Time to crown Novak the GOAT?

[MikeOne]

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…

It's impossible to assess exactly when two players are at their best but 2011 is probably the best evidence to look at. Clearly, Novak was at his best on 2011, one of his best years. Nadal too.... Again, take Novak out, Nadal would've most likely won like 5-7 masters and 3 slams in 11, probably his best year ever? As far as Nadal being 'shocked', it's rationalizing..... it's unreal when i hear some claim Nadal was mentally weak, just in 2011, we know mental fortitude was just a main strength of his.

2013 Nadal had a great year, Novak didn't seem to be at his best but close to it. I guess we can also throw in 2013 but Novak didn't seem as strong in 13 than in 11.

I would say 2011 and 2013 are years to look at but i think evidence both were at their best in 11 is stronger than in 13... Both were battling in finals for all the big titles, reminds me of Sampras and Agassi in 95...(or 94 was it).

but i agree, it's hard to assess this but when you look at their prowess across surfaces, dominance, H2H, how they fared in years both seems to be playing injury free and at the top, i think most will agree, peak Novak was slightly better. From a technical standpoint, Djokovic is more well rounded. His results show it too.... He is only man to beat Federer in 3 wimbledon finals and beat Nadal at RG, twice. He is only man to have won all 4 slams in a row... He has been more dominant vs opposition than Nadal..

in totality, i say Novak.

I think if nadal or Federer would have Novak's stats, there would be stronger wave in support of GOAT status, novak is just more disliked and more under appreciated. I think due to 3 reasons 1. He came into scene when Fedal had already created a magical rivalry in tennis, Novak was seen as the disrupter 2. His personality, more fiery and at times in your face, appear more arrogant 3. His game is the least flashy of the 3. Federer had the flashy, all court game, Rafa the ferocious fh and unique style. Novak's style is rather ordinary, efficient... nothing flashy about it

 

[Kieran]

It's impossible to assess exactly when two players are at their best but 2011 is probably the best evidence to look at. Clearly, Novak was at his best on 2011, one of his best years. Nadal too.... Again, take Novak out, Nadal would've most likely won like 5-7 masters and 3 slams in 11, probably his best year ever? As far as Nadal being 'shocked', it's rationalizing..... it's unreal when i hear some claim Nadal was mentally weak, just in 2011, we know mental fortitude was just a main strength of his.

2013 Nadal had a great year, Novak didn't seem to be at his best but close to it. I guess we can also throw in 2013 but Novak didn't seem as strong in 13 than in 11.

I would say 2011 and 2013 are years to look at but i think evidence both were at their best in 11 is stronger than in 13... Both were battling in finals for all the big titles, reminds me of Sampras and Agassi in 95...(or 94 was it).

but i agree, it's hard to assess this but when you look at their prowess across surfaces, dominance, H2H, how they fared in years both seems to be playing injury free and at the top, i think most will agree, peak Novak was slightly better. From a technical standpoint, Djokovic is more well rounded. His results show it too.... He is only man to beat Federer in 3 wimbledon finals and beat Nadal at RG, twice. He is only man to have won all 4 slams in a row... He has been more dominant vs opposition than Nadal..

in totality, i say Novak.

I think if nadal or Federer would have Novak's stats, there would be stronger wave in support of GOAT status, novak is just more disliked and more under appreciated. I think due to 3 reasons 1. He came into scene when Fedal had already created a magical rivalry in tennis, Novak was seen as the disrupter 2. His personality, more fiery and at times in your face, appear more arrogant 3. His game is the least flashy of the 3. Federer had the flashy, all court game, Rafa the ferocious fh and unique style. Novak's style is rather ordinary, efficient... nothing flashy about it

Rafa had a crisis of confidence in 2011, so how could he be at his best? That’s a contradiction in terms, given how important confidence is to a players game. He’d figured Novak out and was the stronger in most of the big matches from 2012-2014, though he withdrew from the field of battle early in two of those three seasons, and began late in the middle one. He had a historically lousy 2015-2016, and Novak made hay, and why not? Who was to stop him?

in the totality of their careers, however, to Novak the challenge was new in 2011 - in that sense, he had nothing to lose. Had Rafa beaten him anywhere, it would be expected. Novaks reputation then was still to be the man who caught SARS when the kitchen area became too heated. But Novak winning all those matches was both majestic but also unexpected, and of course each match only intensified the pressure on Rafa, so from this unhappy scenario, created by Novak himself, a player might shock anybody.

In 2011, for Rafa, he’d been challenging at the top already for six years. In tennis years, he’s much older than Novak, and was far more battle scarred at that stage than the Serb, though of course, Rafa was far from finished, and hopefully we’ll get an interesting coda from him if he’s able to compete near his best next season…

 

[Moxie]

Rafa had a crisis of confidence in 2011, so how could he be at his best? That’s a contradiction in terms, given how important confidence is to a players game. He’d figured Novak out and was the stronger in most of the big matches from 2012-2014, though he withdrew from the field of battle early in two of those three seasons, and began late in the middle one. He had a historically lousy 2015-2016, and Novak made hay, and why not? Who was to stop him?

in the totality of their careers, however, to Novak the challenge was new in 2011 - in that sense, he had nothing to lose. Had Rafa beaten him anywhere, it would be expected. Novaks reputation then was still to be the man who caught SARS when the kitchen area became too heated. But Novak winning all those matches was both majestic but also unexpected, and of course each match only intensified the pressure on Rafa, so from this unhappy scenario, created by Novak himself, a player might shock anybody.

In 2011, for Rafa, he’d been challenging at the top already for six years. In tennis years, he’s much older than Novak, and was far more battle scarred at that stage than the Serb, though of course, Rafa was far from finished, and hopefully we’ll get an interesting coda from him if he’s able to compete near his best next season…

I think you make a good point that Novak's surprising rise in level did shock Rafa, and he didn't have time to adjust to Novak 2.0, in 2011. While Novak had not been previously inconsiderable, he had been mostly "handleable." Rafa's default game in extremis was to go to the BH, because that was what it took to beat Roger. When Novak took it up unexpectedly a few notches, and was "out-Rafa-ing" Rafa, as was said at the time, Nadal was hitting into the BH, which is Novak's stronger wing. You can't make these adjustments immediately, as the decisions on-court are split-second. You have to train and plan for them to make them second-nature. I think the accumulation of surprise and psychological damage cost Rafa that Wimbledon and the USO that year. When he lost the AO final to Novak in that epic in 2012, his team was downtrodden, but Rafa said he felt like he'd begun to sort out the way to play Novak. Which he proved by beating Novak the next 3 times they played, I think.

It's not so much whether Rafa was at his best in 2011, but that he needed to make an adjustment to a wholly new and different foe. Which he did. The adjustment couldn't be made mid-season. It took time.

 

[Moxie]

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…

"At their best," imo, can also waiver within matches. An interesting comparison is the 2012 AO final and the 2013 FO SF. In the 2012 AO final, with Djokovic on his best surface, he was the better player on the day, but Rafa had the advantage in the 5th, and then missed an errant forehand he would normally make. The miss was costly, and he lost the match. In the 2013 SF at RG, Rafa was on his best surface, and the better player on the day, but he flinched at let it go to 5. Djokovic had the lead in the 5th, but Nadal prevailed, because he was the "better player." But there is some "give and take" between who is the better player, even within a match. Same happened between Nadal and Federer in the 2008 Wimbledon final, and surely in the 2009 AO final. So trying to characterize it by years seems a fools errand, to me.

It's impossible to assess exactly when two players are at their best but 2011 is probably the best evidence to look at. Clearly, Novak was at his best on 2011, one of his best years. Nadal too.... Again, take Novak out, Nadal would've most likely won like 5-7 masters and 3 slams in 11, probably his best year ever? As far as Nadal being 'shocked', it's rationalizing..... it's unreal when i hear some claim Nadal was mentally weak, just in 2011, we know mental fortitude was just a main strength of his.

2013 Nadal had a great year, Novak didn't seem to be at his best but close to it. I guess we can also throw in 2013 but Novak didn't seem as strong in 13 than in 11.

I would say 2011 and 2013 are years to look at but i think evidence both were at their best in 11 is stronger than in 13... Both were battling in finals for all the big titles, reminds me of Sampras and Agassi in 95...(or 94 was it).

but i agree, it's hard to assess this but when you look at their prowess across surfaces, dominance, H2H, how they fared in years both seems to be playing injury free and at the top, i think most will agree, peak Novak was slightly better. From a technical standpoint, Djokovic is more well rounded. His results show it too.... He is only man to beat Federer in 3 wimbledon finals and beat Nadal at RG, twice. He is only man to have won all 4 slams in a row... He has been more dominant vs opposition than Nadal..

in totality, i say Novak.

I think if nadal or Federer would have Novak's stats, there would be stronger wave in support of GOAT status, novak is just more disliked and more under appreciated. I think due to 3 reasons 1. He came into scene when Fedal had already created a magical rivalry in tennis, Novak was seen as the disrupter 2. His personality, more fiery and at times in your face, appear more arrogant 3. His game is the least flashy of the 3. Federer had the flashy, all court game, Rafa the ferocious fh and unique style. Novak's style is rather ordinary, efficient... nothing flashy about it

As I said above, to call "best" by years is ridiculous, when they contested big prizes against each other. "Best" by matches would make more sense, against each other. It's not "rationalizing" to say that Nadal got blindsided by Novak in 2011. The whole tennis world did. And you can read my above as to a broader opinion about that. But I have to say that you don't get to throw out Novak's pre-2011 career. Or, when you pit him against Borg, you fix his serve and his grass chops to his later career, when he also had some bad serving years, and quite a while when he was nowhere on grass. And you're pitting him against a player that basically abdicated at 26.

IMO, you compare "peak Novak" to late Nadal. You ignore early-Novak almost completely, as you do much of Nadal's career, even though you pretend not to. You, and basically all of Novak's fans tend to focus on 2011, and then 2015 into 16, ignoring the 2 fallow years, and then now. For sure, Novak is the cock of the walk now, but you can't fix his whole career on some years, and ignore others.

 

[El Dude]

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...

It seems paranoid to assume that I picked a "Rafa Decade" because I wanted to paint him as inferior to Roger, as if a person (in this case, myself) can't approach the topic without some ulterior motive - that is, to support their guy. As someone interested in approaching these topics as objectively as possible, I find this endlessly frustrating.

It may simply be that I'm not strong enough in my Roger fandom, a "weak fan" as some might say (one Fed fanatic here even accused me of being a Roger hater!), because I often make points--even entire posts, like this thread--that argue against Roger as being the Best Eva. I don't care all that much whether or not he's the greatest; he's great enough, no matter what angle you take, and no matter how many Slams Novak or Rafa wins. I'm far more interested in assessing them as objectively as possible to come to a reasoned determination. Meaning, I want to have an informed opinion beyond just personal bias and wish fulfillment.

So I get applauded by you and Moxie when I say something that props Rafa up, and then get accused of malfeasance or bias when I say something that shows some of his resume's weaknesses. Similarly with Roger and Novak fans.It is a bit like Democrats and Republicans: if you disagree with either group (or cult), you're automatically assumed to be on the "other side." For those of a more independent political mind, such as myself, this is rather irritating.

Anyhow, it sounds like you're a "Slam Absolutist," which is a position I disagree with. Obviously Slams are the biggest show(s) in town, but they're not the only show, and shouldn't be the only measurement of greatness. So yes, I do think Masters matter - everything matters, just to varying degrees. Meaning, it isn't black or white, but grayscale - with gradations from more to less important. How is this not inarguable? The only question is how much things matter relative to each other. So in terms of greatness, how much is an ATP 250 or Masters worth relative to a Slam? Certainly not as much as the ATP points (1/8th and 1/2th, respectively), but also not nothing - as Slam Absolutism would have it.

To debunk Slam Absolutism, let me offer a few different scenarios.

First, by comparing the careers of the worst Slam winners with the best non-Slam winners. So which group is comprised of better players?

Group A: Mark Edmondson, Brian Teacher, Pat Cash, Thomas Johansson, Gaston Gaudio
Group B: Tom Okker, Miroslav Mecir, Marcelo Rios, Nikolay Davydenko, Alex Zverev

The second scenario is comparing players with more and less Slams, like so:

Jan Kodes (3) vs. Ilie Nastase (2)
Johan Kriek (2) vs. Vitas Gerulaitis (1)
Sergiy Bruguera (2) vs. Michael Chang (1)

Which of the pairs were greater players? What about group A or B? At best, it isn't so clear. And when you come to single Slams, some of it comes down to opportunity. Or as I have said many times regarding Andy Murray, he's a far greater player than his mere 3 Slams imply. Meaning: Slam count alone doesn't account for the totality of a player's worth. It might be the most important factor, but to get an accurate assessment of a player's greatness, you have to go deeper. Otherwise you start thinking Jan Kodes was better than Ilie Nastase, or Johan Kriek greater than every single Slam winner, when he's probably more middle of the pack (at best) of 1-2 Slam winners.

The third scenario is by comparing the careers of different players, during times when a greater player won fewer Slams than a lesser player. I'll use the example of Rod Laver and Jan Kodes in 1970-73.

Jan Kodes was a very good player, winning 3 Slams during that period: two French Opens and one Wimbledon. He also lost in two US Open Finals. He didn't win any other big titles in his career, and his highest Open Era rank was #5 in 1973, his highest year-end rank was #7 in 1971 (Open Era rank is extrapolating ATP points back to the beginning of the Open Era, so is the same system of the ATP, but used retroactively). From 1970-73, he won 7 titles overall.

Now let's look at Rod Laver during that same span. He didn't win any Slams after 1969, and only played six in those four years. But he won two Tennis Champions Classics (an "alternate final," somewhat better than a Masters), ten Masters equivalents, and 32 overall titles during those 4 years. According to Open Era ranking, he was the #1 player in both 1970 and 71 at #1, #5 in 1972, and #8 in 1973.

Oh yeah, GOAT Points. From 1970-73, Laver had 139, an average of 35; Kodes had 53, an average of 13. Or to put that in modern context, Laver's average was about the same as Roger in 2014; Kodes' average was about the same as Cilic in 2018. Or if we want to compare two players from the same year, let's take 2014, when Rafa had 34 GP and Cilic 14.

So my largely rhetorical question is, how can we possibly say that only Slams matter? I can see an argument for keeping it simple, but I think we at least need to consider rankings (preferably by week), which one could argue are even more important than Slams in considering players. I'd also include big titles. It depends upon how granular you want to get: the more granular, the more complicated it becomes and the more problems arise, but it also gives a fuller picture.

But to come back to Rafa, you say that he "is in the lead" in the 2008-17 period, but just by one single Slam, and it is the difference between 13 and 12 over Novak. Meaning, over a 10-year span, it is negligible and you have to look deeper to get a better picture. Does that single Slam make up for Novak's +4 Tour Finals and +5 Masters, or his +82 more weeks at #1? Do you really think that Rafa was a more dominant player during that ten-year span?

As for GOAT Points, it is just one system - and if you examine it closely, it is actually pretty well constructed. I wouldn't treat it as absolute--far from it--but it is the best system I've seen for comparing players within the Open Era, in that it accounts for just about everything. I have some issues with it, and thus am not "attached" to it, but find it useful as a tool in the "tennis analytics tool box."

 

[MikeOne]

Rafa had a crisis of confidence in 2011, so how could he be at his best? That’s a contradiction in terms, given how important confidence is to a players game. He’d figured Novak out and was the stronger in most of the big matches from 2012-2014, though he withdrew from the field of battle early in two of those three seasons, and began late in the middle one. He had a historically lousy 2015-2016, and Novak made hay, and why not? Who was to stop him?

in the totality of their careers, however, to Novak the challenge was new in 2011 - in that sense, he had nothing to lose. Had Rafa beaten him anywhere, it would be expected. Novaks reputation then was still to be the man who caught SARS when the kitchen area became too heated. But Novak winning all those matches was both majestic but also unexpected, and of course each match only intensified the pressure on Rafa, so from this unhappy scenario, created by Novak himself, a player might shock anybody.

In 2011, for Rafa, he’d been challenging at the top already for six years. In tennis years, he’s much older than Novak, and was far more battle scarred at that stage than the Serb, though of course, Rafa was far from finished, and hopefully we’ll get an interesting coda from him if he’s able to compete near his best next season…

The power of rationalization… sorry, but nadal was at his very best in 2011, djokovic was just better. Even rafa said ‘this is not normal, he’s playing too high level’. There is nothing wrong rafa did at mc, rome, iw, miami.. he played well. Djokovic just had too much game.

i actually like nadal but it feels to me when novak is at his best, nadal looks to be at a disadvantage. Call it match-up, whatever you want but both rafa and toni admit it.

in 11, djokovic was simply too good, even toni and rafa admit it. Your points of rafa already being partially ‘wasted’ by 11 is ludicrous. Nadal’s best years are 08, 10, 13 in terms of results and 2011 is right in the middle. Nadal’s peak years were 08-13… without novak in 11, rafa would’ve had an unbelievable 2011, perhaps his best year in his career.. only djokovic stopped him in 6 major finals!

nadal became #1 again, in 2019?? Won two slams??? So was already wasted by 2011? Makes no sense.

The crazy heights some are willing to go to explain away djokovic’s successes vs nadal. ‘Past his prime in 11’ or ‘mentally weak’… doesn’t hold much water.

 

[El Dude]

The power of rationalization… sorry, but nadal was at his very best in 2011, djokovic was just better. Even rafa said ‘this is not normal, he’s playing too high level’. There is nothing wrong rafa did at mc, rome, iw, miami.. he played well. Djokovic just had too much game.

i actually like nadal but it feels to me when novak is at his best, nadal looks to be at a disadvantage. Call it match-up, whatever you want but both rafa and toni admit it.

in 11, djokovic was simply too good, even toni and rafa admit it. Your points of rafa already being partially ‘wasted’ by 11 is ludicrous. Nadal’s best years are 08, 10, 13 in terms of results and 2011 is right in the middle. Nadal’s peak years were 08-13… without novak in 11, rafa would’ve had an unbelievable 2011, perhaps his best year in his career.. only djokovic stopped him in 6 major finals!

nadal became #1 again, in 2019?? Won two slams??? So was already wasted by 2011? Makes no sense.

The crazy heights some are willing to go to explain away djokovic’s successes vs nadal. ‘Past his prime in 11’ or ‘mentally weak’… doesn’t hold much water.

This can be illustrated quite easily by comparing Rafa's match records in 2010 vs. 2011, without Novak:

2010: 69-10 vs everyone else (2-0 vs Novak)
2011: 69-9 vs everyone else (0-6 vs Novak)

Meaning, he was exactly the same player - even lost one more in 2010 vs everyone else.

But...there's another side, which I think Moxie illustrated. Rafa hadn't adjusted to the "new Novak" yet, but he did in 2012-13. After he lost their first match at the AO in 2012, he went on to beat Rafa in the finals of Monte Carlo, Rome, and Roland Garros, with no further matches in 2012. Meaning, he was 3-1 vs Novak, re-asserting his clay dominance.

In 2013, Novak won their first match at Monte Carlo, but then Rafa won their next three: Roland Garros, but also two hard court tournaments, Canada and the US Open. Novak then re-balanced things and beat Rafa at Beijing and the ATP Finals, and then utterly dominated him from late 2013 through 2016, going on an 11-1 run. From 2017 to the present, it has been more balanced, with Rafa having a slight edge at 5-4.

Meaning, while I agree that 2011 Rafa was every bit as good as 2010--it is pretty clear from his results against everyone else but Novak--looking at the years that followed shows an oscillation in their matchup, with them going back and forth in terms of dominance. I mean, yes, Novak has held the edge since he reached a new level in 2011, with a 7-16 record in 2016-10, and 23-12 from 2011-21. But even those numbers are over-simplistic, as there has been some passing of the baton. For instance, if you cut the last range by one year and go 2012-21, Novak still has the edge, but not as extreme at 17-12, and Rafa had periods within that range where he held the edge.

 

[Moxie]

The power of rationalization… sorry, but nadal was at his very best in 2011, djokovic was just better. Even rafa said ‘this is not normal, he’s playing too high level’. There is nothing wrong rafa did at mc, rome, iw, miami.. he played well. Djokovic just had too much game.

i actually like nadal but it feels to me when novak is at his best, nadal looks to be at a disadvantage. Call it match-up, whatever you want but both rafa and toni admit it.

in 11, djokovic was simply too good, even toni and rafa admit it. Your points of rafa already being partially ‘wasted’ by 11 is ludicrous. Nadal’s best years are 08, 10, 13 in terms of results and 2011 is right in the middle. Nadal’s peak years were 08-13… without novak in 11, rafa would’ve had an unbelievable 2011, perhaps his best year in his career.. only djokovic stopped him in 6 major finals!

nadal became #1 again, in 2019?? Won two slams??? So was already wasted by 2011? Makes no sense.

The crazy heights some are willing to go to explain away djokovic’s successes vs nadal. ‘Past his prime in 11’ or ‘mentally weak’… doesn’t hold much water.

You've decided to ignore some of my posts above, it seems.

Nadal was not at his VERY best in 2011, or else he'd have done better. He wasn't hampered, though he was a bit blind-sided by the shiny new Novak out of the blue.

And definitely, if there hadn't been Novak 2.0 in 2011, Rafa might have had a banner year in 2011. I'm not sure who claimed that Rafa was "wasted" by 2011. Surely not me, and I don't think Kieran. Because that gets into the Fed fan territory where they insist that he was never his best after 2007. A spent force, barely 4 years after he won his first Major? Yes, I have a problem with that, too. But in 2011, Rafa was 6-7 years into battling that spent force/All-time great Roger Federer, with barely a moment to catch his breath, and Novak decides to grow 2 inches. Obviously, Nadal has had a lot of good tennis in him, since then, but there is something to be said for the mileage, which Novak didn't even really begin to accrue until 2011.

 

[El Dude]

I'm not sure who claimed that Rafa was "wasted" by 2011. Surely not me, and I don't think Kieran.

Moxie, it is kind of funny that you say the above, and then...

Because that gets into the Fed fan territory where they insist that he was never his best after 2007. A spent force, barely 4 years after he won his first Major? Yes, I have a problem with that, too.

Who has said that Federer was "never his best after 2007?" I can only speak for myself, but I've only said he was less frequently his best, and this fits into my general view on decline in general. I don't know, maybe other Federer fans here think differently. @Front242 ? @britbox ? @GameSetAndMath ? And whatever happened to @DarthFed ?

In baseball it is sometimes said, "pitchers don't decline, they break." Or something like that. Meaning, due to the skill set required for pitching, they can theoretically play indefinitely, but invariably the mileage on their arm sets in and they "break."

Now tennis is quite different from baseball, especially pitching. It requires a sustained degree of athleticism and health that you can get away with not having if you are, say, a big hitting first baseman or a relief pitcher. But I think the same basic idea holds, except that the "breaking" takes place in little ways, that built up over time. A tennis player's decline can be seen via the degree to which they can muster their best form, and how frequently. I've seen Roger play at sublime levels post-2007, but never as frequently as he did in 2004-07. In fact, you can kind of see a declining plateau: 2004-07 being his best, then 2008-12, then the gap of 2013, then 2014-15, another gap in 2016, then 2017-18, which was possibly a step up and back to 2008-12 level.

But in 2011, Rafa was 6-7 years into battling that spent force/All-time great Roger Federer, with barely a moment to catch his breath, and Novak decides to grow 2 inches. Obviously, Nadal has had a lot of good tennis in him, since then, but there is something to be said for the mileage, which Novak didn't even really begin to accrue until 2011.

Yet, as I pointed out above, he was the exact same player vs. everyone else: 69-9 vs non-Serbians in 2011, 69-10 vs them in 2010. That's uncanny, no?

In other words, you're both right and wrong, imo. Rafa was the same in 2010 and 11, it is just that Novak got better and it took Rafa awhile to adjust. But he did, at least for periods of time.

 

[Kieran]

Lads, Rafa wasn’t at his best in 2011, no matter how he did against the field. The field is generally compliant pygmies. His confidence wasn’t the same. In 2010 he was mentally ruthless, he was beast mode, and against Novak in 2011 he was Prince Hamlet mode, to be or not to be, that is the question. There were no questions in 2010, and therein lies the difference between a man who is cock of the walk and one who’s besieged by doubts.

As for him being wasted, partially or otherwise, I don’t know where this comes from. It sounds like a rhetorical trick for the purpose of the debate, which is fine. I said he’d more miles on the clock, more battles and in tennis years he was much older than Novak in 2011, which is true. In 2011 Novak was riding a great wave where everything was bonus, after Oz. For Rafa and Roger then, the expectation a pressure was much greater. When you aren’t expected to win, you have great freedom to be subversive, and Novak suddenly reaching his peak that year confounded everybody, not just Rafa.

And as we all know, after Oz 2012 Rafa found a way to turn tables in all the slam matches between them until 2015.

Although Rafa has won many slams since then, he hasn’t been at his peak since the US Open final in 2013. He hasn’t had to be, either, and he’s still won six slams. That’s the tennis era we live in.

@Moxie - it was a backhand he missed in Oz in Australia 2012 but you’ve given me hope that someday I can really forget that shot.

But it’s true, he had more or less figured Novak out in that match but wasn’t brave enough to finish him off. That shot, like Novaks miss in Paris in 2013 when he was up a break, was one that revealed their confidence levels at that moment. When Rafa’s “at his best”, he slots them home with some relish.

@El Dude - I’m not only about slams, my objection to your calling 2005-2014 “The Rafa Decade” is explained. Rafa had a better decade later than this, one where he wasn’t the second best player. I do appreciate statistical analysis but I’ve often said that without a criteria that’s fair to ancient players who played for different prizes, or who valued achievements differently, then there’s no workable criteria for calling anyone a GOAT. No stats can shoehorn all the different desires and gains into one bag and say they’re basically the same, and so we apply the stats the same. And of course, the different conditions they face and the advancements in tech make comparisons really difficult. But I do enjoy the statistical stuff and reading your posts because you’re a tennis fan like the rest of us, and you’re making an honest attempt to collate the info and see what it tells us - and it certainly tells us something!

 

[shawnbm]

All of these only go to show that everyone will color their pre-conceived notions of who is the best of an era and up until now. Crises of confidence, so and so was at his peak when he happened to lose six big finals to the same guy etcetera.

it is an unsinkable argument. I never saw complete dominance of a tour like McEnroe in 1984 or Connors in 1974 until Federer in 2004-2006 and possibly 2007 but he pay a bit that year to lesser players. Those three years were unreal, until Novak in 2011 and again in 2015 and then again this year. I mean total domination and playing all the major finals and winning practically all Masters shields played.

 

[El Dude]

@El Dude - I’m not only about slams, my objection to your calling 2005-2014 “The Rafa Decade” is explained. Rafa had a better decade later than this, one where he wasn’t the second best player. I do appreciate statistical analysis but I’ve often said that without a criteria that’s fair to ancient players who played for different prizes, or who valued achievements differently, then there’s no workable criteria for calling anyone a GOAT. No stats can shoehorn all the different desires and gains into one bag and say they’re basically the same, and so we apply the stats the same. And of course, the different conditions they face and the advancements in tech make comparisons really difficult. But I do enjoy the statistical stuff and reading your posts because you’re a tennis fan like the rest of us, and you’re making an honest attempt to collate the info and see what it tells us - and it certainly tells us something!

We'll just have to agree to disagree, as I think I proved with those dreaded stats, that 2005-14 was a better overall decade than 2008-17 for Rafa, although some interpretation applies, if we want to be charitable. I mean, even putting the stats aside, can anyone reasonably say that he was better in 2015-17 than in 2005-07? Those are the three swapped years in the two spans, with 2008-14 in common. In 2005-07 he was a total clay beast, and pretty damn good off clay, while in 2015-16 he was barely top 5 and the two worst seasons of his career (after 2004), but very good in 2017. In other words, your argument for 2008-17 over 2005-14 hinges on 2015-17 being better than 2005-07. Now take a look:

2005-07: 3 Slams, 9 Masters, 22 titles, 127 weeks at #2
2015-17: 2 Slams, 4 Masters, 11 titles, 19 weeks at #1, 0 weeks at #2

The 19 weeks at #1--and the year-end #1 ranking in 2017, when he wasn't even the best player that year, but just played more than Roger, who was far more dominant--is the only edge over the earlier span. One more Slam, more than twice the Masters, and twice the titles. I mean, the weeks in the top 2 says it all: 127 vs 19. I just don't see a reasonable argument for Rafa being better in the later span. Or in terms of GOAT Points (bold is later span): 50, 47, 42, 38, 18, 9. So you have his best of the six seasons in the later span, but only by a hair, and then the early three seasons are WAY better than 2015-16.

Sorry, Kieran, it just doesn't wash. Rafa was much better in 2005-07 than in 2015-17, and overall significantly better in 2005-14 than in 2008-17.

I think you're also fudging a bit on 2010-11. It is a common saw among fans of all three, "My guy can't lose when he's on his game." The problem is that Novak was simply better. That's the only difference between Rafa's 2010 and 11, and to not see this seems just willful denial. At his best, Novak has been an overall better all-court player than Rafa. Rafa surpasses him on clay, but on every other surface, peak Novak > peak Rafa.

That's the quandary of Rafa: He's the best player ever on clay, but significantly behind both Roger and Rafa on all other court types, so it makes it hard to compare. I think at his best, he was probably their equal on slower hards, but just didn't reach that level as much, so is inferior overall. Obviously he's well behind both on grass and faster hards. Or to put it another way:

CLAY: Rafa >> Novak > Roger
GRASS: Roger > Novak >> Rafa
SLOW HARDS: Novak = Roger = Rafa
FAST HARDS: Roger > Novak >> Rafa

(And the slow hards is debatable, but I'm giving Rafa the benefit of the doubt). Therein lies the unique greatness of Novak: he was the best all-around player, and not the worst on any court type of the three players, where Rafa was "clay top heavy" and Roger "fast surfaces top heavy." Novak is actually at his best on medium surfaces, but better on fast than slow. Rafa is better the slower the surface, and Roger the faster the surface, although less extreme than Rafa.

 

[El Dude]

All of these only go to show that everyone will color their pre-conceived notions of who is the best of an era and up until now. Crises of confidence, so and so was at his peak when he happened to lose six big finals to the same guy etcetera.

it is an unsinkable argument. I never saw complete dominance of a tour like McEnroe in 1984 or Connors in 1974 until Federer in 2004-2006 and possibly 2007 but he pay a bit that year to lesser players. Those three years were unreal, until Novak in 2011 and again in 2015 and then again this year. I mean total domination and playing all the major finals and winning practically all Masters shields played.

Yep. It is really too bad that Mac didn't play the AO that year. If he had played and won it, it would arguably be the greatest season ever.

Here are the best seasons according to GOAT points:

Ultimate Tennis Statistics - Best Seasons

Most successful Open Era tennis seasons by all-time greats

www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com

Interesting that Connors doesn't figure into the top 20. His 1974 was "top heavy": 3 Slams, but only one Masters, and his other 11 titles were all low level (250/500 equivalents). GOAT points actually like Roger's 2007 better than both 2004 and 2005, because he reached all four Slam finals and five Masters finals, plus won the WTF. Interesting to note that Roger has half of the top eight best seasons of the Open Era.

From a purely stats perspective, Novak's 2015 was just absurd. Not only did he win three Slams and reach the fourth final, but he won the WTF and six Masters making the final in two others. Meaning, he made the finals in all 13 big titles he played, winning 10 of them! Both are Open Era records.

 

[Kieran]

We'll just have to agree to disagree, as I think I proved with those dreaded stats, that 2005-14 was a better overall decade than 2008-17 for Rafa, although some interpretation applies, if we want to be charitable. I mean, even putting the stats aside, can anyone reasonably say that he was better in 2015-17 than in 2005-07? Those are the three swapped years in the two spans, with 2008-14 in common. In 2005-07 he was a total clay beast, and pretty damn good off clay, while in 2015-16 he was barely top 5 and the two worst seasons of his career (after 2004), but very good in 2017. In other words, your argument for 2008-17 over 2005-14 hinges on 2015-17 being better than 2005-07. Now take a look:

2005-07: 3 Slams, 9 Masters, 22 titles, 127 weeks at #2
2015-17: 2 Slams, 4 Masters, 11 titles, 19 weeks at #1, 0 weeks at #2

The 19 weeks at #1--and the year-end #1 ranking in 2017, when he wasn't even the best player that year, but just played more than Roger, who was far more dominant--is the only edge over the earlier span. One more Slam, more than twice the Masters, and twice the titles. I mean, the weeks in the top 2 says it all: 127 vs 19. I just don't see a reasonable argument for Rafa being better in the later span. Or in terms of GOAT Points (bold is later span): 50, 47, 42, 38, 18, 9. So you have his best of the six seasons in the later span, but only by a hair, and then the early three seasons are WAY better than 2015-16.

Sorry, Kieran, it just doesn't wash. Rafa was much better in 2005-07 than in 2015-17, and overall significantly better in 2005-14 than in 2008-17.

I think you're also fudging a bit on 2010-11. It is a common saw among fans of all three, "My guy can't lose when he's on his game." The problem is that Novak was simply better. That's the only difference between Rafa's 2010 and 11, and to not see this seems just willful denial. At his best, Novak has been an overall better all-court player than Rafa. Rafa surpasses him on clay, but on every other surface, peak Novak > peak Rafa.

That's the quandary of Rafa: He's the best player ever on clay, but significantly behind both Roger and Rafa on all other court types, so it makes it hard to compare. I think at his best, he was probably their equal on slower hards, but just didn't reach that level as much, so is inferior overall. Obviously he's well behind both on grass and faster hards. Or to put it another way:

CLAY: Rafa >> Novak > Roger
GRASS: Roger > Novak >> Rafa
SLOW HARDS: Novak = Roger = Rafa
FAST HARDS: Roger > Novak >> Rafa

(And the slow hards is debatable, but I'm giving Rafa the benefit of the doubt). Therein lies the unique greatness of Novak: he was the best all-around player, and not the worst on any court type of the three players, where Rafa was "clay top heavy" and Roger "fast surfaces top heavy." Novak is actually at his best on medium surfaces, but better on fast than slow. Rafa is better the slower the surface, and Roger the faster the surface, although less extreme than Rafa.

We’ll totally disagree in a friendly way about The Rafa Decade, but a simple question about 2011: was Rafa as confident that year in all his slam finals, as he was in 2010?

And if not, how can they both be the same? It’s a contradiction in terms…

 

[El Dude]

We’ll totally disagree in a friendly way about The Rafa Decade, but a simple question about 2011: was Rafa as confident that year in all his slam finals, as he was in 2010?

And if not, how can they both be the same? It’s a contradiction in terms…

Before I let the Rafa Decade go, are you saying that 2015-17 was better than 2005-07, despite the overwhelming statistical evidence to the contrary? I don't mean to be a dick, but this is just such an odd assertion.

As for 2011, the question is why he wasn't more confident. The answer is easy: Novak was playing lights out.

If we imagine a hypothetical 2011 in which Rafa was more confident vs. Novak, we essentially take the racket out of Novak's hands and fall into the fallacy of "the match is always on my guy's racket." I know some folks complain that Fed fans do this, but this is common among fans of all three. We like to believe that our guy is the best player when at his best.

I mean, you can go down the list of their matchups in 2011. Rafa actually went deeper at IW and Miami than in 2010, but faced (and lost to) Novak in the finals. Then he couldn't defend his Rome and Madrid titles, losing in the finals to Novak. And of course the two Slams.

He was just as confident in every other match--all 78 of them against non-Serbian players--but couldn't solve Novak. So sure, he was less confident, but it was only against Novak. I would assume that is because Novak was playing at a higher level. Meaning, the confidence was secondary and symptomatic to the rise in Novak's level, which is the cause of his lack of confidence.

To focus on Rafa's confidence is sort of like saying, "I lost the arm wrestling match because I felt weak." But why did I feel weak? Could it be because the other guy was simply stronger?

Let me hypothesize how 2011 played out. I imagine Rafa facing Novak for their first match of 2011, at Indian Wells. He wins the first set, thinking this is going to be business as usual, but then Novak blows him out of the water in the next two sets. "What was that about?" Rafa thinks, but considers it an anomaly. Novak won AO, but he did that a few years ago - no reason to think that Rafa can't continue to dominant the match-up. Then Miami happens, and the same thing happens, but the match is closer. "OK, time for clay season - no worries there." And then, all of a sudden, Novak beats him in both Madrid and Miami, and the doubt grows in Rafa's mind. But next up is the Slams! And Rafa wins his 10th Slam at Roland Garros, and goes into Wimbledon feeling confident, especially considering Novak lost to Olderer, who Rafa dispatched yet again. But Novak wins, and now Rafa is concerned. But it is the US Open, and Rafa is the defending champion and has won it twice. But, again, Novak outplays him. So the season is over, and Rafa is 0-6 vs Novak. But then 2012 begins and while Novak beats him in Australia, it is super close, and then Rafa wins their next three meetings on clay.

So I don't think it as a lack of confidence. I think it is more that Rafa didn't know what hit him.

You can't take Novak out of the equation, because he's the main factor in the equation. He's the only difference in Rafa's performance in 2011 vs. 2010.

I mean, it is testament to Rafa's greatness that he was able to re-balance things, at least for awhile in 2012-13. But Novak arrived in 2011 playing on a higher level than before -- it isn't just Rafa. Roger's record vs. him before 2011 was 13-6, and then he went 1-4 vs Novak in 2011, only beating him at Roland Garros. We can throw Andy in the mix: after losing their first four meetings, Andy won their next three, then didn't play Novak in 2010, and was 8-21 from 2011 on. or to break it down:

Vs. RAFA: 7-16 through 2010, 23-12 from 2011 on
Vs. ROGER: 6-13 through 2010, 21-10 from 2011 on
vs. ANDY: 4-3 through 2010, 21-8 from 2011 on

It is uncannily similar and points to the main factor: Novak just got better, and (overall) surpassed both Rafa and Roger in 2011, and dominated the matchups from that point on, even if both the older guys still had their wins.

 

[Kieran]

Before I let the Rafa Decade go, are you saying that 2015-17 was better than 2005-07, despite the overwhelming statistical evidence to the contrary? I don't mean to be a dick, but this is just such an odd assertion.

As for 2011, the question is why he wasn't more confident. The answer is easy: Novak was playing lights out.

I mean, you can go down the list. Rafa actually went deeper at IW and Miami than in 2010, but faced (and lost to) Novak in the finals. Then he couldn't defend his Rome and Madrid titles, losing in the finals to Novak.

He was just as confident in every other match--all 78 of them against non-Serbian players--but couldn't solve Novak. So sure, maybe he was less confident, but it was only against Novak. I would assume that is because Novak was playing at a higher level. Meaning, the confidence was secondary and symptomatic to the rise in Novak's level, which is the cause of his lack of confidence.

You can't take Novak out of the equation, because he's the main factor in the equation. He's the only difference in Rafa's performance in 2011 vs. 2010.

I mean, it is testament to Rafa's greatness that he was able to re-balance things, at least for awhile in 2012-13. But Novak arrived in 2011 playing on a higher level than before -- it isn't just Rafa. Roger's record vs. him before 2011 was 13-6, and then he went 1-4 vs Novak in 2011, only beating him at Roland Garros. We can throw Andy in the mix: after losing their first four meetings, Andy won their next three, then didn't play Novak in 2010, and was 8-21 from 2011 on. or to break it down:

Vs. RAFA: 7-16 through 2010, 23-12 from 2011 on
Vs. ROGER: 6-13 through 2010, 21-10 from 2011 on
vs. ANDY: 4-3 through 2010, 21-8 from 2011 on

It is uncannily similar and points to the main factor: Novak just got better, and (overall) surpassed both Rafa and Roger in 2011, and dominated the matchups from that point on, even if both the older guys still had their wins.

I’m glad we agree, bro - and I’ve said his confidence was affected by Novak. This is what happens. But there’s no way a totally cocky Rafa is the same as Hamlet Rafa. It’s like going to Impotence Anon and telling the poor besieged bastards, “hey, what’s the prob? Your foreplay was still excellent! So everything is the same!”



As for the Rafa Decade, we disagree, though we can agree that 2015-2017 wasn’t a decade…

 

[El Dude]

I’m glad we agree, bro - and I’ve said his confidence was affected by Novak. This is what happens. But there’s no way a totally cocky Rafa is the same as Hamlet Rafa. It’s like going to Impotence Anon and telling the poor besieged bastards, “hey, what’s the prob? Your foreplay was still excellent! So everything is the same!”



As for the Rafa Decade, we disagree, though we can agree that 2015-2017 wasn’t a decade…

Haha, nice try. I appreciate your trying to get us to a point of agreement, but I think we're saying the opposite.

Kieran: Hamlet Rafa lost to Novak in 2011 because he lacked confidence.
El Dude: Rafa lacked confidence vs. Novak because Novak was whisking him like Omelet Rafa.

You give lip service to Novak by saying Rafa's confidence was "affected" by him, but in actuality it was caused by him, that is, by him being better. This is your sneaky way of saying, "If only Rafa had his head on straight, their matchups would have been on his racket!" But, no. The hard truth is that he lacked confidence because those matchups were never on his racket. Novak owned him that year, pure and simple.

The Rafa Decade. It is inarguable that his best stretch is 2008-13, which is seven years, so we need three more on either side. Then it comes down to whether you want to add 2005-07 or 2015-17. That's a no-brainer, my Irish friend.

 

[Kieran]

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 -

Haha, nice try. I appreciate your trying to get us to a point of agreement, but I think we're saying the opposite.

Kieran: Hamlet Rafa lost to Novak in 2011 because he lacked confidence.
El Dude: Rafa lacked confidence vs. Novak because Novak was whisking him like Omelet Rafa.

You give lip service to Novak by saying Rafa's confidence was "affected" by him, but in actuality it was caused by him, that is, by him being better. This is your sneaky way of saying, "If only Rafa had his head on straight, their matchups would have been on his racket!" But, no. The hard truth is that he lacked confidence because those matchups were never on his racket. Novak owned him that year, pure and simple.

The Rafa Decade. It is inarguable that his best stretch is 2008-13, which is seven years, so we need three more on either side. Then it comes down to whether you want to add 2005-07 or 2015-17. That's a no-brainer, my Irish friend.

You should pay attention, bro. I already said that Rafa's dip was caused by Novak. I said that the difference between 2012 and 2014 was that he'd figured Novak out. There's nothing sneaky in what I'm saying, I'm saying it directly, that Novak affected Rafa, and because he was so affected he couldn't be at his best. Why? Because his confidence was gone. It's been very clear what I'm saying.

But look at it this way - when Rafa got his confidence back and start beating Novak again in slam finals - 4 in a row from 2012-2014 - was Rafa playing better than he did against Novak in 2011? Tell me, when they faced each other twice on hards in 3013, was Rafa playing better then? If so, how could he, when he was at his best in 2011?

As for The Rafa Decade, it's a pointless conversation at this stage because we both have different priorities.

 

[El Dude]

You should pay attention, bro. I already said that Rafa's dip was caused by Novak. I said that the difference between 2012 and 2014 was that he'd figured Novak out. There's nothing sneaky in what I'm saying, I'm saying it directly, that Novak affected Rafa, and because he was so affected he couldn't be at his best. Why? Because his confidence was gone. It's been very clear what I'm saying.

But look at it this way - when Rafa got his confidence back and start beating Novak again in slam finals - 4 in a row from 2012-2014 - was Rafa playing better than he did against Novak in 2011? Tell me, when they faced each other twice on hards in 3013, was Rafa playing better then? If so, how could he, when he was at his best in 2011?

As for The Rafa Decade, it's a pointless conversation at this stage because we both have different priorities.

OK, I think we're closer now. Cool beans.

Of course he played better against Novak in 2012-14: he adjusted. There is no denying that. But let's not equate his performance vs. Novak with his overall level. Rafa was essentially the same player from 2008 to mid-2014, with fluctuations due to injury (although I think you could argue that he was just as good in 2017-19, just a somewhat different player). From 2005-07 he was the King of Clay, but then in 2008, his greatness translated to hards and grass. I don't think he was better in 2012 than 2011, just like I don't think he was better in 2010 to 2011. His best years were 2008, 2010, 2013, but that isn't the same as overall ability. It is just that he had his best performances in those years: he was the most consistent, and wasn't cowed by any single player (i.e. Novak).

Actually, 2011 was a better year than 2012, mainly due to health. He just struggled against Novak more in 2011, but he didn't improve as a player overall, just against his main rival. In fact, 2011 was the year that the premier rivalry in tennis switched from Fedal to Djokodal, and I think that was part of the surprise for Rafa.

Anyhow, I certainly hope they won't be playing each other in 3013, but with these guys you never know...

 

[Kieran]

Anyhow, I certainly hope they won't be playing each other in 3013, but with these guys you never know...

The H2H might be level by then - hopefully!