At this moment, would you put Djokovic ahead of Nadal?

?

  • Nadal still greater

    Votes: 93 49.5%
  • Djokovic is ahead now

    Votes: 95 50.5%

  • Total voters
    188

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
Interesting that Djokovic, Federer, Sampras and Borg have all won at least 5 titles at their second best major compared to just 3 for Nadal. As I said the other day, they're pretty much equal but if I were a pro player I'd much rather have Djokovic's resume. The four most important things in any sport are dominance, consistency, versatility and longevity and Novak trumps Nadal in 3 of those 4 categories.
 

DjokoLand

Semi-Pro
Too all the people that say it’s ALL about slams.
What about this scenario. A player wins the AO 21 times in his career for say age 17-40. But it’s the only event he wins all year every year so he never gets #1 or any WTF and is completely lob sided at slams. Is he still GOAT as he has 21 slams ?
 

Goret

Rookie
Too all the people that say it’s ALL about slams.
What about this scenario. A player wins the AO 21 times in his career for say age 17-40. But it’s the only event he wins all year every year so he never gets #1 or any WTF and is completely lob sided at slams. Is he still GOAT as he has 21 slams ?
Saying "it's all about slams" doesn't mean "it's all about slams number".

Slams matter much more than other tournaments like M1000s. I don't think many would disagree with this statement.
On the other side, of course the way these slams are won does matter - how many of each, how many in a year, how many consecutively, etc...

For example, if a player were to win 12 consecutive slams and then retire due to burn-out, I'd say he'd be GOAT, regardless of anything else. It wouldn't be all about slams number, but it'd still be all about slams.
 

chimneysweep

Semi-Pro
Probably. His gap in non slam win achievements on Nadal is about as big as Federer, and unlike Federer he has the better of the head to head with Nadal too. Nadal would need 22 slams to rank over Federer with 20 for me, so Djokovic with 2 less is enough to be just ahead already for me.

Just comparing Nadal to Djokovic, virtual tie in Masters, Djokovic way more balanced record amongst different surfaces, 5 WTF titles to 0, way ahead in all #1 stats, 6 ITF best player of year titles to 3, and ahead 5 to 2 in the most important event by far (Wimbledon). Still it is a very close call right now as 18 > 16 clearly, and Nadal on clay is just so amazing.
 

chimneysweep

Semi-Pro
I would like Nadal to win some more titles outside of clay but I would never trade Nadal's career for Djokovic's. His records on clay are just too great, even though many Djokovic fans are trying to "prove" they are worth nothing. Nobody ever dominated on a surface like that, not even close. This is just my opinion.
An important point to makes in Rafas favor is he is greater on clay than any player on any surface in history, bar none. Nadal on clay >>>>>>> Federer on grass, Djokovic on hard courts, Federer on hard courts, Sampras on grass, Borg on clay. Anyone even challenges that at this point is an outright idiot. And even with that he is a great and winner on all 3 major surfaces, even if he isnt close to the GOAT on either hard courts or grass. The combination of the two is very impressive.
 

thrust

Hall of Fame
7-1-5-3-5-32 vs 1-12-2-3-0-33

Nadal with two slams more, but Djokovic has a much more balanced resume across all slams and has enjoyed dominance on multiple surfaces.

5 YE#1 vs 4
260 weeks as #1 vs 196
5 YECs vs 0.
NCYGS + Golden masters

33 masters for Nadal vs 32
More career titles for Nadal too
1 Olympic Gold Nadal vs 0 for djoko.

Djokovic has defended Wimbledon on two seperate occasions aswell. He has defended titles on all surfaces and conditions, Nadal Only on clay.

I think there are arguments for Djoko to be put ahead of Nadal. What do you guys think?
Overall, I also would rate Novak slightly above Nadal. The YE and weeks at #1, plus 5-0 in YEC more than make up for Rafa's 2 more slams. IMO it is a race to the wire as to who is the greater between Rafa and Novak and both, especially Novak, are closing in on Federer in various records. IF Novak ends this year a #1 he will have 6 compared to Roger's 5. As of now, Novak leads Rafa by 500 points in the YE Race.
 

Pantera

Banned
7-1-5-3-5-32 vs 1-12-2-3-0-33

Nadal with two slams more, but Djokovic has a much more balanced resume across all slams and has enjoyed dominance on multiple surfaces.

5 YE#1 vs 4
260 weeks as #1 vs 196
5 YECs vs 0.
NCYGS + Golden masters

33 masters for Nadal vs 32
More career titles for Nadal too
1 Olympic Gold Nadal vs 0 for djoko.

Djokovic has defended Wimbledon on two seperate occasions aswell. He has defended titles on all surfaces and conditions, Nadal Only on clay.

I think there are arguments for Djoko to be put ahead of Nadal. What do you guys think?
Its very close. Nadal just ahead...as it happens Rome this year may be the deciding factor so far..if Djokovic led the masters 1000 table maybe Djokovic nudges ahead.

Nadal always seems to win the clutch matches...USO 2013 a good example. FO SF with Federer another one.
 

Pantera

Banned
Overall, I also would rate Novak slightly above Nadal. The YE and weeks at #1, plus 5-0 in YEC more than make up for Rafa's 2 more slams. IMO it is a race to the wire as to who is the greater between Rafa and Novak and both, especially Novak, are closing in on Federer in various records. IF Novak ends this year a #1 he will have 6 compared to Roger's 5. As of now, Novak leads Rafa by 500 points in the YE Race.
Rafa and Nole are so close. Id give the nod to Nadal but arguments can be made both ways.

Both ahead of Federer for me.
 

powerangle

Legend
If someone offers you 18 million dollars or 16 million dollars, which offer do you accept?

Why are so many of these tiresome threads started, day after day after day?

Nadal is greater because he has 18 majors. If and when Djoker gets 19, he will be considered the greater player than Rafa by nearly all tennis historians.
18 million dollars

versus

16 million dollars, 5 mansions, a beach house, a couple lambos and porches...

Some will choose the first, some will choose the latter...
 

Goret

Rookie
18 million dollars

versus

16 million dollars, 5 mansions, a beach house, a couple lambos and porches...

Some will choose the first, some will choose the latter...
Just sell the 5 mansions, the beach house, the lambos and porsches, and the latter gets above the first... ;)
 

thrust

Hall of Fame
18 million dollars

versus

16 million dollars, 5 mansions, a beach house, a couple lambos and porches...

Some will choose the first, some will choose the latter...
Idiotic comparison that makes NO sense! Slams alone do not define a players greatness, especially when there is only a 2 slam difference.
 

Towny

Hall of Fame
It's still Nadal for me. But Djokovic is very close.

Djokovic leads in slam versatility. He leads in time and years at number 1. He has a massive lead at the YEC. He leads the H2H. He has better and more dominant seasons.

Nadal ultimately has 2 more slams. Although not as versatile, he does have 2 slams on his worst surface (just 1 for Djokovic). He has an insane 12 RG titles with unparalleled dominance. He is better on clay than anyone else on any other surface. He has greater longevity, winning his first and last slam 14 years apart (11.5 for Novak) and winning a slam every year for 10 straight years (6 for Novak). He leads in masters, other non-mandatory titles, and at the Olympics.

It's a close one, but I think 2 slams is just too big a margin. If Novak wins the USO this year, I'll probably give him the edge then
 

Fintft

Legend
I would like Nadal to win some more titles outside of clay but I would never trade Nadal's career for Djokovic's. His records on clay are just too great, even though many Djokovic fans are trying to "prove" they are worth nothing. Nobody ever dominated on a surface like that, not even close. This is just my opinion.
I agree with you, but to answer the OP's question: yes Djokovic's seems greater overall then Nadal.
 

powerangle

Legend
Idiotic comparison that makes NO sense! Slams alone do not define a players greatness, especially when there is only a 2 slam difference.
Maybe you need to reread my post more carefully? I'm supporing Djokovic with his variety; i.e. slams alone should not be the end all and be all.
 

BeatlesFan

Talk Tennis Guru
Slams alone do not define a players greatness, especially when there is only a 2 slam difference.
Of course they do. Majors completely define a player's greatness, with few exceptions (Wilander with 7 slams may be seen as equal to Becker/Edberg with 6). Laver with two CYGS is a special case too. But there's nothing special about Djokovic's career where he vaults over Nadal who has two more slams.
 

chimneysweep

Semi-Pro
Of course they do. Majors completely define a player's greatness, with few exceptions (Wilander with 7 slams may be seen as equal to Becker/Edberg with 6). Laver with two CYGS is a special case too. But there's nothing special about Djokovic's career where he vaults over Nadal who has two more slams.
Actually Becker and Edberg are ranked ahead of Wilander by almost everyone. McEnroe is ranked higher than Agassi by most people too, even though Agassi not only has 1 more slam but the Career Slam.

Nadal falls far short of both Federer and Djokovic in non slam win stats. Way less time at #1, 0 WTF titles (vs Fed and Djokovic both having a ton), much less consistency and versatility across different surfaces. And much fewer wins at the most important slam (Wimbledon) which is a notch above all others. Against Federer he atleast has a big edge in Masters wins, he doesnt even have that vs Djokovic (while Federer has a big edge in overall tournament wins instead). I am sure if Nadal won 21 slams you wouldnt immediately rank him over Fed if he is still at 20 if he still has 0 WTF titles and he gets there almost only by RG wins. It is a similar situation comparing Djokovic to Nadal.
 

TommieF

Rookie
It’s closer than 2 slams I think they are nearly level. If Djokovic wins the USO I’ll put him ahead as that is another slam outside AO and all his other records that are better than Nadal.
While a slam is a slam.
Djokovic has 9 outside AO
Nadal has 6 outside RG.

Djokovic is the all round better player but I’d say they are equal enough at the moment.
This. If I had to bet in 5 years from now Djoker will be the obvious choice. He is determined to catch the 2 in front of him.
 

Shaolin

G.O.A.T.
Djokovic is way ahead of Nadal in terms of being the better overall player.

Nadal is the greatest clay courter ever obviously and his records will stand for centuries. The fact that he cannot manage a single WTF title and can't defend titles off clay disqualifies him for being a serious overall GOAT candidate though.
 

Rago

Hall of Fame
Nadal is ahead.

One match separates them (literally); one could say it was the USO'13 final but then again, that ended up being the driving factor behind Novak's incredible comeback in the following years.
 
Interesting that Djokovic, Federer, Sampras and Borg have all won at least 5 titles at their second best major compared to just 3 for Nadal. As I said the other day, they're pretty much equal but if I were a pro player I'd much rather have Djokovic's resume. The four most important things in any sport are dominance, consistency, versatility and longevity and Novak trumps Nadal in 3 of those 4 categories.
On the other hand none of them can even DREAM about winning a slam 12 times. Nadal also has some amazing records.
 

Eren

Professional
I think they are tied. More YE1, more weeks at #1, 5 WTFs are enough to compensate for 2 slams.

And Nadal is ahead only in the FO. Nole is ahead in two of the other slams and in the third they are tied, maybe slight advantage to Nole.
In my book the Big3 are equal now. I can't say I really put anyone over the other. Perhaps if for example Federer would get to 23 I would put him ahead. But for now, it's equal tbh. This is just my opinion though.

Nadal has multiple Slams on all 3 surfaces, the only player to do so.
Glad to know Wilander was not a tennis player. Silly me.
 

RaulRamirez

Hall of Fame
Maybe you need to reread my post more carefully? I'm supporing Djokovic with his variety; i.e. slams alone should not be the end all and be all.
I also thought that was obvious - not that Inecessarily agree with the analogy, but it was clear as to what you were arguing.
 

StANDAA

Legend
Interesting that Djokovic, Federer, Sampras and Borg have all won at least 5 titles at their second best major compared to just 3 for Nadal. As I said the other day, they're pretty much equal but if I were a pro player I'd much rather have Djokovic's resume. The four most important things in any sport are dominance, consistency, versatility and longevity and Novak trumps Nadal in 3 of those 4 categories.
what’s with he longevity? Nadal is a child prodigy who’s been around for much longer and it’s also a year older, still active. so what’s your point? or is that the one category where Nadal trumps Djoker according to you?
 

powerplayer

New User
We either use the slam count as the criteria for the GOAT or the whole discussion is meaningless.
These threads are an exercise in futility, the real question should be 'why are there endless meaningless threads on who is the GOAT'.
I don't think the GOAT is a coherent idea anyway, but given that there is a broad consensus in favour of slams as a measure of greatness, at least says something intelligible about what people think.
 
I would like Nadal to win some more titles outside of clay but I would never trade Nadal's career for Djokovic's. His records on clay are just too great, even though many Djokovic fans are trying to "prove" they are worth nothing. Nobody ever dominated on a surface like that, not even close. This is just my opinion.
I agree
There has never been a dominant force in any sport equivalent to Rafael Nadal on Clay, let alone tennis
 

tacou

G.O.A.T.
Nadal has 2 more majors and they have the same # on their favorite surface. I disagree when people describe YEC as an exo, but the fact is RR section is usually a yawn due to injury/lack of interest, and it is held on Novak’s preferred surface/Nadal’s worst.

If Novak finishes tied in major count, he gets it. Within 1? I’d consider it. Two majors is too much though.
 

Terenigma

G.O.A.T.
I put Djokovic ahead of Nadal even before he won Wimbledon and nothing has changed now. Nadal has won 6 slams outside of Roland Garros and whilst i agree his record is incredible there, i just think it's wrong to rank him so highly when his tally is mostly based on one slam. Also he is still missing a WTF title. He also hasn't won all the masters and both of those feats have been achieved by Djokovic.

When i think of great tennis players, slam count is obviously a major factor but i also consider greatest across all surfaces. Djokovic and Federer are still great clay players and have both made the final of Roland Garros several times. It certainly doesn't feel like they are lacking on clay when you look at their overall statistics and it's more that they've been stopped (especially Federer) by the greatest clay player ever to play the sport. The same is not true for Nadal as he has 3 other slams to contend at yet has only won 2 slams since 2010 outside of Roland Garros.
 

powerplayer

New User
Nadal has 2 more majors and they have the same # on their favorite surface. I disagree when people describe YEC as an exo, but the fact is RR section is usually a yawn due to injury/lack of interest, and it is held on Novak’s preferred surface/Nadal’s worst.

If Novak finishes tied in major count, he gets it. Within 1? I’d consider it. Two majors is too much though.
Why would you even consider Novac as the greater of the two with one major being the difference? The rules don't change, if you can consider Novac the greater of the two with one slam difference then why not two, three, five or ten slams difference? Surely it reduces the idea of greatness to absurdity.
 
I put Djokovic ahead of Nadal even before he won Wimbledon and nothing has changed now. Nadal has won 6 slams outside of Roland Garros and whilst i agree his record is incredible there, i just think it's wrong to rank him so highly when his tally is mostly based on one slam. Also he is still missing a WTF title. He also hasn't won all the masters and both of those feats have been achieved by Djokovic.

When i think of great tennis players, slam count is obviously a major factor but i also consider greatest across all surfaces. Djokovic and Federer are still great clay players and have both made the final of Roland Garros several times. It certainly doesn't feel like they are lacking on clay when you look at their overall statistics and it's more that they've been stopped (especially Federer) by the greatest clay player ever to play the sport. The same is not true for Nadal as he has 3 other slams to contend at yet has only won 2 slams since 2010 outside of Roland Garros.
LOL! No, they are not.
 
Top