Who is the true goat in Tennis ?

[mcgarnacle]

And Nadal has won plenty when Novak is around.

Rafa won 2018 and 2020 US Opens but pulled out hurt when Novak won in 2019. Do we put the star next to that?

Novaks absence was a benefit to Rafa this year no doubt but it's happened on the flip side too.

Yeah, nah. Better get your facts right.

Nadal won 2017 US when Djokovic didn't even compete due to the elbow injury. He sat out the second half of 2017 after his loss at wimbledon loss to berdych. Then Novak retired in the fourth round in the other year Nadal won in 2019.

Novak injuries ended up being great for Federer too as he won the All England in 2017. He also won 2017 and 2018 Aus Open due to a lame Novak in 2017, and a returning from injury Novak in 2018. In both cases, Federer got to avoid him and let Chung and a WC do the job.

Novak's been fairly dominant since 2018 Wimbledon, and he's had the wood on Roger and Rafa when he's come up against either of them. Roger had match points 2019 All England final but couldn't seal the deal.

Anyway, I still think NOvak is the dominant player of the 3 right now. French can go either way. All England Is Novak's to lose. US is where he seems to struggle or **** up. Who knows if he'll be at any now

 

[Romeoh1]

What's utterly stupid is you getting bent out of shape over something I never said or implied.

Rafa may very well be favourite, but the defending champion might be too. Nobody's saying it's odd that Rafa ends up favourite or that he won't be.

Djoko will be lucky if he even gets in to France.

 

[PhatBoy]

Yeah, nah. Better get your facts right.

Nadal won 2017 US when Djokovic didn't even compete due to the elbow injury. He sat out the second half of 2017 after his loss at wimbledon loss to berdych. Then Novak retired in the fourth round in the other year Nadal won in 2019.

Novak injuries ended up being great for Federer too as he won the All England in 2017. He also won 2017 and 2018 Aus Open due to a lame Novak in 2017, and a returning from injury Novak in 2018. In both cases, Federer got to avoid him and let Chung and a WC do the job.

Novak's been fairly dominant since 2018 Wimbledon, and he's had the wood on Roger and Rafa when he's come up against either of them. Roger had match points 2019 All England final but couldn't seal the deal.

Anyway, I still think NOvak is the dominant player of the 3 right now. French can go either way. All England Is Novak's to lose. US is where he seems to struggle or fu** up. Who knows if he'll be at any now

So hang on - and I’m
Not saying YOU personally had this angle but for years people used to say that counting against Nadal was his body and the fact that his style put so much pressure on it, therefore his injury issues were somewhat of his own making and could have been avoided if he had a more effective style.

Doesn’t the same logic have to apply to Djokovic?

 

[boncer34]

Yeah, nah. Better get your facts right.

Nadal won 2017 US when Djokovic didn't even compete due to the elbow injury. He sat out the second half of 2017 after his loss at wimbledon loss to berdych. Then Novak retired in the fourth round in the other year Nadal won in 2019.

Novak injuries ended up being great for Federer too as he won the All England in 2017. He also won 2017 and 2018 Aus Open due to a lame Novak in 2017, and a returning from injury Novak in 2018. In both cases, Federer got to avoid him and let Chung and a WC do the job.

Novak's been fairly dominant since 2018 Wimbledon, and he's had the wood on Roger and Rafa when he's come up against either of them. Roger had match points 2019 All England final but couldn't seal the deal.

Anyway, I still think NOvak is the dominant player of the 3 right now. French can go either way. All England Is Novak's to lose. US is where he seems to struggle or fu** up. Who knows if he'll be at any now

There's nothing wrong with my facts, I never said Rafa beat Novak.

You've just used the same argument, again, that Rafa only won coz Novak missed but that doesn't apply to Novak winning when Rafa missed.

All you've done is doubled down.

 

[Jazny]

Nadal is the one and only greatest! 21!!!!!!!!!! Novax is a terrible person.

 

[Hamingja]

Yep, it will be an intriguing one. At this stage, this is how I see it in terms of RG favourites

Completely forgot about Thiem, he would be right in it at his best, maybe hard to recapture that before this years French.

 

[PonsfordMagpie]

I think a double career grand slam is one of those essential criteria you need for a seat at the table. Fed & Nadal haven’t quite got there. Laver, Emerson, Navrat and Evert have the double. Serena & Court the triple. Graf has the quadruple (an awesome slam-spread stat to have by the way). Maybe some of the pre-90s perennial absentees like a Borg/McEnroe could be excused. But it just has a very sturdy look on your resume.

Nadal’s just achieved it, which will enhance his GOAT credentials.

 

[PhatBoy]

Nadal’s just achieved it, which will enhance his GOAT credentials.

I’m still reading on social media stuff like ‘oh Rafa’s record is so skewed towards the French.’ He’s won the other 3 at least twice each and 4 times in the case of the US.
Pretty sure that proves he hasn’t just fluked his wins away from clay.

 

[PonsfordMagpie]

I’m still reading on social media stuff like ‘oh Rafa’s record is so skewed towards the French.’ He’s won the other 3 at least twice each and 4 times in the case of the US.
Pretty sure that proves he hasn’t just fluked his wins away from clay.

It's a common criticism, but Nadal's achieved too much outside of clay for it to be a fluke.

No denying Federer and Djokovic's slam record looks more "balanced", but Nadal's record is as equally as impressive. I can't ever see someone winning 13 titles at a single slam event for many decades to come.

 

[PhatBoy]

It's a common criticism, but Nadal's achieved too much outside of clay for it to be a fluke.

No denying Federer and Djokovic's slam record looks more "balanced", but Nadal's record is as equally as impressive. I can't ever see someone winning 13 titles at a single slam event for many decades to come.

If there was 2 slams on clay, one on carpet, and one on hardcourt, Nadal’s would look more balanced too but he only has one surface a year to specialise on. His record would be unbreakable if he had a second slam each year suited to his natural game.

It’s a bizarre argument really.

If a golfer who was a links course specialist won 13 British opens but won each of the American majors at least twice, literally no one would give a shit what the spread of wins was

 

[cricketnut14]

and the debate continues.

again you can paint the stats to make either of the big 3 to be the goat.

probably fair to say that federer at age 40 won't win another.

they would've all probably won 30+ slams if their careers hadn't overlapped.

nadal however does join djokovic, emerson and laver as the only players to win 2 slams at each tournament.

 

[SouthernPie]

and the debate continues.

I just feel so enormously privileged and am so thankful to have been able to see the big three perform so amazingly in my lifetime!! I feel as though it reduces their individual significance to debate who is the best, but can understand the interest in doing so.

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

Borg retired at 26 ,won 11 grand slams and rarely played at the Australian Open.

 

[PonsfordMagpie]

Borg retired at 26 ,won 11 grand slams and rarely played at the Australian Open.

Good shout.

Had won the most French Opens before Nadal surpassed him.

Also the fastest player to reach 11 slams first.

• Borg won 11 slams by age 25.
• Nadal won 11 slams by age 26.
• Federer won 11 slams by age 26.
• Sampras won 11 slams by age 27.
• Djokovic won 11 slams by age 29.
• Emerson won 11 slams by age 30.
• Laver won 11 slams by age 31.

 

[boncer34]

Good shout.

Had won the most French Opens before Nadal surpassed him.

Also the fastest player to reach 11 slams first.

• Borg won 11 slams by age 25.
• Nadal won 11 slams by age 26.
• Federer won 11 slams by age 26.
• Sampras won 11 slams by age 27.
• Djokovic won 11 slams by age 29.
• Emerson won 11 slams by age 30.
• Laver won 11 slams by age 31.

Out of interest what would Lavers record be if you included his pro slams?

 

[MarcusP2]

Borg retired at 26 ,won 11 grand slams and rarely played at the Australian Open.

Also did a few RG/Wimbledon doubles when the grass was even more different to the clay I believe.

I seem to recall back in the 90s the talk was all about him and Laver as the greats Sampras was chasing rather than Emerson.

On Pixel 5 using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

Also did a few RG/Wimbledon doubles when the grass was even more different to the clay I believe.

I seem to recall back in the 90s the talk was all about him and Laver as the greats Sampras was chasing rather than Emerson.

On Pixel 5 using BigFooty.com mobile app

Yes from 1978 to 1980 he won both the French open and Wimbledon.

 

[Redline]

Look, Nadal has to win the French now. He lost last year to Djokovic, and if he loses this year claims will be made that the only reason Nadal won #21 is because Djokovic wasn't around.

Djokovic should very well be on 22 if it wasn't for the ball hitting the linesperson's throat, and this vaccination/deportation saga.

What needs to happen for Djokovic to be under threat in a GS is what happened in Flushing last year - he gets taken to 5 long sets in the semi, and his opponent does it in an easy 3. Djokovic was done after that semi. Berrettini made it hard work for 4 sets in the QF too - played two top 8 seeds on route to the final. Medvedev had an easier path. On equal footing, Djokovic is still better than any one IMO.

But geez, if Medvedev's defence improves any more than what it is now, and he gets some help for the chip on his shoulder, then look out!

Hard to disagree with that. I think Djockovic will end ahead of Nadal. As others have said I think what is clear now is Federer is out of the conversation record wise and is a clear third. He might still be considered the best to watch but that's a whole different discussion.

 

[PhatBoy]

Hard to disagree with that. I think Djockovic will end ahead of Nadal. As others have said I think what is clear now is Federer is out of the conversation record wise and is a clear third. He might still be considered the best to watch but that's a whole different discussion.

I think in terms of grace he’s the best to watch and he probably is the best shotmaker, so to speak, when all three of them are controlling the court dictating the points. Ie. he can stand in the middle of the baseline and unfurl tracer bullets to the corners that no one can get back.

But the longer I watch Nadal the more I think his actual ability to do the impossible is better than the other two. Djokovic hits his fair share of winners obviously, he’s a great controller of the game, and his defence is simply brilliant but there’s a certain predictability about how he wins his points. Nadal’s highlight reel of impossible shots would, I suspect, actually be a lot longer than that of the other two even though of the trio, he is the one who relies the most on heart and determination

 

[PonsfordMagpie]

Out of interest what would Lavers record be if you included his pro slams?

Slams + Pro Championships

1. Australian Open (1960)
2. Wimbledon (1961)
3. Australian Open (1962)
4. French Open (1962)
5. Wimbledon (1962)
6. US Open (1962)
7. Wembley Pro (1964)
8. US Pro (1964)
9. Wembley Pro (1965)
10. Wembley Pro (1966)
11. US Pro (1966)
12. French Pro (1967)
13. Wembley Pro (1967)
14. US Pro (1967)
15. Wimbledon (1968)
16. Australian Open (1969)
17. French Open (1969)
18. Wimbledon (1969)
19. US Open (1969)

He was 28 when he won the US Pro in 1966.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

RAFA now the Goat

 

[Flameboy]

If a player came along and won 4 x USO, 2 x Wimbledon and 2 x AO; reasonably certain we’d be calling them one of the greatest players of all time.

The “clay specialist” argument against Nadal is completely moot. He along with Djokovic >>> Federer >>>>> Sampras/Borg etc.

 

[Jazny]

21 > 20
Vaxxers > Anti-Vaxxers
Nadal > Djokovic

 

[mcgarnacle]

There's nothing wrong with my facts, I never said Rafa beat Novak.

You've just used the same argument, again, that Rafa only won coz Novak missed but that doesn't apply to Novak winning when Rafa missed.

All you've done is doubled down.

You’ve got the timeline wrong for a start and no emojis can hide that

 

[BOMBERS 4 LIFE!!!!]

lol Novak fans

Weak Novak Djokovic claims torn to shreds

They’re a sensitive bunch this morning, the Novak Djokovic army, after their man was emphatically usurped in the race to be considered tennis’ greatest ever player.

www.news.com.au