Time to crown Novak the GOAT?

[Fiero425]

I agree that there is debate to be had, that it isn't "over." But also, my view hasn't as much changed, as I think there are different ways of approaching the issue. It isn't either there's a singular GOAT or there's a multi-headed GOAT...the GOAT question is "If you have to pick." Maybe "gun to head" is a bit too harsh, but what about if you're offered a million bucks to pick a GOAT, and the most powerful AI ever is going to calculate all factors perfectly to come up with an ordering, and if you pick wrongly you don't get the million bucks? OK, then we can say "but even AI could be biased and/or subjective," etc, but that's not the point of the exercise. It is basically, "If you have to choose."

Meaning, my view remains, "I don't think we can fully answer the question of GOATness for a variety of reasons, most notably the shifting context of tennis history and the difficulty of comparing across eras, but I still think we can give it a shot, if only for the fun of it."

In other words, recognizing that GOATness is multifaceted and perhaps impossible to determine doesn't preclude the mental exercise of still giving it a shot. It is a process of (hopefully informed) speculation and logical conjecture.

If we must approach the issue, I think the best way is to first clearly define what "GOAT" means - and what it doesn't mean. One of the problems with most GOAT lists is that criteria are rarely provided. Or maybe a better approach is to ignore "GOAT" and just approach the question of greatness from different angles, using specific specifics to ask questions like, "Who has the best Slam record?" "Who is the greatest competitor?" "Who consistently played at the highest level across all surfaces?" Etc. But even then, people are going to talk about the GOAT--it is always going to rear its ugly head (like it probably is now in basketball, with LeBron breaking the scoring record) and we can choose either to participate or not.

Or to put it one more way: It is not that I think Novak is the clear and obvious GOAT, or that he is/was clearly a greater player than Rafa or roger, but that he is the "least bad answer," at least of the Open Era. Historically, that may be Rod Laver.

I think we have enough popularity contests going on, with all this silly talk in this thread!

I see it as some others; Fed probably the most artistic & great player of the game, but not the GOAT due to neg. H2H vs his 2 rivals! Nadal has the heart to hang on out there even when injured! Novak's obviously the most complete of players ever, winning on all surfaces, & looks to continue his run to even better heights in his old age! W/ limited play, he's still winning fairly easy against all competitors, dropping only 2 ATP matches since last Summer! I'm not counting that joke exhibition of Laver Cup! My era faves are still Borg, Sampras, Edberg, & Safin!

 

[Kieran]

Yes, all very well said. Interesting phrase, "the nostalgia for the absolute." That certainly resonates with various mystical/esoteric philosophies, which generally say that all of our longings and desires boil down to the separation/ignorance of the absolute (God), and are surrogates for that "return." Eventually we grow tired of surrogates - or they become more and more refined - until we re-discover "god”.

Interesting of words: surrogates!

In that sense, I wouldn't downplay the profundity of watching a great athlete - it can certainly have a "godly" quality to it, in a not dissimilar way to hearing beautiful music (as you say) or experiencing great art. So as you say, we see it elsewhere - especially in art, but also other "high" forms of culture. Or those old Platonic ideals of Goodness, Truth, and Beauty.

I love that David Foster Wallace essay, by the way! But I think, also, you can apply the same deep appreciation to Rafa, Novak, and other great players, yet come up with different adjectives and images (e.g. "indomitable bull with a two-handed katana" lol). In that sense, I kind of see preferring one over the other like musical tastes - they're the best of different "genres."

A good way of putting it. Those who value genius and grace under pressure ahead of all other virtues will insist that Roger has exceeded everyone, whereas Rafa will exemplify resistance and the ability to transcend his limitations to succeed, and Novak represents a champion who came walking out of a war into an alien world for young lads from Serbia, and he’s succeeded in placing himself among these modern giants.

I do think the "search for the GOAT" is a bit different than appreciate greatness, and fan egos get involved. And our favorite player becomes somewhat like a surrogate for our own sense of self. It is less of an appreciation of great art and accomplishment, and more of a war between factions. My guy vs your guy. Or at least it devolves into that; for me, it is mainly a nerdy mental puzzle like playing Wordle or ranking favorite albums or films. I "get off" on trying to find the solution or truth to the puzzle...even though I'm never satisfied with whatever formula or methodology I dream up. Oh, and if I'm fully honest, I often use such projects as ways to procrastinate my own artistic work (mostly writing).

I think I’m the goat procrastinator and it’s not even close, I’d back it up with the relevant stats but I’m procrastinating over them too! I’m curious about your artistic work - expect a pm in the morning, I need to sleep now!

Great insight there brother!

 

[Kieran]

Novak's obviously the most complete of players ever, winning on all surfaces

The argument against this, of course, is that the surfaces now suit him, and so he’s able to make so much hay. Fortunately for him, etc, as the argument runs, that he never played on slow dirt and fast grass.

My era faves are still Borg, Sampras, Edberg, & Safin!

I think I’ll always have Borg, Sampras and Rafa as my ultimate favourites. Don’t know if I’ll ever get worked up about a player again. Until the next one comes along, anyway!

 

[El Dude]

I see it as some others; Fed probably the most artistic & great player of the game, but not the GOAT due to neg. H2H vs his 2 rivals! Nadal has the heart to hang on out there even when injured!

Stop the presses! @Moxie, bear witness.

Novak's obviously the most complete of players ever, winning on all surfaces, & looks to continue his run to even better heights in his old age! W/ limited play, he's still winning fairly easy against all competitors, dropping only 2 ATP matches since last Summer! I'm not counting that joke exhibition of Laver Cup! My era faves are still Borg, Sampras, Edberg, & Safin!

I do agree with you on your takes of the Big Three...though @Kieran has a good point. As others have said, the courts have become more homogenized in recent decades.

 

[Andy22]

Homogenized of The surfaces means Djokovic feats are less impressive and he's Co-Goat with Nadal.

Nadal Was the 1st player in history to win slams on All 3 surfaces in the same season true Goat feat.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

According to Thiem some of you are being disrespectful especially El Dude and his unhealthy obsession of trying to prove that Djokovic is the goat…

"It's a disrespect to all of them," Dominic Thiem says Rafael Nadal, Roger Federer and Novak Djokovic all deserve the 'GOAT' tag

Dominic Thiem has not been in his best physical shape for the last couple of years. However, there are positive signs indicating a strong season for the

firstsportz.com

“I have a great relationship with all of them, I get along very well with all three and I admire them all equally. All the time people talk about who is better than the other and it’s not really good. I don’t like to say that. I think it’s a disrespect to all of them, they’ve all done amazing things that probably no one else will ever do in their lifetime. There is not just one GOAT, all three deserve it because they are unique,” said the Austrian.

 

[atttomole]

Homogenized of The surfaces means Djokovic feats are less impressive and he's Co-Goat with Nadal.

Nadal Was the 1st player in history to win slams on All 3 surfaces in the same season true Goat feat.

And the homogenization of the surfaces hurt Federer the most. If the historically fast surfaces played as fast as they should, Federer could have added at least 5 more GS titles to his tally.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

And the homogenization of the surfaces hurt Federer the most. If the historically fast surfaces played as fast as they should, Federer could have added at least 5 more GS titles to his tally.

And if Nadal was lucky to not be injured so often like Federer and Djokovic he would have 50 more slams.

 

[atttomole]

And if Nadal was lucky to not be injured so often like Federer and Djokovic he would have 50 more sl

You are comparing Nadal’s injuries to the slowing down of surfaces? And you are the same people telling us that Djokovic benefited from the slowing down of surfaces? Actually Nadal benefited the most from the slowing down of surfaces. He has the most limited game of the once so called big three.

 

[Jelenafan]

And the homogenization of the surfaces hurt Federer the most. If the fastest surfaces played as fast as they should, Federer could have added at least 5 more GS titles to his tally.

Who dictates "played as fast as they should" for any surface? Federer fans?

The tournament directors have tweaked surface speed, type of tennis ball used, etc, for decades. Technology has resulted in rackets that generate 130/140 MPH and strings that make ROS even more lethal so that S-V is not as common as it used to be. Grass doesn't play as it did in the 70's or 80's but even when Federer came up it was already slowed down so that was an advantage for him. I still remember poor Stefan Edberg losing a 4 set Wimbledon match in which he was not broken serve even once, and that was before rackets generated the consistent power they do now. Indoor carpet is long gone, and it once rivaled hardcourts as a surface. And so forth and so on.

You are comparing Nadal’s injuries to the slowing down of surfaces? And you are the same people telling us that Djokovic benefited from the slowing down of surfaces? Actually Nadal benefited the most from the slowing down of surfaces. He has the most limited game of the once so called big three.

Nadalfan2013 is simply demonstrating going down the rabbit hole of "IF" is all speculative, and more than one fandom can play that game.

The reality is playing the MOST Majors of the BIG 3, and being relatively injury free for most of his career, Federer garnered the least amount of Slams. All the speculative hypotheses can't change that.

 

[Kieran]

I think the surfaces definitely play a role in dictating who will win. Rafa v Novak H2H is almost identical, with Rafa leading on clay by an almost similar amount as Novak leads on hards. If two-thirds of the MS tourneys, 100% of WTF’s and 50% of slams were on clay, we’d have to still be careful in declaring Rafa’s the goat, for the same reason we should be wary of declaring Novak or Roger as goats for playing largely on home courts.

And that’s even before we go slightly back in time to an era when grass and clay were as opposite as ice and mud…

 

[Fiero425]

I think the surfaces definitely play a role in dictating who will win. Rafa v Novak H2H is almost identical, with Rafa leading on clay by an almost similar amount as Novak leads on hards. If two-thirds of the MS tourneys, 100% of WTF’s and 50% of slams were on clay, we’d have to still be careful in declaring Rafa’s the goat, for the same reason we should be wary of declaring Novak or Roger as goats for playing largely on home courts.

And that’s even before we go slightly back in time to an era when grass and clay were as opposite as ice and mud…

I miss those days when the surfaces were quite distinct & gave "also rans" of the tour a chance to upset an elite player! Times have changed to accommodate the top pros; going 32 seeds, homogenizing the court surfaces, Protected Rankings, etc.! Like we discussed a week or so ago, the tour overcompensated when Fedal had to WD from a Masters' event after going 5 long sets in Hamburg final 15 years ago! The same players wouldn't make consecutive finals often enough for the need after the Big 3 retire! They need to go back to BO5 finals IMO to make them special & above 250 & 500 events!

 

[El Dude]

I think the surfaces definitely play a role in dictating who will win. Rafa v Novak H2H is almost identical, with Rafa leading on clay by an almost similar amount as Novak leads on hards. If two-thirds of the MS tourneys, 100% of WTF’s and 50% of slams were on clay, we’d have to still be careful in declaring Rafa’s the goat, for the same reason we should be wary of declaring Novak or Roger as goats for playing largely on home courts.

And that’s even before we go slightly back in time to an era when grass and clay were as opposite as ice and mud…

The thing I don't like about the "what if" scenarios about the tour composition of surface is that every player started and played knowing what the configuration was. It isn't like Roger grew up playing grass, and then they swapped in a bunch of clay tournaments and he can cry "unfair!" Clay has always been about one-third of the tour (plus or minus); grass has been about 10% +/- since the early 70s. The only real recent change is the gradual elimination of carpet and the increase of hards, but even that was about a 15-year process from the mid-90s to 2008ish.

The tour is the tour. Whether you're Rafa, Roger, or Novak, positing more or less clay, grass or hards is just a whimsical idea and shouldn't be taken seriously as a point within the GOATbate.

I mean, it is sort of like saying, "If hockey was played on grass and with feet, then Maradona would be greater than Wayne Gretzky."

 

[Kieran]

The thing I don't like about the "what if" scenarios about the tour composition of surface is that every player started and played knowing what the configuration was. It isn't like Roger grew up playing grass, and then they swapped in a bunch of clay tournaments and he can cry "unfair!" Clay has always been about one-third of the tour (plus or minus); grass has been about 10% +/- since the early 70s. The only real recent change is the gradual elimination of carpet and the increase of hards, but even that was about a 15-year process from the mid-90s to 2008ish.

The tour is the tour. Whether you're Rafa, Roger, or Novak, positing more or less clay, grass or hards is just a whimsical idea and shouldn't be taken seriously as a point within the GOATbate.

I mean, it is sort of like saying, "If hockey was played on grass and with feet, then Maradona would be greater than Wayne Gretzky."

This is not quite the case. It isn’t a “what if”, it’s a “what is.” The tour was often malleable to change, only a few years before Roger was born the USO flirted with clay, but the fact is that the prevailing culture in Europe - particularly Spain, Italy and France - and Latin America is clay court tennis. This is a cultural thing. Players start playing knowing the configuration of the tour but that’s irrelevant. It’s what’s available is what’s relevant, and where a players strengths lie. Novak probably grew up on clay, as did Roger and Rafa, but Rafa is the most successful of the three on that surface.

Before the surfaces became slightly (though not completely) homogenised there were big differences to navigate, so it was virtually impossible for a Sampras to also be a great out successful clay courter. Cultures change. The game changes. And the configurations are not set forever, so a season with more slams and MS events on clay is not spectacularly far fetched. We should actually have had several WTF’s on clay by now. You’ve referred yourself to the increase of hards. It’s not ridiculous or irrelevant to point out that this is to some players advantage, and not to others, though it didn’t need to be that way.

You’re victim blaming, bro! I’m that close to calling you a clay-cist!

 

[El Dude]

This is not quite the case. It isn’t a “what if”, it’s a “what is.” The tour was often malleable to change, only a few years before Roger was born the USO flirted with clay, but the fact is that the prevailing culture in Europe - particularly Spain, Italy and France - and Latin America is clay court tennis. This is a cultural thing. Players start playing knowing the configuration of the tour but that’s irrelevant. It’s what’s available is what’s relevant, and where a players strengths lie. Novak probably grew up on clay, as did Roger and Rafa, but Rafa is the most successful of the three on that surface.

Before the surfaces became slightly (though not completely) homogenised there were big differences to navigate, so it was virtually impossible for a Sampras to also be a great out successful clay courter. Cultures change. The game changes. And the configurations are not set forever, so a season with more slams and MS events on clay is not spectacularly far fetched. We should actually have had several WTF’s on clay by now. You’ve referred yourself to the increase of hards. It’s not ridiculous or irrelevant to point out that this is to some players advantage, and not to others, though it didn’t need to be that way.

You’re victim blaming, bro! I’m that close to calling you a clay-cist!

LOL, but...really, who is the victim? Is there a victim? I don't see a victim. I see a bunch of different players doing what players have always done: play according to the context of their time. No one is being victimized, no one getting the short end of the stick. Rafa isn't the victim because the WTF is indoors, nor is Roger the victim because there's no grass Masters. Etc, etc.

I mean, maybe there's some kid born in the 80s that specialized on carpet, and then came of age in 2000 and by the time he reached his peak, carpet was gone. That would be getting the short end of the stick. But for the Big Three--and for most players during the span of their careers--the tour is consistent enough that I don't think there are many issues of a player getting significantly shafted, or for such speculations to be anything more than curious What If scenarios.

Sampras wasn't victimized - his game just didn't play well on clay. There were other players of his era that were more balanced on different surfaces. Somehow Andre Agassi, an inferior player, managed to win Roland Garros and Wimbledon. Just 15 years before, there was this Swede who won the Channel Slam three years in a row. I think what this really tells us is that while Pete was great, he wasn't as great as the Big Three or Borg in his prime.

And no, the increase in hards was not to anyone's advantage because it was slow...it didn't happen over night. Hards are also a bit different than grass or clay because the courts vary more greatly. You've got everything from the super fast Cincinnati and indoor WTF to almost clay-like slow courts.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

LOL, but...really, who is the victim? Is there a victim? I don't see a victim. I see a bunch of different players doing what players have always done: play according to the context of their time. No one is being victimized, no one getting the short end of the stick. Rafa isn't the victim because the WTF is indoors, nor is Roger the victim because there's no grass Masters. Etc, etc.

I mean, maybe there's some kid born in the 80s that specialized on carpet, and then came of age in 2000 and by the time he reached his peak, carpet was gone. That would be getting the short end of the stick. But for the Big Three--and for most players during the span of their careers--the tour is consistent enough that I don't think there are many issues of a player getting significantly shafted, or for such speculations to be anything more than curious What If scenarios.

Sampras wasn't victimized - his game just didn't play well on clay. There were other players of his era that were more balanced on different surfaces. Somehow Andre Agassi, an inferior player, managed to win Roland Garros and Wimbledon. Just 15 years before, there was this Swede who won the Channel Slam three years in a row. I think what this really tells us is that while Pete was great, he wasn't as great as the Big Three or Borg in his prime.

And no, the increase in hards was not to anyone's advantage because it was slow...it didn't happen over night. Hards are also a bit different than grass or clay because the courts vary more greatly. You've got everything from the super fast Cincinnati and indoor WTF to almost clay-like slow courts.

Here's the victim...

 

[Andy22]

And the homogenization of the surfaces hurt Federer the most. If the historically fast surfaces played as fast as they should, Federer could have added at least 5 more GS titles to his tally.

It actually helped Federer not hurt him and where's video that debunked the slowing down of surfaces.

Goatovic YouTuber...


It was Federer two rivals that was he's main issue not surfaces.

And as massive Federer fan it's weak make Surfaces Excuses because Federer plays well on slow surfaces.

 

[BratSrbin]

Here's the victim...

Is she dead?

 

[BratSrbin]

If No1e had discovered his body's intolerance to some things in time, I think, he would have taken 5 GS from both Rafa and Federer on the beguning.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

Is she dead?

Not she is not... But when it comes to the people he infected during the Adria Tour and its after parties, or when he went in public while knowingly having Covid, I guess we will never know if someone caught it from him and then passed it on to their grand parents or other people at risk... Stop defending his foolishness and bad behaviour both on the court (for example how he was a complete embarrassment at the last Olympics) and outside the court... People have seen it all and that's why he will never be loved or seen as the GOAT. Being the GOAT is not only about stats it's also about the impact on the game, how people remember you and see you, he will always be in the shadow of Fedal.