Time to crown Novak the GOAT?

Moxie

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
43,778
Reactions
14,946
Points
113
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?
I appreciate your taking Rafa's argument on this. Particularly in the question of "dominance," which as you may remember I have been arguing for a long time. The question of weeks at #1 is dominance to many, which I get, as in over the field and over the year, but, as you say, how is Rafa's dominance on clay not an overriding feature of him? There is no one in the men's or women's game, in singles, that matches it, or comes close.

As you also point out, most of the other 3/4 of the year is played on HCs, so when your two biggest rivals excel on the dominant surface, well, that makes it harder. I'm sorry to reiterate this, but it seems that @Fiero425 needs to be reminded, that Rafa has won 7 Majors on HC and Grass. He so nonchalantly says that Nadal "only" won 2 Wimbledons. Well, those 7 Majors would still have Rafa in the top 10 Majors winners of men in the Open Era. And he has 9 MS on HCs, and 2 other grass titles. Plus the Olympic gold medal was won on HC. If he'd never won a title on clay, he'd still be considered amongst the top players on HC and grass, by titles. I know you like to remind us folks around here of the rarified times we've been living in the past 2 decades, and it does bear reminding.
 
  • Like
Reactions: El Dude

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?

I think Borg is a legitimate rival to Nadal in any era! Bjorn dominated RG like no other before him at the time, dropping only 2 matches to the same player; Adriano Panatta ('73 & '76)! Unless you lived during that era, you wouldn't remember that Borg physio-system was superior with a very low resperation rate! It was why you had to be a very aggressive and successive attacker of the net to defeat him on the slow crushed surface of the Terre Battu! Before retiring he defeated Ivan Lendl in the '80 YEC Finals in NY and RG the following year in 1981! As much credit as people want to give Rafa, the racket technology's assisting him so much! Borg played with a stick and tight strings and somehow won 11 Majors; 3 Wimbledons right after winning in Paris the week before! Borg truly was a genius on the court while any others pale in comparison no matter how many clay titles recently vultured over the years! :shushing-face: :face-with-hand-over-mouth::):face-with-tears-of-joy::lulz1:
 

Moxie

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
43,778
Reactions
14,946
Points
113
I think Borg is a legitimate rival to Nadal in any era! Bjorn dominated RG like no other before him at the time, dropping only 2 matches to the same player; Adriano Panatta ('73 & '76)! Unless you lived during that era, you wouldn't remember that Borg physio-system was superior with a very low resperation rate! It was why you had to be a very aggressive and successive attacker of the net to defeat him on the slow crushed surface of the Terre Battu! Before retiring he defeated Ivan Lendl in the '80 YEC Finals in NY and RG the following year in 1981! As much credit as people want to give Rafa, the racket technology's assisting him so much! Borg played with a stick and tight strings and somehow won 11 Majors; 3 Wimbledons right after winning in Paris the week before! Borg truly was a genius on the court while any others pale in comparison no matter how many clay titles recently vultured over the years! :shushing-face: :face-with-hand-over-mouth::):face-with-tears-of-joy::lulz1:
I lived during that era, and I was a huge Borg fan. it was his low heart rate that was what was spoken of. Borg played the FO 9 times and won it 6. 96% win rate. Nadal has played it 16 times and won it 13 times. 97% win rate. He's lapped Borg, +1. So far. Attribute that all to string technology if you like, but I think you're kidding yourself. In fact, I'm sure you are.
 

El Dude

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
10,244
Reactions
5,972
Points
113
Anyhow, here's further illustration of what I'm talking about, re: Rafa's dominance on clay. Rafa reached a final in 65.4% of clay tournaments he entered (!), winning 57.9% of them (!!).

Here's a fun exercise. Let's split players up into their component parts--by surface--and then rank them all by Title %. I'll exclude recent guys on carpet, but everything else is fair game. Also, I'll include every player who has won 5+ Slams in the Open Era, and thrown in Ken Rosewall because, well, he's Ken Rosewall, and also Andy Murray because, well, he's Andy. No other 3-4 "near greats" like Vilas, Courier, Ashe, etc.

I've also color-coded the Big Four, just so they stand out.
  1. NADAL on clay 57.9%
  2. BORG on clay 42.1%
  3. McENROE on carpet 41.7%
  4. LAVER on hard 40.6%
  5. FEDERER on grass 39.6%
  6. LENDL on carpet 38.8%
  7. DJOKOVIC on hard 37.1%
  8. CONNORS on carpet 36.1%
  9. BORG on carpet 35.9%
  10. BORG on grass 35.0%
  11. SAMPRAS on grass 34.5%
  12. LAVER on carpet 32.9%
  13. FEDERER on hard 32.1%
  14. LAVER on grass 32.0%
  15. BECKER on carpet 29.9%
  16. LENDL on clay 29.5%
  17. DJOKOVIC on grass 29.2%
  18. McENROE on grass 28.6%
  19. ROSEWALL on clay 28.2%
  20. LAVER on clay 28.0%
  21. SAMPRAS on carpet 27.3%
  22. LENDL on hard 27.2%
  23. CONNORS on hard 27.1%
  24. SAMPRAS on hard 26.3%
  25. MURRAY on grass 25.0%
  26. McENROE on hard 24.7%
  27. DJOKOVIC on clay 23.6%
  28. AGASSI on hard 22.9%
  29. WILANDER on clay 22.7%
  30. NEWCOMBE on hard 22.4%
  31. BECKER on grass 21.9%
  32. MURRAY on hard 19.8%
  33. ROSEWALL on hard 18.9%
  34. BECKER on hard 18.8%
  35. CONNORS on grass 18.4%
  36. EDBERG on hard 18.1%
  37. ROSEWALL on grass 17.8%
  38. CONNORS on clay 16.7%
  39. NADAL on grass 16.7%
  40. EDBERG on grass 16.1%
  41. NEWCOMBE on clay 15.7%
  42. AGASSI on carpet 15.4%
  43. EDBERG on carpet 14.7%
  44. NEWCOMBE on grass 14.3%
  45. NADAL on hard 14.1%
  46. FEDERER on clay 13.8%
  47. NEWCOMBE on carpet 13.0%
  48. ROSEWALL on carpet 12.1%
  49. AGASSI on clay 11.5%
  50. WILANDER on hard 11.3%
  51. WILANDER on grass 11.1%
  52. BORG on hard 9.5%
  53. McENROE on clay 9.1%
  54. LENDL on grass 7.4%
  55. SAMPRAS on clay 6.8%
  56. MURRAY on clay 6.1%
  57. EDBERG on clay 5.9%
  58. AGASSI on grass 5.3%
  59. WILANDER on carpet 4.3%
  60. BECKER on clay 0.0%

Various other players sneak in there, like Thomas Muster is 23.8% on clay - about the same as Djokovic and Vilas (23.3%).

Anyhow, that 15% gap between Rafa on clay and everyone else is rather incredible.

I'm a bit surprised at how low Rafa ranks on hards - I think that comes down to a poor record in hard court finals: 22-26, probably largely due to Novak. That isn't as bad as Roger's record in clay finals at 11-15, with that 2-11 record in clay finals vs. Rafa. Meaning, Roger was 9-4 vs other opponents in clay finals; he hadn't had to face Rafa, his clay title % would probably be around 25% or so.

I was also surprised to discover that Boris Becker never won a single clay title - in 60 tries!

Here's the overall:

Title Percentage (All Surfaces)
34.0% Laver
32.7% Borg
32.2% Djokovic
30.1% Nadal
29.3% Lendl
29.2% McEnroe
28.1% Federer
26.8% Connors
24.2% Sampras
18.8% Agassi
18.6% Becker
17.9% Murray
16.7% Newcombe
14.8% Edberg
14.2% Wilander

As a side note, Rod Laver is easily the most balanced player of all: he's the only one in the top 5 on all surface types (including carpet). This is particularly impressive considering that the above numbers only account for the Open Era, in which he was just a few months shy of his 30th birthday (the percentages tend to go down the older a player is).
 
  • Like
Reactions: MargaretMcAleer

Fjaka2.0

Club Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2021
Messages
97
Reactions
70
Points
18
The cla
Anyhow, here's further illustration of what I'm talking about, re: Rafa's dominance on clay. Rafa reached a final in 65.4% of clay tournaments he entered (!), winning 57.9% of them (!!).

Here's a fun exercise. Let's split players up into their component parts--by surface--and then rank them all by Title %. I'll exclude recent guys on carpet, but everything else is fair game. Also, I'll include every player who has won 5+ Slams in the Open Era, and thrown in Ken Rosewall because, well, he's Ken Rosewall, and also Andy Murray because, well, he's Andy. No other 3-4 "near greats" like Vilas, Courier, Ashe, etc.

I've also color-coded the Big Four, just so they stand out.
  1. NADAL on clay 57.9%
  2. BORG on clay 42.1%
  3. McENROE on carpet 41.7%
  4. LAVER on hard 40.6%
  5. FEDERER on grass 39.6%
  6. LENDL on carpet 38.8%
  7. DJOKOVIC on hard 37.1%
  8. CONNORS on carpet 36.1%
  9. BORG on carpet 35.9%
  10. BORG on grass 35.0%
  11. SAMPRAS on grass 34.5%
  12. LAVER on carpet 32.9%
  13. FEDERER on hard 32.1%
  14. LAVER on grass 32.0%
  15. BECKER on carpet 29.9%
  16. LENDL on clay 29.5%
  17. DJOKOVIC on grass 29.2%
  18. McENROE on grass 28.6%
  19. ROSEWALL on clay 28.2%
  20. LAVER on clay 28.0%
  21. SAMPRAS on carpet 27.3%
  22. LENDL on hard 27.2%
  23. CONNORS on hard 27.1%
  24. SAMPRAS on hard 26.3%
  25. MURRAY on grass 25.0%
  26. McENROE on hard 24.7%
  27. DJOKOVIC on clay 23.6%
  28. AGASSI on hard 22.9%
  29. WILANDER on clay 22.7%
  30. NEWCOMBE on hard 22.4%
  31. BECKER on grass 21.9%
  32. MURRAY on hard 19.8%
  33. ROSEWALL on hard 18.9%
  34. BECKER on hard 18.8%
  35. CONNORS on grass 18.4%
  36. EDBERG on hard 18.1%
  37. ROSEWALL on grass 17.8%
  38. CONNORS on clay 16.7%
  39. NADAL on grass 16.7%
  40. EDBERG on grass 16.1%
  41. NEWCOMBE on clay 15.7%
  42. AGASSI on carpet 15.4%
  43. EDBERG on carpet 14.7%
  44. NEWCOMBE on grass 14.3%
  45. NADAL on hard 14.1%
  46. FEDERER on clay 13.8%
  47. NEWCOMBE on carpet 13.0%
  48. ROSEWALL on carpet 12.1%
  49. AGASSI on clay 11.5%
  50. WILANDER on hard 11.3%
  51. WILANDER on grass 11.1%
  52. BORG on hard 9.5%
  53. McENROE on clay 9.1%
  54. LENDL on grass 7.4%
  55. SAMPRAS on clay 6.8%
  56. MURRAY on clay 6.1%
  57. EDBERG on clay 5.9%
  58. AGASSI on grass 5.3%
  59. WILANDER on carpet 4.3%
  60. BECKER on clay 0.0%

Various other players sneak in there, like Thomas Muster is 23.8% on clay - about the same as Djokovic and Vilas (23.3%).

Anyhow, that 15% gap between Rafa on clay and everyone else is rather incredible.

I'm a bit surprised at how low Rafa ranks on hards - I think that comes down to a poor record in hard court finals: 22-26, probably largely due to Novak. That isn't as bad as Roger's record in clay finals at 11-15, with that 2-11 record in clay finals vs. Rafa. Meaning, Roger was 9-4 vs other opponents in clay finals; he hadn't had to face Rafa, his clay title % would probably be around 25% or so.

I was also surprised to discover that Boris Becker never won a single clay title - in 60 tries!

Here's the overall:

Title Percentage (All Surfaces)
34.0% Laver
32.7% Borg
32.2% Djokovic
30.1% Nadal
29.3% Lendl
29.2% McEnroe
28.1% Federer
26.8% Connors
24.2% Sampras
18.8% Agassi
18.6% Becker
17.9% Murray
16.7% Newcombe
14.8% Edberg
14.2% Wilander

As a side note, Rod Laver is easily the most balanced player of all: he's the only one in the top 5 on all surface types (including carpet). This is particularly impressive considering that the above numbers only account for the Open Era, in which he was just a few months shy of his 30th birthday (the percentages tend to go down the older a player is).
The clay dominance is unique and impressive, he is made for the dirt and makes the most out of it.
But far not enough for being considered GOAT (the term itself includes OVERALL).
 

Carol

Grand Slam Champion
Joined
Jan 10, 2015
Messages
9,225
Reactions
1,833
Points
113
This eternal discuss about the goat is soooo boring!!!



7ac437391a10d4baaffbb96ed597d38439d411b64f8c2fa6825285bf80af4944.jpg
 

tented

Administrator
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
21,703
Reactions
10,580
Points
113
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
I think at least part of what’s going on involves two factors: 1) Fedal fans being faced with the raw data of Novak’s achievements, after thinking for so many years this generation’s GOAT debate would only ever involve Federer and Nadal, not Novak; and 2) the reality of so many tennis fans disliking Djokovic, thus begrudgingly even having to consider him. I’m not happy about this either, but facts are facts.

Novak has slowly come up from behind, now genuinely overtaking Fedal. The numbers don’t lie. He will almost certainly end up with the most number of majors and masters, and already has the most weeks at No. 1, among other accomplishments. For ages I thought Novak would remain a solid, but somewhat distant third behind Fedal, yet here we are.

We can argue all day about ephemeral qualities such as Roger’s “beautiful game” or who each player faced when winning these big titles, but as @Fiero425 pointed out, history will not consider these things. They’ll look at the numbers on Wikipedia, and see who tops the various lists.
 

nehmeth

Grand Slam Champion
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
8,627
Reactions
1,677
Points
113
Location
State College, PA
I think Roger's pretty done, though I know his fans hold out hope for one more Major. Why not? I do think Rafa can do enough to keep any answer from being as obvious as you seem to think it already is. Since you're new here, let me catch you up a bit. Part of the "GOAT" debate around here is whether or not there is one such thing. One of our members, @nehmeth (a Djokovic fan, btw,) has long said that, at best, there might be a "GOTE" (Greatest of Their Era.) As @shawnbm says above, I think this era will be debated forever on that score. Of what we call the Fedalovic era, Djokovic dominated the latter half. I don't see how you reduce Federer and Nadal to second tier in this era, given the realities across all of it.
After watching tennis for almost 50 years, in my opinion the greatest tennis I’ve seen has been in this era. I remember when Roger was approaching Pete’s record in slams and the loud cries from his fans (I being one), trying to argue the merits of Pete over Fed. Roger has 20 slams to Pete’s 14. I could argue all I want, debate stats and competition and surfaces. At the end of the day Roger broke many of Pete’s records.

One by one Novak is piling up the records and distancing himself from the other two. Trying to lump them all together as some homogeneous mixture that can’t be separated is flawed. Novak has won all four Slams twice, all nine Masters twice, owns the record for weeks at number one and the record for year end number one. If Novak moves ahead in the number of slams won, by virtue of the records he will be the first among equals. It means he will have the highest status within that group. It doesn’t make Federer or Nadal 2nd tier.

Ten years from now, Medvedev stated that the records Novak holds will speak for themselves. It was tough watching Federer pass Samrpras in slams and then keep adding to his lead. Being invested emotionally with the ones who are getting passed is always difficult.
 

El Dude

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
10,244
Reactions
5,972
Points
113
I think at least part of what’s going on involves two factors: 1) Fedal fans being faced with the raw data of Novak’s achievements, after thinking for so many years this generation’s GOAT debate would only ever involve Federer and Nadal, not Novak; and 2) the reality of so many tennis fans disliking Djokovic, thus begrudgingly even having to consider him. I’m not happy about this either, but facts are facts.

Novak has slowly come up from behind, now genuinely overtaking Fedal. The numbers don’t lie. He will almost certainly end up with the most number of majors and masters, and already has the most weeks at No. 1, among other accomplishments. For ages I thought Novak would remain a solid, but somewhat distant third behind Fedal, yet here we are.

We can argue all day about ephemeral qualities such as Roger’s “beautiful game” or who each player faced when winning these big titles, but as @Fiero425 pointed out, history will not consider these things. They’ll look at the numbers on Wikipedia, and see who tops the various lists.
Yes, all well said - pretty much along the lines of my argument, going back to the first post in this thread.

I do think, though, that we have to give consideration to the various alternate views, like GOTE and other not purely statistical views. We can write those off as purely Fedal-fan-fueled rationalizations, or we can hear the essence of what they're saying, which is a recognition of greatness not being entirely quantifiable.

I think both perspectives have validity. But that's the key: both. And when you consider both, Novak still is the "gun-to-head" best answer.
 

El Dude

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
10,244
Reactions
5,972
Points
113
If Novak moves ahead in the number of slams won, by virtue of the records he will be the first among equals. It means he will have the highest status within that group. It doesn’t make Federer or Nadal 2nd tier.
Yes, this - although I think he's already "first among equals." if he adds another couple Slams and overall accomplishments, he'll be a bit more than that. I mean, right now we have:

RF: 20 Slams, 312 weeks at #1, 6 WTF, 28 Masters, 103 titles
RN: 20 Slams, 209 weeks at #1, 0 WTF, 36 Masters, 88 titles, 1 Olympics
ND: 20 Slams, 345+ weeks at #1, 5 WTF, 37 Masters, 86 titles

Plus all the other ways of comparing them (and Novak has the H2H edge over both). The point being, I think that puts Novak as "first among equals" already.

Now if we look at where they are right now and project forward in a moderate way, we can see how Novak will have significant leads in all categories, with the possible exception of titles - but he has a chance to even lead in that area.

As Moxie has said, the case isn't closed yet because all three are still active, but that is really a technicality, like saying a basketball team hasn't lost because the game is over, even though they are behind by 20 points in the 4th quarter.
 

Moxie

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
43,778
Reactions
14,946
Points
113
Yes, this - although I think he's already "first among equals." if he adds another couple Slams and overall accomplishments, he'll be a bit more than that. I mean, right now we have:

RF: 20 Slams, 312 weeks at #1, 6 WTF, 28 Masters, 103 titles
RN: 20 Slams, 209 weeks at #1, 0 WTF, 36 Masters, 88 titles, 1 Olympics
ND: 20 Slams, 345+ weeks at #1, 5 WTF, 37 Masters, 86 titles

Plus all the other ways of comparing them (and Novak has the H2H edge over both). The point being, I think that puts Novak as "first among equals" already.

Now if we look at where they are right now and project forward in a moderate way, we can see how Novak will have significant leads in all categories, with the possible exception of titles - but he has a chance to even lead in that area.

As Moxie has said, the case isn't closed yet because all three are still active, but that is really a technicality, like saying a basketball team hasn't lost because the game is over, even though they are behind by 20 points in the 4th quarter.
Based on your above, your metaphor of "20 points behind" only holds up if your projected assumption (which I'm reading in) is that Djokovic continues apace, and the other 2 fade. (And here I think you lump Rafa in with Roger.) Otherwise, those numbers look a bit closer than that. I am a Rafa fan, (have I ever mentioned that?) and my hope springs eternal. :)
 

El Dude

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
10,244
Reactions
5,972
Points
113
Based on your above, your metaphor of "20 points behind" only holds up if your projected assumption (which I'm reading in) is that Djokovic continues apace, and the other 2 fade. (And here I think you lump Rafa in with Roger.) Otherwise, those numbers look a bit closer than that. I am a Rafa fan, (have I ever mentioned that?) and my hope springs eternal. :)
True. And I'm not assuming Novak will continue indefinitely, just that he's currently in the best shape to pile on more accomplishments.

I think Rafa has a solid chance to surge again, but it is less likely than Novak continues for another year or two, though more likely that Roger has one more Wimbledon and a Masters or two left in him.

But with these guys, you never know. But...
 
Last edited:

Moxie

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
43,778
Reactions
14,946
Points
113
True. And I'm not assuming Novak will continue indefinitely, just that he's currently in the best shape to pile on more accomplishments.

I think Rafa has a solid chance to surge again, but it is less likely than Novak continues for another year or two, though more likely that Roger has one more Wimbledon and a Masters or two left in him.

But with these guys, you never know. But...
I know you're not assuming that he'll go on forever, and I'm not saying that you're not making the safest bet. Nobody saw 2017 coming. I do have enough fingers to count that that WAS 5 years ago, by the time we arrive at the AO, but as you say, with these guys, you never know. BUT...btw, is it true what someone posted that Roger won't play the AO? And the vaccination thingy does make Novak a bit of a question mark. And at some point these younger guys will spoil more often then they don't, so we still have to play out the game. :smooch:
 

El Dude

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
10,244
Reactions
5,972
Points
113
I know you're not assuming that he'll go on forever, and I'm not saying that you're not making the safest bet. Nobody saw 2017 coming. I do have enough fingers to count that that WAS 5 years ago, by the time we arrive at the AO, but as you say, with these guys, you never know. BUT...btw, is it true what someone posted that Roger won't play the AO? And the vaccination thingy does make Novak a bit of a question mark. And at some point these younger guys will spoil more often then they don't, so we still have to play out the game. :smooch:
That's a bummer, re: Roger. My guess is that he's going to make 2022 all about Wimbledon, and possibly the later hardcourt season.

If Novak doesn't play the AO, if I was a Rafa fan, I'd be somewhat hopeful, but also a bit nervous. Not only are there more dangerous players out there, but Rafa won't have played much in half a year or more. He can warm up in one of the early ATP 250s, but he could use a friendly draw.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Fiero425

Moxie

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
43,778
Reactions
14,946
Points
113
That's a bummer, re: Roger. My guess is that he's going to make 2022 all about Wimbledon, and possibly the later hardcourt season.

If Novak doesn't play the AO, if I was a Rafa fan, I'd be somewhat hopeful, but also a bit nervous. Not only are there more dangerous players out there, but Rafa won't have played much in half a year or more. He can warm up in one of the early ATP 250s, but he could use a friendly draw
It was posted on another thread by a Djokovic fan, with no link, and I didn't follow it up. (Thanks @tented for the link.) I'm not really surprised is passed everyone's notice. Yes, it is a bummer. One does have to think that he'll focus on Wimbledon and the later half of the year, then.

If Novak doesn't play the AO, as a Rafa fan, I'm here to tell you I'll be very hopeful. If he does play it, and I expect him to, I will be less so. (I'm an optimist but not an idiot.) And if you've been paying attention, we Nadal fans are always nervous when it comes to the AO. Rafa has been more than a little snake-bit there. We're hoping he comes in fresh and ready, with a decent tune-up. But I will not say that you're wrong that a decent draw wouldn't help. Even Fed fans have been saying that about him for a long time. At a certain point, you need some help from the draw. I don't think Rafa will get past 2 rough 5-setters in SF and final at the AO, like he did in '09, at the very least unless he glides into them fairly effortlessly, and then doesn't finish v. Djokovic. If he only had to survive Zverev and Medvedev, however, I think he could do it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: El Dude

El Dude

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
10,244
Reactions
5,972
Points
113
It was posted on another thread by a Djokovic fan, with no link, and I didn't follow it up. (Thanks @tented for the link.) I'm not really surprised is passed everyone's notice. Yes, it is a bummer. One does have to think that he'll focus on Wimbledon and the later half of the year, then.

If Novak doesn't play the AO, as a Rafa fan, I'm here to tell you I'll be very hopeful. If he does play it, and I expect him to, I will be less so. (I'm an optimist but not an idiot.) And if you've been paying attention, we Nadal fans are always nervous when it comes to the AO. Rafa has been more than a little snake-bit there. We're hoping he comes in fresh and ready, with a decent tune-up. But I will not say that you're wrong that a decent draw wouldn't help. Even Fed fans have been saying that about him for a long time. At a certain point, you need some help from the draw. I don't think Rafa will get past 2 rough 5-setters in SF and final at the AO, like he did in '09, at the very least unless he glides into them fairly effortlessly, and then doesn't finish v. Djokovic. If he only had to survive Zverev and Medvedev, however, I think he could do it.
Well if its any small solace, if it comes down to Rafa vs Novak in the final, I'd be rooting for Rafa - not out of hate for Novak or love for Rafa, but because I generally pull for the underdog (Fed not included). Plus it would be nice for Rafa to finally get that Slam lead, even if only for a short while. Who knows, if he wins AO, then he could jump ahead at RG...I imagine you can't help but dream of that.

But at this point, I'm mostly pulling for the young guys in pretty much any form or fashion. I'm especially hoping to see Rublev and Sinner to win their first big titles, FAA to win any title, and even Sascha to pop his Slam cherry. Funny thing about Sascha is that he's become a bit more likable now that Stefanos has been revealed to be the Numero Uno Douche on tour.

I'd also like to see Thiem and Del Potro come back strong, if only to deepen the field. 2022 could be quite a year: Imagine Rafa surging back, Roger having one more flower of youth moment later in the year, Thiem and Del Potro back, and the young guys all improving, with Novak trying to fend off all-comers and Daniil trying to sneak into the #1 spot. Could be a fiercely epic year.
 
  • Love
  • Like
Reactions: tented and Moxie

Moxie

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
43,778
Reactions
14,946
Points
113
Well if its any small solace, if it comes down to Rafa vs Novak in the final, I'd be rooting for Rafa - not out of hate for Novak or love for Rafa, but because I generally pull for the underdog (Fed not included). Plus it would be nice for Rafa to finally get that Slam lead, even if only for a short while. Who knows, if he wins AO, then he could jump ahead at RG...I imagine you can't help but dream of that.

But at this point, I'm mostly pulling for the young guys in pretty much any form or fashion. I'm especially hoping to see Rublev and Sinner to win their first big titles, FAA to win any title, and even Sascha to pop his Slam cherry. Funny thing about Sascha is that he's become a bit more likable now that Stefanos has been revealed to be the Numero Uno Douche on tour.

I'd also like to see Thiem and Del Potro come back strong, if only to deepen the field. 2022 could be quite a year: Imagine Rafa surging back, Roger having one more flower of youth moment later in the year, Thiem and Del Potro back, and the young guys all improving, with Novak trying to fend off all-comers and Daniil trying to sneak into the #1 spot. Could be a fiercely epic year.
Yes, you've totally tapped into my dream year. However, I'm finding Sascha less likable than I used to, as he is turning out to be rather of a douche, himself, in many different ways, and not just the most sensational. Other than that, I'd take any and all you wish for in the coming year. And certainly anything over Djokovic just hoovering up titles and accolades with no resistance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: El Dude

BratSrbin

Pro Tour Champion
Joined
Apr 25, 2013
Messages
359
Reactions
175
Points
43

Pete Sampras: “I do think what Novak’s done over the past 10 years, winning the majors, being consistent, finishing No. 1 for seven years, to me it’s a clear sign that he is the greatest of all time.”

 

Moxie

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
43,778
Reactions
14,946
Points
113
I think at least part of what’s going on involves two factors: 1) Fedal fans being faced with the raw data of Novak’s achievements, after thinking for so many years this generation’s GOAT debate would only ever involve Federer and Nadal, not Novak; and 2) the reality of so many tennis fans disliking Djokovic, thus begrudgingly even having to consider him. I’m not happy about this either, but facts are facts.

Novak has slowly come up from behind, now genuinely overtaking Fedal. The numbers don’t lie. He will almost certainly end up with the most number of majors and masters, and already has the most weeks at No. 1, among other accomplishments. For ages I thought Novak would remain a solid, but somewhat distant third behind Fedal, yet here we are.

We can argue all day about ephemeral qualities such as Roger’s “beautiful game” or who each player faced when winning these big titles, but as @Fiero425 pointed out, history will not consider these things. They’ll look at the numbers on Wikipedia, and see who tops the various lists.
I have been thinking about the bolded above, and I don't agree. Across this thread we've had the likes of El Dude and Kieran arguing not just for Laver, but the fine points of players like Newcombe, Rosewall and Pancho Gonzalez's place in the game. At a stretch, a few of us here might actually remember watching those guys play. Otherwise, what is left to us is some grainy b/w footage, and a couple of evocative books by Gordon Forbes. And yet, we still discuss their games. Not just their place on the list. What we have of the Big 3, and others, now, is complete matches available in color and in HD. I don't see this era falling into some dusty and ossified list of stats. As long as there are sports, there will be sports "nerds" who will delve deeper. I don't see this era as ever 100% settled. And why should it be?