Board 8 > Is Novak Djokovic the greatest tennis player ever?

(+) Yeah! (+)

do you think so

Yes, easily. Only salty Fed/Nadal fans would say otherwise at this point.

---

xfd tennis

---

xfd?

lmfao no

---

ExThaNemesis posted...

lmfao no

then who is?

pretty sure he's been doing something to himself after the second sets in this french open

not saying he's doping, but he's walking back onto the court with more than natural energy/focus; it's not just that he comes back from a set or two down. he comes back like a new man.

---

Easily. I'm not even sure what arguments you can make for Federer/Nadal being the GOAT unless you think that the one extra grand slam (plus an olympic gold in Nadal's case) beats almost everything else favoring Djokovic like his record weeks at #1, double career grand slams, defending all slams, double career golden masters, wining H2H against both Fed/Nadal, etc.

And Djokovic will probably win at least 1 of the Wimbledon/US Open/AUS Open within the next year to take even that argument away. In which case the only thing left is some age bs argument to try to discount Djokovic's later titles.

---

Djokovic purposely spread corona to make his title run easier

smh

---

Either him or Fed for GOAT. Nadal can go suck

---

No. Serena Williams, unless we are sticking to Men's Tennis, in which case, still no, but it's closer at least. With those limitations, I would have to give it to Federer.

---

Nadal would have won on Friday if his ankle didn't die. That was an insane match till that happened.

I'd take prime 2007 Fed over anyone though.

---

I think Prime Federer is still better considering how the only tournament he didn't win at those time were clay tournaments. I think Fed literally had a 92-4 win loss record that one year and all those losses were on clay.

I think Novak has been more consistent for a longer period of time but he barely edges out old Federer in slam finals and outright loses to him in some.

Nadal is undisputed on clay but his records elsewhere are nowhere near as good as Fed's or Djokovic's. Like the guy literally almost tied Sampras' record with Roland Garros wins. I'd argue that even Andy Murray would have been better than Nadal on Hard and Grass if injury didn't completely derail his career.

So to answer the question, each have their claim to GOAT status in their own way. Statistically Novak has the edge over both Fed and Nadal and will likely eclipse both their slam totals when all is said and done. Fed will forever remain the fan favorite and possess the most beautiful game in tennis and Rafa will forever remain the undisputed God of clay and the most tenacious player ever.

All three transcend their sport.

As for their H2H meetings I'd say that Djokovic owns both of them because they played each other more during Djokovic's prime. Djokovic clearly has Nadal's number on anything but clay. Federer is 6 years older than Djokovic and most of their meetings were past Fed's prime. Nadal's H2H wins over Fed are also stat padded because of how many times they played on clay. When you breakdown their H2H on other surfaces Federer has the edge comfortably over Nadal.

So H2H records should be taken with a grain of salt.

TomNook posted...

No. Serena Williams, unless we are sticking to Men's Tennis, in which case, still no, but it's closer at least. With those limitations, I would have to give it to Federer.

God no. Serena has to compete with a no existent field. Seriously how many greats are in Serena's generation? I'll wait. How many no names and one time wonders have won a slam in the women's division? I don't think I can even count.

Winning a men's slam is one of the hardest things to do in a sport considering how you have to go through at least one, two or even three of the Big Three which was a Big Four before Andy Murray's injury.

Andy Roddick and Lleyton Hewitt would have won at least 6 slams each if Fed didn't completely obliterate the field back then. The likes of Ferrer, Del Potro, Tsonga, Berdych, Zverev, Tsitsipas, Thiem would have won multiple slams if they weren't born in the big four/three era.

Now imagine a player with those kinds of talent in the women's field. This is not a sexist thing. It is just how it is. Serena is not even close to being the GOAT in Women's tennis IMO. She just has the most number of Slams.

Fed

---

It's hard to say, I still can't see past Federer as the GOAT.

All I can say is that we have been so lucky being able to witness 3 of the greatest players of all time grace the court at the same time.

---

Xtlm posted...

Nadal would have won on Friday if his ankle didn't die. That was an insane match till that happened.

But at this point with Nadal, that is no longer some stroke of bad luck. He is either a master excuse-maker or physically frailer than Djokovic and Federer (only slightly - I'm not saying he's some sickly weakling, obviously). And that counts if we're talking about who's the best.

Nadal's poor performances in multiple non-French slams precludes him from it anyway. Federer made like 36 straight QFs and 23 straight SFs in Slams, while Nadal was losing to Lukas Rosol and Dustin Brown (I fucking love Dustin Brown, obviously, but still). Nadal's clearly comparatively fallible on other surfaces in a way Djokovic and Federer aren't. This isn't to say he's shit, he's #3 of all time.

I slightly give the edge to Federer like, right now. I think his excellence set the bar that both Djokovic and Nadal had to reach, and that unreal consistency as well still being great almost into his 40s is remarkable. But in a year, if Djokovic has won all the slams or something, I'd be open to changing my mind on that.

---

Xtlm posted...

I'd take prime 2007 Fed over anyone though.

I think that this is pretty much the only argument in Federer's favor at this point (And honestly, I consider it rather subjective and not very strong).

Nadal is a clear third. GOAT on clay specifically for sure, and a fantastic player elsewhere, but still a step behind.

I think Peak vs. Longevity is a legitimate argument, although not many people want to argue in favor of peak because we tend to favor championships a lot. Who at their best was the best is a more interesting argument than who won the most Slams.

---

Based on results alone he is objectively the GOAT isnt he?

For me it's federer because he managed his #1 ranking # of weeks record while dealing with a prime Nadal. Djokovic got his after Fed and Nadal were already in decline, and there hasn't really been another all-time great player that Djokovic has had to rival him in his same age group. So to me Federer just has a more impressive resume against SLIGHTLY better competition that Djokovic has had. It's really close though, I definitely don't think it's Nadal just because so much of his domination came on clay, but there's no denying he was a force and all-time great player even off clay, he just ran into a buzzsaw so many times on other surfaces. But Djokovic dominating the past few years has not had the tippest top quality of players like Federer had to contend with imo.
---

When Djokovic wins another 3-4 slams in the next 2 years there will be no more argument.

---

Djokovic could end with 40 grand slams and people will still say Federer is betterer.

---

colliding posted...

Djokovic could end with 40 grand slams and people will still say Federer is betterer.

correctly.

---

Babe Ruth was a chump who only accomplished what he did because the rest of baseball wasnt on his level at the time.

---

Maybe on a larger scale, but prime Federer was better.

---

redrocket posted...

Babe Ruth was a chump who only accomplished what he did because the rest of baseball wasnt on his level at the time.

Compiler am I right

---

Leonhart4 posted...

I think Peak vs. Longevity is a legitimate argument, although not many people want to argue in favor of peak because we tend to favor championships a lot. Who at their best was the best is a more interesting argument than who won the most Slams.

Even if we go by peak, 2011 Djokovic has a very good argument there too.

Emeraldegg posted...

For me it's federer because he managed his #1 ranking # of weeks record while dealing with a prime Nadal.

Federer started his #1 run in early 2004, when Nadal was only 18 and still a rookie. While you can say he hit his prime on clay by 2005, he was still very rough on other courts. Nadal didn't even make past the 4th round of a non-French Open grand slam until US Open 2006 so imo 2007 (or maaaybe 2006) is the earliest you can really call him prime Nadal.

---

Not a tennis guy here but this argument is super interesting because it's the only sport I am aware of where all of the arguments for the GOATs are current players. Looking at hockey, basketball, baseball, boxing, etc. and things always devolve into an eras debate. But no one here is talking about Pete Sampras or whatever.

ChainLTTP posted...

Not a tennis guy here but this argument is super interesting because it's the only sport I am aware of where all of the arguments for the GOATs are current players. Looking at hockey, basketball, baseball, boxing, etc. and things always devolve into an eras debate. But no one here is talking about Pete Sampras or whatever.

Football is the exception because everyone knows Brady is the goat

---

squexa posted...

Even if we go by peak, 2011 Djokovic has a very good argument there too.

Federer started his #1 run in early 2004, when Nadal was only 18 and still a rookie. While you can say he hit his prime on clay by 2005, he was still very rough on other courts. Nadal didn't even make past the 4th round of a non-French Open grand slam until US Open 2006 so imo 2007 (or maaaybe 2006) is the earliest you can really call him prime Nadal.

Other part of this is that Federer had 12 titles before Nadal won his 1st non French Open title. And by that point, Djokovic had already won his first title.

Edit: Prime Nadal is probably 2008 or 2010.

ChainLTTP posted...

Not a tennis guy here but this argument is super interesting because it's the only sport I am aware of where all of the arguments for the GOATs are current players. Looking at hockey, basketball, baseball, boxing, etc. and things always devolve into an eras debate. But no one here is talking about Pete Sampras or whatever.

Yeah, we're definitely in a golden age for men's tennis and it's been interesting following the sport since 2004. Considering how much sports medicine has improved and athletes are playing longer than before, it wouldn't surprise me if someone emerges 5+ years from now and gets 30+ grand slams. In which case, we'll definitely get a lot of era debates (is it more impressive to get 20 grand slams against the other big 3 or 30 grand slams against "inferior competition" etc).

---

ROOTFayth posted...

Based on results alone he is objectively the GOAT isnt he?

This.

If you look at primes & competition it may be a different story, but just based on results he would be.

Maybe if Fed and Nadal stopped eating Gluten!

---

Djokovic rose during the era of Fedal, he had no years where he wasn't competing against the other arguable GOATs. Nobody was looking for a new champion and yet he forced his way in regardless. Stats aside (he'll probably wind up looking better on paper than the others anyway) his tenacity is incredible, there is no situation so dire that he is not capable of crawling out of it and taking a win. The man was two match points down to Federer on Fed's serve at Wimbledon, and still won. He did the same thing to Fed at USO. There's dozens of situations like that for him. Andy Murray is a great player but he's not even in the conversation because his rival so utterly dominated him at all turns.

I don't even like him as a person but I have to respect him as a player. I think if he had the branding or personality of Federer/Nadal people would be much more inclined to see him as the GOAT, but he's brash and doesn't have their narrative/popularity so he's not given the same weight.

As ChainLTTP says though, the fact that the three best tennis players are currently playing at the same time is really incredible.

---

How far ahead are those 3 from Pete Sampras, anyway?

---

andylt posted...

Andy Murray is a great player but he's not even in the conversation because his rival so utterly dominated him at all turns.

Murray is a step below the big three for sure, but the fact that he was able to accompish everything he did against those guys speaks volumes to how good he was and could still be if not for injuries

Murray is probably better than Becker and McEnroe.

Might pick him over some 8 time champs, he ran into the meatgrinder of the three best players ever during their primes. Without them playing at such a ridiculous level for so long, 8 or 9 wouldn't have looked that unlikely.


---

Reg posted...

Murray is a step below the big three for sure, but the fact that he was able to accompish everything he did against those guys speaks volumes to how good he was and could still be if not for injuries

Yeah I would go as far to argue that he could have dominated alongside Sampras in the era before Federer joined the scene

---

redrocket posted...

How far ahead are those 3 from Pete Sampras, anyway?

It's hard to say. Sampras has 14 grand slams and is missing a French Open (he never even made finals), whereas the big 3 all have at least 19 grand slams and at least one career grand slam and of course, were playing against each other for most of their career. For most people, that's enough to consider the big 3 above Sampras, but you do sometimes see claims that Sampras is the GOAT mostly using era vs era logic like 90s serve and volley were tougher or something.

At least with regards to the big 3 specifically, you can probably make the best case for Sampras > Nadal. The argument would go that Nadal's only better at clay while Sampras is better on hard court and especially grass. Sampras also has more weeks at #1 than Nadal and has won the ATP Finals 5 times, while Nadal has won 0. It's much harder to argue Sampras > Djokovic/Federer without resorting to some era argument since they trump him in almost every category.

---

voltch posted...

Might pick him over some 8 time champs, he ran into the meatgrinder of the three best players ever during their primes. Without them playing at such a ridiculous level for so long, 8 or 9 wouldn't have looked that unlikely.

Absolutely, Murray lost 8 GS finals, 5 against Djok and 3 against Fed. That was what I was meaning, in another era someone of Murray's caliber would absolutely dominate but with these 3 guys he's just an afterthought.

---

Sampras wins because he married Bridgette Wilson

---

I don't think I'd pick Sampras over Nadal, just cos Nadal's hardcourt record is fairly close and he generally made deeper runs, Sampras has a lot more early exits.

While Sampras obviously has a better Wimbledon resume, I'm not sure he pushes Federer as hard as Nadal did and I don't think he'd have beaten Federer in 08.
But maybe that's just me rating Federer on such a high level that Nadal benefits from it just for making it competitive for a few years.

---

is Floyd Mayweather or Larry Holmes a better boxer than Muhammad Ali

---

Leonhart4 posted...

is Floyd Mayweather or Larry Holmes a better boxer than Muhammad Ali

Prime Tyson. Shame everything in his life fell apart (just a few years after it was built up) and so did his streak with it.

---

I agree nobody was more feared than Prime Tyson

---

it's laver, obviously

Do you guys regard the four majors as equally important to legacy? Growing up, I'd understood the general sentiment that Wimbledon was the most prestigious, with the US/French in the 2 and 3 spot, and the Aussie in a somewhat distant fourth.

So would a Wimbledon title mean more than an Aussie, or is that just antiquated thinking?

---

I'd say with the industrialisation of Slam-winning as has happened in this era, they're all very important because they all add to the count. That said, a French win for Nadal would possibly carry a little less weight in this discussion because, as I said earlier, everyone knows he's amazing on clay but his performance in the other slams isn't as dominant as the other two - this is also partly why Djokovic winning the French is a big deal.

I think under normal circumstances you'd more or less be right with that ranking, but given that it's become more and more of a race to beat each other in terms of raw number of slams, at this moment in time they all mean more or less the same.

---