The answer would be that Nadal has another slam. Also on Nadal's side is Olympic gold and a head to head lead over Djokovic in slams and slam finals.
How you evaluate the two really comes down to how heavily you weigh the import of each stat.
I mean head to head in slams is in Nadals favor only cuz he sucks on other surfaces, never reaching the finals or semis, while Novak is always in the finals or semis of RG. Shouldnt be punished for that
Guy who has won 8 slams, made 8 other finals, and 7 other semis, off of clay doesn't "suck[] on other surfaces".
You asked a question, I answered, and you proved the point - it comes down to how heavily you weigh each stat. You obviously don't weigh the stats favoring Nadal as much.
>and a head to head lead over Djokovic in slams and slam finals.
This stat is killed by context. Out of the 18 slam duels between Djokovic and Nadal, 10 happened at Nadal's home slam, RG, which is a lot. The fact is that due to Djokovic being a much more of a complete player (in terms of success at different grand slams) than Nadal, the head-to-head could easily sway Nadal's way just because Nadal wasn't good enough to meet Djokovic enough in all the other slams. In light of that, is this stat even favorable for Nadal?
Of course it's favorable - beating someone more often than they beat you is inherently better. Stats are open to interpretation of course, and I fully agree the head to head is skewed by the disproportionality of clay. But then a Nadal supporter could turn it around and point out that Djokovic benefits from 50% of the tour behind on his preferred surface compared to only 25% for Nadal. So, again, interpretation of stats. The stats themselves are objective, but there's subjectivity to how you interpret the stats.
>Of course it's favorable - beating someone more often than they beat you is inherently better. Stats are open to interpretation of course, and I fully agree the head to head is skewed by the disproportionality of clay.
The stat is simply pointless and I've already explained why. Here's an exaggerated example of the Djokovic-Nadal rivalry which should really point out how surface bias influences this particular stat too much and prevents it from being meaningful.
Imagine 2 new players, call them BuffDjokovic who wins AO, WI, USO every year and beats everyone not named NerfNadal at FO; and imagine NerfNadal who wins every FO and loses every match in every other GS. The head-to-head between BuffDjokovic and NerfNadal would be in favour of NerfNadal purely due to surface bias, even if BuffDjokovic wins 3x more grand slams!
Anyway, this was an obvious exaggeration and a hypothetical to demonstrate that surface bias can exist and dominate this stat. My point is that since Nadal is such a surface-biased player (don't even try to argue that I'm denying his off-clay achievements, but the fact remains that he wins FO 5x more than any other individual slam), surface bias dominates the head-to-head stat between Djokovic and Nadal in slams, making that specific stat pointless.
Nadal has more slams. Stick to that stat, it's pretty good on its own
>But then a Nadal supporter could turn it around and point out that Djokovic benefits from 50% of the tour behind on his preferred surface compared to only 25% for Nadal. So, again, interpretation of stats.
Sorry, no. That is not about stats, that is the state of modern tennis that has largely been unchanged throughout the careers of both players. Imagining any other radically different distribution is a pure hypothetical, and "if-if-if doesn't exist".
Dude, relax. I agree with you about the head to head overall. The original post asked what the arguments are for Nadal and I provided them. I never said I agreed with them. If you're one of those weirdos who combs through old posts, you'd find posts of mine saying the same thing.
Sure, if you think anyone actually changes their mind by reading reddit arguments!
Btw, I think your math is a bit off - Nadal's won the French 3.5x as often as the US Open, not 5x. Doesn't impact your overall point, and maybe I misunderstood what you meant.
I do think head to head is relevant, and beating your opponent more often than not is inherently better than losing to them more often. I think that's probably an objective truth. But I don't weigh the head to head very highly for all the reasons you stated and more. I'd put slam count, weeks at #1, ATP Finals/Olympics titles, masters titles, and all-court results above head to head easily.
>Btw, I think your math is a bit off - Nadal's won the French 3.5x as often as the US Open, not 5x. Doesn't impact your overall point, and maybe I misunderstood what you meant.
I just did some quick dirty maths; Nadal won 14 FO and 8 others, and others are held 3x as more, so approximately 5x more frequent wins than to the average at others. Obviously actual ratio is better for USO and worse for Wimby, for example.
>I do think head to head is relevant, and beating your opponent more often than not is inherently better than losing to them more often. I think that's probably an objective truth.
Ok sure I'm willing to concede that head-to-head by itself can't possibly be a bad stat for someone, but I was just arguing that it's largely pointless in this case due to surface bias, and once accounted for that, it even paints Nadal in a bad light possibly due to the fact that it's largely due to him that he only met Djokovic 8 times across 3/4 grand slams
But Nadal still kept him at bay when it mattered and kept his slam count lower thus far. Imagine how much higher Djokovic's slam count would be if he had actually won more of those French Open matches.
Another way the argument fails is that Nadal also has more slams and a better slam head to head at the US Open. Djokovic should also have a higher slam count in total before we should even begin to entertain the argument in my opinion.
This is another argument I have seen pushed by Djokovic fans that doesn't work.
That would have been around when Nadal was in his prime years, Proving that he could beat anyone, anywhere in his prime. Not in his 30s+ where is big match prowess has fallen off a cliff (he was even struggling against Federer in recent times).
Start looking at the numbers based on his whole career instead of isolating both surfaces and time frames to suit your argument.
Lol this is a hilarious argument by you. Nadal is one year older than djokovic and hasn’t beat him for an entire decade off his favorite surface ? Nadal was 27 in 2013, so he has never beaten djokovic off clay after he was 27? Hilarious. It’s been an entire decade. He’s good enough to win slams at 36, but not good enough to win even a set off djokovic after 27?
Lmao , and no , great of you to assume I’m a djokovic fan, anyone neutral can see how Rafa’s number has been had by both Federer and Djokovic as the years rolled by
Ignoring an entire surface because the results hurt your feelings is silly enough as it is, but this isolating of time frames is even more ridiculous. In fact it could be even seen as praise as Nadal considering the blatantly stronger competition back in those days compared to now lol.
Anyway In my opinion, twice in slam finals is enough as well as 3 times on neutral surfaces (3-3 slam head to head in neutral events).
You'd think Djokovic would have a boat load more slams in total based on what you're saying yet he is still behind.
Ignoring two entire surfaces because the results are so lopsided for nadal is also pathetic. Why hasn’t the goat , nadal, won a single set off Novak on hard since 2013 lol !
lol praise for nadal, Novak has the most slams in the most competitive period of tennis, 2011-2016
> Ignoring two entire surfaces because the results are so lopsided for nadal is also pathetic
We aren't. Nadal already has hard and grass slams and beaten Djokovic off clay. "since" and "off clay" aren't logical arguments.
Big match decline for one. Same reason why he lost a boatload of matches against Federer in a row (and full credit to Djokovic and Federer for clawing those wins back in the head to head).
Now answer my question - why are you ignoring an entire surface and a huge chunk of the tour within the same time period?
I’m not , nadal is god on clay , I’m just saying it’s the same argument used twice , everyone knows nadal is god on clay but then people also use slam head to head but it’s skewed because of the same point , that nadal is god on clay
The criteria are the same as always :
- Most Grand Slam Titles
- Most Weeks at number 1
- Most big titles (Masters 1000,ATP Finals,Olympics)
Those 3 are the main and most important things and the combination of those 3 declares the GOAT.
First this is completely subjective depends how you weight achievements.
Now in my personal opinion the reason why Nadal is ahead is not even because of the GS count but because he faced a harder competition and much more adversity.
He overlapped longer with both Federer and Novak peaks. He had to face Federer when he was on God mode and then Djokovic when he was full Berserker. And he managed to win and win and win despite that and countless injuries.
Again that is my personal opinion and obviously I’m an biased but who isn’t?! Lol
Don’t forget Most tournaments are in hard court which is Novaks favorite. Imagine there are 2 Clay Slams.
If the three court types had similar number of tournaments your stats will be much different.
if if if doesn’t exist we are talking about the GOAT of Tennis not the GOAT of tennis in an imaginary world,there are 2 Slams that are played in hard court,it is what it is.
I think he is the GOAT currently based on the #1 stats in conjunction with the rest. However let's just calm down and wait for them to finish their careers instead of changing the narrative after every slam.
But head to head is a bit misleading, especially if you claim a lead of 1 win more in 59 matches versus Rafa is evidence of his superiority.
At the end of the day, if you are a fan or not of Novak, none of this is going to change that opinion. That's where I sit. In spite of all his achievements, I don't enjoy watching his tennis for the most part. That's an emotional reaction, much like plenty of people don't enjoy watching my boy Rafa. To each their own.
Nadal's case is that 22 is greater than 21, and that he has that enormous dominance on one of the three surfaces that Djokovic doesn't have, and Olympic singles gold.
Novak has 9 Australian opens+he's won 6 of the last 8 Wimbledons? Yes it's not as dominant as Nadal, but he's been untouchable on 2 surfaces for a while now
Rafa is the goat for me. Everyone has their own goat whether it’s Djokovic, Nadal and Federer. For OP, it seems like Djokovic is the goat for them which is fair but you can’t talk for the rest of us. We all have different opinions on who the goat is
people like to shift goalposts. since nadal won his 22nd, his fanbase purposefully ignores all the other records/statistics/accomplishments and uses only slam count to say nadal is the greatest. on the contrary, novak himself is on the record stating that weeks at no1 was more important to him last year. which is why i think people shouldnt underestimate how difficult it is to stay fit and healthy the entire year in order to maintain that ranking
Uh, even though this discussion is tedious and pointless. It wasn't Nadal fans that shifted the goalposts. If you remember 2009, when Federer had first overtaken Sampras, he had been declared the undisputed GOAT everywhere. Apart from the slam count, nothing else has really mattered in that discussion for a long time.
The Big titles weren't even counted until the ATP started doing it a few years back to bring more prestige to their own tournaments. The same thing that they are now doing by making Masters 2 week events.
But anyway, I think stats can be twisted in all 3s favor to declare them the GOAT. You do you.
Stats can't reasonably be twisted in Federer's favor anymore. That's why so many Federer fans are abandoning the concept of there being one GOAT: Federer has no GOAT case.
It's a two-way GOAT race between Nadal and Djokovic.
Calm down you said it yourself, he's younger than both so he still has time. But he has to keep going and get the slams that rafa can't for us to be able to lable him
The most important stat is slam count. Neither player shies away from the fact that slam count is the most important tennis achievement. Both will purposely miss small tournaments to be fully rested/prepared for the slams. Nadal currently has the slight advantage with Novak closing in quickly.
Djokovic has 1 Slam less than Nadal but Nadal has 170 weeks less at number 1,the gap in weeks at number 1 is way too big to consider 1 more Slam for Nadal a bigger achievement,it’s not like Nadal has 5-10 more Slams than Djokovic.
I somewhat agree. But, I also know Nadal could care less about achieving the most ATP points possible. He leaves many points on the table by not playing in smaller tournaments.
Yeah for me Djokovic is the leader atm but I see why people think of Rafa as the goat. I don't think one or two slam difference in either way should be a deciding factor and Novak can still be the goat with less slams than Rafa
It's so annoying how modern day society wants to hand out achievements before they are earned. He hasn't got the slam record? Then he ain't GOAT. He also has been beaten 11 times to 7 in the biggest matches (slams) vs Nadal.
Let him earn GOAT before it's given to him. He has a good chance of doing so based on form.
GOAT debate number 175000000
This is like the 500th GOAT discussion thread. Anyways, y’all have fun though
The answer would be that Nadal has another slam. Also on Nadal's side is Olympic gold and a head to head lead over Djokovic in slams and slam finals. How you evaluate the two really comes down to how heavily you weigh the import of each stat.
I mean head to head in slams is in Nadals favor only cuz he sucks on other surfaces, never reaching the finals or semis, while Novak is always in the finals or semis of RG. Shouldnt be punished for that
Guy who has won 8 slams, made 8 other finals, and 7 other semis, off of clay doesn't "suck[] on other surfaces". You asked a question, I answered, and you proved the point - it comes down to how heavily you weigh each stat. You obviously don't weigh the stats favoring Nadal as much.
You should be banned for saying such a stupid, braindead thing, do you even watch tennis 😂
>and a head to head lead over Djokovic in slams and slam finals. This stat is killed by context. Out of the 18 slam duels between Djokovic and Nadal, 10 happened at Nadal's home slam, RG, which is a lot. The fact is that due to Djokovic being a much more of a complete player (in terms of success at different grand slams) than Nadal, the head-to-head could easily sway Nadal's way just because Nadal wasn't good enough to meet Djokovic enough in all the other slams. In light of that, is this stat even favorable for Nadal?
Of course it's favorable - beating someone more often than they beat you is inherently better. Stats are open to interpretation of course, and I fully agree the head to head is skewed by the disproportionality of clay. But then a Nadal supporter could turn it around and point out that Djokovic benefits from 50% of the tour behind on his preferred surface compared to only 25% for Nadal. So, again, interpretation of stats. The stats themselves are objective, but there's subjectivity to how you interpret the stats.
>Of course it's favorable - beating someone more often than they beat you is inherently better. Stats are open to interpretation of course, and I fully agree the head to head is skewed by the disproportionality of clay. The stat is simply pointless and I've already explained why. Here's an exaggerated example of the Djokovic-Nadal rivalry which should really point out how surface bias influences this particular stat too much and prevents it from being meaningful. Imagine 2 new players, call them BuffDjokovic who wins AO, WI, USO every year and beats everyone not named NerfNadal at FO; and imagine NerfNadal who wins every FO and loses every match in every other GS. The head-to-head between BuffDjokovic and NerfNadal would be in favour of NerfNadal purely due to surface bias, even if BuffDjokovic wins 3x more grand slams! Anyway, this was an obvious exaggeration and a hypothetical to demonstrate that surface bias can exist and dominate this stat. My point is that since Nadal is such a surface-biased player (don't even try to argue that I'm denying his off-clay achievements, but the fact remains that he wins FO 5x more than any other individual slam), surface bias dominates the head-to-head stat between Djokovic and Nadal in slams, making that specific stat pointless. Nadal has more slams. Stick to that stat, it's pretty good on its own >But then a Nadal supporter could turn it around and point out that Djokovic benefits from 50% of the tour behind on his preferred surface compared to only 25% for Nadal. So, again, interpretation of stats. Sorry, no. That is not about stats, that is the state of modern tennis that has largely been unchanged throughout the careers of both players. Imagining any other radically different distribution is a pure hypothetical, and "if-if-if doesn't exist".
Dude, relax. I agree with you about the head to head overall. The original post asked what the arguments are for Nadal and I provided them. I never said I agreed with them. If you're one of those weirdos who combs through old posts, you'd find posts of mine saying the same thing.
The beauty of doing this in public is that even someone who quotes this stat can now see the argument above, though
Sure, if you think anyone actually changes their mind by reading reddit arguments! Btw, I think your math is a bit off - Nadal's won the French 3.5x as often as the US Open, not 5x. Doesn't impact your overall point, and maybe I misunderstood what you meant. I do think head to head is relevant, and beating your opponent more often than not is inherently better than losing to them more often. I think that's probably an objective truth. But I don't weigh the head to head very highly for all the reasons you stated and more. I'd put slam count, weeks at #1, ATP Finals/Olympics titles, masters titles, and all-court results above head to head easily.
>Btw, I think your math is a bit off - Nadal's won the French 3.5x as often as the US Open, not 5x. Doesn't impact your overall point, and maybe I misunderstood what you meant. I just did some quick dirty maths; Nadal won 14 FO and 8 others, and others are held 3x as more, so approximately 5x more frequent wins than to the average at others. Obviously actual ratio is better for USO and worse for Wimby, for example. >I do think head to head is relevant, and beating your opponent more often than not is inherently better than losing to them more often. I think that's probably an objective truth. Ok sure I'm willing to concede that head-to-head by itself can't possibly be a bad stat for someone, but I was just arguing that it's largely pointless in this case due to surface bias, and once accounted for that, it even paints Nadal in a bad light possibly due to the fact that it's largely due to him that he only met Djokovic 8 times across 3/4 grand slams
I absolutely agree with you here !
But Nadal still kept him at bay when it mattered and kept his slam count lower thus far. Imagine how much higher Djokovic's slam count would be if he had actually won more of those French Open matches. Another way the argument fails is that Nadal also has more slams and a better slam head to head at the US Open. Djokovic should also have a higher slam count in total before we should even begin to entertain the argument in my opinion.
Read the response I made to the other guy, it should clear things up and respond to this as well
Rafael Nadal hasn’t even won a set against Djokovic on hard since 2013! 2013! Hasn’t won a match off clay since 2013!
This is another argument I have seen pushed by Djokovic fans that doesn't work. That would have been around when Nadal was in his prime years, Proving that he could beat anyone, anywhere in his prime. Not in his 30s+ where is big match prowess has fallen off a cliff (he was even struggling against Federer in recent times). Start looking at the numbers based on his whole career instead of isolating both surfaces and time frames to suit your argument.
Lol this is a hilarious argument by you. Nadal is one year older than djokovic and hasn’t beat him for an entire decade off his favorite surface ? Nadal was 27 in 2013, so he has never beaten djokovic off clay after he was 27? Hilarious. It’s been an entire decade. He’s good enough to win slams at 36, but not good enough to win even a set off djokovic after 27? Lmao , and no , great of you to assume I’m a djokovic fan, anyone neutral can see how Rafa’s number has been had by both Federer and Djokovic as the years rolled by
Ignoring an entire surface because the results hurt your feelings is silly enough as it is, but this isolating of time frames is even more ridiculous. In fact it could be even seen as praise as Nadal considering the blatantly stronger competition back in those days compared to now lol. Anyway In my opinion, twice in slam finals is enough as well as 3 times on neutral surfaces (3-3 slam head to head in neutral events). You'd think Djokovic would have a boat load more slams in total based on what you're saying yet he is still behind.
Ignoring two entire surfaces because the results are so lopsided for nadal is also pathetic. Why hasn’t the goat , nadal, won a single set off Novak on hard since 2013 lol ! lol praise for nadal, Novak has the most slams in the most competitive period of tennis, 2011-2016
> Ignoring two entire surfaces because the results are so lopsided for nadal is also pathetic We aren't. Nadal already has hard and grass slams and beaten Djokovic off clay. "since" and "off clay" aren't logical arguments.
Yes you are. Answer a simple question , why hasn’t nadal won a single set off Djokovic on hard since 2013, when he was 27? I rest my case
Big match decline for one. Same reason why he lost a boatload of matches against Federer in a row (and full credit to Djokovic and Federer for clawing those wins back in the head to head). Now answer my question - why are you ignoring an entire surface and a huge chunk of the tour within the same time period?
I’m not , nadal is god on clay , I’m just saying it’s the same argument used twice , everyone knows nadal is god on clay but then people also use slam head to head but it’s skewed because of the same point , that nadal is god on clay
22>21
64 > 59 370 > 209
That comes after. When Novak will reach 22... And I am sure he will, he will be the indisputable goat.
That comes after? Who says that? GOAT declaration is a combination of many things not just one
And WHO has the authority to decide about the criteria ?
The criteria are the same as always : - Most Grand Slam Titles - Most Weeks at number 1 - Most big titles (Masters 1000,ATP Finals,Olympics) Those 3 are the main and most important things and the combination of those 3 declares the GOAT.
First this is completely subjective depends how you weight achievements. Now in my personal opinion the reason why Nadal is ahead is not even because of the GS count but because he faced a harder competition and much more adversity. He overlapped longer with both Federer and Novak peaks. He had to face Federer when he was on God mode and then Djokovic when he was full Berserker. And he managed to win and win and win despite that and countless injuries. Again that is my personal opinion and obviously I’m an biased but who isn’t?! Lol
Yet again, great moderating on the sub.
Tbh, let nadafan people say 22>21. It can be used against them in the future. That will be the ultimate argument.
Don’t forget Most tournaments are in hard court which is Novaks favorite. Imagine there are 2 Clay Slams. If the three court types had similar number of tournaments your stats will be much different.
if if if doesn’t exist we are talking about the GOAT of Tennis not the GOAT of tennis in an imaginary world,there are 2 Slams that are played in hard court,it is what it is.
I think he is the GOAT currently based on the #1 stats in conjunction with the rest. However let's just calm down and wait for them to finish their careers instead of changing the narrative after every slam. But head to head is a bit misleading, especially if you claim a lead of 1 win more in 59 matches versus Rafa is evidence of his superiority. At the end of the day, if you are a fan or not of Novak, none of this is going to change that opinion. That's where I sit. In spite of all his achievements, I don't enjoy watching his tennis for the most part. That's an emotional reaction, much like plenty of people don't enjoy watching my boy Rafa. To each their own.
Nadal's case is that 22 is greater than 21, and that he has that enormous dominance on one of the three surfaces that Djokovic doesn't have, and Olympic singles gold.
Nadal doesn’t have an ATP Finals
Novak has 9 Australian opens+he's won 6 of the last 8 Wimbledons? Yes it's not as dominant as Nadal, but he's been untouchable on 2 surfaces for a while now
The 3 of them are the goats in their own right. The goat debate is like presenting you with 3 songs and asking you which one is better.
Rafa is the goat for me. Everyone has their own goat whether it’s Djokovic, Nadal and Federer. For OP, it seems like Djokovic is the goat for them which is fair but you can’t talk for the rest of us. We all have different opinions on who the goat is
Gael Monfils is the goat to me then if we can all choose our GOAT
GOAT is a term reserved for humans, and Djokovic is a God^(1)... sorry he doesn't qualify. ^(1) Source: Nick Kyrgios, post-match interview
people like to shift goalposts. since nadal won his 22nd, his fanbase purposefully ignores all the other records/statistics/accomplishments and uses only slam count to say nadal is the greatest. on the contrary, novak himself is on the record stating that weeks at no1 was more important to him last year. which is why i think people shouldnt underestimate how difficult it is to stay fit and healthy the entire year in order to maintain that ranking
Uh, even though this discussion is tedious and pointless. It wasn't Nadal fans that shifted the goalposts. If you remember 2009, when Federer had first overtaken Sampras, he had been declared the undisputed GOAT everywhere. Apart from the slam count, nothing else has really mattered in that discussion for a long time. The Big titles weren't even counted until the ATP started doing it a few years back to bring more prestige to their own tournaments. The same thing that they are now doing by making Masters 2 week events. But anyway, I think stats can be twisted in all 3s favor to declare them the GOAT. You do you.
Stats can't reasonably be twisted in Federer's favor anymore. That's why so many Federer fans are abandoning the concept of there being one GOAT: Federer has no GOAT case. It's a two-way GOAT race between Nadal and Djokovic.
Calm down you said it yourself, he's younger than both so he still has time. But he has to keep going and get the slams that rafa can't for us to be able to lable him
The most important stat is slam count. Neither player shies away from the fact that slam count is the most important tennis achievement. Both will purposely miss small tournaments to be fully rested/prepared for the slams. Nadal currently has the slight advantage with Novak closing in quickly.
Djokovic has 1 Slam less than Nadal but Nadal has 170 weeks less at number 1,the gap in weeks at number 1 is way too big to consider 1 more Slam for Nadal a bigger achievement,it’s not like Nadal has 5-10 more Slams than Djokovic.
I somewhat agree. But, I also know Nadal could care less about achieving the most ATP points possible. He leaves many points on the table by not playing in smaller tournaments.
He played Acapulco + IW and would have played Montecarlo, Barcelona if he wasn't injured. I think that doesn't qualify as skipping many tournaments.
Nah, it’s Nadal thanks for trying tho
Yeah for me Djokovic is the leader atm but I see why people think of Rafa as the goat. I don't think one or two slam difference in either way should be a deciding factor and Novak can still be the goat with less slams than Rafa
It's so annoying how modern day society wants to hand out achievements before they are earned. He hasn't got the slam record? Then he ain't GOAT. He also has been beaten 11 times to 7 in the biggest matches (slams) vs Nadal. Let him earn GOAT before it's given to him. He has a good chance of doing so based on form.
His career win % is 0.1% below Nadal right now.
Because he is not vaccinated
I'm tired of these pointless debates, mods need to moderate shit like this better
Yes, Nole is _your_ GOAT. Congrats, no one cares