Djokovic can already become the GOAT in the next slam

Please explain how Laver accomplished the CYGS twice and is still almost universally considered beneath Fed in the GOAT sweepstakes. But Novak going fpr the "NCYGS" twice (if he does it) nets him 16 slams, but he vaults over Fed??

Anxiously awaiting the explanation on this.
Because Laver did not do it twice in the Open Era. Pretty simple. Laver and Djokovic are the only two male players in the OE to have done it and nobody did it twice in the OE.
 
Federer vs. Djokovic:

Slams: 20-15. Federer leads heavily.
YE#1: 5-5. Tied.
Weeks at #1: 310 - 236 Federer leads by 1.5 years.
Titles: 99-72 Federer. Huge lead.
Masters: 27-32. Lead for Djokovic.
YEC: 6-5. Federer leads.
Win% (Overall, HC, Clay, Grass, Carpet): (82%, 83%, 76%, 87%, 72%) - (83%, 84%, 79%, 83%, 71%)
Intangibles: Federer 3x5, Djokovic NCYGS, Djokovic Golden Masters.

Federer vs. Djokovic (CYGS 2019 + WTF + 5 Masters):

Slams: 20-18. Federer leads.
YE#1: 5-6. Djokovic leads.
Weeks at #1: 310 - 284 (+~26) Little difference, virtual tie.
Titles: 99-81 Federer. Still a huge lead.
Masters: 27-37. Big lead for Djokovic.
YEC: 6-6. Tie.
Win% (Overall, HC, Clay, Grass, Carpet): (82%, 83%, 76%, 87%, 72%) - (85%, 84%, 80%, 84%, 71%)
Intangibles: Federer 3x5, Djokovic NCYGS, Djokovic CYGS, Djokovic Golden Masters.

I suppose it just depends on how much you value the CYGS and Masters lead over 2 Slams and 18 other titles. I don't know how I'd react, but I think I'd be talking it down. If he gets within 1 of Roger, I'll start talking then, but until then I think Federer will stay the GOAT in my head.
Your first batch of stats is as things stand. If Djokovic wins RG, he will have 16 plus another chunk of weeks at no.1. So the gap will be narrowing and the way I see it, it's gonna keep narrowing until one of the GenNext can stop him everywhere.

By the by, I don't consider NCYGS as an intangible. It was the crowning glory in tennis until Sampras came up with his own race to account for his inability to win RG. Emerson was not regarded the greatest and nobody before Sampras made much of chasing down his tally.
 
Definitely not impossible. He's come close before and the tour probably looks like a buffet to him right now.

Nadal is low on confidence after that beatdown, Fed is slowing down and the Next Gen are a joke. Dude could run the table in 2019.
Djokovic always peaks when everyone is basically half dead.
 
Twice winning 4 consecutive slam titles would be impressive, but not as impressive as making 10 consecutive slam finals (8 titles), and then after a semifinal blip, making 8 more consecutive slam finals (4 titles). Icing on the cake is that it was done during a period with strong contemporaries and strong young guns.
It's definitely more impressive than that lol.
 

Fiero425

Hall of Fame
I see Nadal as the only real threat for YE#1. Fast start by both with 2000 and 1200 rankings points. Doubt Federer will feature, neither Zverev, nor anyone else.

(Oh and whatever points Djokovic picked up from Qatar).
Nadal has to have an absolute great 2nd half of the season! Nole will acquire a ton of points early on since he was still dropping matches last year around this time! He has so few points to defend until the summer; so unless he skips the USO, he should take the YE #1 I would think! :whistle: :unsure: :cautious: ;)
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
Twice winning 4 consecutive slam titles would be impressive, but not as impressive as making 10 consecutive slam finals (8 titles), and then after a semifinal blip, making 8 more consecutive slam finals (4 titles). Icing on the cake is that it was done during a period with strong contemporaries and strong young guns.
No one cares about consistency.

Djokovic from UO 2010 to UO 2013 lost slams only to the Big4. Never heard about it as a big achievement.
 

duaneeo

Hall of Fame
Djokovic from UO 2010 to UO 2013 lost slams only to the Big4. Never heard about it as a big achievement.
You really want to emphasize a period when a peak Djokovic won only 5 of 13 slams, with losses at two different slams to Nadal, Federer, and even to low-ranking Big-4 member Murray--a player many don't even think is worthy of being considered a Big-4? Yeah, this really supports your argument that Djokovic will be seen as the GOAT with a RG win. :rolleyes:
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
You really want to emphasize a period when a peak Djokovic won only 5 of 13 slams, with losses at two different slams to Nadal, Federer, and even to low-ranking Big-4 member Murray--a player many don't even think is worthy of being considered a Big-4? Yeah, this really supports your argument that Djokovic will be seen as the GOAT with a RG win. :rolleyes:
Your last post was only about Slam consistency. Djokovic from Wimbledon 2010 to US Open 2016 had a 154-15 score in Grand Slams playing 29 times the Big4.

Murray is great and you have to accept he is called Big4 for a reason: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Four_(tennis)
 
Last edited:
Nadal has to have an absolute great 2nd half of the season! Nole will acquire a ton of points early on since he was still dropping matches last year around this time! He has so few points to defend until the summer; so unless he skips the USO, he should take the YE #1 I would think! :whistle::unsure::cautious:;)
I don't think of all this gaining and dropping. Yes it can have a psychological influence on those involved but ultimately by the end of the year he who has the most points since January wins. The race effectively started at Melbourne.
 

Fiero425

Hall of Fame
I don't think of all this gaining and dropping. Yes it can have a psychological influence on those involved but ultimately by the end of the year he who has the most points since January wins. The race effectively started at Melbourne.
I'm just thinking of history; late season success has been fleeting with Nadal! He normally packs it in after the USO; sometimes not even going to events to make an appearance! Everyone's aware how lame his efforts have been at the YEC only making 2 finals! That's another reason he may never come close to winning his own Golden Masters unless he's the lone top pro in Paris! I still can't figure out his problem in Miami after making so many finals! :cautious: :sneaky: ;)
 
Because Laver did not do it twice in the Open Era. Pretty simple. Laver and Djokovic are the only two male players in the OE to have done it and nobody did it twice in the OE.
Plus Laver's 62 Grand Slam is a farce, a nothing achievement. He wouldnt have even won 1 slam that year if it were Open Era. His 69 Grand Slam is highly impressive and done in a very strong field at age 31, but his 62 Grand Slam is meaningless. So he really only did the Grand Slam once.
 

duaneeo

Hall of Fame
Murray is great and you have to accept he is called Big4 for a reason:
I've always said that Murray is a Big-4, and that it refers to the dominance of the tour by 4 players. But I've also said that Murray is the whipping-boy of the Big-4, as his 5-20 slam record against them shows. Only one Big-4 has lost to the whipping-boy in a slam final---peak Djokovic, twice.
 

Zebrev

Hall of Fame
If Novak wins RG, he is GOAT. Don't really care what anyone else says. Anything he adds after that would only further solidify his status as the greatest to ever play the game.
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
I've always said that Murray is a Big-4, and that it refers to the dominance of the tour by 4 players. But I've also said that Murray is the whipping-boy of the Big-4, as his 5-20 slam record against them shows. Only one Big-4 has lost to the whipping-boy in a slam final---peak Djokovic, twice.
But Djokovic met him more times than Federer and Nadal combined: 7 to 3.

You can't lose to someone if you don't play him.

Big3 have a similar slam score against Murray (D 8-2, N 7-2, F 5-1) and Djokovic has the best score outside slams (D 17-9, N 10-5, F 9-10).
 

duaneeo

Hall of Fame
But Djokovic met him more times than Federer and Nadal combined: 7 to 3.

You can't lose to someone if you don't play him.

Big3 have a similar slam score against Murray (D 8-2, N 7-2, F 5-1) and Djokovic has the best score outside slams (D 17-9, N 10-5, F 9-10).
We're getting way off topic.

Back to my earlier post...Djokovic winning 8 slam titles by twice holding all 4 slams (something no player has done in the Open Era) would be less impressive than Federer winning 8 slam titles by making 10 consecutive slam finals (something no player has done in any era). Yes, Federer's eight titles don't include Roland Garros, but he faced peak Nadal. He didn't have the luxury of Nadal withdrawing due to injury as Nole had in 2016.
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
We're getting way off topic.

Back to my earlier post...Djokovic winning 8 slam titles by twice holding all 4 slams (something no player has done in the Open Era) would be less impressive than Federer winning 8 slam titles by making 10 consecutive slam finals (something no player has done in any era). Yes, Federer's eight titles don't include Roland Garros, but he faced peak Nadal. He didn't have the luxury of Nadal withdrawing due to injury as Nole had in 2016.
If we go by opponents there's a lot to say...

For example Djokovic met the no.1 opponent in 6 slams out of 7, while Federer only in 5 out of 10.

Djokovic also met the no.1 opponent in WI11--UO11-AO12, for a total of 9 meetings out of 10 possible in his three 3+ slam title streaks.

In the whole 2003-07 period Federer met the no.1 opponent 7 times.
 
Last edited:
Plus Laver's 62 Grand Slam is a farce, a nothing achievement. He wouldnt have even won 1 slam that year if it were Open Era. His 69 Grand Slam is highly impressive and done in a very strong field at age 31, but his 62 Grand Slam is meaningless. So he really only did the Grand Slam once.
Well, he also won a Pro Slam. So had the OE happened earlier, maybe he could have done it multiple times. But we are not dealing in could haves, so unfortunately Laver has only one Grand Slam to be reckoned with.
 
Lew, ok even if we concede that Djokovic is better than Federer and Nadal, how can you even determine that he is better than Laver, Sampras, Borg, Gonzales, since conditions were totally different at the time. And you can't know if Djokovic would beat them if you give them modern technology.

So, you are reaching. Let me tell you what reality is. People who care about the goat thing don't have a good job and a good woman in their lives, because people who do don't have time for childish debates.
 
Lew, ok even if we concede that Djokovic is better than Federer and Nadal, how can you even determine that he is better than Laver, Sampras, Borg, Gonzales, since conditions were totally different at the time. And you can't know if Djokovic would beat them if you give them modern technology.

So, you are reaching. Let me tell you what reality is. People who care about the goat thing don't have a good job and a good woman in their lives, because people who do don't have time for childish debates.
Whilst I agree with this, your arguments have never stopped Fed fans and indeed the media and even Serena from calling Fed the GOAT. It is pretty much accepted as a truism even though he doesn't have an NCYGS nor can he ever match Sampras ' 6 straight year ending no. 1s.
 
Whilst I agree with this, your arguments have never stopped Fed fans and indeed the media and even Serena from calling Fed the GOAT. It is pretty much accepted as a truism even though he doesn't have an NCYGS nor can he ever match Sampras ' 6 straight year ending no. 1s.
Yes, but this tells me more about the psychology of fans rather than about who the goat is.
 
Yes, but this tells me more about the psychology of fans rather than about who the goat is.
That's because there isn't really one GOAT anyway. It's impossible to reconcile all the different eras of tennis in a meaningful way, esp so with the equipment/surface changes. This whole concept of a singular GOAT started when Fed began to chase Sampras. And because Sampras was the target, the number in mind became the slam count. And also because Fed was repeatedly stopped at the RG. I guarantee had he won the straight slam in 2004 or 2009-10 which were his best opportunities, nobody would be talking about NCYGS not being important. But again, the view will gradually come around to attaching importance to holding all 4 slams at once, at least so I believe. Nobody is saying just achieving THAT makes you the GOAT. But Novak is also close enough to other aggregate numbers that NOT assigning any value to NCYGS esp when he stands alone vis a vis his main rivals makes no sense anymore. It didn't even in 2016 and the gap has closed all over again now, and with Novak being presented another opportunity to get a NCYGS.
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
Lew, ok even if we concede that Djokovic is better than Federer and Nadal, how can you even determine that he is better than Laver, Sampras, Borg, Gonzales, since conditions were totally different at the time. And you can't know if Djokovic would beat them if you give them modern technology.

So, you are reaching. Let me tell you what reality is. People who care about the goat thing don't have a good job and a good woman in their lives, because people who do don't have time for childish debates.
Talent pool grew a lot since 1970s, when tennis became popular (TV, wealth...). Just look at the number of nations represented at the top. Until Borg's time only 4 nations won the Davis Cup.
 
Nadal's legacy has taken a real hit, no?

Where have his supporters scurried off to, btw? :unsure::oops:
They're still around; just lurking with little to say! What can they say? Nadal has his moments, even at the AO where it was thought "he's back!" Djokovic handled him with ease, breaking serve at will when Rafa had gone most of the tournament holding! Nole's right on his arse in Majors, 15-17 and Nadal's best chance of holding him off is in jeopardy with more people thinking there may be a changing of the guard at the French! I'm gonna wait for it to happen before jumping on that bandwagon, but ya never know! :unsure: :cautious: :rolleyes: ;)
 
We're getting way off topic.

Back to my earlier post...Djokovic winning 8 slam titles by twice holding all 4 slams (something no player has done in the Open Era) would be less impressive than Federer winning 8 slam titles by making 10 consecutive slam finals (something no player has done in any era). Yes, Federer's eight titles don't include Roland Garros, but he faced peak Nadal. He didn't have the luxury of Nadal withdrawing due to injury as Nole had in 2016.
That's your point of view. Mine is that such an achievement, whilst impressive, is still an achievement that includes losses. It even misses a victory where it counts most (all surfaces...).
It can't compare to an achievement only made of victories (and thus on all surfaces).

Yes, Nadal was a beast at RG, but that's no excuse when making history. Besides, Fed did have a chance to make a NCYGS as he did win RG (thanks to Soderling beating Nadal) but wasn't able to achieve the 4-in-a-row feat.
 
Now apparently holding 4 majors at the same time twice is less impressive than reaching finals but losing some of them. My god the lengths...



Djokovic 1 N-CYGS is more impressive than that, let alone two of them!
 
We're getting way off topic.

Back to my earlier post...Djokovic winning 8 slam titles by twice holding all 4 slams (something no player has done in the Open Era) would be less impressive than Federer winning 8 slam titles by making 10 consecutive slam finals (something no player has done in any era). Yes, Federer's eight titles don't include Roland Garros, but he faced peak Nadal. He didn't have the luxury of Nadal withdrawing due to injury as Nole had in 2016.
 
For me and many others yes. Basically does what Fed couldn't and does it twice.
In an era where Roddick was his rival.
Fed fans don't understand that when they try to downplay his embarrasing h2hs against Djokovic and Nadal by saying those two aren't his contemporaries they dig a bigger hole by focusing attention on just who his actual contemporaries were: Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Elderly Agassi etc. Not looking good guys.
 
To be the overall GOAT, Djokovic needs to win 12 Roland Garros and 9 Wimbledon titles. Otherwise, he is just the hard court GOAT.

Too easy to win the Grand Slam race when 2 of 4 Grand Slams are on hard courts and you are a hard court specialist (in the sense of hard courts being your more succesful court).

If 2 of 4 Grand Slams were on grass, Federer could already have 23 Grand Slams or more.

If 2 of 4 Grand Slams were on clay, Nadal could have 30 Grand Slams.

The Grand Slam count is irrelevant. There will never be an overall GOAT. The Grand Slam count only indicates which player is greater on hard courts, not which player is greater overall.
lol I look forward to you changing your tune once Nadal becomes the slam leader.

also more slams on hc but far harder competition, evens out
 
There is no such thing as a "neutral" surface. Hard court suits Djokovic's game more than Federer's or Nadal's one.
Turning this around on you, if HC suits Djokovic's game more than Nadal's why does Nadal lead 2-1 at the USO? You always go on about this. They have the same amount of titles and Nadal leads Djokovic in the h2h. You've stated that Nadal is better at the USO. So obviously Nadal is better on SOME hardcourts right?


from this year -
As of now, Nadal > Djokovic at the USO and Djokovic>Nadal at WB. Nadal leads Djokovic at the USO and Djokovic leads Nadal at WB. It could change in the future, of course.
from July last year -
The word "arguably" is subjective. The fact is, Nadal has won 3 US Open titles and leads the H2H over Djokovic 2-1 there. Djokovic needs 4 US Open to surpass Nadal as a better US Open player. It's also simple maths 3 = 3, while 4 >3. Unless Djokovic wins 4 US Open titles, he won't be 100% sure over Nadal as a better US Open player.
So how is it an advantage to Djokovic to have 2 slams on hc when according to you, Nadal is a better player at one of those slams?

I know you'll ignore this, because once again you have wonderfully defeated your own arguments and have no valid point anymore. It's just the constant goal shifting to give Nadal "the win" is starting to get rather tiresome now.
 
Top