAT" can shift, even if just slightly.

Which leaves us with career resumes. So if we have to decide on a GOAT, it should be based on that which we can weigh and measure: the numbers they leave behind that represent what they did on court. We can adjust that somewhat for subjective qualities (e.g. the writings of analysts for historical players), but I think the further we go from what they actually produced on court, the more dubious the GOAT becomes.

@Kieran likes to bring up Lew Hoad, because various contemporaries said he was the most formidable opponent when playing his best. This is fun to consider, but diminishes in historical context. By any reasonable, measurable way of analysis, players like Pancho Gonzales, Ken Rosewall, and Rod Laver had career accomplishments that dwarfed Hoad's and should be considered much higher on the list. Plus, I think these quotes from Pancho and Kramer say a lot:

(From Wikipedia)

I post all that about Hoad because I think he essentializes the problem with overly focusing on the subjective, as well as the idea of "best player at his absolute best." I have no doubt that Hoad was as great as people say he was, but that lack of consistency, longevity and, perhaps, drive, really brings him down a notch. I think he belongs more in the "third tier of greats" along with guys like Edberg and Becker, and not even in the "second tier" with the Lendls and McEnroes.

Greatness must include consistency and longevity as factors. Actually, we could say that greatness involves three major factors: peak level, consistency, and longevity. You don't have to have Rosewall longevity or Lendl consistency, but Hoad was really only truly great for a few years, and it didn't translate to the pro tour, where he went 0-7 in Pro Slam finals, though he did win two Tournament of Champions titles. He also never won the World Pro Tour Championship, which was arguably more important than the Slams during the 40s-50s (Gonzales won it 7 times). This was partially due to back problems, but I think health is a sub-set of longevity.

Anyhow, if you're looking at career resumes alone, you really only have seven choices, in my opinion: For older players, Tilden, Gonzales, Rosewall, and Laver; for Open Era, Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic. There are greater peak players than Rosewall and perhaps Tilden, but none of them have the career resumes.

I'm dabbling with a system that weighs pre-Open Era accomplishments with Open Era. It is inherently problematic and will always include my own subjectivity--specifically, how to weigh things relative to each other--but I'll see how it comes out and share my findings when I get there.

I'm thinking something like this:

Pre-Open Era: Slams (amateur and pro), Pro Tour Championships, other significant titles that are equivalent to big titles or more today (to what degree I can assess them), and number 1-2 rankings (as ranked by journalists). Optional: overall titles, bonuses for multiple Slam years, and Slam finals.

Open Era: Slams, big titles (tour finals, alt tour finals, Olympics, Masters), #1-2 rankings. Optional: overall titles, bonuses for multiple Slam years, Slam finals, and H2Hs.

Agree, only numbers are measurable and objective.
The problem is, when looking at the numbers, there is no more discussion, it’s crystal clear, and every non-Novak fan or hater will avoid this. They prefer the subjective discussion where they don’t have to accept the obvious.

 

[Kieran]

Going "by the numbers" is a very fallible and unreliable method. I've said this before and it's worth reposting the thought. Players in older times - pre-Pete - didn't think the numbers alone mattered at all. Laver's two CYGS wins were the highest achievement for players in the Open Era until Pete started to pursue the very much non-GOAT holder of The Numbers - Roy Emerson.

There can be no agreed criteria for measuring a GOAT, but there are many goats who achieved what they set out to achieve, as much as it was possible...

 

[Moxie]

To keep it as objective as possible (statistically), yes Novak is the GOAT for now.

Welcome, Fjaka2.0! And welcome to the rumble. I don't think you can say someone is the Greatest of all Time "for now." With other GOAT contenders actively playing, the conversation isn't over. But certainly Novak is the best in the game for now. That's also why he's #1.

 

[Moxie]

Greatness must include consistency and longevity as factors. Actually, we could say that greatness involves three major factors: peak level, consistency, and longevity.

If longevity is in there, doesn't that dump Borg automatically? That would seem wrong.

 

[Moxie]

who said i reduced Fed to Nalbandian?

Ah, I just couldn't resist it. Grow a sense of humor.

So let me get this straight. Nadal has played Federer 40 times and Djokovic 58 times but we are to put more weight on a bunch of coach potatoes who sit and watch them play than players like Nadal. If anything, Nadal should have the most weight of anyone and to discredit him, well, then our opinions are pretty much sh$t...

You quote two players who just got thrashed by an opponent is not the most reliable opinion. I suggest an ounce of self-interest in there. Both have also called Federer the "greatest of all time." You can google that. Including Novak calling Roger and Rafa the greatest. Sure, times change, but to rely on random quotes by players as any kind of "proof" is to discount how disingenuous they are in press conferences.

The reality is that it's debatable which game is the 'greatest' 'most complete' or who attained 'highest level ever'. This is highly subjective. What is not subjective is who is most accomplished statistically, that's Djokovic, hands down.

Statistically, but he's on a late-run, while he didn't have much to say for himself when they were dominating the tennis world.

One way to try to assess 'highest level' or 'most complete game' is to zone in on dominance. Nadal has been the least dominant of the 3 so it's fair to have him sit this one out. Between Fed and Novak, it's debatable who has been more dominant in short periods. Djokovic's 11 season was nuts, so was his 15-16-17 run where we won 4 slams in a row. In one of those years, he, i believe, reached the biggest gap between #1 and #2 ever. Federer;s 04-07 run was equally dominant, it's a toss up.

Nadal is the "least dominant," except in the realm of clay, but he was also sandwiched in between the two, and had injury issues. (See @Kieran's post.) As to Novak, look at the years you cite: 15-16, when Rafa was at his nadir, and Roger also not so much. You're just wrong about 2017. Novak lost in the 2nd round of the AO that year, and went on a 2-year walkabout.

In terms of completeness, Djokovic gets the edge across surfaces. He is incredible on hardcourts, one of the GOATS at Wimbledon (6 wins) and has better results on clay than Roger, besting Nadal twice at RG (only player ever).

Slight edge, and also with the benefit of Roger and Rafa getting creakier. 2006 Novak called Rafa beatable on clay. How many years did that take him? And what version of Nadal?

To me, Federer was more flashy and in spurts more overwhelming but over course of a match, Djokovic slightly more consistent, with less ups/downs. Djokovic's defense was better than Federer but Djokovic also employed an aggressive, offense baseline game; in fact, regularly dictating rallies from baseline even against Federer. Federer averaged more winners, but more UFEs... UFEs matter. What some fail to comprehend is that UFEs were part of Federer's game, the idea that it was just 'mental' and applying logic of 'If he just would've missed less' is totally illogical. He took more risks and naturally made more UFEs. So many times he lost to Nadal and Djokovic and the excuse was 'mental midget, missed too much'. WRONG. Djokovic and Nadal made Federer take the extra risks, hit the extra shots and this was reason for UFEs... it was a natural part of Federer's game, period. We can never say 'if he just would've missed less, he had the greatest game', this is just stupid in a gross way.

Djokovic is consistent when he's feeling confident. His game depends on it, given the lack of margin. But when he's not, he can put his fans on what they call the "Nolecoaster." Sure, when the competition is lesser, he pulls it out. And the bolded above is why I teased you about equating Roger with David N. Read that sentence. "In spurts more overwhelming?" Are we now going to negate all of Roger's career until Novak came along? Please.

Federer's game was flashier but shakier... Djokovic's game more consistent and overwhelming too, he crushed opponents too, notably Nadal on big occasions and by employing offense as much as defense. Djokovic's complete game was on display vs Madvedev at Paris, he served and volleyed and came to net often to use variety to deconstruct Medvedev. He has used his complete game to be successful everywhere... yes, Federer was more overwhelming in spurts but would also GIFT you points more often. Who attained highest level, who had most complete game? debatable, Fed fans think it's clear, it was Fed. I would take Nadal's opinion over any Fed fan sitting on a coach trying to dismiss Nadal's opinion (who played fed/djoker almost 100 times combined).

Again, this is what is often done when talking about Djokovic's dominance of the past decade. Folks tend to forget what came before. Like the yips on his serve. Or the junior level overhead, (even today.) He's dominating a tour with youngsters who can barely get out of their own way. Of course he's a very great player, with a resume full of accomplishments, but he's got mental lapses, and he has benefitted by the waning of his greatest competition. You'll never get away from that.

 

[El Dude]

If longevity is in there, doesn't that dump Borg automatically? That would seem wrong.

I think it dumps him from being considered the GOAT. I mean, it isn't like he was more dominant during his peak than everyone else. Sampras, Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic were all similarly dominant (or more so), plus added on a bunch else. He was truly great and would probably be right there with Sampras--at least--if he had played another five years. But he didn't, and his record is what it is.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Ah, I just couldn't resist it. Grow a sense of humor.


You quote two players who just got thrashed by an opponent is not the most reliable opinion. I suggest an ounce of self-interest in there. Both have also called Federer the "greatest of all time." You can google that. Including Novak calling Roger and Rafa the greatest. Sure, times change, but to rely on random quotes by players as any kind of "proof" is to discount how disingenuous they are in press conferences.


Statistically, but he's on a late-run, while he didn't have much to say for himself when they were dominating the tennis world.

Nadal is the "least dominant," except in the realm of clay, but he was also sandwiched in between the two, and had injury issues. (See @Kieran's post.) As to Novak, look at the years you cite: 15-16, when Rafa was at his nadir, and Roger also not so much. You're just wrong about 2017. Novak lost in the 2nd round of the AO that year, and went on a 2-year walkabout.


Slight edge, and also with the benefit of Roger and Rafa getting creakier. 2006 Novak called Rafa beatable on clay. How many years did that take him? And what version of Nadal?


Djokovic is consistent when he's feeling confident. His game depends on it, given the lack of margin. But when he's not, he can put his fans on what they call the "Nolecoaster." Sure, when the competition is lesser, he pulls it out. And the bolded above is why I teased you about equating Roger with David N. Read that sentence. "In spurts more overwhelming?" Are we now going to negate all of Roger's career until Novak came along? Please.

Again, this is what is often done when talking about Djokovic's dominance of the past decade. Folks tend to forget what came before. Like the yips on his serve. Or the junior level overhead, (even today.) He's dominating a tour with youngsters who can barely get out of their own way. Of course he's a very great player, with a resume full of accomplishments, but he's got mental lapses, and he has benefitted by the waning of his greatest competition. You'll never get away from that.

The ONLY way to settle this is for Rafa to defeat Novak at AO..I still have nightmares about the AO 2012 match and Rafa had no business loosing to Roger via the extended bathroom break but Roger did what he had to do. Yes, it has to be in January, I don't care if Rafa is unavailable for the early American HC swing in March but he has got to defeat Novak at AO..I hope he changes a few courts at his Academy to match that texture of surface on those courts in Melbourne.

 

[the AntiPusher]

The ONLY way to settle this is for Rafa to defeat Novak at AO..I still have nightmares about the AO 2012 match and Rafa had no business loosing to Roger via the extended bathroom break but Roger did what he had to do. Yes, it has to be in January, I don't care if Rafa is unavailable for the early American HC swing in March but he has got to defeat Novak at AO..I hope he changes a few courts at his Academy to match that texture of surface on those courts in Melbourne.

Dude, I'm serious as an antiVazza about the vaccine.

 

[El Dude]

Going "by the numbers" is a very fallible and unreliable method. I've said this before and it's worth reposting the thought. Players in older times - pre-Pete - didn't think the numbers alone mattered at all. Laver's two CYGS wins were the highest achievement for players in the Open Era until Pete started to pursue the very much non-GOAT holder of The Numbers - Roy Emerson.

There can be no agreed criteria for measuring a GOAT, but there are many goats who achieved what they set out to achieve, as much as it was possible...

I think you're missing some of the subtlety of my point, regarding numbers and subjective factors. I'm not saying that stats are fail-proof, both for reasons you mention about older eras and the changing nature of the game, but also because we still have to (subjectively) prioritize them (e.g. how much is a Masters worth compared to a Slam? Etc).

But my point was that there are so many subjective ways to approach the question of greatness, which is fine and can be a lot of fun. But if we want some degree of certainty, we should have some basis in numbers. They, at the very least, frame the conversation so that we can reflect upon the actual results of a player's career, and not just their reputation or eyeball tests (first or second hand), or that great shot we saw them make that stuck with us, or simply what we want to believe, based upon our personal bias.

That said, while my tendency is to return to the numbers, mostly because I enjoy them and coming up with new was to visualize statistics and craft formulas and such, I also very much enjoy and value subjectivity - the qualitative (as opposed to the statistical quantitative).

Which brings me back to the Big Three. While as I said in the original post of this thread and seems even more clear now (if only slightly so), I think Novak has started to edge forward and away from not only Rafa but also Roger. I mean, if he retired right now, we could say maybe Roger's overall record is equal or slightly better, or maybe Rafa will win enough to equal or surpass Novak. But given where we are now and the probable future, I think it is becoming harder and harder to say that Novak doesn't have the statistical edge. But...if I ignore the numbers and just ask the question, "Who is the greatest player of the three?" My answer is....well, it is unanswerable. Novak doesn't "feel" greater than either Roger or Rafa. He's reached Rogerian levels of dominance, although not for four years straight like Roger in 2004-07. He's seemed unbeatable, but never quite like Rafa on clay from 2004-14.

 

[Fiero425]

I think you're missing some of the subtlety of my point, regarding numbers and subjective factors. I'm not saying that stats are fail-proof, both for reasons you mention about older eras and the changing nature of the game, but also because we still have to (subjectively) prioritize them (e.g. how much is a Masters worth compared to a Slam? Etc).

But my point was that there are so many subjective ways to approach the question of greatness, which is fine and can be a lot of fun. But if we want some degree of certainty, we should have some basis in numbers. They, at the very least, frame the conversation so that we can reflect upon the actual results of a player's career, and not just their reputation or eyeball tests (first or second hand), or that great shot we saw them make that stuck with us, or simply what we want to believe, based upon our personal bias.

That said, while my tendency is to return to the numbers, mostly because I enjoy them and coming up with new was to visualize statistics and craft formulas and such, I also very much enjoy and value subjectivity - the qualitative (as opposed to the statistical quantitative).

Which brings me back to the Big Three. While as I said in the original post of this thread and seems even more clear now (if only slightly so), I think Novak has started to edge forward and away from not only Rafa but also Roger. I mean, if he retired right now, we could say maybe Roger's overall record is equal or slightly better, or maybe Rafa will win enough to equal or surpass Novak. But given where we are now and the probable future, I think it is becoming harder and harder to say that Novak doesn't have the statistical edge. But...if I ignore the numbers and just ask the question, "Who is the greatest player of the three?" My answer is....well, it is unanswerable. Novak doesn't "feel" greater than either Roger or Rafa. He's reached Rogerian levels of dominance, although not for four years straight like Roger in 2004-07. He's seemed unbeatable, but never quite like Rafa on clay from 2004-14.

It's hairspitting going on here and now trying to make an issue of the level of domination instead of looking at the overall picture and records! Well that's one way to elevate someone running in 3rd place to the top of the podium! Regardless of our feelings, 100 years from now they will only look at the raw numbers and without a doubt Djokovic is owning the record books! I wasn't sure he could finish off Medvedev in Paris yesterday because I don't think he's particularly played well since his defeat of Rafa in the FO SF! He never had to extend himself to win Wimbl.! The USO caught up w/ him not up to his standard; just good enough to stay ahead of these newbies who are aging fast w/ failure after failure to usurp the throne!

 

[Moxie]

I think it dumps him from being considered the GOAT. I mean, it isn't like he was more dominant during his peak than everyone else. Sampras, Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic were all similarly dominant (or more so), plus added on a bunch else. He was truly great and would probably be right there with Sampras--at least--if he had played another five years. But he didn't, and his record is what it is.

Which gets us back to the question of how much dominance matters. No one has ever called Borg the GOAT. But he's up there. Why? Because he was spectacularly, undeniably great, and he changed the game. This is where I think we start to lose the "greatness" for the weeds. The stats can start to get in the way of the eye test, or the test of historical eras. When we look at the Big 3, we get embroiled in their numbers and years and all of that. But to compare the greats of other eras, which I know you know, we belittle other accomplishments. Which means that something like longevity, or long-term dominance doesn't really matter that much, if it excludes Borg. However, it's something that keeps Laver at the top of the pile. What to do?

 

[Moxie]

100 years from now they will only look at the raw numbers and without a doubt Djokovic is owning the record books!

Two things, 100 years from now, there will be new records, and also, thank goodness we will none of us be around to keep arguring them.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Which gets us back to the question of how much dominance matters. No one has ever called Borg the GOAT. But he's up there. Why? Because he was spectacularly, undeniably great, and he changed the game. This is where I think we start to lose the "greatness" for the weeds. The stats can start to get in the way of the eye test, or the test of historical eras. When we look at the Big 3, we get embroiled in their numbers and years and all of that. But to compare the greats of other eras, which I know you know, we belittle other accomplishments. Which means that something like longevity, or long-term dominance doesn't really matter that much, if it excludes Borg. However, it's something that keeps Laver at the top of the pile. What to do?

Borg couldn't be the GOAT because he had no answers for John McEnroe at USO hard courts and later at SW19..I think it costs Johnny Mac probably 4 more GS titles and at least 2 to 4 for Borg. Mac has said numerous times that his motivation suffered because of Bjorn earlier retirement.

 

[El Dude]

Which gets us back to the question of how much dominance matters. No one has ever called Borg the GOAT. But he's up there. Why? Because he was spectacularly, undeniably great, and he changed the game. This is where I think we start to lose the "greatness" for the weeds. The stats can start to get in the way of the eye test, or the test of historical eras. When we look at the Big 3, we get embroiled in their numbers and years and all of that. But to compare the greats of other eras, which I know you know, we belittle other accomplishments. Which means that something like longevity, or long-term dominance doesn't really matter that much, if it excludes Borg. However, it's something that keeps Laver at the top of the pile. What to do?

Roger, Rafa, and Novak have such overwhelming records that it re-writes the whole idea of greatness. Only one player in all of tennis history can stand muster: Rod Laver. We can find a dozen players who match well in one way or another--including Borg--but all of them have big deficits, at least relative to those three. For Borg it is essentially comes down to retiring at 25 (we'll ignore the 3 tournaments he played in 1982-84, and even more so the 12 he played in 1991-93). We can also cite Mac taking over the top spot from him, but I don't see why Borg couldn't have successfully returned fire...and we're left without what could have been a great dog-race through the first half of the 80s, rather than just the few years that was their rivalry.

For Mac it is his huge decline after 1984, at the same age Borg retired. For Pete, it was his weakness on clay. Etc. Those three, Borg, Mac, and Sampras, were truly great players, and probably as talented as our Big Three--and thus separated from the pack of lesser greats like Wilander, Edberg, Becker and Agassi--but I think the fact that the Big Three not only equaled their peak greatness and historical impact, but also did it for so much longer, just puts them in a different category.

Another interesting area of discussion is how to compare players like Borg and McEnroe to guys like Connors and Lendl. Borg and Mac were, at their best, more dominant than either Jimmy or Ivan. But the latter two were more consistent and put together overall superior records, especially if we look beyond Slam count. Borg was great for eight years, and the best in the sport for three (I think the ATP rankings are rather dubious in the mid-70s, and Borg should have been #1 in 1978, not Connors), but Ivan was top 3 for ten years, top ten for thirteen, and just consistently the best or second player for about a decade. Meaning, Borg was somewhat more dominant at his best, but Ivan made it up in "breadth" - and was hardly a slouch himself.

I still tend to rank them as Borg and McEnroe and then Lendl and Connors, because of subjective elements, but I don't bemoan most statistical formulas ranking Lendl and Connors higher, because while quality is sexier, quantity is important too, and the gap between them in terms of quantity is larger than that of quality, I think (which is why, for instance, Lendl and Connors have a lot more "GOAT Points" than Borg and Mac).

 

[Moxie]

Roger, Rafa, and Novak have such overwhelming records that it re-writes the whole idea of greatness.

I'd just like to stop here for a second. Do we really want to or need to rewrite the "whole idea of greatness" in tennis? Does everyone but Laver become a footnote? I rather hope not.