Time to crown Novak the GOAT?

[MikeOne]

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!

yeah, so before Djokovic broke all these records, the argument was 'Roger GOAT because Roger has the records'

Now that Novak broke the records, change of tone, 'Well, BUT, Roger had the greatest game'

The question is by what measure? I can see the second argument having some merit IF Novak had played 25 years, grinding wins without dominating and Federer dominated for 5 years like no-one else could. THIS IS NOT THE CASE. Djokovic has been as dominant as Federer ever was. The Djokovic of 11, 15-17 was as dominant a player as you will ever see, even won 4 slams in a row! and was trouncing Nadal on clay (in 2011)... So not only does Novak have the record books, he was as dominant as Roger. Also, Novak has more complete results across surfaces.... yeah, even more than Roger.

then, some dare get even lower. With the above arguments against theirs, they even resort to 'Well, but Fed was not at his peak when Novak dominated' HAHAHAH.... neither was Novak at his peak when Fed dominated between 04-07...

So there really isn't a single statistic or much evidence to support 04-07 Fed attained a higher level than Novak did during his peak. We are left to our biases but i will point to Nadal, who played Fed and Novak 100 times as the strongest evidence to support Djokovic attained a higher level, in his own words. We can pretend this doesn't matter, that it's just 'match-ups' or 'player biases' but i'll certainly take Nadal's words over some Fed fans or Novak haters refuting Nadal from the comfort of their couches, as they watched them play over the years. In the end, it comes down who's game we preferred to watch, who was more aesthetically pleasing, who our favourite player was.

 

[El Dude]

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.

Of course not. It just means that the Trinity have set a completely new bar for GOATdom in the Open Era, at least, and probably tennis history. I mean, as I said in another thread, Roger and Novak each have more Slams, WTFs, and Masters than Wilander, Edberg, and Becker combined - and those three are bonafide greats.

GOAT and greatness are not the same thing. Or rather, GOAT is a subset of all-time greats. So I'm not saying that the Trinity makes every other all-time great a footnote, just that it re-arranges things a bit, in a sense creating a new tier of inner circle greats that only includes them and Laver (and maybe Pancho Gonzales).

That said, it might push guys like Sampras down a bit. I mean, just a decade ago the GOAT conversation was Pete and Roger. Now because Roger has lapped Pete, and Nadal and Novak have joined him, Pete has lost his "GOAT candidacy" and could be seen as the player between the "inner" and "middle" circle of greats (the "outer circle" being guys like Wilander, Edberg and Becker).

 

[Moxie]

Djokovic has been as dominant as Federer ever was. The Djokovic of 11, 15-17 was as dominant a player as you will ever see...

Obviously, you don't read other people's posts, even to you, but before you keep up this erroneous notion, 2017 was NOT a dominant year for Novak. He lost to Istomin in the 2nd round of the AO in 2017, and didn't win another Major for 1.5 years. I'm fine if you make the case for him, but do get your facts right.

 

[Moxie]

Of course not. It just means that the Trinity have set a completely new bar for GOATdom in the Open Era, at least, and probably tennis history. I mean, as I said in another thread, Roger and Novak each have more Slams, WTFs, and Masters than Wilander, Edberg, and Becker combined - and those three are bonafide greats.

GOAT and greatness are not the same thing. Or rather, GOAT is a subset of all-time greats. So I'm not saying that the Trinity makes every other all-time great a footnote, just that it re-arranges things a bit, in a sense creating a new tier of inner circle greats that only includes them and Laver (and maybe Pancho Gonzales).

That said, it might push guys like Sampras down a bit. I mean, just a decade ago the GOAT conversation was Pete and Roger. Now because Roger has lapped Pete, and Nadal and Novak have joined him, Pete has lost his "GOAT candidacy" and could be seen as the player between the "inner" and "middle" circle of greats (the "outer circle" being guys like Wilander, Edberg and Becker).

I know you love to categorize things, but I'm not always a fan of your choices. (Inner/middle/outer circle of greats would be one.) Pete Sampras, even though I was never a fan, was the greatest of his era. As I said in my post that you're responding to, I don't see why this exercise has to be reductive of players in past eras. I've said it before, that I agree with nehmeth's original idea that there can only (at best?) be a GOTE. And I don't think there will just be one in this one, even.

 

[Fjaka2.0]

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.

Thx Moxie.
Do you really think Roger or Rafa can turn things around in the next years?
I’m fine with waiting a bit longer for the announcement of the obvious.

 

[BratSrbin]

@BenRothenberg

Novak Djokovic career Slams, Masters, WTFs

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

He’s won a whole heckin’ lot, y’all.

 

[El Dude]

I know you love to categorize things, but I'm not always a fan of your choices. (Inner/middle/outer circle of greats would be one.) Pete Sampras, even though I was never a fan, was the greatest of his era. As I said in my post that you're responding to, I don't see why this exercise has to be reductive of players in past eras. I've said it before, that I agree with nehmeth's original idea that there can only (at best?) be a GOTE. And I don't think there will just be one in this one, even.

My point was simply that--as far as overall career records go--Sampras, while still superior, is now closer to Borg, Lendl, Connors, and McEnroe--than he is to Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. This has especially become clear over the last four years, as the Trinity pulled further away.

Even if you only look at it from a "Slam Absolutist" perspective, the Trinity has 20 each, Sampras 14, Borg 11, Connors/Lendl/Agassi 8. But guys like Connors, Lendl, and McEnroe had better non-Slam records than Pete, so push a little closer to him than the Slam count alone entails.

Some people often get leery of any kind of categorizations, but they're just perspectives, ways to look at things. I'm also leery of reducing everything to GOTE, which itself is nebulous and doesn't differentiate how dominant (and for how long) without, um, looking deeper at the numbers.

Meaning, I'm advocating for a "both/and" approach, or having a varied analytical toolbox. While I imagine there are extreme stat nerds who reduce everything to numbers (although probably far fewer in tennis fandom than baseball fandom), I find it is far more common to either reduce everything to Slams ("Slam Absolutism") or eschew stats almost entirely and focus on nebulous ideas like GOTE, which is a great idea but is better served with statistical analysis.

 

[shawnbm]

It will just keep going round and round forever. Norte was the dominant player of the nineties with Andre a distant second. Lendl was of the eighties, with McEnroe, Becker and Edberg following. The 2000s were dominated by Federer with Nadal a distant second a la Agassi to Sampras. The last decade was Novak slightly over Nadal with Federer a distant third. Nobody will canonize Novak as the greatest of all these unless he pulls away big time the next few years. He certainly is in the mix for sure. But how would he have done with a. Wood racquet against Gonzales on a grass court?

 

[Moxie]

Thx Moxie.
Do you really think Roger or Rafa can turn things around in the next years?
I’m fine with waiting a bit longer for the announcement of the obvious.

I think Roger's pretty done, though I know his fans hold out hope for one more Major. Why not? I do think Rafa can do enough to keep any answer from being as obvious as you seem to think it already is. Since you're new here, let me catch you up a bit. Part of the "GOAT" debate around here is whether or not there is one such thing. One of our members, @nehmeth (a Djokovic fan, btw,) has long said that, at best, there might be a "GOTE" (Greatest of Their Era.) As @shawnbm says above, I think this era will be debated forever on that score. Of what we call the Fedalovic era, Djokovic dominated the latter half. I don't see how you reduce Federer and Nadal to second tier in this era, given the realities across all of it.

 

[Moxie]

It will just keep going round and round forever. Norte was the dominant player of the nineties with Andre a distant second. Lendl was of the eighties, with McEnroe, Becker and Edberg following. The 2000s were dominated by Federer with Nadal a distant second a la Agassi to Sampras. The last decade was Novak slightly over Nadal with Federer a distant third. Nobody will canonize Novak as the greatest of all these unless he pulls away big time the next few years. He certainly is in the mix for sure. But how would he have done with a. Wood racquet against Gonzales on a grass court?

Hi, Shawn! I do agree this era will be debated forever, and I don't even know if Novak pulling away "big time" will make up for his taking so long to catch up in some of the important years in the era. I will quibble with your saying that either Nadal was a "distant second" in the first decade, or that Federer was a "distant third" in the second decade. Let's look at this:

2000-2010:

Federer: 16 Majors, 16 MS
Nadal: 9 Majors, 18 MS
Djokovic: 1 Major, 5 MS

2011-2021:

Federer: 4 Majors, 12 MS
Nadal: 11 Majors, 18 MS
Djokovic: 19 Majors, 35 MS

Obviously, Roger turned 30 in 2011, so the bulk of his haul came prior. But it's a bit much to call that kind of a resume in your 30s a "distant" anything. You can see how rather neatly Rafa straddles the two decades. And of course, he didn't even play on the tour for basically the first 4 years of the first one. Looking at the numbers, though, was he really a "distant 2nd?" Regarding Djokovic, he definitely put on the afterburners at nearly 25, and pretty much has not looked back, and has clearly dominated the decade. But the question will always be asked why he couldn't insert himself earlier, when Roger and Rafa were ruling the world. It's always going to look like he needed them to get out of the way a little bit.

 

[roberto]

People in tennis, as in life, mature at different times. It takes quite a fine scalpel to discount Djokovic's accomplishments because he got better with age. One can only play the competition that is competing to state the obvious. That Djokovic is having greater longevity in his career/matured later doesn't diminish the fact that he leads the field (or is currently tied in majors with R&R) in virtually every important measuring stick--not to least of which is 7 years YE #1 which speaks to his strength against the field all year long. That's like discounting Stan's 3 major wins because they occurred later in his career--silly. We'll wait to see when they've all hung up their rackets, but I think the handwriting is on the wall.....

 

[shawnbm]

Hey Moxie, I was thinking ten years from 2000 which ends at end of 2009. That changes it a little bit by distant I meant all things considered, not just majors won. I think since 2011 began (almost twelve years now), Novak gets the nod but Rafael is not as distant as he was to Federer in the 2000s. Nadal sort of straddles the two who won the most; he is the bridge that was there to take the best from both of them and give it back equally as well. That is why you rightly told the new poster it is the Fedalovic era—because it is. One was older and fought with the younger who peaked earlier than the third who came into his own later and dominated as well or better than the other two.

 

[Moxie]

Hey Moxie, I was thinking ten years from 2000 which ends at end of 2009. That changes it a little bit by distant I meant all things considered, not just majors won. I think since 2011 began (almost twelve years now), Novak gets the nod but Rafael is not as distant as he was to Federer in the 2000s. Nadal sort of straddles the two who won the most; he is the bridge that was there to take the best from both of them and give it back equally as well. That is why you rightly told the new poster it is the Fedalovic era—because it is. One was older and fought with the younger who peaked earlier than the third who came into his own later and dominated as well or better than the other two.

I thought of the "decade" thing as I wrote that, but in your above, you wrote "the last decade," so I went with that. And it better reflects the 3 because of Roger being older. Do you really still say that Rafa was that distant to Federer in the 2000s? Given when he started, and looking at the tallies? And the fact that they traded #1 and #2 for 6 full years? (And yes, I realize that Roger spent more of that time at #1 than Rafa.) I know you mean "all things considered," so I included MS. But I'm not here to bore everyone with the full re-debate. But if you're going to recognize that Rafa was a "bridge," you also have to recognize that he never got the breather on either end that Roger had up-front, and Novak has enjoyed on the back end of their era. And yet, he is #6 on the list of most weeks at number 1, despite playing in the time of the guys that own the 1/2 slots. And is tied with Roger and Connors for 5 times at YE#1. (Behind only Novak and Pete.) Plus, he has a single-surface dominance that Roger and Novak will probably only be able to envy at the end of their careers. It seems demeaning to think of Nadal as a bridge. Only that he got unfortunate in his slot. As you say, it's right to call this the Fedalovic era. I just honestly don't see how we'll ever disentangle them easily.

 

[roberto]

One doesn't have to "disentangle" Fedalovic to determine who has the best resume at the end of their respective careers.

 

[Moxie]

One doesn't have to "disentangle" Fedalovic to determine who has the best resume at the end of their respective careers.

You don't think so? Would Novak have been as good if he hadn't had Roger and Rafa as the models, or the targets to aim for? All 3 have recognized that having each other to compete against made them the players that they are. Make it all about late-to-the-game Djokovic, if you like, but he stands on the shoulders of Federer and Nadal. I don't believe that any of the 3 would have found this intensity or longevity without each other. Caring deep into their 30s is about rivalries, and something to left play for. Djokovic has proclaimed himself ambitious, and aiming at the GOAT title. The competition drives him, which he fully embraces, so you can't discount the influence. Where would he be without them? So my point is, you can't disentangle them. And not just because he's so dominant now, but because it IS a question of why he couldn't make inroads when they were. Running away at the end of the Fedalovic competition is not just about dominance. It's about getting a bit of a free pass on them.

 

[El Dude]

Taking the Aughties (2000-09) as a whole, I think it is fair to say that Rafa is a good ways behind Roger:

Roger: 15 Slams, 4 TF, 16 Masters, 61 titles, 263 weeks at #1, 5 YE #1 (445 GOAT Points)
Rafa: 6 Slams, 1 Olympics, 15 Masters, 36 titles, 46 weeks at #1, 1 YE #1 (238 GOAT Points)

So yes, Roger's numbers dwarf Rafa's: 2.5 X as many Slams, almost twice as many titles, and about 8x as many weeks at #1.

In fact, we can't even really say that Novak is a distant third as several players had overall better decades: Hewitt, Agassi, and Roddick all had overall better records during the Aughties.

Now if we just look at the second half of the decade, or 2005-09, it is a lot closer (all the same stats for Rafa):

Roger: 11 Slams, 2 TF, 12 Masters, 39 titles, 215 weeks at #1, 4 YE #1 (325 GOAT Points)
Rafa: 6 Slams, 1 Olympics, 15 Masters, 36 titles, 46 weeks at #1, 1 YE #1 (238 GOAT Points)

Roger still has the clear edge, but it isn't as extreme.

 

[El Dude]

If we look at the "Rafa decade" (2005-14), then we get the following:

Roger: 13 Slams, 4 TF, 16 Masters, 82 titles, 254 weeks at #1, 4 YE #1 (507 GOAT Points)
Rafa: 12 Slams, 1 Olympics, 27 Masters, 63 titles, 141 weeks at #1, 3 YE #1 (493 GOAT Points)
Novak: 7 Slams, 4 TF, 2 YE #1, 20 Masters, 48 titles, 126 weeks at #1, 2 YE #1 (391 GOAT Points)

Roger and Rafa are about equal, the main difference being that Roger has those four TFs and a lot more smaller titles, while Rafa has a lot more Masters. Novak is catching up rapidly, but still quite a ways behind.

 

[Moxie]

Taking the Aughties (2000-09) as a whole, I think it is fair to say that Rafa is a good ways behind Roger:

Roger: 15 Slams, 4 TF, 16 Masters, 61 titles, 263 weeks at #1, 5 YE #1 (445 GOAT Points)
Rafa: 6 Slams, 1 Olympics, 15 Masters, 36 titles, 46 weeks at #1, 1 YE #1 (238 GOAT Points)

So yes, Roger's numbers dwarf Rafa's: 2.5 X as many Slams, almost twice as many titles, and about 8x as many weeks at #1.

In fact, we can't even really say that Novak is a distant third as several players had overall better decades: Hewitt, Agassi, and Roddick all had overall better records during the Aughties.

Now if we just look at the second half of the decade, or 2005-09, it is a lot closer (all the same stats for Rafa):

Roger: 11 Slams, 2 TF, 12 Masters, 39 titles, 215 weeks at #1, 4 YE #1 (325 GOAT Points)
Rafa: 6 Slams, 1 Olympics, 15 Masters, 36 titles, 46 weeks at #1, 1 YE #1 (238 GOAT Points)

Roger still has the clear edge, but it isn't as extreme.

You do realize, however, that taking the "aughties" and comparing Roger and Rafa in them is ridiculously unfair. Roger turned pro in 1998, Rafa in 2003. That's a bit of a running start, now, isn't it? I appreciate your examining the 2nd half of the decade.

 

[Moxie]

If we look at the "Rafa decade" (2005-14), then we get the following:

Roger: 13 Slams, 4 TF, 16 Masters, 82 titles, 254 weeks at #1, 4 YE #1 (507 GOAT Points)
Rafa: 12 Slams, 1 Olympics, 27 Masters, 63 titles, 141 weeks at #1, 3 YE #1 (493 GOAT Points)
Novak: 7 Slams, 4 TF, 2 YE #1, 20 Masters, 48 titles, 126 weeks at #1, 2 YE #1 (391 GOAT Points)

Roger and Rafa are about equal, the main difference being that Roger has those four TFs and a lot more smaller titles, while Rafa has a lot more Masters. Novak is catching up rapidly, but still quite a ways behind.

I appreciate you looking at this in-between period. But I think even you have elsewhere conceded that it was Rafa that has the had tough draw, being in-between the two. He basically had 2010 to himself, and that was it. (Though Roger won the AO that year.) Roger had a few years mostly on his own to hoover up titles and weeks at #1 before Nadal really matured, and Novak has had the same on the back end, when his best two rivals had fallow years. For a guy who was sandwiched in between the two, and with so many injury issues, he's done well to match them at Majors. He still has the highest winning pct. at Majors. Anyway, it does get a bit aggravating when we keep hearing from Federer and Djokovic about their "years of dominance," when no one is willing to cop to the fact that there were some years of coasting in there, too. Never such a holiday for Nadal.

 

[Fjaka2.0]

I think Roger's pretty done, though I know his fans hold out hope for one more Major. Why not? I do think Rafa can do enough to keep any answer from being as obvious as you seem to think it already is. Since you're new here, let me catch you up a bit. Part of the "GOAT" debate around here is whether or not there is one such thing. One of our members, @nehmeth (a Djokovic fan, btw,) has long said that, at best, there might be a "GOTE" (Greatest of Their Era.) As @shawnbm says above, I think this era will be debated forever on that score. Of what we call the Fedalovic era, Djokovic dominated the latter half. I don't see how you reduce Federer and Nadal to second tier in this era, given the realities across all of it.

Just because of the stats. Novak is superior in nearly every part that counts. And most likely will be in every part within the next few years. The margin is thin , yes, but he surpassed them.