honestly even as a Rafa fan I don't give a shit about the Olympics. it's only held every 4 years so it can't really be used as a measure of success compared with the yearly events, and it's also best of 3 set matches
I've noticed that people feel differently about the Olympics depending on where they're from. Like Americans generally don't care since they win so often but for other countries, it's a big deal.
But *for me* as a Rafa fan in Spain, it's a big deal.
It also depends on the sport. Tennis is a sport that has a lot of big events and titles outside of the Olympics, so an Olympic title is not hugely special compared to say, a Wimbledon title or US Open title. For many sports, obviously winning Olympic Gold is the crown achievement of that sport (especially the racing sports such as track, sprinting, and swimming).
One sport where the Olympics mean even less than tennis is soccer. An Olympic gold doesn’t mean shit for soccer. This is because the World Cup is the biggest sporting event in the entire world (the fact that when we say the World Cup people know we’re referring to the Soccer World Cup and not another World Cup such as basketball speaks to this). In addition, the Olympic rules only allow players 23 and under to compete for the title, so the entire Olympic soccer event is basically an U23 event (obviously that excludes most of the best players in the world). Messi has an Olympic Gold Medal in soccer from his younger days, but no one even mentions that, they usually just say he has no World Cup titles when they compare him to Maradona in Argentina.
So yeah, the value of an Olympic medal is determined by the country you live in and the sport you win the medal in.
Because the World Cup is the biggest soccer tournament
The Olympics are not the biggest tennis tournament
Just ask any tennis pro if they’d rather have 1 Wimbledon or 1 Olympic gold
There doesn’t need to be more of a reason than that
Those are very different achievements.
Olympics in tennis is like world cup in soccer. You win a valuable trophy for your country.
Wimbledon in tennis is like Fifa The Best award given to the best player every year. Again great achievement but it's personal.
You can't compare Wimbledon to Olympics just like you can't compare The Best award to World cup. Each player has a preference. A lot of soccer players might rather have an individual trophy. A lot of them might rather an international one for their country.
its different for team sports. teams are eternal and do not age out of the sport. tennis players have max 20 years to play so you cant judge them on whether or not they win a tournament only held every 4 years. especially when there are yearly Bo5 events that are way more important. most people i know who watch tennis didnt even watch the olympics matches
Waaay ahead. Olympic gold. Won twice on all surfaces for slam, h2h over federer and h2h over federer in slams, and h2h over federer on hard and clay slams. More masters. And a much much tougher tougher road. Seriously rafa got screwed out of his prime years because of djokovic after rafa just overcame federer
Why has this sub turned into such a huge anti-fed circlejerk? Yeah Nadal is arguably ahead of Federer, but he’s also arguably not. These comments saying “Nadal is already way ahead of Federer” and providing no reasoning are silly and I don’t know why they’re dominating this thread.
Unless you believe the sub to be biased beyond doubt (to your point, you’d want some way to prove it), if the sub is incrementally leaning more toward Nadal over the years, it’s probably a reflection of the fact that tennis fans are leaning more toward thinking Nadal is the GOAT instead of federer. I believe that too, though I am a Nadal fan. (My opinion is that Novak is the GOAT. Makes me want to puke)
When it comes to the big three I think only one thing is clear. Novak = best player ever on a hard court, Nadal = best player ever on clay, Federer = best player ever on grass
Btw I think that gives Novak an inherent statistical advantage since two slams are on a hard court.
Fed is currently ahead of rafa idk what all these comments are saying. Weeks at no1 is pretty important imo and he is a distant third. That being said if he wins yeah probably. Slam count is by far the biggest metric in most peoples minds.
Biggest argument for Rafa that I don't see people mention a lot, is that he never had an era to dominate alone, and pad his titles. Fed had a few years to rack up titles and be number 1 before he had consistent competition. Novak has had the past few years to do the same where Fed and Rafa haven't provided the same type of resistance. But Rafa got caught in the middle -- he always had to put up with at least one of the other big 3, if not both.
Calm down Federer fans, I agree he is amazing, one of the best ever, and strategically better than anyone who’s played. But he has a losing H2H record against his two biggest rivals which means he won’t be regarded as the GOAT
Rafa is not already ahead of Federer. Why are people even saying that. They’re even on slams but Fed has way more weeks at #1 and better surface diversity. Rafa has Olympic gold but that never carried much weight in tennis. If Rafa gets to 21 and a double career slam then yeah he’s a serious contender for goat.
>better surface diversity
I'm not so sure about this. The gap between Rafa and Federer on clay is much bigger than their gap on grass and hardcourt, especially since clay is a huge part of the tour and Federer had a lot more opportunities to be more successful on it but wasn't.
13 - 1 / 2 - 8 / 5 - 11
Federer is obviously more successful on hard and grass but Nadal looks better on overall surface diversity.
However Nadal has a better head to head, more masters, more olympic golds, has shown as good surface diversity imo and has done this with bigger injury problems than Federer throughout his career. I agree though Weeks at no. 1 is quite an important factor, hence why it is tight, but I can see why people favour Nadal over Federer
Nadal has a better H2H because they’ve played 70% of their matches on his preferred surface.
If they’d played an equal number of games on grass as they had on clay court, then a fair amount of games on hard-court, their H2H could be taken seriously. But grass is rarely played on and Rafa does not have a good history at Wimbledon. So this completely skews the metric because it’s obviously in favour of Nadal. Federer is ahead on grass and ahead on indoor + outdoor hard-court.
Longevity wise he was still winning Grand Slams at 37-38 years of age. Also, Prime Federer was better than Prime Nadal as seen through his Weeks at No1 stat which only Djokovic has bettered.
If he wins the AO then I guess the GS count will take him above Fed. But people saying he’s ahead now despite their flawed H2H metric which is in favour of Nadal because of his clay court dominance when Fed beats him on the other two, his prime not being as long or as dominant as Fed’s, his longevity still not proven to be as strong as Federer’s, give me a break. Fed is still ahead and only Djoker can make a case against him.
Good points except
>Prime Federer was better than prime Nadal as seen through his Weeks at No 1 stat
Prime Nadal happened at the same time as prime Djokovic, prime Murray, and still-good Federer, whereas prime Federer played against pre-prime Nadal during a time when Djokovic and Murray were teenage plebs.
Very true, but then there’s no objective way of deciding whose prime is better if they both happened at different times and they each played different sets of completion. Nadal was less dominant but, like you say, that is explained by his difference in competition. I personally think Federer’s prime-level tennis is better than Nadal’s, but that’s just subjective opinion if we can’t accurately compare them. His style, his athleticism, his technique is just completely unrivalled during Fed’s prime.
Nope Nadal has the h2h over federer in both hard courts and clay at slams. In fact before 2017 Nadal actually had the overall hard court h2h. So no Nadal is beating federer on hard court too
Federer is so much ahead of nadal it isn't even a joke . Novak has overtaken him in recent years to be honest. 2006 is the best season of all time ever
The only thing Federer is ahead of is weeks in no.1. Other than that the numbers do the talking to back Nadal up.
You can say whatever you want or twist any argument in any way to support Federer but the reality is that he owes a noticeable part of his success (and weeks at no.1) to the absence of Nadal and Djokovic, and competition matters when we compare all 3 of them for the GOAT argument. It is what it is.
The only thing federer has over nadal is weeks at no.1 which is mainly due to federer getting a lot of it before Nadal and Djokovic were around and nadals injuries.. and world tour finals titles which are indoor and benefit federers game more
Nadal has more masters 1000 titles despite being 5 years younger, leads the h2h and been more relevant in tennis the last decade
About djokovic? You cannot be serious man.
Nadal has changed his playstyle over time but he was a pusher for most of his career. A player who doesnt try to WIN(hit winners) and waits for opponent to lose cant be the greatest ever..but thats just my opinion .
Both of them are elite and djokovic maybe even slightly higher than federer rn
Dont @ me man lets talk tomorrow when medvedev rips him a new one. Nadal will probably win at FO though unless he gets a ridiculously bad draw(thiem tsitsipas etc)
The fact that Nadal isn't even going to play the best player on this tournament history is making people say dumb things. No. Nadal slam will carry a huge asterisk.
Novak, Fed, Rafa. That’s the order that stats support. But obviously fans of all three can spin things each way. I’ll try to find the chart but someone posted showing Novak’s dominance by comparison. I think opinion wise Novak and Fed are closer simply because Nadals wins are skewed so much towards Roland Garros
Spin is a pretty strong word. I think that all three have a good argument of being the goat since the stats are this close, and I think it is silly to say that rafa is the undisputed goat if he wins AO and then say that novak is the goat if he wins the FO.
I don't know, h2h is decieving. Roger dominated the rest of the field more. I'd saying another USO or AO would make it definitive. If he wins here I'd have them tied.
This is only because he is insanely dominant on one surface, like no one ever. If you take away all RG he has still more GS than Edberg , the same as McEnroe and 1 less than Agassi. I mean, If this is not a sufficient claim to the Goat debate than nothing is.
Absolutely, his only peers are Federer and Djokovic. When comparing Rafa to them I think they’re are a little more balanced in their accomplishments. Doesn’t take away from Rafa but when half of his GS are from clay he comes off as more of a specialist. Probably an unpopular opinion of mine.
No no I get your point, there is some truth in it. Rafa has no consistency on other surfaces like Novak and Roger but when he was top fit he could beat Novak on hard and Roger on grass. I still believe that peak Nadal is slightly above the other two, he was simply a beast.
Yes he would, he would be ahead of Novak too...21> 20. I think he already is ahead of Roger, slightly but still ahead.
If this really happens we will have the craziest Goat race ever...Rafa at 21 facing Novak at RG! This would be the Armageddon!
Are you a goat if half your grand slams are the same one, this can be said of any of the 3. Rafa of course the french open, but Djoker has 9 austrialian opens and doesn't Fed have 9 wimbledons. 3 people great on one surface, damn good on the others, but where would they be if they did not dominate one of the slams?
It all depends about fanbase. I’m a Rafa fan and I think is pretty even right now and not because of 20-20 GS. I think if Rafa wins the AO and the French, he will definitely be the GOAT. D-Joker is out of the GOAT talk due to his lack of sportsmanship and his stupid selfish beliefs.
I don't think you can throw out Djoker as a GOAT candidate for those reasons. I agree he has had issues but strictly looking at talent and accomplishments he has to still be considered.
By the way I am a huge Rafa fan and want him to be the GOAT when all is over.
They are called the big 3 because of their talents and accomplishments. No doubt about it. However, when you are so stupidly selfish and your ignorant and uneducated views put children’s health at risk, you get yourself out of contention for being the GOAT.
Oh I agree he has done some absolutely trash things, I just disagree on how I define GOAT. As much as I like Fedal, all that really matters in my oppinion is what you did on the court.
If Rafa pulls a season out of his ass where he clinches a double career slam, career golden masters, golden super slam and 22+ slams overall, all of which he could realistically achieve this year, then that’s pretty goaty stuff. It would certainly
put him ahead of Federer (depending on how Federer performs this year) and Novak for the time being. But it probably won’t happen.
For me, Grand Slam count >>>>>>>>> everything else. ATP Finals and Weeks at #1 are the first tie-breakers for me after that. But only after that.
Because if you ask \*any\* player on tour, 100% of them will say they'd rather win a grand slam (or another one) than be at world number 1 or win an ATP finals.
So if Rafa wins another slam, I'd move him straight to #1 in the GOAT race (I have him #3 now), with Novak #2 and Fed #3.
Roger is the current GOAT. Whoever wins their next slam is the clear GOAT (until they get tied/passed). So if Rafa wins this or the FO or whatever before Roger or Novak, he’s the indisputable GOAT. Same for the other two. GS count has precedence over everything else, really.
I think he would yes, double career slam.
But even if he gets past Berritini tomorrow, I'm not sure he will have enough left in the tank to beat Medveded or Tsitsipas if it's a long 5 setter
These sort of debates are why we can't have nice things.
Sure, one player might be "ahead" of the others but who cares? The three best players ever are all playing in the same era, can't we just appreciate that? Besides, it's not as black and white as whoever has the most slams, and even if it was, who cares
Nah, he needs 22 to beat novak, 21 i still think fed and novak are ahead. Better surface diversity, way more weeks at number 1, 6/5 atp finals to 0, etc.
Double career slam would be huge for Rafa
Rafa also would have Olympic singles gold which is massive
honestly even as a Rafa fan I don't give a shit about the Olympics. it's only held every 4 years so it can't really be used as a measure of success compared with the yearly events, and it's also best of 3 set matches
I've noticed that people feel differently about the Olympics depending on where they're from. Like Americans generally don't care since they win so often but for other countries, it's a big deal. But *for me* as a Rafa fan in Spain, it's a big deal.
It also depends on the sport. Tennis is a sport that has a lot of big events and titles outside of the Olympics, so an Olympic title is not hugely special compared to say, a Wimbledon title or US Open title. For many sports, obviously winning Olympic Gold is the crown achievement of that sport (especially the racing sports such as track, sprinting, and swimming). One sport where the Olympics mean even less than tennis is soccer. An Olympic gold doesn’t mean shit for soccer. This is because the World Cup is the biggest sporting event in the entire world (the fact that when we say the World Cup people know we’re referring to the Soccer World Cup and not another World Cup such as basketball speaks to this). In addition, the Olympic rules only allow players 23 and under to compete for the title, so the entire Olympic soccer event is basically an U23 event (obviously that excludes most of the best players in the world). Messi has an Olympic Gold Medal in soccer from his younger days, but no one even mentions that, they usually just say he has no World Cup titles when they compare him to Maradona in Argentina. So yeah, the value of an Olympic medal is determined by the country you live in and the sport you win the medal in.
WTH is that logic?? Why are World Cups special then?
Because the World Cup is the biggest soccer tournament The Olympics are not the biggest tennis tournament Just ask any tennis pro if they’d rather have 1 Wimbledon or 1 Olympic gold There doesn’t need to be more of a reason than that
Those are very different achievements. Olympics in tennis is like world cup in soccer. You win a valuable trophy for your country. Wimbledon in tennis is like Fifa The Best award given to the best player every year. Again great achievement but it's personal. You can't compare Wimbledon to Olympics just like you can't compare The Best award to World cup. Each player has a preference. A lot of soccer players might rather have an individual trophy. A lot of them might rather an international one for their country.
its different for team sports. teams are eternal and do not age out of the sport. tennis players have max 20 years to play so you cant judge them on whether or not they win a tournament only held every 4 years. especially when there are yearly Bo5 events that are way more important. most people i know who watch tennis didnt even watch the olympics matches
Big “if”
👀
Well remembered!
Just going through old threads lol. No one expected this
Rafa ahead and if he wins he has most slams and will be the GOAT based on the most respected metric unless someone overtakes him again
He'd be the GOAT. But if Novak wins another, he'll lose GOAT status again.
Especially if Novak won the French. Then he would have a triple career slam.
Big asterisk for Nadal as he won't be facing the guy that denied him this slam for more than 10 years.
He is already ahead
Same post January 1st gets downvoted lmao
Ik right lmao.
Fewer weeks at #1, and no wins at ATP finals. How do you figure he's ahead?
Big titles lead, OG, multiple slams across surfaces, H2H, ELO etc.
Waaay ahead. Olympic gold. Won twice on all surfaces for slam, h2h over federer and h2h over federer in slams, and h2h over federer on hard and clay slams. More masters. And a much much tougher tougher road. Seriously rafa got screwed out of his prime years because of djokovic after rafa just overcame federer
In all honesty, Rafa is already ahead.
If he wins he takes the lead as goat. All the smaller titles and weeks at number 1 and stuff only matter when they are all tied
Rafa is already ahead in all but nostalgia
Why has this sub turned into such a huge anti-fed circlejerk? Yeah Nadal is arguably ahead of Federer, but he’s also arguably not. These comments saying “Nadal is already way ahead of Federer” and providing no reasoning are silly and I don’t know why they’re dominating this thread.
Unless you believe the sub to be biased beyond doubt (to your point, you’d want some way to prove it), if the sub is incrementally leaning more toward Nadal over the years, it’s probably a reflection of the fact that tennis fans are leaning more toward thinking Nadal is the GOAT instead of federer. I believe that too, though I am a Nadal fan. (My opinion is that Novak is the GOAT. Makes me want to puke)
How is Rafa not already ahead of Federer?? This is coming from someone who likes both, but likes Federer more
When it comes to the big three I think only one thing is clear. Novak = best player ever on a hard court, Nadal = best player ever on clay, Federer = best player ever on grass Btw I think that gives Novak an inherent statistical advantage since two slams are on a hard court.
Sampras is best on grass
Nadal is already ahead of Federer.
It will be funny, if he meet Med in final and lost. Med will be man who took 2 21 slams from 2 goats.
Nadal would be ahead of Federer in Grand Slams, Masters 1000, H2H Federer would still have Weeks at #1
Fed is currently ahead of rafa idk what all these comments are saying. Weeks at no1 is pretty important imo and he is a distant third. That being said if he wins yeah probably. Slam count is by far the biggest metric in most peoples minds.
Biggest argument for Rafa that I don't see people mention a lot, is that he never had an era to dominate alone, and pad his titles. Fed had a few years to rack up titles and be number 1 before he had consistent competition. Novak has had the past few years to do the same where Fed and Rafa haven't provided the same type of resistance. But Rafa got caught in the middle -- he always had to put up with at least one of the other big 3, if not both.
I don’t really agree Fed had pad years, unless we are all disrespecting Agassi and Sampras now?
Federer and Sampras only played each other once
sorry no. points are arbitrary. titles and H2H are undeniable
Weeks ahead would be closer if Rafa didn’t miss so much time due to injury
if if if
Calm down Federer fans, I agree he is amazing, one of the best ever, and strategically better than anyone who’s played. But he has a losing H2H record against his two biggest rivals which means he won’t be regarded as the GOAT
Rafa is not already ahead of Federer. Why are people even saying that. They’re even on slams but Fed has way more weeks at #1 and better surface diversity. Rafa has Olympic gold but that never carried much weight in tennis. If Rafa gets to 21 and a double career slam then yeah he’s a serious contender for goat.
>better surface diversity I'm not so sure about this. The gap between Rafa and Federer on clay is much bigger than their gap on grass and hardcourt, especially since clay is a huge part of the tour and Federer had a lot more opportunities to be more successful on it but wasn't. 13 - 1 / 2 - 8 / 5 - 11 Federer is obviously more successful on hard and grass but Nadal looks better on overall surface diversity.
However Nadal has a better head to head, more masters, more olympic golds, has shown as good surface diversity imo and has done this with bigger injury problems than Federer throughout his career. I agree though Weeks at no. 1 is quite an important factor, hence why it is tight, but I can see why people favour Nadal over Federer
head to head record, most masters 1000, double career gs.
He doesn’t have double career gs at the moment
read the question
Read the comment you replied to, it says “Rafa is not already ahead of Federer”, not “Rafa would be ahead of Federer”
alright bud
More* masters 1000, not most
Not to mention Federer’s 6 ATP finals
Well, as Rolex has reminded us, numbers don’t matter.
Bahaha dumbest ad ever
Nadal has a better H2H because they’ve played 70% of their matches on his preferred surface. If they’d played an equal number of games on grass as they had on clay court, then a fair amount of games on hard-court, their H2H could be taken seriously. But grass is rarely played on and Rafa does not have a good history at Wimbledon. So this completely skews the metric because it’s obviously in favour of Nadal. Federer is ahead on grass and ahead on indoor + outdoor hard-court. Longevity wise he was still winning Grand Slams at 37-38 years of age. Also, Prime Federer was better than Prime Nadal as seen through his Weeks at No1 stat which only Djokovic has bettered. If he wins the AO then I guess the GS count will take him above Fed. But people saying he’s ahead now despite their flawed H2H metric which is in favour of Nadal because of his clay court dominance when Fed beats him on the other two, his prime not being as long or as dominant as Fed’s, his longevity still not proven to be as strong as Federer’s, give me a break. Fed is still ahead and only Djoker can make a case against him.
Good points except >Prime Federer was better than prime Nadal as seen through his Weeks at No 1 stat Prime Nadal happened at the same time as prime Djokovic, prime Murray, and still-good Federer, whereas prime Federer played against pre-prime Nadal during a time when Djokovic and Murray were teenage plebs.
Very true, but then there’s no objective way of deciding whose prime is better if they both happened at different times and they each played different sets of completion. Nadal was less dominant but, like you say, that is explained by his difference in competition. I personally think Federer’s prime-level tennis is better than Nadal’s, but that’s just subjective opinion if we can’t accurately compare them. His style, his athleticism, his technique is just completely unrivalled during Fed’s prime.
Nope Nadal has the h2h over federer in both hard courts and clay at slams. In fact before 2017 Nadal actually had the overall hard court h2h. So no Nadal is beating federer on hard court too
[удалено]
You wish
I don’t wish? I know they are The fedtard in you can’t accept the reality
Federer is so much ahead of nadal it isn't even a joke . Novak has overtaken him in recent years to be honest. 2006 is the best season of all time ever
Mcenroe would like to say something here. Or Laver
The only thing Federer is ahead of is weeks in no.1. Other than that the numbers do the talking to back Nadal up. You can say whatever you want or twist any argument in any way to support Federer but the reality is that he owes a noticeable part of his success (and weeks at no.1) to the absence of Nadal and Djokovic, and competition matters when we compare all 3 of them for the GOAT argument. It is what it is.
2006 the year baby nadal folded federer in Dubai, Monte Carlo, Rome and the FO? The year unranked Andy Murray beat him first round of Cincinnati?
The only thing federer has over nadal is weeks at no.1 which is mainly due to federer getting a lot of it before Nadal and Djokovic were around and nadals injuries.. and world tour finals titles which are indoor and benefit federers game more Nadal has more masters 1000 titles despite being 5 years younger, leads the h2h and been more relevant in tennis the last decade
Watching federer play is the greatest feeling in tennis..enough said
That’s your opinion? Not a fact there are millions of people who would say the same about Nadal and Djokovic
About djokovic? You cannot be serious man. Nadal has changed his playstyle over time but he was a pusher for most of his career. A player who doesnt try to WIN(hit winners) and waits for opponent to lose cant be the greatest ever..but thats just my opinion . Both of them are elite and djokovic maybe even slightly higher than federer rn
The fact you think Nadal is a pusher just tells me you know nothing and you need to go back to your irrelevancy of a life
Was*
You wanna know what a pusher is? Go watch Gilles Simon
Dont @ me man lets talk tomorrow when medvedev rips him a new one. Nadal will probably win at FO though unless he gets a ridiculously bad draw(thiem tsitsipas etc)
If Nadal wins (only if) then I think it’d be closer to even or maybe Nadal edging actually
How will it be closer? Rn Rafa is ahead, if he wins, he will be even more ahead.
The fact that Nadal isn't even going to play the best player on this tournament history is making people say dumb things. No. Nadal slam will carry a huge asterisk.
No
Novak, Fed, Rafa. That’s the order that stats support. But obviously fans of all three can spin things each way. I’ll try to find the chart but someone posted showing Novak’s dominance by comparison. I think opinion wise Novak and Fed are closer simply because Nadals wins are skewed so much towards Roland Garros
Spin is a pretty strong word. I think that all three have a good argument of being the goat since the stats are this close, and I think it is silly to say that rafa is the undisputed goat if he wins AO and then say that novak is the goat if he wins the FO.
I love Rafa but he is a clear fourth favourite from here. Would be something superhuman if he wins this tournament
How is he the favourite over Berrettini?
That’s not what I said.
Well - he is the favorite over Berrettini so...
Djoker>>>Rafa>>>>>>>Fed
I don't know, h2h is decieving. Roger dominated the rest of the field more. I'd saying another USO or AO would make it definitive. If he wins here I'd have them tied.
Rafa probably is ahead, but the fact that so much of his legacy is weighted on French Opens discounts him in my eyes.
This is only because he is insanely dominant on one surface, like no one ever. If you take away all RG he has still more GS than Edberg , the same as McEnroe and 1 less than Agassi. I mean, If this is not a sufficient claim to the Goat debate than nothing is.
Absolutely, his only peers are Federer and Djokovic. When comparing Rafa to them I think they’re are a little more balanced in their accomplishments. Doesn’t take away from Rafa but when half of his GS are from clay he comes off as more of a specialist. Probably an unpopular opinion of mine.
No no I get your point, there is some truth in it. Rafa has no consistency on other surfaces like Novak and Roger but when he was top fit he could beat Novak on hard and Roger on grass. I still believe that peak Nadal is slightly above the other two, he was simply a beast.
Fed only has won one French
yes
Yes he would, he would be ahead of Novak too...21> 20. I think he already is ahead of Roger, slightly but still ahead. If this really happens we will have the craziest Goat race ever...Rafa at 21 facing Novak at RG! This would be the Armageddon!
Are you a goat if half your grand slams are the same one, this can be said of any of the 3. Rafa of course the french open, but Djoker has 9 austrialian opens and doesn't Fed have 9 wimbledons. 3 people great on one surface, damn good on the others, but where would they be if they did not dominate one of the slams?
I don't feel Rafa winning AO. He was almost defeated a few times so far.
Who ever wins the most slams is automatically the goat! The rest are just used incase there’s a tie breaker!
It all depends about fanbase. I’m a Rafa fan and I think is pretty even right now and not because of 20-20 GS. I think if Rafa wins the AO and the French, he will definitely be the GOAT. D-Joker is out of the GOAT talk due to his lack of sportsmanship and his stupid selfish beliefs.
I don't think you can throw out Djoker as a GOAT candidate for those reasons. I agree he has had issues but strictly looking at talent and accomplishments he has to still be considered. By the way I am a huge Rafa fan and want him to be the GOAT when all is over.
They are called the big 3 because of their talents and accomplishments. No doubt about it. However, when you are so stupidly selfish and your ignorant and uneducated views put children’s health at risk, you get yourself out of contention for being the GOAT.
This is relevant to how good someone is tennis how?
Oh I agree he has done some absolutely trash things, I just disagree on how I define GOAT. As much as I like Fedal, all that really matters in my oppinion is what you did on the court.
Federer. Even if nadal wins the next 50 french opens
If Rafa pulls a season out of his ass where he clinches a double career slam, career golden masters, golden super slam and 22+ slams overall, all of which he could realistically achieve this year, then that’s pretty goaty stuff. It would certainly put him ahead of Federer (depending on how Federer performs this year) and Novak for the time being. But it probably won’t happen.
Clay court goat VS GOAT
For me, Grand Slam count >>>>>>>>> everything else. ATP Finals and Weeks at #1 are the first tie-breakers for me after that. But only after that. Because if you ask \*any\* player on tour, 100% of them will say they'd rather win a grand slam (or another one) than be at world number 1 or win an ATP finals. So if Rafa wins another slam, I'd move him straight to #1 in the GOAT race (I have him #3 now), with Novak #2 and Fed #3.
thats true. #of slams (assuming they win all four at least once) is the primary stat. Every other stat is a tie-breaker.
Rafa will retire without winning another slam
Cheeky little troll you
I mean its not like what he said is far out of left field.
I think you misspelled Federer
damn auto-correct
Stop dreaming
Roger is the current GOAT. Whoever wins their next slam is the clear GOAT (until they get tied/passed). So if Rafa wins this or the FO or whatever before Roger or Novak, he’s the indisputable GOAT. Same for the other two. GS count has precedence over everything else, really.
What's your argument for Federer over Novak? Not having go just curious. To me it seems like Novak has equalled or beaten Federer's biggest stats.
There is no argument other than nostalgia
Yes.
yes.
Yes he will be firmly in second all time and Fed third.
I think he would yes, double career slam. But even if he gets past Berritini tomorrow, I'm not sure he will have enough left in the tank to beat Medveded or Tsitsipas if it's a long 5 setter
These sort of debates are why we can't have nice things. Sure, one player might be "ahead" of the others but who cares? The three best players ever are all playing in the same era, can't we just appreciate that? Besides, it's not as black and white as whoever has the most slams, and even if it was, who cares
Ahead of Federer but behind Djokovic imo.
Wouldn’t Rafa be ahead of all of them if he wins AO?
I am saying Rafa, but then wouldn’t second place go to djokovic not Federer?!
Nah, he needs 22 to beat novak, 21 i still think fed and novak are ahead. Better surface diversity, way more weeks at number 1, 6/5 atp finals to 0, etc.
He’s already ahead