Time to crown Novak the GOAT?

[Moxie]

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.

It would be just about the stats, if they had played in different eras. But given that they basically played in the same one, there is no pass for the fact that it took him until they started to wobble for him to come good. Remember how long it took him to tie or surpass them. Quite a while. Nice to have a fair amount of free road, at the tail end, but I'm telling you that Nadal, at the very least still has something to say about this. And, hopefully, the youngsters. Either way, it will always matter how he started, not just how he finished.

 

[MikeOne]

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?

He has 6 wimbedons..

i would bet my life savings he would do better on grass courts in the gonzalez era than gonzalez would do in today’s game with modern equipement. How many tennis players were there back then vs today? Clearly the level has gone up… and competition.

what is undeniable is that novak has the egde in accomplishments vs federer or nadal, no denying that

 

[MikeOne]

It would be just about the stats, if they had played in different eras. But given that they basically played in the same one, there is no pass for the fact that it took him until they started to wobble for him to come good. Remember how long it took him to tie or surpass them. Quite a while. Nice to have a fair amount of free road, at the tail end, but I'm telling you that Nadal, at the very least still has something to say about this. And, hopefully, the youngsters. Either way, it will always matter how he started, not just how he finished.

Nadal was at his peak in 2011.. in 2010 he won 3 majors and in 2011, lost to djokovic in 6 finals? Nadal has admitted that he was at his best in 2011 but his problem was djokovic. There is no denying nadal was at his best in 2011… given how he dominated 2010 and made all those big finals (miami, IW, wimbledon, uso, rome, mc) only losing to djokovic. Take djokovic out of 2011, nadal would’ve had one of his best seasons ever…
Peak djoker >> peak nadal

as far as federer, baby novak was already starting to beat peak federer in 2007 so it’s possible 11, 15-16, 21 djokovic > 04-07 federer, why not? But we will never know but just as you diminish djokovic dominating 11-21 federer ‘past his best’, i can also diminish 04-07 federer’s accomplishments and tell you ‘he was lucky peak novak wasn’t around’

so you have no real argument against djokovic here, you just hate the guy as he has sort of stopped peak nadal from becoming goat.

 

[Moxie]

Nadal was at his peak in 2011.. in 2010 he won 3 majors and in 2011, lost to djokovic in 6 finals? Nadal has admitted that he was at his best in 2011 but his problem was djokovic. There is no denying nadal was at his best in 2011… given how he dominated 2010 and made all those big finals (miami, IW, wimbledon, uso, rome, mc) only losing to djokovic. Take djokovic out of 2011, nadal would’ve had one of his best seasons ever…
Peak djoker >> peak nadal

as far as federer, baby novak was already starting to beat peak federer in 2007 so it’s possible 11, 15-16, 21 djokovic > 04-07 federer, why not? But we will never know but just as you diminish djokovic dominating 11-21 federer ‘past his best’, i can also diminish 04-07 federer’s accomplishments and tell you ‘he was lucky peak novak wasn’t around’

so you have no real argument against djokovic here, you just hate the guy as he had sort of stopped peak nadal from becoming goat.

I have no problem saying that there was nothing wrong with Nadal in 2011 that Novak didn't flummox. That is fair, that was far from the end of the story. But also to pretend that Nadal didn't have a lot of tennis in him, compared to Djokovic, and to say that there weren't injury issues that set him back, particularly in their intervening rivalry, is to ignore the truth.

Sure Novak had some great moments prior to 2011. He won a Major. But it took him 3 years to win another one. Why? Because he was overmatched. At least I'm not trying to rewrite history, saying that Fed was lucky not to have peak Djokovic around.

I think I have plenty of good argument against Djokovic, which I have made above. And I never said Nadal would be the "GOAT." I don't believe there is or ever will be just one, certainly not out of this era.

 

[Fjaka2.0]

It would be just about the stats, if they had played in different eras. But given that they basically played in the same one, there is no pass for the fact that it took him until they started to wobble for him to come good. Remember how long it took him to tie or surpass them. Quite a while. Nice to have a fair amount of free road, at the tail end, but I'm telling you that Nadal, at the very least still has something to say about this. And, hopefully, the youngsters. Either way, it will always matter how he started, not just how he finished.

This sounds like an excuse, I read it from many Nadal fans, it’s something they use to hold Rafa above the water in the GOAT debate.
I don’t think it’s necessary to do so, because Rafa is a hell of a player and has a fantastic career. He is just a bit behind Novak.
Your argument seems unlogic to me, one started better the other later, as you say they belong to the same era, so in the end the stats tell us who is the better player.

 

[Kieran]

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.

This is where analysis more than slightly resembles propaganda. The Rafa Decade! And start it when he’s kid facing a tyrant. Course you tweak it a little and look at a Rafa decade that begins when he hit his peak in 2008, the year Novak won his first, then we see Rafa win 15 slams over the next ten seasons, Novak win 14, Roger win 9.

But Novak fans might say this is unfair on him, why not start later, in 2011 when he hit his peak? From his perspective, this makes sense.

Fact is, Rafa had to face the other two great rivals when they were in their peak, across a longer period, whereas Roger and Novak largely filled their boots in a shorter period, by bashing a compliant field, and having only a young or old Rafa as their rival. We’re often seeing in these debates attempts to downgrade Rafa, turn him into the noble - but very compromised and diminished - effort at the greatness that the other two achieved.

It’s a bit silly really. He’s played fewer slams than both of them, and yet won the same amount…

 

[Kieran]

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.

Bingo. I often moaned loudly that Rafa never got a few seasons alone with the Roddicks, Gonzos, Baggy’s and Fozzy Bears, to boost his resume. Instead he got another great - younger and fresher - rival come up just as the field looked clear.

Likewise, Novak had a clear run at the field with nobody to stop him, and he sucked up titles easily, like the great champ that he is.

This isn’t to say that Rafa is greater than them, but in the context of their careers, the trajectories and obstacles faced are completely different…

 

[Kieran]

Nadal was at his peak in 2011.. in 2010 he won 3 majors and in 2011, lost to djokovic in 6 finals? Nadal has admitted that he was at his best in 2011 but his problem was djokovic. There is no denying nadal was at his best in 2011… given how he dominated 2010 and made all those big finals (miami, IW, wimbledon, uso, rome, mc) only losing to djokovic. Take djokovic out of 2011, nadal would’ve had one of his best seasons ever…
Peak djoker >> peak nadal

as far as federer, baby novak was already starting to beat peak federer in 2007 so it’s possible 11, 15-16, 21 djokovic > 04-07 federer, why not? But we will never know but just as you diminish djokovic dominating 11-21 federer ‘past his best’, i can also diminish 04-07 federer’s accomplishments and tell you ‘he was lucky peak novak wasn’t around’

so you have no real argument against djokovic here, you just hate the guy as he has sort of stopped peak nadal from becoming goat.

Novak was in his peak in 2012 and 2013 and Rafa beat him 6 times and won more slams across this period. And he did it without the element of surprise. Funny game, isn’t it?

 

[Kieran]

He has 6 wimbedons..

i would bet my life savings he would do better on grass courts in the gonzalez era than gonzalez would do in today’s game with modern equipement. How many tennis players were there back then vs today? Clearly the level has gone up… and competition.

what is undeniable is that novak has the egde in accomplishments vs federer or nadal, no denying that

Novak would never win Wimbledon in the 80’s or 90’s. His game just wouldn’t fit. Not would Rafa. And all the Big 3 would be lost at sea during the era of Pancho Gonzales, without the tech advantages they all have now. I suspect this is true, and the reverse would also be true, that poor Pancho and the greats of yore would be confused by the modern game, though of course if they all grew up in these alien conditions to them, who knows? It’s part of what makes comparisons impossible…

 

[MikeOne]

Novak would never win Wimbledon in the 80’s or 90’s. His game just wouldn’t fit. Not would Rafa. And all the Big 3 would be lost at sea during the era of Pancho Gonzales, without the tech advantages they all have now. I suspect this is true, and the reverse would also be true, that poor Pancho and the greats of yore would be confused by the modern game, though of course if they all grew up in these alien conditions to them, who knows? It’s part of what makes comparisons impossible…

BS.. you just don’t know.

WHAT was borg doing winning all those wimbledons back then? With a topspin game, good movement and predominatly a baseline game? Novak’s grass court game >>>> borg. Don’t gimme BS about borg being some special grass court player…

what about connors? What was he doing winning the wimbledons?????

djokovic is as good a mover as borg was, has a more attacking style with defense as good as borg had, has probably a better serve and has improved his volleys and slice. It’s possible he may have beaten all those guys, you simply have no good argument to state any of these guys would’ve beaten him.

i agree comparisons are hard but you seem to be terribly biased in favour of these past greats. You think djokovic would be be toast vs these oldies yet borg and connors fared well and i would argue djokovic’s game was just better. I can see djokovic dominating rallies against pancho, laver, mcenroe and passing at the net a lot, holding his serve and using his athleticism and movement as an advantage. You can point to very little to convince me these guys would be at an advantage.

but, we agree, it’s impossible to make these comparisons but i will just ask you to look up how many professional tennis players there during gonzalez era vs today? Is it even 1/10th???? When you go that far back, it’s apparent those guys dominated a depleted field.. vs today and where there is a lot more competition and a deeper field, likely the ones at the top are just better. This is just logical

 

[Moxie]

BS.. you just don’t know.

Wait, this from the guy who would bet his life savings that Novak would do better in the Gonzalez era than the reverse? So YOU know the truth in the alternate universe, but Kieran's is invalid? Because it doesn't agree with yours? Ok....

 

[Kieran]

BS.. you just don’t know.

WHAT was borg doing winning all those wimbledons back then? With a topspin game, good movement and predominatly a baseline game? Novak’s grass court game >>>> borg. Don’t gimme BS about borg being some special grass court player…

what about connors? What was he doing winning the wimbledons?????

djokovic is as good a mover as borg was, has a more attacking style with defense as good as borg had, has probably a better serve and has improved his volleys and slice. It’s possible he may have beaten all those guys, you simply have no good argument to state any of these guys would’ve beaten him.


but, we agree, it’s impossible to make these comparisons but i will just ask you to look up how many professional tennis players there during gonzalez era vs today? Is it even 1/10th???? When you go that far back, it’s apparent those guys dominated a depleted field.. vs today and where there is a lot more competition and a deeper field, likely the ones at the top are just better. This is just logical

Borg won his final Wimbledon in 1980 - so he barely makes it into the “80’s and 90’s”, doesn’t he? And he defeated McEnroe that year, who was a bona fide grass court, but he was young. The following year Mac swept Borg aside. Who did Borg beat in the preceding finals? Any grass court legends? No. Nastase, Connors (from the baseline) twice, and Roscoe Tanner.

But in the 80s and 90s, do you see Borg taking a set off the great grasscourters then? Peak Mac? Boris? And let’s not mention Pete, because he’d lap up Borg on grass. And by the way, I rate Bjorn as high as anyone.

i agree comparisons are hard but you seem to be terribly biased in favour of these past greats. You think djokovic would be be toast vs these oldies yet borg and connors fared well and i would argue djokovic’s game was just better.

I’m not biased in favour of them, but I have seen them, I’m watching tennis since 1976 and I see that substantially the very greatest players are of a cloth. But the opposite to what I do could be called recency bias. Sometimes we see people who only follow tennis since old Wodger seduced them with his village People outfit, and they feel like they’re expert enough to decide he’s the greatest of all time.

As for your last paragraph, I agree that there are more players now, the levels have risen, it’s more global, but that only suggests one thing to me: that great players are the same in substance, but they differ in the opportunities they get. So people nowadays think Pete was a lesser man because the Big 3 have left him behind, but we must remember that the existence and achievements of the Big 3 are contingent upon Pete’s achievements in the first place…

 

[MikeOne]

Novak was in his peak in 2012 and 2013 and Rafa beat him 6 times and won more slams across this period. And he did it without the element of surprise. Funny game, isn’t it?

So what… novak has been the better player over time, both at their best. Stats show it. The fact that they have had periods where each had upper hand means little, two great players who have had their fair share of successes against each other. Fact is, djokovic has just been slightly better than rafa, both at their best. Hard to argue against

 

[Kieran]

So what… novak has been the better player over time, both at their best. Stats show it. The fact that they have had periods where each had upper hand means little, two great players who have had their fair share of successes against each other. Fact is, djokovic has just been slightly better than rafa, both at their best. Hard to argue against

Just to clarify something for me, the second last sentence - what are you referring to here? Head to head?

 

[MikeOne]

Borg won his final Wimbledon in 1980 - so he barely makes it into the “80’s and 90’s”, doesn’t he? And he defeated McEnroe that year, who was a bona fide grass court, but he was young. The following year Mac swept Borg aside. Who did Borg beat in the preceding finals? Any grass court legends? No. Nastase, Connors (from the baseline) twice, and Roscoe Tanner.

But in the 80s and 90s, do you see Borg taking a set off the great grasscourters then? Peak Mac? Boris? And let’s not mention Pete, because he’d lap up Borg on grass. And by the way, I rate Bjorn as high as anyone.


I’m not biased in favour of them, but I have seen them, I’m watching tennis since 1976 and I see that substantially the very greatest players are of a cloth. But the opposite to what I do could be called recency bias. Sometimes we see people who only follow tennis since old Wodger seduced them with his village People outfit, and they feel like they’re expert enough to decide he’s the greatest of all time.

As for your last paragraph, I agree that there are more players now, the levels have risen, it’s more global, but that only suggests one thing to me: that great players are the same in substance, but they differ in the opportunities they get. So people nowadays think Pete was a lesser man because the Big 3 have left him behind, but we must remember that the existence and achievements of the Big 3 are contingent upon Pete’s achievements in the first place…

Yes, i do see Borg giving peak Mac trouble, heck, Connors even beat peak Mac at Wimbledon once, although yeah, Mac crushed him on another occasion. Borg also had tough matches with Mac on grass.

My point is, Connors and Borg were winning on those fast grass courts so those who think Novak would just be a sitting duck for pancho, Pete etc... I question that

I was a Sampras fan, on his game, i give him edge vs Novak on grass BUT Sampras would have his hands full with Novak. Djokovic was like a combination of Agassi, Hewitt but more athletic, more reach and more vesatile. Pete crushed Agassi in 99 W finals but Agassi took him to 5 sets on Wimbledon once. Pete had trouble with Hewitt at times.

I'm not sure Sampras would own Djokovic on grass. Djokovic would defend better than anyone, attack Sampras off the baseline, serve effectively and go after Pete's bh, Novak handled Fed's slice well on grass so he would handle Pete's even better. Sampras would see a lot of passing shots go by as-well. Pete's style was to basically play 'unplayable' tennis, not allow players like Agassi even touch the ball often. Against Agassi, as he did in 99 final, Pete had the advantage in athleticism, serve, reach etc.. Agassi was not a great defender and didn't have the length to get to balls, lhe was easy to ace. I think it would far more difficult for Sampras to thrash Novak in this manner. Pete wasn't a better athlete than Novak, would see more serves come back, would have to hit better placed volleys, better placed grountrokes and would also have to defend Novak's baseline attack. Novak is much more versatile on grass than people think, he won '21 Wimbledion not even playing well and bested Rog in 3 finals, Rog playing at a very high level. If anything Sampras vs Novak would've been a very interesting match-up.

You need to give Novak credit. He has actually become a very good grass court player and no, grass court today is not the same as hards or clay, there is a reason you still see some players do so well on grass today but suck on other surfaces, Nadal himself lost to a few of them over the years, guys who did nothing elsewhere and would just come in and take Nadal out on grass... (Kyrgios, Rosol, brown etc..) Grass is still grass... look at Tsitispas, gets to FO final, sucks on grass.

as far as recency bias, yes, that is 100% true but look at NBA. There was a poll lately where most of today's people still put Jordan over Lebron. People still remember Sampras, he was my favorite but if i were told, where would you put your money Mike... Sampras, Agassi, Bckecr, Laver, Pancho or Novak, Nadal, Federer... i know where i'm putting it. 20-20-20 is remarkable..... i think they were just better than the past greats. We will never know how they would've fared against each other though....

 

[MikeOne]

Just to clarify something for me, the second last sentence - what are you referring to here? Head to head?

why does novak have such a huge advantge at weeks at #1?

better on hards, better grass, better on indoors.. and on clay, has given nadal the most trouble of anyone… beating him the most times of anyone else

h2h is close..

it’s not a slam dunk by any means, these two are close but djokovic has been the more dominant and statistically, better. I think there is more evidence to support peak novak > peak nadal

i think the best inidicator is 2011. Nadal was at his best in 2011, he had won 3 slams in 2010 and had novak not bested him in those 6 major finals, nadal would’ve had an insane 2011 season. I think both were at their best in 2011… i think both lowered their level in 2012.. did nadal make iw, miami, w, uso finals in 12? In 11 he did and also rome, mc, won fo

 

[Kieran]

why does novak have such a huge advantge at weeks at #1?

better on hards, better grass, better on indoors.. and on clay, has given nadal the most trouble of anyone… beating him the most times of anyone else

h2h is close..

it’s not a slam dunk by any means, these two are close but djokovic has been the more dominant and statistically, better. I think there is more evidence to support peak novak > peak nadal

i think the best inidicator is 2011. Nadal was at his best in 2011, he had won 3 slams in 2010 and had novak not bested him in those 6 major finals, nadal would’ve had an insane 2011 season. I think both were at their best in 2011… i think both lowered their level in 2012.. did nadal make iw, miami, w, uso finals in 12? In 11 he did and also rome, mc, won fo

Well, you’re not gonna like my reply but Rafa has missed half a season so many times it has to affect his ranking, and his record, right? This isn’t myth making, it’s statistical as much as Rafa’s successes are statistics.

But the reason why I asked that question is because of the way you phrased that sentence. “Novak has been slightly better than Rafa, both at their best.” This is difficult to define. If we’re saying Rafa was at his best in 2011 - and I certainly think his level dropped, mainly because he seemed shocked by Novaks sudden spike - after we also saying Novak was at his best in 2013? What about the beginning of 2014, where Rafa won a slam and broke his back in the final of another one, then went AWOL for the rest of the season? Novak won a slam after this, and finished the season #1. Are we both to agree that the two players were “at their best” that year, but Novak was better?

It gets picky deciding when a player was “at their best.” Was Novak at his best in Madrid 2009? Was he at his best at the US Open 2010? If not, how did he play Rafa so hard in the first match, and best Roger over five in the second match? It gets picky, and difficult to judge when two players were at their best, especially when we might end up saying that they were at their best on so many occasions - but the result was different each time, as if it really could be…

 

[Kieran]

Yes, i do see Borg giving peak Mac trouble, heck, Connors even beat peak Mac at Wimbledon once, although yeah, Mac crushed him on another occasion. Borg also had tough matches with Mac on grass.

My point is, Connors and Borg were winning on those fast grass courts so those who think Novak would just be a sitting duck for pancho, Pete etc... I question that

I was a Sampras fan, on his game, i give him edge vs Novak on grass BUT Sampras would have his hands full with Novak. Djokovic was like a combination of Agassi, Hewitt but more athletic, more reach and more vesatile. Pete crushed Agassi in 99 W finals but Agassi took him to 5 sets on Wimbledon once. Pete had trouble with Hewitt at times.

I'm not sure Sampras would own Djokovic on grass. Djokovic would defend better than anyone, attack Sampras off the baseline, serve effectively and go after Pete's bh, Novak handled Fed's slice well on grass so he would handle Pete's even better. Sampras would see a lot of passing shots go by as-well. Pete's style was to basically play 'unplayable' tennis, not allow players like Agassi even touch the ball often. Against Agassi, as he did in 99 final, Pete had the advantage in athleticism, serve, reach etc.. Agassi was not a great defender and didn't have the length to get to balls, lhe was easy to ace. I think it would far more difficult for Sampras to thrash Novak in this manner. Pete wasn't a better athlete than Novak, would see more serves come back, would have to hit better placed volleys, better placed grountrokes and would also have to defend Novak's baseline attack. Novak is much more versatile on grass than people think, he won '21 Wimbledion not even playing well and bested Rog in 3 finals, Rog playing at a very high level. If anything Sampras vs Novak would've been a very interesting match-up.

You need to give Novak credit. He has actually become a very good grass court player and no, grass court today is not the same as hards or clay, there is a reason you still see some players do so well on grass today but suck on other surfaces, Nadal himself lost to a few of them over the years, guys who did nothing elsewhere and would just come in and take Nadal out on grass... (Kyrgios, Rosol, brown etc..) Grass is still grass... look at Tsitispas, gets to FO final, sucks on grass.

as far as recency bias, yes, that is 100% true but look at NBA. There was a poll lately where most of today's people still put Jordan over Lebron. People still remember Sampras, he was my favorite but if i were told, where would you put your money Mike... Sampras, Agassi, Bckecr, Laver, Pancho or Novak, Nadal, Federer... i know where i'm putting it. 20-20-20 is remarkable..... i think they were just better than the past greats. We will never know how they would've fared against each other though....

I like this reply but we’re in the hypothetical argument here, which we could both rally back and forth for centuries. And still never agree…

 

[El Dude]

This is where analysis more than slightly resembles propaganda. The Rafa Decade! And start it when he’s kid facing a tyrant. Course you tweak it a little and look at a Rafa decade that begins when he hit his peak in 2008, the year Novak won his first, then we see Rafa win 15 slams over the next ten seasons, Novak win 14, Roger win 9.

But Novak fans might say this is unfair on him, why not start later, in 2011 when he hit his peak? From his perspective, this makes sense.

Fact is, Rafa had to face the other two great rivals when they were in their peak, across a longer period, whereas Roger and Novak largely filled their boots in a shorter period, by bashing a compliant field, and having only a young or old Rafa as their rival. We’re often seeing in these debates attempts to downgrade Rafa, turn him into the noble - but very compromised and diminished - effort at the greatness that the other two achieved.

It’s a bit silly really. He’s played fewer slams than both of them, and yet won the same amount…

Propaganda, Kieran? You sound a bit paranoid, especially when I did 2005-14 because it is his best ten-year span! Better than 2008-17, at least if you look beyond Slams. I love the superfan mentality: applaud someone when they offer angles that support their guy, but accuse them of "propaganda" when they present angles that don't. Propaganda implies that I'm trying to sneakily downgrade Rafa, which is just silly. I'm just presenting numbers, and the funny thing is that I added the "Rafa Decade" because, well, it is his best decade and wanted to see how it looked.

And you're getting your numbers wrong - Rafa won 13 Slams from 2008-17, not 15.

Rafa 2005-14: 12 Slams, 1 Olympics, 27 Masters, 63 titles, 141 weeks at #1, 3 YE #1 (493 GOAT Points)
Rafa 2008-17: 13 Slams, 1 Olympics, 22 Masters, 52 titles, 160 weeks at #1, 4 YE #1 (433 GOAT Points)

So tell me, again, how that is propaganda? Sure, he's got 1 more Slam and a few more weeks at #1, but his overall performance wasn't quite as good as expressed by GOAT points. +60 GOAT points is the equivalent to one his peak seasons.

And if we want to compare to Novak during that same time frame:

Novak 2008-17: 12 Slams, 5 TFs, 28 Masters, 61 titles, 222 weeks at #1, 4 YE #1 (525 GOAT points)

So here Novak is ahead of Rafa. Sorry, the one extra Slam doesn't make up for 5 TFs and 6 Masters, not to mention more weeks at #1 and overall better performance.

I'm not saying that this definitively makes Rafa inferior to Roger and Novak. I was riffing off the idea of decades, which someone else brought up, and then going deeper with the analysis. It does kind of show, however, that no matter how you slice the cake, Rafa was never the clearly dominant player over the span of any ten-year period. At best he was roughly equal to Roger during 2005-14 and roughly equal to Novak during 2008-17.

And yes, I recognize that his prime overlapped with both Roger's and Novak's. But he still managed to in the same number of Slams and put together an incredible record, because greatness finds a way. But his way of greatness was more a kind of tidal surge that ebbed and flowed, where Roger and Novak had stronger sustained periods, which is why shawn said (I think) that Roger ruled the 00s and Novak the 10s. I actually wanted to challenge that, thinking Rafa would rule the 2005-14 period, but he didn't. He co-ruled.

 

[Kieran]

Propaganda, Kieran? You sound a bit paranoid, especially when I did 2005-14 because it is his best ten-year span! Better than 2008-17, at least if you look beyond Slams. I love the superfan mentality: applaud someone when they offer angles that support their guy, but accuse them of "propaganda" when they present angles that don't. Propaganda implies that I'm trying to sneakily downgrade Rafa, which is just silly. I'm just presenting numbers, and the funny thing is that I added the "Rafa Decade" because, well, it is his best decade and wanted to see how it looked.

And you're getting your numbers wrong - Rafa won 13 Slams from 2008-17, not 15.

Rafa 2005-14: 12 Slams, 1 Olympics, 27 Masters, 63 titles, 141 weeks at #1, 3 YE #1 (493 GOAT Points)
Rafa 2008-17: 13 Slams, 1 Olympics, 22 Masters, 52 titles, 160 weeks at #1, 4 YE #1 (433 GOAT Points)

So tell me, again, how that is propaganda? Sure, he's got 1 more Slam and a few more weeks at #1, but his overall performance wasn't quite as good as expressed by GOAT points. +60 GOAT points is the equivalent to one his peak seasons.

And if we want to compare to Novak during that same time frame:

Novak 2008-17: 12 Slams, 5 TFs, 28 Masters, 61 titles, 222 weeks at #1, 4 YE #1 (525 GOAT points)

So here Novak is ahead of Rafa. Sorry, the one extra Slam doesn't make up for 5 TFs and 6 Masters, not to mention more weeks at #1 and overall better performance.

I'm not saying that this definitively makes Rafa inferior to Roger and Novak. I was riffing off the idea of decades, which someone else brought up, and then going deeper with the analysis. It does kind of show, however, that no matter how you slice the cake, Rafa was never the clearly dominant player over the span of any ten-year period. At best he was roughly equal to Roger during 2005-14 and roughly equal to Novak during 2008-17.

And yes, I recognize that his prime overlapped with both Roger's and Novak's. But he still managed to in the same number of Slams and put together an incredible record, because greatness finds a way. But his way of greatness was more a kind of tidal surge that ebbed and flowed, where Roger and Novak had stronger sustained periods, which is why shawn said (I think) that Roger ruled the 00s and Novak the 10s. I actually wanted to challenge that, thinking Rafa would rule the 2005-14 period, but he didn't. He co-ruled.

I'm not paranoid, and obviously I'm not thinking like a fanboy when I chose a decade of Rafa but said, maybe a Nole fan would want a different decade. You're into things like "GOAT points", but that's esoteria to me. It's voodoo science that doesn't hold, or, "it holds" if somehow MS titles are suddenly a criteria for choosing the GOAT - though they can't be.

What I was referring to was what I actually said - you pick a decade for Rafa when he's chasing peak Roger, and so he couldn't help but be behind him in the reckoning, and you called it "The Rafa Decade", but the period I chose, has Rafa in the lead. If I'm a fanboy for this, then so are you. You see how it looks? You're attached to ideas like GOAT points, and I'm constantly saying that there is no GOAT, and no criteria for picking one. Certainly not including MS events.

We should then start looking at 250's, I heard Roger has a ton of them...