At 20/20/20, Nadal being the King of Clay could actually help his case as GOAT.

Pheasant

Hall of Fame
Let’s say that the Big 3 each end up with 20 slam titles each. I will give a hypothetical:

Nadal ends up with 1/14/2/3
Fedr ends up with 6/1/8/5
Djoker ends up with 8/1/7/4

In this case, Djoker and Fed are battling it out for the GOAT of hard courts. Each one has a case. Djoker would have the slight edge in titles. But Fed would have the streak of 5 straight titles and 6 straight finals at the USO and 14 semis in 15 years at the AO, which is truly absurd. I would give this to Djoker. Titles trumps everything. But it’s really close.

Similarly on grass, it now becomes a 3 way battle for grass GOAT. I would still lean towards Fed. But Sampras and Novak would be really close.

However, Nadal absolutely destroys everybody on clay. Nobody is in the same universe. Nadal owns clay. 93-2 at RG is sick domination. Nadal went through Peak Fed to win 3 of those titles from 2005-2007 and very good Fed for 2 others(2008, 2011). He also went through Peak Djoker several times.

I REALLY needed Fed to hold at 40-15 to make this race far more difficult for the other two. He didn’t, so now it looks likely that he will be matched. Maybe a 20/20/20 ends up happening. And if it does, Nadal’s complete domination on one surface while being a multiple slam champ on the other two surfaces makes him quite unique.
 

StrongRule

Hall of Fame
Lack of WTF or complete masters set or leading weeks at No. 1 or inability in defending titles off clay also make Nadal quite unique.
This "lack of WTF" is a bad argument. Even if he wins 1 WTF title it will not make him a great indoors player or something. Just like Federer and Djokovic winning 1 RG (and both needed lots of luck to do it) didn't make them all time greats on clay. Winning WTF would be cool, but I don't see what 1 lucky title there would change.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
I have no problem with anyone arguing that Nadal is GOAT if that happens. It's just that they will have to make the case that his clay dominance is so extreme that it trumps all and places him at the the top. I think that's going to be difficult to do because RG is only one piece of the Slam puzzle and there are 4 pieces. I think his case in that scenario would be better if he had more weeks at #1.
 

StrongRule

Hall of Fame
14 French Opens would be absolutely ridonkulous!

That's the same number of combined Aussie Opens for Fed and Djoko and just 1 less than their combined Wimbledons.

That's equal to Sampras' entire GS haul.

Most tennis careers don't even last 12 years and here is one guy winning 14 in the same slam.
Nadal is very far from achieving that though. But winning 12 RG titles is already unreal.
 

Pheasant

Hall of Fame
I think that Nadal’s clay domination should be used as an advantage for him in these talks, not against him. That's my main point here. Sometimes, we need to give kudos to other players, even if they aren't our favorite.
 

Rabe87

Professional
Nadal trails in every metric other than most RG's won.

It both helps and harms his claim to GOAT-ness, but really, it harms him more simply because he's never defended a Slam other than RG.

He's the greatest of all time on clay and at RG, but his career on every other surface / indoor events has been similar to Andy Murray.
 

Goof

Semi-Pro
Nadal trails in every metric other than most RG's won.

It both helps and harms his claim to GOAT-ness, but really, it harms him more simply because he's never defended a Slam other than RG.

He's the greatest of all time on clay and at RG, but his career on every other surface / indoor events has been similar to Andy Murray.
Except double the Majors.
 

Rabe87

Professional
I don't think the actual legit GOAT could be someone who's never held more than 2 Slams at once in his career, that just doesn't fly when compared to the remaining 2 of the Big 3.
 

StrongRule

Hall of Fame
Nadal trails in every metric other than most RG's won.

It both helps and harms his claim to GOAT-ness, but really, it harms him more simply because he's never defended a Slam other than RG.

He's the greatest of all time on clay and at RG, but his career on every other surface / indoor events has been similar to Andy Murray.
Lol, WHAT? He won 6 slams outside of RG. Murray has won just 3 slams overall.
 

Rabe87

Professional
Oh my god I said 'similar' not 'identical', He might've won 6 slams elsewhere, including 3 USO's which is impressive but he defended none of them, and has not defended a M1000 on any other surface.

He is definitely a Sharapova-Murray hybrid off the clay.
 
Nadal trails in every metric other than most RG's won.

It both helps and harms his claim to GOAT-ness, but really, it harms him more simply because he's never defended a Slam other than RG.

He's the greatest of all time on clay and at RG, but his career on every other surface / indoor events has been similar to Andy Murray.
Andy Murray?

Nadal's 6 slams outside of RG is equal to the Slam totals of Becker and Edberg.

Nadal - 1 AO, 2 W, 3 USO
Becker - 2 AO, 3 W, 1 USO
Edberg - 2 AO, 2W, 2 USO

Murray - 2 W, 1 USO
 

WhiskeyEE

Legend
At this point we are not going to end up with a consensus GOAT. Although Novak will probably end up with the strongest arguments if he retires with both the slam record and weeks at #1 record (and winning all masters, h2h leads, etc.).

For Federer there are arguments like... slowing of the courts, career inflation era lasting like 5+ years already due to several generations of young mugs, etc.

Nadal needs to win the WTF at least once and fill some other holes to remain competitive IMO.
 

StrongRule

Hall of Fame
At this point we are not going to end up with a consensus GOAT. Although Novak will probably end up with the strongest arguments if he retires with both the slam record and weeks at #1 record (and winning all masters, h2h leads, etc.).

For Federer there are arguments like... slowing of the courts, career inflation era lasting like 5+ years already due to several generations of young mugs, etc.

Nadal needs to win the WTF at least once and fill some other holes to remain competitive IMO.
I don't see how will it help him. A single WTF title will not make him a great player indoors, just like Federer and Djokovic are not all time greats on clay.
 

WhiskeyEE

Legend
I don't see how will it help him. A single WTF title will not make him a great player indoors, just like Federer and Djokovic are not all time greats on clay.
Well it would pale in comparison to Federer/Novak's 5+ WTFs, but he needs to win it for the same reason Federer/Novak had to win RG once.

But I do feel at this point that if Novak retires within 1 slam of Nadal (let alone the same/more) that Nadal's GOAT claim is basically dead. With them being one year apart, both liking homogenized courts, and Novak's overall resume being so much stronger.
 

Goof

Semi-Pro
At this point we are not going to end up with a consensus GOAT. Although Novak will probably end up with the strongest arguments if he retires with both the slam record and weeks at #1 record (and winning all masters, h2h leads, etc.).

For Federer there are arguments like... slowing of the courts, career inflation era lasting like 5+ years already due to several generations of young mugs, etc.

Nadal needs to win the WTF at least once and fill some other holes to remain competitive IMO.
If Nadal was smart, he would never even play the WTF again. Rest up after the USO every year and try to peak at AO.
 

StrongRule

Hall of Fame
Well it would pale in comparison to Federer/Novak's 5+ WTFs, but he needs to win it for the same reason Federer/Novak had to win RG once.
Sorry, I don't see a big difference between 0 and 1 titles. Both Federer and Djokovic needed lots of luck to win RG titles, and these wins didn't make them all time greats on clay.
Unfortunately, Nadal is not too good indoors. And he also skips WTF way too much.
 

Dilexson

Hall of Fame
It'd be a hell of a coincidence.
I can't imagine the last person to reach 20 quitting the chase it at that point.
 

WhiskeyEE

Legend
Sorry, I don't see a big difference between 0 and 1 titles. Both Federer and Djokovic needed lots of luck to win RG titles, and these wins didn't make them all time greats on clay.
Unfortunately, Nadal is not too good indoors. And he also skips WTF way too much.
There is a big difference between 0 and 1 titles. That's why Pete is considered to have a gigantic hole in his resume, but not Novak or Federer.
 

Thetouch

Semi-Pro
GOAT or not, Nadal haters need to stop that "out of RG" phrase, it makes them look like total morons, considering Federer himself almost won WB for the 9th time. Clay has always been my least favourite surface but it's the most natural one and unlike in Wimbledon, AO and US Open, Paris has neither changed its surface nor changed its conditions (making it slower or faster). Correct me if I am wrong.
 

Rabe87

Professional
GOAT or not, Nadal haters need to stop that "out of RG" phrase, it makes them look like total morons, considering Federer himself almost won WB for the 9th time. Clay has always been my least favourite surface but it's the most natural one and unlike in Wimbledon, AO and US Open, Paris has neither changed its surface nor changed its conditions (making it slower or faster). Correct me if I am wrong.
You are indeed wrong, they use a faster ball to speed up the conditions.

Federer didn't win Wimbledon on Sunday.

I'll show you, almost winning = 9.
Reality = 8

See the difference?

If Nadal had defended a non-clay GS or M1000 then the 'out of clay' argument wouldn't exist.

Again, he hasn't defended one, he has a chance to defend Montreal which would be a first in his career, if that doesn't happen, he's back to square one 'out of clay'.

Reality, my friend, is the key to not being a silly rabbit.
 

Rabe87

Professional
Andy Murray?

Nadal's 6 slams outside of RG is equal to the Slam totals of Becker and Edberg.

Nadal - 1 AO, 2 W, 3 USO
Becker - 2 AO, 3 W, 1 USO
Edberg - 2 AO, 2W, 2 USO

Murray - 2 W, 1 USO
You're right even Murray had perks over Nads, like being able to defend HC M1000's. It was silly of me to compare Nads non-clay record with Murraygoat.
 

MasturB

Legend
Considering there are no indoor slams, it's pretty hard to use that against Rafa in proportion to holding clay against Rog/Novak.

Yes, he should have one WTF. But if he finishes with 21 and Rog is 20 I wouldn't hold it against him.

It matters a bit iff they're tied/he's one behind.

If Rafa had 18 French Opens and 0 slams elsewhere I'd find it hard to say he's goat. But he does have 2 Wimby (1 against the current Grass GOAT), and 3 USO (2 against a top 2 hardcourt GOAT) and 1 AO (against a top 2 hardcourt GOAT).

Yes his distribution is a lot more skewed than the other 2, but he's dominant enough at RG + Has gotten big wins at the other 3 slams for that distribution to matter less and less as time goes on.
 

Thetouch

Semi-Pro
You are indeed wrong, they use a faster ball to speed up the conditions.

Federer didn't win Wimbledon on Sunday.

I'll show you, almost winning = 9.
Reality = 8

See the difference?

If Nadal had defended a non-clay GS or M1000 then the 'out of clay' argument wouldn't exist.

Again, he hasn't defended one, he has a chance to defend Montreal which would be a first in his career, if that doesn't happen, he's back to square one 'out of clay'.

Reality, my friend, is the key to not being a silly rabbit.


So by changing the balls (still not surface), aren't they favouring everybody else, except Nadal then? lol

Oh wow, 8 is not 9, really? Federer has the same amount of WB finals as Nadal has on RG, only difference is, he has less trophies. So stop this outside of RG nonsense, nobody ever says Federer only won RG because he never faced Nadal and nobody ever says Djokovic only won RG because of the same reason.

If Nadal wins AO again, he then would be the only out of Fedalovic to win every slam at least twice. Does that make him better then? Or are you going to come up with another "but he didn't win 5 tournaments in the row like X did in 2011 or Y in 2005" or whenever? The point is, people are ridiculous for downplaying the only player in history, who has dominated a Slam like nobody else in history.
 

VenusEnvy_69

New User
Well to be fair, Djokovic did hold all the Grand Slams and the other 2 haven't done that, and Roger didn't beat Nadal at RG - Novak beat Nadal at RG the year before he won RG. So that's my two cents.
 

ChaelAZ

Legend
I think that Nadal’s clay domination should be used as an advantage for him in these talks, not against him.
It creates a glarring deficiency of the others that he is so dominant on that surface, it is better to discount it to make up for their favorite players lack of ability there.
 

powerangle

Legend
lol only we tennis geeks get so wrapped up into all these detailed analyses...and of course there's nothing wrong with that

The general public will probably just think of them all the same with 20 majors each, and will probably sway towards their rooting fave
 

DjokoLand

Rookie
Would it though ? He is already Clay GOAT and always will be and nobody will get close so adding 2 more RG’s will just emphasize that. It be better for him if he got the next 2 slams off clay as he has question marks over other slams. 6 is still amazing but 66% of you’re slams coming at 1 when you’re on 18. Shows domination at that slam and another 2 will just keep him Clay goat which he already is
 

jm1980

G.O.A.T.
Frankly , I believe given the media adoration of Fed anything between 20-22 will not give Djok or Nadal any special status . They are better off to target 23-25 , or at least 3-5 more than Fed
Who cares what the media may think? For all I care, they can claim Fed is the GOAT regardless of whether Nadal wins 21, 25, or 30 slams. But numbers don't lie
 
Top