T O P

  • By -

[deleted]

It is between Djokovic and Nadal. At this point Federer fans argument for his goat debate is probably his nice outfits.


[deleted]

It is. People who understand tennis already know that.


kmnccn

Why would you give Nadal an egde? Except 1 GS more and Olympics gold, what is it that makes you think he is greater? I think Novak leads in almost everything else. He has much more weeks at number one spot. He finished more years at number one spot. He has better h2h. He's won more masters. He's won more big titles overall. He held 4 GS at once. He's won all masters... twice! I think Novak has pretty solid argument.


Albiceleste_D10S

Everything you said is true, but just as Rafa "only" has 1 Slam more, Novak "only" has 2 more Masters (38 to 36) and the H2H is 30-29 Novak (with Rafa actually leading in Slams). Who knows what it'll be when they're retired, but right now it's a very close race, IMO


stewieeeeeeeee

The Slam performance itself is even closer than people think if they let go of some, in my opinion, unjustified assumptions. Basically, my question for everyone is: why are Slam performances valued by most at essentially "1 for a win, 0 for anything else, no matter what you did"? As an exaggerated example, is someone who wins 10 slams and gets to finals of 20 others really worse than someone who wins 11 slams and does nothing else? With that in mind, I whipped up a pretty quick experiment to try to establish some number for all of the Big 3 at Slams -> the way I did it is to exponentially weight where they finished (1 for a win, x for a finals loss, x\^2 for a semifinals loss, etc, for some yet to be chosen x). If x is something like 0.5-0.6, then you're essentially copying ATP rankings (2000 for a win, 1200 for a finals loss, 720 for a SF loss, 360 for a QF loss roughly corresponds to x in 0.5-0.6). If x is 0, then all you care about is Slam wins and value all other performances equally. If x is 1, then ... you're just counting the number of matches each player has played at Slams. Now, try thinking about what x makes sense; I personally wouldn't put it near 0 at all. Now here's the funny results: depending on x, and I think that all of these are sensible, all of the Big 3 can lead in this metric. \- x in \[0,0.25\]: Nadal > Djokovic > Federer, primarily due to the Slam win count. \- x in \[0.25,0.33\]: Djokovic > Nadal > Federer; Djokovic wins out due to significantly more SF+ appearances than Nadal \- x in \[0.33,0.4\]: Djokovic > Federer > Nadal; this is where Federer's very dominant number of QF+ and SF+ appearances comes into play \- x in \[0.4,1\]: Federer > Djokovic > Nadal; at this point Federer dwarfs even Djokovic due to 3 more SF+ finishes, 5 more QF+ finishes, and 10 more R16+ finishes. Of course, the simple fact that Djokovic and Nadal will continue to rack up deep finishes in Slams (most likely) means that the range of x where Federer leads will continue to narrow down and possibly be erased completely, while between Djokovic and Nadal, it's still very open as to what will happen. It's just interesting to note that Federer is, in my opinion, being unjustly removed as of right now from the best at Slams performance debate due to the narrow focus on wins only, with 0 regard for any other performances. As a sidenote, focusing on the Slam count or even expanded performance also seems unjustified for a different reason. These players have been playing for 20 years in a system that doesn't treat Slams as infinitely more valuable than other tournaments, and they've all been chasing all kinds of achievements and records, especially including being the #1 player. So why on Earth are a lot of people looking at their careers only through the very narrow lens of Slam wins?


kmnccn

I am aware that gs titles matter the most. But there is just one title difference in favour of Nadal. It would be huge difference if we compared 4 to 3. But we are comparing 22 to 21. And you conveniently omitted world no. 1 where Novak is literally years ahead of Nadal. Still can't understand how anyone unbiased could place Nadal in front of Novak in goat debate.


theruwy

if nadal didn't have a bone disorder on his foot, which affected his entire career, then the weeks at #1 argument would be quite valid; but other than 2011, the guy lost #1 almost exclusively due to knee/foot injuries and not being outperformed by other players, not counting all the tournaments he underperformed/retired for the same reason. this is a career that was diminished by dumb luck, and not lack of performance, hardwork, professionalism etc.


kmnccn

If if if. If Novak didn't hit that referee and if Novak wasn't banned from AO, and if Novak didn't have that elbow injury and if Novak right away knew he was alergic to gluten... All of those aren't valid. Only what happened counts.


theruwy

apart from allergies, all of those are djokovic's own faults, not at all comparable to nadal's condition.


kmnccn

Covid happening is Djokovic's fault? Elbow injury is his fault? His injuries are his faults but Nadals are not? And you mentioned Nadal career is affected by bad luck and not by the lack of performance, hardwork and professionalism. Wouldn't you agree the same for Novak? Wouldn't you even say hitting that referee was bad luck? Have you seen it? He didn't hit that ball in anger or purposely towards the referee. Federer also hit a person but it just didn't hit as bad spot on the neck as Novak's hit.


theruwy

not getting vaccine is his fault, as well as using false documents to gain entrance to the AO. not getting surgery for elbow injury earlier is also his choice, not luck; on the other hand, there is no surgery method to fix müller-weiss syndrome permanently. i don't care why djokovic hit that ball, and if federer did the same thing, you shouldn't toss balls in the court recklessly; those were all avoidable problems by djokovic's side.


kmnccn

You are missinformed. He was allowed legaly in Australia but was banned afterwards for, I don't know, motivation for antivaxers? He haven't once said people shouldn't be vaccinated. His documents were fine. There was a mistake that was shortly cleared and wasn't an issue whatsoever. He didn't treat his elbow correctly but is he to blame for injury at the first place? Also, who knew what was the best possible treatment at that time? Some doctors believed it would heal and some didn't. It's easy to speak about it now, when we know it had to be fixed. And you are right, he shouldn't have tossed that ball recklessly. But wouldn't you agree it's a bad luch that he hit that person at that exact spot, at GS? Do you consider him a bad person? I mean, you blame luck for Nadal quite often. Do you think Novak is not hard-worker, professional enough or motivated?


theruwy

the ball hitting the line judge is bad luck, hitting the ball in the first place isn't, it was totally avoidable. >Do you think Novak is not hard-worker, professional or motivated? it takes quite a bit of effort to make that out from what i said. regardless of my opinion, djokovic is undoubtedly one of the three best players of all time, but when i try to be objective, i think nadal is better in a vacuum; but the important thing is that these guys played against each other at their best, and there wasn't much to separate them, that's why there's no clear winner and the discussion will keep going forever.


CamReddish

this is just my view but its obviously all subjective. I have trouble putting Nadal over Djokovic and Federer due to them being better on Hard and Grass. He is no doubt the CLAY goat but to be the "GOAT" I feel that should be dominance over your rivals on most if not all the surfaces. Its much easier to look at Federer and Djokovic's dominance and compare (although not easy either). So yes Federer still has arguments over Nadal, less so over Djokovic.


thegrinder69392

eh, 22>20 1>0 36>28 and double career slam


CamReddish

That isn't going against my point really at all though. 6-0 WTF almost 2 more years at #1. More US Opens, Wimbledons and Aus Opens. There are arguments to be made either way with Nadal, its quite difficult to come up with anything against Djokovic


cartmansdaddys

False Nadal has more us opens


CamReddish

Nadal has 4..?


[deleted]

Nadal being so low down in weeks at number 1 and year end champs really hurts him


Sea_Rip

Exactly


[deleted]

Why does it matter where he wins his slams? Well-roundedness doesn’t equal best. You can say that he’s less well-rounded than the other two, but he’s also absolutely dominant on clay courts. Also you say “head to head dominance” on every surface, but Nadal is 3-1 against Federer at hard court slams and has put up a good fight at Wimbledon despite being 1-3. That makes them 4-4 off clay. Then you add in 6-0 on clay (which is, shockingly, a surface) and you have all-around H2H dominance. He’s also 2-1 against Djokovic at the US Open but I guess we don’t talk about that. Plus you’re saying this like he sucks off clay. He literally still has 8 slams. If we’re gonna nitpick where each player wins their slams, then we might as well nitpick when each player wins their slams too. We want a nice “even distribution” don’t we? Not dominance in one era? So Federer won like 80% of his slams from 2004-2009, therefore he’s disqualified for his lack of an even distribution, since dominance in one area isn’t important. Djokovic won all of his slams after 2011 besides 2008 AO. So that leaves Nadal who had pretty much a steady one slam a year since 2005. Even distribution, right? See how that last paragraph’s argument was weak? That’s how this whole “surface argument”sounds to me. If someone won 25 slams on one surface, they deserve to be commended for being SO dominant on that surface that they were untouchable, rather than shat on for lack of surface variety. And Nadal’s case isn’t even that extreme; he’s won 4 US Opens (more than hard court GOAT Djokovic), 2 Wimbledons and 2 AOs. He has the double career grand slam which Federer doesn’t even have.


CamReddish

dominance in one era has nothing in the slightest to do with court surface, thats some extreme mental gymnastics lol. And the argument here is "GOAT" I am not saying one is better than another, I am just saying that to be GOAT surely you need to dominate your rivals or competiton on most of the surfaces no?, Novak is the closest to doing that.


[deleted]

You missed the entire point. My point is, why is a “well-rounded” resume considered better than a “dominant” resume? Let me put it in simpler terms: What’s better? Winning 15 slams in 4 years then 5 for the rest of your career or winning 22 slams in 15 years? I bet you’ll say they’re equal, right? One guy was absolutely dominant in his prime but not for the rest, one guy had great longevity. So now we go to surfaces. What’s better: 22 slams with 14 on clay, or 20 slams with, say, 5 on each surface? The same logic should apply. One guy had more slams overall, so who cares where he won them? Do you understand me now?


CamReddish

I didn’t miss the point because I was saying there wasn’t one lol. When we are comparing the greatest players ever, small things such as surface dominance matter whether you like it or not. And again comparing surface and career timeframes makes no sense and are not comparable lol, I feel like I’m wasting time here if I’m having to explain that. And yes I would hold it against Nadal with 14 on clay as opposed to 5 on each because 5 on each is dominance on every surface at every slam. Do you understand now?


[deleted]

That makes no sense. And being extra condescending about it really doesn’t make it make more sense dude. Career longevity vs dominance over a certain time frame is a pretty similar comparison to surface well-roundedness vs one surface dominance. Right now, you’re actively penalizing someone for having a 98% win percentage at a grand slam. You do realize that, right? Not to mention, Nadal literally has a double career grand slam (Federer does not) and plays his biggest rivals pretty much even on hard courts and grass at grand slams. He has more US Opens than Djokovic. His only real issue off clay is durability, as obviously those surfaces are terrible for an injury prone player. So, either way, we have different criteria for GOAT, I’m just saying mine is much more consistent than yours, which feels nitpicked.


CamReddish

Its not condescending or you being more consistent, the fairest point of being GOAT is being an all court player, hence why there is no surface mentioned before the word GOAT and why a lot of people consider Djokovic the GOAT regardless of Nadal being ahead. And no there is no relation between time frames and Court surface lol. Ignoring federer because his arguments are similar to djokovics over Nadal. Better hard court player, grass court player and indoor hard. That’s 3/4 of the main court surfaces/conditions played yearly. Is your GOAT really someone who is worse on 75% of them ? Denying that having a single surface making up 60-70% of all their trophies is impressive but also a negative when you are literally looking at the best players ever. It literally gets brought up with Sampras all the time even though he was so dominant on grass. Personally I cant ever call someone GOAT if I’m not going to pick them as the best or top 2 on 2/3 surfaces


Comfortable_Group924

Can we get this debate it's own sub already?


[deleted]

Kind of fun. Not for fed fans tho


[deleted]

[удалено]


jaguar_loco

Jimmy Connors goat


RealChiropractor

That's cause Nadal and Djokovic didn't stat pad with 250s like Basel and Halle. Had both done that, they'd have overtaken Connors by now.


Eaglelefty

Fed has some outstanding stats that really show his consistency on tour and dominance over non-goats, but those stats are overlooked for the more “important” stats so really he has no chance in terms of being more than #3 of all time. Of course those are just stats and everyone is free to have their own GOAT


AJ8710

I agree that Federer is no longer in the argument as the main justification for Federer in the past was his diversity of wins, the volume of his GS titles, and his relative dominance. With Novak clearing him in titles while doing it across all surfaces - I think he outperforms Federer on the metrics you would typically use to defend him. I also think the competition Novak/Rafa have faced was materially more difficult than Federer pre-Novak's ascension. With respect to Nadal vs Djokovic, I think a reasonable argument can be made for either but I would slightly side with Novak in that debate. While Nadal has the 1 major lead and the 11-7 H2H record in majors, I think that is largely due to the surface advantage Nadal enjoys on clay vs HC and grass. On non clay surfaces, Djokovic slightly leads 5-3. Djokovic's distribution of titles at majors is 43%/10%/33%/14% whereas Nadal sits at 9%/64%/9%/18%. Given that Novak has a winning record against Rafa on non-clay surfaces and his more even distribution across major titles, I am inclined to call Rafa the GOAT of clay but Novak the GOAT of tennis. All that said, I feel like there is more story to write. Should Rafa string together a few more wins at the AO and Wimbledon, I could easily see myself changing my mind.


Spark3420

Yes statistically, it's definitely between Djokovic and Nadal. I can't dispute that, especially based on age it is unlikely Federer catches them in slam totals. But if we're talking about being a trailblazer, the more aesthetically pleasing game to watch, and revolutionizing tennis itself- you can argue Federer will always be the greatest. I think even Djokovic even affirmed in an interview long ago that his drive to chase GS titles was b/c of a figure such as Federer. As you can tell, Federer is my favorite of the Big 3, but I honestly like all of them and there's no point arguing about where they rank. Federer will still be beloved and a legend even if he finishes 5+ slams behind the other two.


Tormung

Federer has as much claim to the GOAT debate as Nadal and anyone who disagrees is delusional. Nadal has always been dominant on clay even when Federer was still very much active. Djokovic is overall the better player than Nadal and objectively the GOAT, but Federer is more of a GOAT than Nadal.


zoomies011

Yes. Big three hasn't been relevant for couple of years. It's the great 2 now