Time to crown Novak the GOAT?

Moxie

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
43,778
Reactions
14,946
Points
113
The Djokovic haters will point to Djokovic dominated 11-21 when Federer was past his prime. They will ignore any high level Federer attained between 11-21 and just double down that he was just not at his best. Djoker haters will also make excuses for Nadal in 2011, a year he battled Djokovic for 6 major titles, in finals (IW, MIA,MC, Rome, W, USO) and after a 2010 season where he won 3 slams.
You pollute your argument by insisting that anyone who doesn't agree with it is a "Djokovic hater."

They will claim Rafa's prime was 06-10... and totally ignore Rafa's 13 season and fact that he even became #1 as late as 2019. The power of rationalizing is extremely powerful in us humans, we first decide what the outcome is (what we feel comfortable) and then rationalize, point to what we think is evidence that supports our wishful scenarios and ignore anything to the contrary.
As a Rafa fan, I've never said his "prime" was 06-10. I'm not sure who you think has. I'm not also clear if you mistake "peak" and "prime." I think Nadal's began in '07. '08 was a "peak" year, but '09 was an injury year. '10 was definitely a "peak" year. And maybe you missed the whole discussion about '11 and the "Novak problem," but it was a sneak attack, and had a cumulative effect on his confidence. A problem he needed to work out in the off-season. And then I'd say "prime" through '13. Post-prime, you can hit great performance, and sustained, but to a lesser degree. Enough to win Majors, if you are that great, as Roger and Rafa and Novak are.

Here's how this becomes such a circular argument.

So Djokovic was lucky 04-07 Federer wasn't around between 11-21? Ok. Now where was peak Djokovic between 04-07? So right back at you... now we are back to square #1, we have reached a dead end here.

So 'past' his best Federer was able to beat 11 Djokovic in FO semis so 'imagine' peak Federer! Well, 'baby' Novak beat 07 Federer in finals of a master, imagine peak Novak!
You are comparing the theoretical with the actual, which you tend to do, and I think that is a basic problem with your argument. The point that is made by Fed fans and Rafa fans has to do with the bottom-heavy time they spent in the hard-yards when Novak wasn't doing as much of the heavy lifting, and that coming in later with the 2.0 version of himself was a benefit. You don't like that, but it will always look true for some people.

So Djokovic dominated 15-16 during period when Rafa was injured? Okay, so, what about 2017? Djokovic had a nagging injury that year, didn't play after Wimbledon and guess who ended up #!1 that year? Rafa. Meanwhile, Federer, who had been dominated bu Djokovic at AO and even Wimbledon (14,15 finals) sneaked in AO and Wimbledon wins. So coincidence that Federer won 17,18 AOs whilst Novak was dealing with injury after being owned by Novak at AO for years? Coincidence that Federer won 17 Wimbledon whilst Novak was struggling after Novak had beaten him in 14,15 finals? And Rafa takes over as #1, in 17, nice timing.
'15-'16 were rather fallow years for Rafa, clearly. And by '15 Roger was 33-34, so there is that. Sure, Novak benefitted from that. I have never said, however, that when Murray (#1) and Novak (#2) fell down hard that Roger and Rafa didn't benefit from that. But credit to them that they walked through the door that opened and split the Majors that year. I will however say that I don't think that Djokovic's 2 years in the wilderness were all about injury. But in any case, sure, there was some payback in opportunity.

So, here's the deal. We can point to periods where all 3 benefited from the others being injured or not being at their best. it's not just one way traffic, this goings around in circles.
As per my above, indeed. But you do have to understand that Novak had some pretty good ride when it was late Fedal. To me, it doesn't 100% balance. And look at him coasting now.
We never saw 04-07 Federer face off against 11, 15-16, 21 Novak. However, here's a fact. Federer was able to summon his peak level after 07, he just wasn't able to dominate day in day out as he did.
I totally agree with this. Fed fans do like to think that the top of the mountain was '04-'06 or '07 and that it was lesser after that. Yes, I have a problem with that, too.
Federer didn't just suddenly drop in 08.... and never was able to play his peak level again. This is just extremely dumb. The man was winning majors in 17, 18! Same, Novak in 08 was playing great tennis, he beat 07 Federer in finals of a masters and dominated Fed in 08 AO. He wasn't as consistent as he was in 11, 15-16, 21 but could play his best on occasion. Rafa, same. Rafa was playing high level in 19, re-gained #1. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever that Nadal's highest level was 06-08, make ZERO sense. He started his career in 05 and 06, 07 was only the beginning. Rafa's best years were 08, 10, 13 and in 19 re-gained #1. Those who say he was at his best in 07 are either Federer fanatics (Darth) or Nadalites (broken used to say this), as they are laying the foundation to make excuses as to why Rafa was subpar during Djokovic's dominance.
I've addressed most of this.

In the end, all these 3 faced each other all 3 playing their highest level, on more than just a few occasions. Just because they may not have faced each other during each other's best years, means little actually. Would've Federer dominated 04-07 facing peak Novak? LIKLEY NOT. If in 07 Novak was already starting to beat Federer, why couldn't have 11-21 Novak bested 04-07 federer? because we saw Federer dominate Roddick, Hewitt? what kind of evidence is this? Even Nadal was beating Federer on hardcourt in 06!
Actually, Rafa beat Fed on HC in '04. But, again, you are trading in alternate universe tennis, above. And, as to the bolded, I think that you're wrong that it means little.

Take 08, Federer's 'mono' year and sudden decline from dominance. So...who did Fed lose at slams in 08? AO - Novak, FO - Nadal, W - Nadal, USO - WIN. So, take 08 Rafa/Novak out, Federer wins all 4 slams?? At least 3, same as he did in 07. In 07, baby rafa took him to 5 sets at wimbledon and baby novak beat him in a masters so how invincible was he really?
You're asking the wrong question, or you're asking it of the perceived fan base that you don't like. It wasn't that Fed was "invincible" (your word, I'd say,) but that the Big 3 were emerging, and at different rates. It's true that Novak was a creditable #3-4 from '07, but he took a long time to break through the glass ceiling of #2 and #1.

So these go around in circles and circles and circles and circles and circles. The Fed vs Novak debate is the hardest to assess. Yes, Federer was able to take down 11-21 novak on occasion, not surprising because although he wasn't as dominant as he was 04-07, he could absolutely still play his very best from time to time and was too good to just be dusted aside by Novak. Novak beat 07 Federer and 08 Federer? so what, Novak was too good , even back then, to be dusted aside by peak Federer and could still play his peak level, just not day in day out.

Rafa and Novak are a bit easier to address. Arguably, they faced off during their peak years. Yes, 11 was peak vs peak.... its obvious, Novak won that battle in 11. In 13, they were both arguably at their best too, Nadal edged him out.... Then with Nadal out, Novak dominated 15-16 and with Novak out, Rafa came back and ascended to top again in 2017; meanwhile, so did Federer get 3 slams during Djokovic's struggles.

on and on and on.... and so we really need to let the stats settle the debates.
It does goes in circles, but it doesn't help if you refuse to address the nuances. You can be happy to let the stats settle the debate, but you do ignore some of the history, or insist on "what-if"-ing about it. In an extremely complicated and amazing era in men's tennis, you can leave it to the charts and figures, if you like, (and it seems that it suits your purposes,) but I, for one, will always believe their story will be best told in prose.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Kieran and El Dude

El Dude

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
10,244
Reactions
5,972
Points
113
I appreciate you giving it a shot, @Moxie - I stopped reading after a couple paragraphs because it was so riddled with false assumptions and strawman arguments that it would just take too long to correct every problem. Sheesh.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Fiero425

Moxie

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
43,778
Reactions
14,946
Points
113
I appreciate you giving it a shot, @Moxie - I stopped reading after a couple paragraphs because it was so riddled with false assumptions and strawman arguments that it would just take too long to correct every problem. Sheesh.
You've never trusted me or my sincerity, so why should I care now that you don't like an effort that I just made. You also pretend that your own fannishness never bleeds through, and hey, I was trying to defend you here. But, Ok, I'm used to it from you. The internet gave you the word "strawman" and so you use it in place of actual dialogue. You're clearly too bored with my response to read it, so I guess we'll just give up on each other here. Your position is hardening, and not open to the prose version of this era. "Sheesh," indeed.
 

El Dude

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
10,244
Reactions
5,972
Points
113
You've never trusted me or my sincerity, so why should I care now that you don't like an effort that I just made. You also pretend that your own fannishness never bleeds through, and hey, I was trying to defend you here. But, Ok, I'm used to it from you. The internet gave you the word "strawman" and so you use it in place of actual dialogue. You're clearly too bored with my response to read it, so I guess we'll just give up on each other here. Your position is hardening, and not open to the prose version of this era. "Sheesh," indeed.
Um, I was talking about Mike One's post.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Fjaka2.0

Moxie

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
43,778
Reactions
14,946
Points
113
Um, I was talking about Mike One's post.
OK, in fairness, I did think it was my responses that you didn't agree with. That wasn't clear.
 
Last edited:

El Dude

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
10,244
Reactions
5,972
Points
113
Clearly. But are you saying you didn't insult me or my efforts?
Yes. Your response was rather surprising, to the point I have no idea what you took offense about. I didn't insult you, I was trying to commiserate. Please bring the drama down.
 

Moxie

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
43,778
Reactions
14,946
Points
113
Yes. Your response was rather surprising, to the point I have no idea what you took offense about. I didn't insult you, I was trying to commiserate. Please bring the drama down.
As you will see by my above, I reread, and realized that it WAS Mike that you were reacting to. It just wasn't clear from the previous. After I'd made an effort, and you said you couldn't be bothered to read, it wasn't clear that it was about Mikeone or about my response. I thought you were fed up with my response, and couldn't be bothered to read it. I hope you can understand why that was unclear.
 

El Dude

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
10,244
Reactions
5,972
Points
113
As you will see by my above, I reread, and realized that it WAS Mike that you were reacting to. It just wasn't clear from the previous. After I'd made an effort, and you said you couldn't be bothered to read, it wasn't clear that it was about Mikeone or about my response. I thought you were fed up with my response, and couldn't be bothered to read it. I hope you can understand why that was unclear.
No worries.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Moxie

MikeOne

Masters Champion
Joined
Sep 29, 2015
Messages
658
Reactions
484
Points
63
Let’s play a game, ‘What slam can you keep, pal?’

Federer’s best years - 04-07
Nadal’s best years - 08, 10, 13, 19
Novak’s best years - 11, 15-16, 19-21

**note - best years not necesarily peak years as results also have to do with opponents. Case in point, nadal was at his peak in 11 but was bested by in form novak in 6 big finals. In 08, federer only lost to novak in semis of AO, rafa in finals of FO, finals of W and won USO. BUT let’s go with best years as this what fans go by as ‘peak’ years

no-one gets to keep slams if they didn’t face both rivals at their ‘peaks’, as fanboys determine peak to mean

this immediately strips federer of any slams he won 03-10 (novak pre-peak), strips federer of 09 FO (nadal supposedly injured and lost before final), strips federer of 17,18 ao and w (djokovic out). It also strips federer of ‘12 slam wins as novak, nadal not at their ‘peak’.

so how many slams is federer left with? Zero. All 20 came during pre-peak djokovic or during periods when nadal or novak were injured or not at their ‘best’

what about rafa and novak?
Hmm…. Well, no slams post 04-07 mean anything as federer was over his peak, right? Also, no slams 04-07 mean anything as novak wasn’t at his peak

rafa. Zero as slams he won 04-07 were pre-peak novak and slams won after, post peak fed

novak. Well, 0 slams as all his slams came after 04-07 ‘peak’ fed

So it’s settled, all 20 of their slams are nullified

so, this is why we need to let the stats tell the story, otherwise, none of the 60 slam wins count
 
Last edited:

Fjaka2.0

Club Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2021
Messages
97
Reactions
70
Points
18
Objective stuff
42945992-3FD5-43A0-92C6-F4128B681727.png
 

El Dude

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
10,244
Reactions
5,972
Points
113
A couple things.

Re: Elo. This is a problematic stat because it doesn't adequately take into account context - specifically, the quality of competition. Notice when Novak attained that highest Elo: early 2016, when Rafa was playing like crap and Roger was great, but not at his very best, and also, when "Lost Gen" was at their peak and the better Next Gen hadn't risen.

Re: GOAT Points. I like 'em and use 'em, but like all stat formulas, they have their problems and still involve a subjective weighing of factors (in a similar sense that no "stat-based argument" is ever entirely objective, but involves subjects utilizing objects to support subjective perspectives). GP also tend to more strongly weigh accumulative value, thus Sampras and Borg being below Connors and Lendl, and literally no--or almost no--tennis historian, analyst, journalist or serious fan ranks the latter two above the former two. Or Andy Murray above Mats Wilander.

Look, I started this thread with the hypothesis that Novak has the best case for singular GOAT, and I stand by that. But it isn't clear-cut; I just think he has the best overall case and that in a decade, we're going to look back and see a better career resume and most--except for a group of diehard Fed and Rafa fans--consider him as, at the very least, the first among equals. But let's not settle on any stat, stat system, or reading of stats as fully and finally definitive. There is a certain irony to saying, "Let's stick to the objective stats - see, look at these ones I subjectively picked out, or the GOAT Points system that is weighed subjectively."

Not to mention the other part of the discussion, which is more qualitative. Stats are quantitative and thus do not tell the whole picture. Otherwise, the girl (or guy) with the best "stats" would capture your heart, when in reality, it is usually the case that Cupid's arrow involves a combination of non-quantifiable qualities.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Moxie and Fjaka2.0

Fiero425

The GOAT
Joined
Jul 23, 2013
Messages
11,545
Reactions
2,594
Points
113
Location
Chicago, IL
Website
fiero4251.blogspot.com
Since quite a while it was between Nole and Roger. Nadal more than one step behind the Maestro.

Not to be shady AF, but he'll always run a distant 3rd IMO! Nadal has tons of accomplishments, but the imbalance bothers me where he has his OG's, a CGS, & 13 FO's with his obvious superiority only on clay! Fedovic have 11 YEC's between them while Rafa's only gotten a sniff making a couple finals! Again, just pointing out the facts over the many years, Rafa's motivation to even play tennis seems to wane after the FO; hence 2 Wimbl. 4 USO, & few Masters in isolated good Summers in 2010 & '13! Roger technically should be in 3rd place since Nadovic have a H2H edge over him, but his "style and grace" on the court has to be acknowledged! How many times have I given demerits to Nadal for having one of the ugliest games to watch? Each Era should probably be allowed their own GOAT feeling down the line someone will come along to surpass Novak's records! I know it won't happen anytime soon! His numbers collectively will be timeless when we thought it would be Roger being lauded 100 years from now! Laver's still my overall GOAT, then Borg, then Sampras, but the #'s belie any attempt rationally to put Nadal at the top even if he went wild and collected 4 more Majors! The overall shortcomings would tilt towards a more rounded player from the past! :shushing-face: :lol6::face-with-hand-over-mouth::clap:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fjaka2.0

MikeOne

Masters Champion
Joined
Sep 29, 2015
Messages
658
Reactions
484
Points
63
Peak elo ratings is a measure of dominance more than longevity or being consistently great over years. I am surprised nadal’s 2013 rating is higher that fed’s. Fed only lost 3 matches in 05? And in 06, think won 3 slams. I guess peak 07 elo rating as of may 07 takes into account what he did in 06 as-well.

the big problem for fed and nadal fans is that some have argued that, yes, novak has been more consistent over a period of time but maybe not as dominant. Well.. looking at peak elo rating, it’s an objective measure of dominance during short period and he is #1. So now what? He has the consistency and longevity but also measurably, most dominant over 1 year? Oh boy..

i can understand why mac has a higher peak rating than pete. Pete was never as dominant as mac over course of a year, but more dominant over 5-10 years. In novak’s case, we can argue he has been most dominant over 1 year (highest peak elo) and most dominant over a decade, wow… i mean. What can you say? True goat. If you are a djoker hater, you can’t win!
 

Moxie

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
43,778
Reactions
14,946
Points
113
Not to be shady AF, but he'll always run a distant 3rd IMO! Nadal has tons of accomplishments, but the imbalance bothers me where he has his OG's, a CGS, & 13 FO's with his obvious superiority only on clay! Fedovic have 11 YEC's between them while Rafa's only gotten a sniff making a couple finals! Again, just pointing out the facts over the many years, Rafa's motivation to even play tennis seems to wane after the FO; hence 2 Wimbl. 4 USO, & few Masters in isolated good Summers in 2010 & '13! Roger technically should be in 3rd place since Nadovic have a H2H edge over him, but his "style and grace" on the court has to be acknowledged! How many times have I given demerits to Nadal for having one of the ugliest games to watch? Each Era should probably be allowed their own GOAT feeling down the line someone will come along to surpass Novak's records! I know it won't happen anytime soon! His numbers collectively will be timeless when we thought it would be Roger being lauded 100 years from now! Laver's still my overall GOAT, then Borg, then Sampras, but the #'s belie any attempt rationally to put Nadal at the top even if he went wild and collected 4 more Majors! The overall shortcomings would tilt towards a more rounded player from the past! :shushing-face: :lol6::face-with-hand-over-mouth::clap:
I don't know how you say "obvious imbalance on his resume" right after you note that he has a career grand slam. (Youngest in the Open Era to accomplish that, btw.) There is a lot of subjective in your post here, which is your right, but to award "style points" to Roger, (a new fashion, apparently,) and to say, once again, that you think Rafa's game is ugly, and so you demerit it, is, well, pointless in terms of sport. Yes, he has 13 French titles, so far, and lots of clay titles, but he also had an All-time great on HC and grass on one end of his career, and and All-time great on HC, with a game that transitioned to grass later, on the other end. You can only divide up so many trophies. What Nadal has done on clay will possibly never be touched, at least some of it. And yet you say that Novak's numbers will be collectively timeless, at the same time you say that we thought the same of Roger's, except that Novak eclipsed them even in this era. So that theory doesn't hold up as well as you'd like it to. I'm not sure where it's written than each era should get only one GOAT (or GOTE, to be more accurate.) I don't see anyone putting Rafa at the top, even with 4 more Majors, but I do see that there is a Big 3 in this era, and that's hard to discredit completely.
 

El Dude

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
10,244
Reactions
5,972
Points
113
Not to be shady AF, but he'll always run a distant 3rd IMO! Nadal has tons of accomplishments, but the imbalance bothers me where he has his OG's, a CGS, & 13 FO's with his obvious superiority only on clay! Fedovic have 11 YEC's between them while Rafa's only gotten a sniff making a couple finals! Again, just pointing out the facts over the many years, Rafa's motivation to even play tennis seems to wane after the FO; hence 2 Wimbl. 4 USO, & few Masters in isolated good Summers in 2010 & '13! Roger technically should be in 3rd place since Nadovic have a H2H edge over him, but his "style and grace" on the court has to be acknowledged! How many times have I given demerits to Nadal for having one of the ugliest games to watch? Each Era should probably be allowed their own GOAT feeling down the line someone will come along to surpass Novak's records! I know it won't happen anytime soon! His numbers collectively will be timeless when we thought it would be Roger being lauded 100 years from now! Laver's still my overall GOAT, then Borg, then Sampras, but the #'s belie any attempt rationally to put Nadal at the top even if he went wild and collected 4 more Majors! The overall shortcomings would tilt towards a more rounded player from the past! :shushing-face: :lol6::face-with-hand-over-mouth::clap:
Rafa is really tricky, because while I agree with you that his resume has some "imbalance"--most especially the lack of even one YEC, and 100+ fewer weeks at #1--the clay dominance sets him apart as singular, in a way that Roger and Novak are not.

Look at it this way: have you ever seen a better, more dominant player than Rafa on clay? Meaning, how is the answer to the question, "Who is the most dominant player ever?" not "Rafa on clay?"

Obviously clay is only one-third of the calendar year. Hards are even more common, and grass (unfortunately) less so (I envision a tour in which each surface has a more even distribution, and this isn't only my allegiance to Federer...just imagine how many Masters he'd have if three were held on grass). But my point is, Rafa on clay is easily the most potent player-court type combination in tennis history, so much so that it has to factor into a conversation about GOAT.

It is also strange that you cite numbers on one hand, yet then presumably rank Borg and Sampras above Novak and Federer, both of whom have far greater accomplishments than those two (Rafa, as well) - and were also more well-rounded, at least than Pete with his clay deficiencies. Meaning, if you bag on Rafa for "imbalance," why not bag on Pete?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Moxie and Fiero425

Fiero425

The GOAT
Joined
Jul 23, 2013
Messages
11,545
Reactions
2,594
Points
113
Location
Chicago, IL
Website
fiero4251.blogspot.com
Rafa is really tricky, because while I agree with you that his resume has some "imbalance"--most especially the lack of even one YEC, and 100+ fewer weeks at #1--the clay dominance sets him apart as singular, in a way that Roger and Novak are not.

Look at it this way: have you ever seen a better, more dominant player than Rafa on clay? Meaning, how is the answer to the question, "Who is the most dominant player ever?" not "Rafa on clay?"

Obviously clay is only one-third of the calendar year. Hards are even more common, and grass (unfortunately) less so (I envision a tour in which each surface has a more even distribution, and this isn't only my allegiance to Federer...just imagine how many Masters he'd have if three were held on grass). But my point is, Rafa on clay is easily the most potent player-court type combination in tennis history, so much so that it has to factor into a conversation about GOAT.

It is also strange that you cite numbers on one hand, yet then presumably rank Borg and Sampras above Novak and Federer, both of whom have far greater accomplishments than those two (Rafa, as well) - and were also more well-rounded, at least than Pete with his clay deficiencies. Meaning, if you bag on Rafa for "imbalance," why not bag on Pete?

Society was so desperate to be part of history we were all ready to dismiss the huge hole in Pete's resume; not even a French Open final! :facepalm: :face-with-hand-over-mouth: