Djokovic can already become the GOAT in the next slam
- Thread starter Lew II
- Start date
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.
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.
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.
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. 
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.
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!
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!
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
Nadal's legacy has taken a real hit, no?
Where have his supporters scurried off to, btw?
Where have his supporters scurried off to, btw?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 -
from July last year -
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.
from this year -
from July last year -
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.
