Time to crown Novak the GOAT?

[Fjaka2.0]

Kieran said the same thing yet you responded to my post.. Always the negative vibes from you the negative vibes..no worries..no prob

You got me wrong again, maybe it’s the language barrier, I don’t know.
You don’t say the same like Kieran did, you indirectly attacked my post and used the term irresponsible thinking, that didn’t sound friendly to me.
I answered you directly and give a hint why I was using the expression you criticised. The last line was more of a joke.

 

[monfed]

Always the same mental midgetry from joka lovers about Federer. How ironic.

 

[monfed]

What is your opinion than subjective or any other???
That’s why I prefer stats as a basis.
I’m no Fedhater, you are a Fedslave who disintegrates in bitterness.
Your last two sentences show what a poor individual you are.

You keep repeating you're no Fedhater like a parrot. I think Nolefam genuinely believe that if they repeat the same crap a million times it becomes true. What a bunch of weirdos. "Nolefam" LOL. What other fanbase calls itself a fam?

 

[Fjaka2.0]

You keep repeating you're no Fedhater like a parrot. I think Nolefam genuinely believe that if they repeat the same crap a million times it becomes true. What a bunch of weirdos. "Nolefam" LOL. What other fanbase calls itself a fam?

No comment necessary.

 

[monfed]

No comment necessary.

But you did comment, didn't you?
See you can't stop till I stop because you're tribalistic. You should understand that what Serbians think about Djokovic automatically gets DQed because of the obvious country bias. So whatever you say will ALWAYS be taken with a pinch of salt. It cannot be taken as objective for that reason alone.

It's like if a Swiss guy said Federer is the GOAT or a spaniard calling Nadal the GOAT. It doesn't count. Thankfully Federer has the entire world behind him besides a bunch of Swissmen, unlike fakervic who has like 2 fans outside Serbia.

 

[El Dude]

In terms their personal match ups, I think Novak has beaten Roger in 10 of the last 14 matches - but this is to be as expected as it was expected that Roger would win more of their early matches. Their H2H basically comes down to who reached more matches against the other despite not in their own peak.

I definitely agree that Roger had it “easier “ than the others when it came to his own generation, which threw up nobody against him as a meaningful, existential sort of threat, then Rafa came along ahead of time, in a sense to plug the gap. I don’t think this benefited Rafa in the long term, he may have been better off being left to develop slowly, like Novak, but then again, Rafa’s been such an exception, which can tell?

I agree re: Novak and Roger, which is also why they're the hardest to compare.

One thing I've noticed in sports in general is that early bloomers often are also early decliners. It is almost as if every player has a pre-determined number of games they can play before decline sets in.

We can see this in the tennis world, with other early-bloomers: Borg retired at 25; Wilander was done as an elite player at the same age; Becker played at a high level until his late 20s, but then was done by age 28-29. Even McEnroe, who wasn't quite as extreme an early bloomer, was done as an elite player by the time he was 26. And guys like Hewitt, Safin, Courier, Chang...all reached a high level at a relatively young age and had their best years in their early 20s.

I'm not suggesting that this is a hard rule -- and it is more of a general hunch than an actual hypothesis. But Rafa stands out in that he didn't follow this pattern - not only has he sustained a high level past the age when most players decline, but he did so after what looked like the beginning of the end in 2015-16. I mean, if he had retired after 2016 at age 30, it would have looked like a rather typical developmental trajectory for a tennis player, and would have made sense given his play-style that he didn't last into his 30s. But he resurged and won a bunch more Slams and another chunk of weeks at #1.

I also pointed out in one of these discussions that almost every great player has a dip around 30 (plus or minus a year). The current three are unusual in that they resurged after, whereas in the past most players just let the current of age take them.

 

[Kieran]

Well it’s been said before about Rafa, that although skipping half a season so often in his career has definitely impacted negatively on his resume, it has also had the positive effect of prolonging his career by giving him rest, so this makes some sense, from that perspective.

I remember the great Sampras skipping Australia in 1999, citing fatigue as a reason, after he broke the record for consecutive YE#1 in 1998. Pete was only 27 years old, and as we know, they go straight into the off-season after the WTF. So tennis players definitely aged quicker in the past, and to be honest, the only reason I can think that has the Big 3 still performing at such a high level in their dotage is that maybe they push each other so hard? Nobody wants to leave the party early in case the others pull? I don’t know. Could be this. Could even be suspicious. Definitely is incredible, and unusual…

 

[monfed]

Just imagine, if Federer simply got the job done at Wim 19, this GOAT discussion which was already a laughable one to begin with because everyone can see and knows deep down who the GOAT is, would've been permanently discarded. For whatever reason the tennis gods didn't favour Federer that day and here we are listening to Djokovic fans endlessly rattle on about Federer's competition, his mental toughness, blah blah blah.

Wim 19 has become an inflection point rather than the tennis world applauding Federer's superhuman effort to go through Nadovic at freaking 38 YO to win Wimbledon becuase of these next gen losers who can't beat faker unless he completely capitulates like USO 21. I'm willing to bet had Djokovic not played under the pressure of CYGS, he would've won that USO match against Madvedev. Winning the CYGS at 34 playing substandard negative tennis the entire year would've permanently buried tennis. Thankfully Madlad saved tennis the blushes.

Just LOL@calling Djokovic the GOAT who almost always needs all 5 sets and MPs/CPs and a ton of choking to take out old man. And you want us to call this ultra lucky pusher the GOAT? Cmon get real. Only at AO is Djokovic better, everywhere else its Federer. In that way it's not much different to Federer Nadal where Nadal is only better than Federer on clay and Fed is better than him everywhere else.

 

[Fjaka2.0]

But you did comment, didn't you?
See you can't stop till I stop because you're tribalistic. You should understand that what Serbians think about Djokovic automatically gets DQed because of the obvious country bias. So whatever you say will ALWAYS be taken with a pinch of salt. It cannot be taken as objective for that reason alone.

It's like if a Swiss guy said Federer is the GOAT or a spaniard calling Nadal the GOAT. It doesn't count. Thankfully Federer has the entire world behind him besides a bunch of Swissmen, unlike fakervic who has like 2 fans outside Serbia.

First, I’m no Serb.
Second , the same thing can be said for every fan being a countrymen or not , you genius.
Everything you say about Fed or against Nadal/Novak is highly biased and subjective.

But there is more between your lines than ordinary hatred against Novak, it has nationalistic flavour and prejudices, that is what disqualifies you as a reasonable discussing partner.

 

[Fjaka2.0]

Just imagine, if Federer simply got the job done at Wim 19, this GOAT discussion which was already a laughable one to begin with because everyone can see and knows deep down who the GOAT is, would've been permanently discarded. For whatever reason the tennis gods didn't favour Federer that day and here we are listening to Djokovic fans endlessly rattle on about Federer's competition, his mental toughness, blah blah blah.

Wim 19 has become an inflection point rather than the tennis world applauding Federer's superhuman effort to go through Nadovic at freaking 38 YO to win Wimbledon becuase of these next gen losers who can't beat faker unless he completely capitulates like USO 21. I'm willing to bet had Djokovic not played under the pressure of CYGS, he would've won that USO match against Madvedev. Winning the CYGS at 34 playing substandard negative tennis the entire year would've permanently buried tennis. Thankfully Madlad saved tennis the blushes.

Just LOL@calling Djokovic the GOAT who almost always needs all 5 sets and MPs/CPs and a ton of choking to take out old man. And you want us to call this ultra lucky pusher the GOAT? Cmon get real. Only at AO is Djokovic better, everywhere else its Federer. In that way it's not much different to Federer Nadal where Nadal is only better than Federer on clay and Fed is better than him everywhere else.

What ifs didn’t help you.
Stay in reality.
He lost that match and many more.
Let go and move on.
Both Nadal and Novak beat Fed more than the other way around AND both beat him at his best slam!!
WTF are you blabbering about?

 

[monfed]

What ifs didn’t help you.
Stay in reality.
He lost that match and many more.
Let go and move on.
Both Nadal and Novak beat Fed more than the other way around AND both beat him at his best slam!!
WTF are you blabbering about?

That will surely never happen with you.

 

[Fjaka2.0]

Just imagine, if Federer simply got the job done at Wim 19, this GOAT discussion which was already a laughable one to begin with because everyone can see and knows deep down who the GOAT is, would've been permanently discarded. For whatever reason the tennis gods didn't favour Federer that day and here we are listening to Djokovic fans endlessly rattle on about Federer's competition, his mental toughness, blah blah blah.

Wim 19 has become an inflection point rather than the tennis world applauding Federer's superhuman effort to go through Nadovic at freaking 38 YO to win Wimbledon becuase of these next gen losers who can't beat faker unless he completely capitulates like USO 21. I'm willing to bet had Djokovic not played under the pressure of CYGS, he would've won that USO match against Madvedev. Winning the CYGS at 34 playing substandard negative tennis the entire year would've permanently buried tennis. Thankfully Madlad saved tennis the blushes.

Just LOL@calling Djokovic the GOAT who almost always needs all 5 sets and MPs/CPs and a ton of choking to take out old man. And you want us to call this ultra lucky pusher the GOAT? Cmon get real. Only at AO is Djokovic better, everywhere else its Federer. In that way it's not much different to Federer Nadal where Nadal is only better than Federer on clay and Fed is better than him everywhere else.

Another mistake from you genius:
Not Novaks masterpiece at the Wimby F 19 was deceive for Roger, it were the years before Nadal and Novak joined the game, in these years Roger failed to collect enough slams to stay safe.

 

[Fjaka2.0]

That will surely never happen with you.

talk about real happened facts no more dreaming about what ifs.

 

[El Dude]

Well it’s been said before about Rafa, that although skipping half a season so often in his career has definitely impacted negatively on his resume, it has also had the positive effect of prolonging his career by giving him rest, so this makes some sense, from that perspective.

I remember the great Sampras skipping Australia in 1999, citing fatigue as a reason, after he broke the record for consecutive YE#1 in 1998. Pete was only 27 years old, and as we know, they go straight into the off-season after the WTF. So tennis players definitely aged quicker in the past, and to be honest, the only reason I can think that has the Big 3 still performing at such a high level in their dotage is that maybe they push each other so hard? Nobody wants to leave the party early in case the others pull? I don’t know. Could be this. Could even be suspicious. Definitely is incredible, and unusual…

I definitely think they've inspired each other to work harder. As I've said before, I think decline has less to do with the erosion of skills than it does with a lessening of resilience, health, and perhaps drive. Erosion of skills does occur, but it is much slower.

As has been noted about Federer, we still see flashes of him at close to his best - as recently as the 2019 Wimbledon, when he was almost 38 years old. But the difference between him at 38 and 25 is how easy it is to maintain his best level. And one could argue that part of the reason he blew that match was age-related decline in confidence. A cocky 25-year old Roger would have served that one out.

I mean, we all experience this as human beings. I remember hitting 25 and all of a sudden, hangovers suck. Now in the latter half of my 40s, on the rare occasion I have a bit too much to drink, they're absolutely brutal. On the other hand, I hear of people who are in their best health in their 50s and are very active into their 80s, while others fall apart in midlife.

But if the drive is there, then the rest can follow - assuming they don't have a Del Potroian body (poor Juan). And the drive is obviously there, although I wonder for Roger and, to a lesser, extent, Rafa. I think Roger is going to give it one more shot this year, and I suspect that when Rafa comes back, the contrast of the grind of the tour and hanging out on a boat off Mallorca with Xisca might start seeming more stark, especially with the rising tide of young players and the state of the world.

But yeah, that makes sense that Rafa losing time may actually have extended his career. Who knows, maybe he'll hang around even longer and just play clay season.

I also think we should be reminded that Ken Rosewall played his last Slam SF at age 42, and reached a QF later in the year after turning 43. I know the game has changed since the late 70s, but it isn't inconceivable that certain contemporary players find a way to stay relevant into their 40s.

 

[Moxie]

I understand but can agree only in parts.
I agree that there can only be one goat. It coudnt be Nadal because of his limitations, ok.
But where I disagree is what you wrote about tennis abilities and gamewise.
Tennis is a competitive sport. There are many aspects necessary to be best and successful at it.
Shotmaking, intelligence, physicality, mental strength etc .
To choose the goat, at least for now, you have to take everything into account and of course look at the stats, they reflect the overall package.
Federer also has technical limitations beside the mental. His ROS and BH could never be called goat level, but his biggest weakness is his mental status.
The best overall package without any doubts, has Novak. For now he is at the top , and I think he will stay there for quite some time.

Some of us think there can be no GOAT, esp. because of any notion that there can only be one. But to call Nadal "limited" is ridiculous. Because of such a great clay resume? Seriously, the man is one of the few men with the career slam, esp. since the Majors have been played on 3 surfaces. On Hards, he has 9 Masters 1000, 1 Olympic gold, and 5 Majors. Novak on clay: 9 MS, 2 Majors. That's more limited, by the surface.

 

[the AntiPusher]

You got me wrong again, maybe it’s the language barrier, I don’t know.
You don’t say the same like Kieran did, you indirectly attacked my post and used the term irresponsible thinking, that didn’t sound friendly to me.
I answered you directly and give a hint why I was using the expression you criticised. The last line was more of a joke.

k

 

[Mile]

I definitely think they've inspired each other to work harder. As I've said before, I think decline has less to do with the erosion of skills than it does with a lessening of resilience, health, and perhaps drive. Erosion of skills does occur, but it is much slower.

As has been noted about Federer, we still see flashes of him at close to his best - as recently as the 2019 Wimbledon, when he was almost 38 years old. But the difference between him at 38 and 25 is how easy it is to maintain his best level. And one could argue that part of the reason he blew that match was age-related decline in confidence. A cocky 25-year old Roger would have served that one out.

I mean, we all experience this as human beings. I remember hitting 25 and all of a sudden, hangovers suck. Now in the latter half of my 40s, on the rare occasion I have a bit too much to drink, they're absolutely brutal. On the other hand, I hear of people who are in their best health in their 50s and are very active into their 80s, while others fall apart in midlife.

But if the drive is there, then the rest can follow - assuming they don't have a Del Potroian body (poor Juan). And the drive is obviously there, although I wonder for Roger and, to a lesser, extent, Rafa. I think Roger is going to give it one more shot this year, and I suspect that when Rafa comes back, the contrast of the grind of the tour and hanging out on a boat off Mallorca with Xisca might start seeming more stark, especially with the rising tide of young players and the state of the world.

But yeah, that makes sense that Rafa losing time may actually have extended his career. Who knows, maybe he'll hang around even longer and just play clay season.

I also think we should be reminded that Ken Rosewall played his last Slam SF at age 42, and reached a QF later in the year after turning 43. I know the game has changed since the late 70s, but it isn't inconceivable that certain contemporary players find a way to stay relevant into their 40s.

Since i cover more athletics i can say moms beneath 40 have best results than when in 25-30 y. I also made my PB with 40's than 30+. Stamina grow but they might just not be so explosive, so 2 sets for youngs, 3 sets for Vets. Just normal evolution.

 

[El Dude]

Some of us think there can be no GOAT, esp. because of any notion that there can only be one. But to call Nadal "limited" is ridiculous. Because of such a great clay resume? Seriously, the man is one of the few men with the career slam, esp. since the Majors have been played on 3 surfaces. On Hards, he has 9 Masters 1000, 1 Olympic gold, and 5 Majors. Novak on clay: 9 MS, 2 Majors. That's more limited, by the surface.

This idea that Rafa is somehow not great off clay is silly, and not borne out by facts. I think part of it is due to his "uber greatness" on clay, and the subconscious contrast people make between his clay and non-clay performance. As I've said before, on clay, Rafa is the most dominant player in tennis history; off clay, he's still an ATG, just more in the pack with a bunch of others. Or to use GOAT points:

CLAY
1. Rafa 401, 2. Borg 166, 3. Vilas 165, 4. Djokovic 162, 5. Lendl 138 (Roger is #6 with 113)

GRASS
1. Federer 185, 2. Connors 130, 3t. Sampras 101, Djokovic 101, 5. Newcombe 97 (Rafa is #16 with 48)

HARD
1. Federer 471, 2. Djokovic 470, 3. Agassi 253, 4. Nadal 233, 5. Sampras 229

CARPET
1. McEnroe 212, 2. Lendl 185, 3. Becker 172, 4. Connors 163, 5. Laver 109

As you can see, Rafa's lead on clay is 2.5 times over #2. Or to put it another way, he's compiled a clay record better than any two other players, and as good as #2, 3, and #13 combined. That is insane.

Roger is the best on grass, but doesn't have nearly the gap. He and Novak are virtually tied on hards, although clearly Novak will pass him shortly - pretty much his next tournament. And Mac has only a small edge over Lendl on carpet.

Now GOAT points are limited and over-emphasize longevity - thus Vilas ranking #3 on clay, having played 841 clay matches, which is 122 more matches than anyone else, and almost three times as many as Federer (297). And obviously Borg was far greater - he as basically the same number of clay GP as Vilas, but in less than half the matches (329. I'd rank Borg, Novak, Lendl, and Wilander over Vilas as a clay player, probably Roger too, though Vilas was very good clay - sort of the Thomas Muster of the 70s.

I'd probably rank Rafa higher than the 16th best grass player, especially over some of the guys who played back in the day that simply played more on grass, like Roche and Smith. Maybe he belongs more in the #10-15 range or better, which is still very good.

One final GP note. If you take out Rafa's clay GP he's at 281, which would still be good for #14 - just ahead of Wilander, Vilas, and Nastase, but behind Becker and Edberg. Meaning, if Rafa had never played a clay tournament and instead swapped them for a combination of mostly hard but some grass and carpet, he's still probably be as good or better than Becker, Edberg, and similar to Agassi. In fact, you could say that Rafa is Andre Agassi on hards, Andy Murray on grass, and a better version of Borg on clay. Or if you take only his clay GP (401), he'd rank #10 in the Open Era, just behind Agassi. That alone is rather extraordinary.

Maybe I'll crunch some numbers and look at GP per match played by surface. That might be interesting to get a better sense of peak level on each surface.

 

[El Dude]

Alright, so I spent a bit of time working out GOAT Points per match played by surface. I only did the better players, so I might miss a specialist here or there, but here is how it looks:

GP/Match - OVERALL

1. Djokovic 0.82
2. Nadal 0.69
3. Federer 0.62
4. Borg 0.61
5. Laver 0.54
6. Sampras 0.53
7. McEnroe 0.48
8. Lendl 0.46
9. Becker 0.40
10. Connors 0.39
11. Agassi 0.36
12. Murray 0.35
13. Edberg 0.31
14. Wilander 0.31
15. Rosewall 0.30

GP/Match - CLAY

1. Nadal 0.791
2. Djokovic 0.535
3. Borg 0.505
4. Federer 0.380
5. Lendl 0.340
6. Laver 0.329
7. Connors 0.307
8. Wilander 0.306
9. Courier 0.306
10. Kuerten 0.305

GP/Match - GRASS

1. Borg 1.034
2. Djokovic 0.842
3. Federer 0.837
4. Sampras 0.835
5. Laver 0.830
6. McEnroe 0.645
7. Connors 0.605
8. Becker 0.596
9. Edberg 0.556
10. Ashe 0.550
11. Nadal 0.527
12. Murray 0.489

GP/Match - HARD

1. Djokovic 0.629
2. Federer 0.505
3. Sampras 0.433
4. Lendl 0.421
5. Laver 0.390
6. McEnroe 0.373
7. Nadal 0.371
8. Agassi 0.335
9. Becker 0.321
10. Murray 0.311

GP/Match - CARPET

1. Lendl 0.571
2. Becker 0.534
3. McEnroe 0.512
4. Sampras 0.505
5. Borg 0.473
6. Laver 0.466

COMMENTS
The interesting thing about this is that it aligns closer to collective impressions about players, which are generally based more on peak dominance than overall career numbers - which is why people tend to view players like McEnroe, Borg and Sampras as greater than, say, Jimmy Connors, despite Connors having more GP.

Overall: I was a bit surprised with how far ahead Novak is overall - that's quite a lead, and adds to his GOAT claim (sorry, non-GOATists . On a match-by-match basis, he's been significantly more dominant than everyone else. Note also that overall includes accomplishment points, which aren't tied to any specific surface - but it also shouldn't be taken as an average of the surfaces, as it adds in overall accomplishment points.

Rafa is a bit ahead of Roger, which is probably because such a large percentage of his matches have been on clay.

Clay: No surprises here, although with modifying it to per match, Novak and Borg are a bit closer to Rafa. Interesting to see Novak as #2. Roger also moves up to #4, which some might protest, but those are the numbers. And you can see that there's a big gap between 3 and 4.

Grass: On a match-by-match basis, Borg is the clear top grass player. Novak is a bit ahead of Roger, but that might change as Novak declines. Notice how closely Novak, Roger, Sampras, and Laver are - basically equally dominant.

Hard: Novak the clear #1, then Roger the clear #2.

Carpet: Just added this in, although I didn't do too many players.

 

[Moxie]

This idea that Rafa is somehow not great off clay is silly, and not borne out by facts. I think part of it is due to his "uber greatness" on clay, and the subconscious contrast people make between his clay and non-clay performance. As I've said before, on clay, Rafa is the most dominant player in tennis history; off clay, he's still an ATG, just more in the pack with a bunch of others. Or to use GOAT points:

CLAY
1. Rafa 401, 2. Borg 166, 3. Vilas 165, 4. Djokovic 162, 5. Lendl 138 (Roger is #6 with 113)

GRASS
1. Federer 185, 2. Connors 130, 3t. Sampras 101, Djokovic 101, 5. Newcombe 97 (Rafa is #16 with 48)

HARD
1. Federer 471, 2. Djokovic 470, 3. Agassi 253, 4. Nadal 233, 5. Sampras 229

CARPET
1. McEnroe 212, 2. Lendl 185, 3. Becker 172, 4. Connors 163, 5. Laver 109

As you can see, Rafa's lead on clay is 2.5 times over #2. Or to put it another way, he's compiled a clay record better than any two other players, and as good as #2, 3, and #13 combined. That is insane.

Roger is the best on grass, but doesn't have nearly the gap. He and Novak are virtually tied on hards, although clearly Novak will pass him shortly - pretty much his next tournament. And Mac has only a small edge over Lendl on carpet.

Now GOAT points are limited and over-emphasize longevity - thus Vilas ranking #3 on clay, having played 841 clay matches, which is 122 more matches than anyone else, and almost three times as many as Federer (297). And obviously Borg was far greater - he as basically the same number of clay GP as Vilas, but in less than half the matches (329. I'd rank Borg, Novak, Lendl, and Wilander over Vilas as a clay player, probably Roger too, though Vilas was very good clay - sort of the Thomas Muster of the 70s.

I'd probably rank Rafa higher than the 16th best grass player, especially over some of the guys who played back in the day that simply played more on grass, like Roche and Smith. Maybe he belongs more in the #10-15 range or better, which is still very good.

One final GP note. If you take out Rafa's clay GP he's at 281, which would still be good for #14 - just ahead of Wilander, Vilas, and Nastase, but behind Becker and Edberg. Meaning, if Rafa had never played a clay tournament and instead swapped them for a combination of mostly hard but some grass and carpet, he's still probably be as good or better than Becker, Edberg, and similar to Agassi. In fact, you could say that Rafa is Andre Agassi on hards, Andy Murray on grass, and a better version of Borg on clay. Or if you take only his clay GP (401), he'd rank #10 in the Open Era, just behind Agassi. That alone is rather extraordinary.

Maybe I'll crunch some numbers and look at GP per match played by surface. That might be interesting to get a better sense of peak level on each surface.

I think that this undervaluing Rafa due to such clay dominance also has a bit to do with a certain prejudice that some have against clay. (This is really not a fannish statement, it's long-observed.) It's a little bit more seen as a "specialty" surface, in part because there have long-been clay specialists, it's true. In terms of Rafa, such as we still hear it, it tends to come from trolls, like Monfed, who was the one to say that Rafa was "limited," (above on the thread,) and Fjaka, whom I don't consider a troll, just concurred. But fair and reasonable posters can fall into it. When Rafa won #13 at RG in 2020, someone (I don't remember who, but a non-troll,) posted that Rafa's resume would be better if he'd only won, say 8X at RG. That the resume would be more "balanced." Which is a fairly bone-headed statement. As if there's anything wrong with having won 5 more slams. I know this is not you, at all, and I appreciate your following up on my post. You have said before that even if you take clay completely out, Rafa is still an ATG.

It's just funny, because grass is never considered in any way a "lesser" surface, even though it has practically been reduced to a novelty. I know this has to do with the reverence for Wimbledon, as much as anything. But folks seem to forget that the Slams were long played on either grass or clay. Period. And most of the tennis calendar, as well. I could go on, with the way that Grass tended to be Anglo-world, Clay tended to be French and Spanish-speaking world, but that's a deeper dive.

Anyway, I'm sure you've explained this before, but can you remind me/us how you arrive at "GOAT points?"