Who is the true goat in Tennis ?

[Sweet Jesus]

Imo Fed won a bunch of his titles against far lesser opponents at the start of his career.

What is your sliding scale for which major titles count more than others? Is it weighted? Based on what?

Do you do the same for AFL premierships? Do some count more than others? Like Hawthorn beating interstate sides 3 years in a row. Those flags count for less than Geelong beating Collingwood/St Kilda. Right?

Flags are flags. Majors are majors. Winning is what counts. Not some parallel measurement of how good the opponents were.

To blithely attribute Federer's dominance to "inferior opponents" is ridiculous. The standard of his tennis in those years was insane.

Djokovic has always had to content against Fed & Nadal & even other high calibre players like Murray for all of his.

Major titles are the only metric that matters.

However, if you want to start weighting titles, you could argue that Djokovic is cashing in when his challengers are still older players rather than guys 23-28 who should by now be pushing him out.

I think Djokovic is going to end up with so many majors that there's no argument either way. It won't be a matter of opinion.

 

[PonsfordMagpie]

Imo Fed won a bunch of his titles against far lesser opponents at the start of his career.

Djokovic has always had to content against Fed & Nadal for all of his.

Federer's peak was 2003-2007, where he won 12 slams in a quick period of time. The dominance in this period is still the forefront of many people's minds when they think of Federer.

Between 2003-2007, his GS final opponents included:

Rafael Nadal = 4 (2-2) - Rafa was 20 and 21 when he played those 4 finals at the French Open and Wimbledon.
Andy Roddick = 3 (3-0)
Mark Philippoussis = 1 (1-0)
Marat Safin = 1 (1-0)
Lleyton Hewitt = 1 (1-0)
Andre Agassi = 1 (1-0)
Marcos Baghdatis = 1 (1-0)
Fernando Gonzalez = 1 (1-0)
Novak Djokovic = 1 (1-0) - Djokovic was 20 when Federer beat him the one and only time in a GS final at the US Open in 2007.

From 2008 onwards (age 26 and above), his opponents included:

Rafael Nadal = 5 (1-4)
Novak Djokovic = 4 (0-4)
Andy Murray = 3 (3-0)
Marin Cilic = 2 (2-0)
Robin Soderling = 1 (1-0)
Andy Roddick = 1 (1-0)
Juan Martin Del Potro = 1 (0-1)

Federer's best GS victory from 2008 onwards was the 2017 AO in my opinion, though winning the French was a massive stepping stone of his career.

 

[pepsi]

Major titles are the only metric that matters.

Such a simplistic argument. That is your opinion. Does not make you right.

 

[CURVE]

I think this year French Open could decide it.

If Nadal wins he equals Federer and probably gets over the line on a head-to-head count.
If Djokovic or Federer wins, then they will become the only player of the three to win at least two titles at all four Grand Slam tournaments, and versality on all surfaces gets them over the line.

Having won 12, a Nadal win is probable, Federer doesn't play the French anymore as he concentrates on Wimbledon, so it is unlikely. Djokovic winning is possible, if he can do it against Nadal in the final I think GOAT status will be undisputed.

 

[mcgarnacle]

I don't think anyone is going to miss the last 8 posts or so.

Back on topic. I think it would be wrong to ignore Thiem here. the guy has been getting closer and closer to the French. I think beating Nadal here will give him huge confidence at Roland Garros. If he has a little bit of luck(no Novak on his side of a draw for example) and play another game of his life, he can stop Nadal.

If he doesn’t get Djokovic in a semi, he potentially gets Nadal so there’s no way around a tough match before the final.

What he and the younger fellas need to be is more clinical on their way to the deep rounds. Matches in a tournament, particularly a slam, can’t be looked at in isolation but as a whole. Thiem was on court for more than 6 hours than Djokovic to the final. That’s practically 2 less matches for Novak. Accumulated fatigue plays a big part in the outcome. Djokovic has been excellent at not wasting any more energy than he needs to. A slam is a grind.

And this is why Fed will never play or win a slam final again. Other players did the job of knocking out seeded players in his qtr of the AO draw, and he struggled with unseeded guys. He needs quick 3 setters in early rounds more than any other of the top 6 or so players. Th decline is coming.

 

[boncer34]

If he doesn’t get Djokovic in a semi, he potentially gets Nadal so there’s no way around a tough match before the final.

What he and the younger fellas need to be is more clinical on their way to the deep rounds. Matches in a tournament, particularly a slam, can’t be looked at in isolation but as a whole. Thiem was on court for more than 6 hours than Djokovic to the final. That’s practically 2 less matches for Novak. Accumulated fatigue plays a big part in the outcome. Djokovic has been excellent at not wasting any more energy than he needs to. A slam is a grind.

And this is why Fed will never play or win a slam final again. Other players did the job of knocking out seeded players in his qtr of the AO draw, and he struggled with unseeded guys. He needs quick 3 setters in early rounds more than any other of the top 6 or so players. Th decline is coming.

The decline is here.

 

[Redline]

There will be the odd occasion but as long as they stay fit I think the Grand Slam titles will be shared between Nadal and Djokovic for the next couple of years. I just don't see enough from the younger group to overtake them unless they get lucky. Thiem at the French perhaps an exception but I still tip Nadal.

Federer is a chance for one more year at Wimbledon but he needs to play on tour and some lead up events. The less you play the less conditioned you are and niggling injuries start having an impact.

I think Federer has accepted by the time all three have stopped playing he will most likely be third in the number of Grand Slam titles so I wonder if the motivation has dropped for him as well.

Just my gut feel but I think Djokovic has two more years of dominance so probably needs to win at least one more GS title this year which I think he will do and maybe even two. By the end of 2021 he should be in the lead.

 

[bato]

According to Roger fans, the metric is only grand slam wins. That is until, of course, Novak surpasses him. Then the argument would be: “Oh, even if he’s ahead in slams, Roger is still the GOAT!”

 

[SA HAWK]

What is your sliding scale for which major titles count more than others? Is it weighted? Based on what?

Do you do the same for AFL premierships? Do some count more than others? Like Hawthorn beating interstate sides 3 years in a row. Those flags count for less than Geelong beating Collingwood/St Kilda. Right?

Flags are flags. Majors are majors. Winning is what counts. Not some parallel measurement of how good the opponents were.

To blithely attribute Federer's dominance to "inferior opponents" is ridiculous. The standard of his tennis in those years was insane.

Major titles are the only metric that matters.

However, if you want to start weighting titles, you could argue that Djokovic is cashing in when his challengers are still older players rather than guys 23-28 who should by now be pushing him out.

I think Djokovic is going to end up with so many majors that there's no argument either way. It won't be a matter of opinion.

It is just an opinion.

Djokovic has a winning record against both and Federer against neither.

As someone else pointed out Federer is 1-9 against both in slam finals since 2008.

 

[SA HAWK]

According to Roger fans, the metric is only grand slam wins. That is until, of course, Novak surpasses him. Then the argument would be: “Oh, even if he’s ahead in slams, Roger is still the GOAT!”

Like i said earlier he is my favourite and the best to watch but his record against the other 2 doesn’t stack up.

I still hope neither break his slam record but you would think at least one will.

 

[CURVE]

 

[Brad Goodman]

Let's close the thread, and re-open it once all are retired. All three have claims, however any discussion at present is merely provisional.

 

[boncer34]

View attachment 815569

To be fair pretty sure Fed sits out quite a few Masters 1000 now compared to the others.

 

[Leeda]

Sandbagging is easy.. but we all love ourselves and take on the pretensions of the commentators/players we like...
Jim and John are fools but they want to be... They carry their own sense of worthiness...

They are on the plane home now and I have enjoyed their banter..

 

[Leeda]

Let's close the thread, and re-open it once all are retired. All three have claims, however any discussion at present is merely provisional.

what 2 years... ? give each one four years and then time will send them a message that even that is too long..

 

[CURVE]

To be fair pretty sure Fed sits out quite a few Masters 1000 now compared to the others.

True. But he also began playing in those tournaments 3 years before Nadal and 5 years before Djokovic.
The stats show he has played 24 more Masters 1000 tournaments the Djokovic.

 

[Leeda]

True. But he also began playing in those tournaments 3 years before Nadal and 5 years before Djokovic.

the men has truly surpassed the women in terms of longevity.. It is not about having babies per say but that
not everyone even men can last that song... all that needs to be done is to allow more than the goat continue his/her mental status..

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Such a simplistic argument. That is your opinion. Does not make you right.

What metric would you propose as the alternative?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

It is just an opinion.

Sure. I'm asking how you go about weighting some major titles over others.

Who did Nadal beat in the 2019 US Open. Is the title worth less because he didn't face Djokovic or Federer?

There's no end to it.

Djokovic has a winning record against both and Federer against neither.

As someone else pointed out Federer is 1-9 against both in slam finals since 2008.

Because Federer has continued playing long past his prime.

How are these better or more telling metrics than major titles?

 

[DAlembert]

After watching last nite was the first time I actually thought the Joker is the best of the big 3. Thiem was good but still could not get over the line. Federer will always be my favourite Champion and Nadal not so much( he is cack handed also) Djokovic is driven and boy he can play. At times last nite I thought he played with Thiem just for the hell of it...little dinky shots around the net etc. But I amsure the next best ever ( silly discussion really) is being born right now or is 5 years old and just picking up a raquet.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

According to Roger fans, the metric is only grand slam wins. That is until, of course, Novak surpasses him. Then the argument would be: “Oh, even if he’s ahead in slams, Roger is still the GOAT!”

I've said the opposite in this thread.

I expect Djokovic to win so many majors that there can be no argument.

 

[Leeda]

No Roger is going to make the tennis world seem a bit dull if he does retire.
It is not surprising that he is winning still or at least continuing to be a quarter finalist and so on.
There is just no one other than Rafa or Novak to continue to win.
We'll be talking about a different goat in the next twenty years.

 

[Flameboy]

Quite a few of Fed’s records are going to come crashing down this year and next.

 

[FreoRicci]

I think this year French Open could decide it.

If Nadal wins he equals Federer and probably gets over the line on a head-to-head count.
If Djokovic or Federer wins, then they will become the only player of the three to win at least two titles at all four Grand Slam tournaments, and versality on all surfaces gets them over the line.

Having won 12, a Nadal win is probable, Federer doesn't play the French anymore as he concentrates on Wimbledon, so it is unlikely. Djokovic winning is possible, if he can do it against Nadal in the final I think GOAT status will be undisputed.

Will Federer risk going for the French and only give himself a few weeks before Wimbledon?
He hasn’t played (?) for a few years (2016, 2017 and 2018) in Paris prior to 2019. Don’t think he ll enter this year.

 

[FreoRicci]

According to Roger fans, the metric is only grand slam wins. That is until, of course, Novak surpasses him. Then the argument would be: “Oh, even if he’s ahead in slams, Roger is still the GOAT!”

Looking at sheer winning percentage throughout their playing history, Novak has won 88% of matches throughout the Open era. That’s ridiculous.
Djokovic also has the most consecutive wins in the Open era of all time, at 55 wins. All during the Big 4 era. That’s just dominance- beating Nadal, Federer and Murray multiple times during that stretch.
People can continue to dislike him for coming in and spoiling the romantic Nadal-Federer rivalry, but this guy is going to literally say a big Stuff you and go top of them both.