I wouldn't mind. Between Fedal. I'd rather Nadal.
To elaborate, as a fan of Djokovic first, then Federer, I'd rather Novak have it, then Federer if that were impossible. The thing is, if I were to speak as a purely Djokovic fan and that my happiness were based entirely in his GOAThood, I'd have to say I wouldn't be angry with Nadal being ahead, as long as it's only 1 or 2.Well, no. I'd rather Novak have it.
To elaborate, as a fan of Djokovic first, then Federer, I'd rather Novak have it, then Federer if that were impossible. The thing is, if I were to speak as a purely Djokovic fan and that my happiness were based entirely in his GOAThood, I'd have to say I wouldn't be angry with Nadal being ahead, as long as it's only 1 or 2.
See, against Nadal, it would be possible to argue Djokovic is greater even with 1 slam fewer - whether due to WTF count, weeks at #1, H2H, or intangibles, the argument is still there. Against Federer, that's much less apparent. Federer has as many YE#1s, more time at #1, more WTF, more slams, and more titles, whereas Novak has the H2H and Masters. Novak would need to equal Federer's slam count, #1 time, and WTF titles, then he'd be ahead. With Nadal, it's less open and shut.
I wouldn't mind. Between Fedal. I'd rather Nadal.
I am fine either way. Novak got back to winning ways since last year. That's all I hoped for.
But Nadal has the Olympics, H2H in Slams, Masters 1000 and ATP 500 advantage. Not to mention that Nadal has the highest % of victories in ATP matches and has won at least 2 Slams on every surface (while Djokovic only has 1 Slam on clay). So it's not like Nadal only would lead Djokovic in Slams in this scenario. In my view, it would be dishonest to argue that Djokovic is the GOAT if he has less Slams (even if only 1) than Nadal playing in the same era. If you are the GOAT, you are the best, and the best should be talented enough to win the most Grand Slams. If you are not good enough to win the most Grand Slams, you are not the GOAT.To elaborate, as a fan of Djokovic first, then Federer, I'd rather Novak have it, then Federer if that were impossible. The thing is, if I were to speak as a purely Djokovic fan and that my happiness were based entirely in his GOAThood, I'd have to say I wouldn't be angry with Nadal being ahead, as long as it's only 1 or 2.
See, against Nadal, it would be possible to argue Djokovic is greater even with 1 slam fewer - whether due to WTF count, weeks at #1, H2H, or intangibles, the argument is still there. Against Federer, that's much less apparent. Federer has as many YE#1s, more time at #1, more WTF, more slams, and more titles, whereas Novak has the H2H and Masters. Novak would need to equal Federer's slam count, #1 time, and WTF titles, then he'd be ahead. With Nadal, it's less open and shut.
But Nadal has the Olympics, H2H in Slams, Masters 1000 and ATP 500 advantage. Not to mention that Nadal has the highest % of victories in ATP matches and has won at least 2 Slams on every surface (while Djokovic only has 1 Slam on clay). So it's not like Nadal only would lead Djokovic in Slams in this scenario. In my view, it would be dishonest to argue that Djokovic is the GOAT if he has less Slams (even if only 1) than Nadal playing in the same era. If you are the GOAT, you are the best, and the best should be talented enough to win the most Grand Slams. If you are not good enough to win the most Grand Slams, you are not the GOAT.
Of course you can argue whatever you want changing the main criterion. You can also argue that Sampras is greater than Federer inventing a new criterion (arguing that YE #1 is the most releveant GOAT criterion for example). But, the thing is, people from future generations will not by those excuses. They will see the Big 3 played all in the same era, and most people will recognize the GOAT as the one with most Slams won. The number of Grand Slams is widely recognized as the most relevant all-time great criterion, other criteria are just tie-breakers in case two players are tied in Slams.
As a Nadal fan, I would never never put excuses if Djokovic (or Federer for that matter) end up leading the Grand Slam race. If Djokovic wins more Slams than anyone, he is the GOAT. If Federer wins more Slams than anybody, he is the GOAT. If Nadal wins more Slams than anybody, he is the GOAT. Only if the three end up tied in 20 you can start bringing new criteria like H2H overall, H2H in Slams, Olympics, ATP finals, weeks as #1, Masters 1000, etc.
I wouldn't mind. Between Fedal. I'd rather Nadal.
Anyone but FedererI don't want it to be Fed.
Sure. I take a holistic approach, but even so it's a tough call as to whether the weeks and WTF can make up for a slam title. I think the Olympics and Masters are important too, so Novak would probably need to at least tie those metrics as well. I just meant it's easier to argue against Nadal given a slam gap. Much harder for Federer.But Nadal has the Olympics, H2H in Slams, Masters 1000 and ATP 500 advantage. Not to mention that Nadal has the highest % of victories in ATP matches and has won at least 2 Slams on every surface (while Djokovic only has 1 Slam on clay). So it's not like Nadal only would lead Djokovic in Slams in this scenario. In my view, it would be dishonest to argue that Djokovic is the GOAT if he has less Slams (even if only 1) than Nadal playing in the same era. If you are the GOAT, you are the best, and the best should be talented enough to win the most Grand Slams. If you are not good enough to win the most Grand Slams, you are not the GOAT.
Of course you can argue whatever you want changing the main criterion. You can also argue that Sampras is greater than Federer inventing a new criterion (arguing that YE #1 is the most releveant GOAT criterion for example). But, the thing is, people from future generations will not by those excuses. They will see the Big 3 played all in the same era, and most people will recognize the GOAT as the one with most Slams won. The number of Grand Slams is widely recognized as the most relevant all-time great criterion, other criteria are just tie-breakers in case two players are tied in Slams.
As a Nadal fan, I would never never put excuses if Djokovic (or Federer for that matter) end up leading the Grand Slam race. If Djokovic wins more Slams than anyone, he is the GOAT. If Federer wins more Slams than anybody, he is the GOAT. If Nadal wins more Slams than anybody, he is the GOAT. Only if the three end up tied in 20 you can start bringing new criteria like H2H overall, H2H in Slams, Olympics, ATP finals, weeks as #1, Masters 1000, etc.
We had war with words between Fed and Novak early in their careers. That pretty much defined their relationship. Rafa was tame and didn't get into conflicts although he was boiling inside in many occasions.
Therefore I just can't help it, Rafa is much more acceptable GOAT than Fed who was so arrogantly portrayed as one while still competing.
Nadal would be the most successful player of the open era if he wins the most slams, only that much is certain. On this forum it's sort of accepted that greatness = how much success you have. So I guess by the logic of this forum, Nadal would be the greatest. But for people outside this forum, the debate would be more nuanced than that.But Nadal has the Olympics, H2H in Slams, Masters 1000 and ATP 500 advantage. Not to mention that Nadal has the highest % of victories in ATP matches and has won at least 2 Slams on every surface (while Djokovic only has 1 Slam on clay). So it's not like Nadal only would lead Djokovic in Slams in this scenario. In my view, it would be dishonest to argue that Djokovic is the GOAT if he has less Slams (even if only 1) than Nadal playing in the same era. If you are the GOAT, you are the best, and the best should be talented enough to win the most Grand Slams. If you are not good enough to win the most Grand Slams, you are not the GOAT.
Of course you can argue whatever you want changing the main criterion. You can also argue that Sampras is greater than Federer inventing a new criterion (arguing that YE #1 is the most releveant GOAT criterion for example). But, the thing is, people from future generations will not by those excuses. They will see the Big 3 played all in the same era, and most people will recognize the GOAT as the one with most Slams won. The number of Grand Slams is widely recognized as the most relevant all-time great criterion, other criteria are just tie-breakers in case two players are tied in Slams.
As a Nadal fan, I would never never put excuses if Djokovic (or Federer for that matter) end up leading the Grand Slam race. If Djokovic wins more Slams than anyone, he is the GOAT. If Federer wins more Slams than anybody, he is the GOAT. If Nadal wins more Slams than anybody, he is the GOAT. Only if the three end up tied in 20 you can start bringing new criteria like H2H overall, H2H in Slams, Olympics, ATP finals, weeks as #1, Masters 1000, etc.
IMO, raw number of Major Titles is not important.
It is the ability to be successful at the extreme ends of the spectrum. Rafa has been very successful on Clay and reasonably successful on Grass. Federer and Djokovic have not.
Yes, instead they have been only hugely successful on HC, Grass and Indoor. Otherwise they have been not.
I think I wouldn't mind, I really like Nadal, I've enjoyed all the Novak and Nadal battles, it's a shame Novak only started winning multiple Grand Slams since 2011, otherwise I think he would be the GS count leader.
Same here.I wouldn't mind. Between Fedal. I'd rather Nadal.
How do all you haters survive all this time knowing Fed's been in front since 2009? When you say "anyone but Federer," it IS Federer right now and has been for a decade. Novak is nowhere near passing him and needs 5 more to do it. And after today, Novak takes another hit because Nadal will be 4 ahead of him in order to pass.Anyone but Federer
Me tooWell, no. I'd rather Novak have it.
Also an optionI'd like to see all 3 tied at 20 a piece in about 2 years
How do all you haters survive all this time knowing Fed's been in front since 2009? When you say "anyone but Federer," it IS Federer right now and has been for a decade. Novak is nowhere near passing him and needs 5 more to do it. And after today, Novak takes another hit because Nadal will be 4 ahead of him in order to pass.
Would you (and others on team #ABF) prefer the slam race to end:Anyone but Federer
Hypocrite !How do all you haters survive all this time knowing Fed's been in front since 2009? When you say "anyone but Federer," it IS Federer right now and has been for a decade. Novak is nowhere near passing him and needs 5 more to do it. And after today, Novak takes another hit because Nadal will be 4 ahead of him in order to pass.
You seem to attack that comment about anyone but federer but @vive le beau jeau constantly hates and writes ABTN(Anyone but the nadal) but nobody including you dint say anything and instead everybody like him and supports. Not that I support hating but I hate hypocrisy.How do all you haters survive all this time knowing Fed's been in front since 2009? When you say "anyone but Federer," it IS Federer right now and has been for a decade. Novak is nowhere near passing him and needs 5 more to do it. And after today, Novak takes another hit because Nadal will be 4 ahead of him in order to pass.
@vive le beau jeu ! is art. Up there with Salvador Dali.You seem to attack that comment about anyone but federer but @vive le beau jeau constantly hates and writes ABTN(Anyone but the nadal) but nobody including you dint say anything and instead everybody like him and supports. Not that I support hating but I hate hypocrisy.
Slam count is one thing but I rate a players whole career and not just based on one event.
When you say whole career, you mean Fed winning his first major in 2003 is is still making finals of majors today, winning his latest last year? Or do you mean Nadal winning majors and master for 10 straight years, also winning majors in his teens, 20s and in his 30s?
Like Sampras said: ”it’s all about the majors!!
I mean I don't just look at the slam count. I look at a players overall career.
Yeah, that’s something we discuss when you’re tied in slam count.
Art of hate?@vive le beau jeu ! is art. Up there with Salvador Dali.