Djokovic can already become the GOAT in the next slam

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
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.
****in troll

No worse than grandpa Fed and pigeon Murray.

Embarrassing h2h vs Djokovic? Yeah since he was 33. He led before that the whole time.
 

Hmgraphite1

Hall of Fame
Weeks at number one shows all the hard work over the long term, lot of guys there for a while. Holding off challengers in their prime coming and going.
 

pistolPetros

New User
****in troll

No worse than grandpa Fed and pigeon Murray.

Embarrassing h2h vs Djokovic? Yeah since he was 33. He led before that the whole time.
Sure, he stacked wins as a sort of youth mentor to Novak while he was still a teen, but come on, even you know Novak has always been more than Rogi can handle. He held multiple set points in the first two sets of their first slam final when he was a teenager.

Murray is almost literally 3 times the player Rogi is (according to the stats Bible aporoach of Fedfans)

Honestly if you think mid 30s Federer is worse than Roddick I'm not sure you're a Fedfan.
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
Sure, he stacked wins as a sort of youth mentor to Novak while he was still a teen, but come on, even you know Novak has always been more than Rogi can handle. He held multiple set points in the first two sets of their first slam final when he was a teenager.

Murray is almost literally 3 times the player Rogi is (according to the stats Bible aporoach of Fedfans)

Honestly if you think mid 30s Federer is worse than Roddick I'm not sure you're a Fedfan.
Novak was never too much for Federer to handle before 2013. Even in 2011-2012 he was Nole’s biggest rival at slams with 2 wins and another match with MPs. They were pretty even with Fed having the biggest edge at the fastest events.

There’s no way Fed playing with his 04 or 06 form would be losing from 2 sets up at the USO. His FH and movement were too relentless.

14-15 Fed at Wimbledon is no tougher than day 04 or 09 Roddick at the same event. I never said worse than, they’re similar level of competition for 2015 Djokovic/2004-2007 Fed at slams. This is an objective fact.
 

The Fedfather

Hall of Fame
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.
No relatively objective fan would call Federer's H2H against Nadal embarrassing considering the context behind those matches, where some of Federer's losses were incredibly competitive matches and in many wins Roger showed stellar tennis. Straight up ridiculous to call 22 vs 25 against Djokovic embarrassing with how the rivalry unfolded - Djokovic getting the edge by playing against more vulnerable to poor form/messing up Roger, let's call it that, for about 3 seasons, then missing out on some prime Federer action.

And the argument about a player's main competition not being good meaning he wasn't as good as he appeared can be applied to any great player. ATGs win and lose against various levels of play from the opposition, and no "era" has only consistently weak or strong opposition. You call out names as if they can demonstrate how good players were in any particular match but when you look at reality it becomes obvious the assumption is wrong. For a stark example, does anyone for a second think that playing ATG Nadal in the final of AO19 was a bigger challenge than playing "not looking good" Safin at AO 2005? I hope not. Overall there are so many examples, a lot of which were discussed on these forums before and will probably be discussed again.

At the end of the day, Federer has achieved more than any other male tennis player in history, and he did so with the competition spanning 3 generations of players. Sometimes they played well, sometimes average, and sometimes poorly - just like all players Nadal, Djokovic, and other greats faced in their careers. Analyzing whose opposition played better on average would be too difficult for anyone because unlike some tend to think it is a more complex task than calculating the average ranking or just listing names.
 

pistolPetros

New User
Federer had the advantage of establishing mental and h2h dominance over a young, inexperienced Nole, which more than balances out the wins Nole picked up against a very well established, ATG 30 and up year old Fed. The embarassment isn't so much the record itself, its more what it shows: Fed is not even the greatest of his own era, let alone all eras. I would also say it shows that once Fed was confronted with a quality player (Djoker, Nadal etc.) who didn't buy into his crazy hype, he was unable to impose himself.
No relatively objective fan would call Federer's H2H against Nadal embarrassing considering the context behind those matches, where some of Federer's losses were incredibly competitive matches and in many wins Roger showed stellar tennis. Straight up ridiculous to call 22 vs 25 against Djokovic embarrassing with how the rivalry unfolded - Djokovic getting the edge by playing against more vulnerable to poor form/messing up Roger, let's call it that, for about 3 seasons, then missing out on some prime Federer action.

And the argument about a player's main competition not being good meaning he wasn't as good as he appeared can be applied to any great player. ATGs win and lose against various levels of play from the opposition, and no "era" has only consistently weak or strong opposition. You call out names as if they can demonstrate how good players were in any particular match but when you look at reality it becomes obvious the assumption is wrong. For a stark example, does anyone for a second think that playing ATG Nadal in the final of AO19 was a bigger challenge than playing "not looking good" Safin at AO 2005? I hope not. Overall there are so many examples, a lot of which were discussed on these forums before and will probably be discussed again.

At the end of the day, Federer has achieved more than any other male tennis player in history, and he did so with the competition spanning 3 generations of players. Sometimes they played well, sometimes average, and sometimes poorly - just like all players Nadal, Djokovic, and other greats faced in their careers. Analyzing whose opposition played better on average would be too difficult for anyone because unlike some tend to think it is a more complex task than calculating the average ranking or just listing names.
 

The Fedfather

Hall of Fame
Federer had the advantage of establishing mental and h2h dominance over a young, inexperienced Nole, which more than balances out the wins Nole picked up against a very well established, ATG 30 and up year old Fed. The embarassment isn't so much the record itself, its more what it shows: Fed is not even the greatest of his own era, let alone all eras. I would also say it shows that once Fed was confronted with a quality player (Djoker, Nadal etc.) who didn't buy into his crazy hype, he was unable to impose himself.
Who is greater than Federer in his era?
 

pistolPetros

New User
Huh? He won 20 slams...TWICE?
Fed did rack up 12 slams during a weak era, so when you subtract that from his total, you get 8 real majors. So Novak winning the French would be monumental because he won the NCYGS twice (one thing Fed didn't do) and won 16 majors, which is Fed's 8 real majors times 2/twice. Thanks for your contribution.
 
Fed did rack up 12 slams during a weak era, so when you subtract that from his total, you get 8 real majors. So Novak winning the French would be monumental because he won the NCYGS twice (one thing Fed didn't do) and won 16 majors, which is Fed's 8 real majors times 2/twice. Thanks for your contribution.
Federer's slams weak as you think they may be, were still leagues better than Sampras' slams. Sampras played in a constantly transitioning era his entire career with most of his rivals only temporary. At least Fed had the toughest era in history during the latter part of his prime.
 

BHud

Hall of Fame
Fed did rack up 12 slams during a weak era, so when you subtract that from his total, you get 8 real majors. So Novak winning the French would be monumental because he won the NCYGS twice (one thing Fed didn't do) and won 16 majors, which is Fed's 8 real majors times 2/twice. Thanks for your contribution.
And what about Novak's weak era today (and expectations for continued questionable competition)? ...thank you for your contribution...
 

RaulRamirez

Hall of Fame
Fed did rack up 12 slams during a weak era, so when you subtract that from his total, you get 8 real majors. So Novak winning the French would be monumental because he won the NCYGS twice (one thing Fed didn't do) and won 16 majors, which is Fed's 8 real majors times 2/twice. Thanks for your contribution.
If you're being serious: Here you're taking a point and stretching it so out of proportion to its worth, that it's completely ludicrous.

Many, including me, think that Fed had an easier path to his first 12 or so majors than Rafa or Novak did. This isn't factual, but is supportable. At the same time, I'll never demean past or present players by calling 2004-07, or now, a weak era. Of course, you take it several steps further by erasing slams that Fed competed for, and won.
 

Zhilady

Professional
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!
Of Federer's 10 consecutive finals, he won 8 of them. That's 8 Grand Slam titles. If Djokovic wins 2 NCYGSs, that's also 8 Grand Slam titles. 8 = 8. However, Federer would have two additional runners-up (even though I admit it's an unfair comparison because we're comparing Federer's results in 10 tournaments to Djokovic's in 8).

As a learned expert once said, greatness is mostly based on the Slam count. You wouldn't be arguing against our learned expert, now, would you? :laughing:
 

Zhilady

Professional
Roddick is not Djokovic main rival. Federer, Nadal and Murray is.
How does that matter? If Djokovic is greater than Federer (despite achieving less) because of his H2H record, why can't Roddick be greater than Djokovic (despite achieving less) for the same reason? It looks like you want to eat your cake and have it too.
 

-NN-

G.O.A.T.
Since when is 16 > 20? I thought the learned expert had already told us that greatness is mostly based on the Slam count?

Well I'd probably put Djokovic ahead of Federer if he wins the CYGS for 6 on the bounce even though he'd "only" have 18 Slamaroonies.
 

Zebrev

Hall of Fame
Federer fans claim the slam count is the most important metric, but what if Fed ends on 20 and Djokovic on 21?
 

-NN-

G.O.A.T.
Federer fans claim the slam count is the most important metric, but what if Fed ends on 20 and Djokovic on 21?
The vast majority of fans see the Slam count as the most important metric. It probably is but at the same time it's dumb.

(n) to overly Slam-centric approach.

#EvenChallengersMatter
 

Zhilady

Professional
Well I'd probably put Djokovic ahead of Federer if he wins the CYGS for 6 on the bounce even though he'd "only" have 18 Slamaroonies.
That's fine, as long as you have a logically consistent argument to go with it. I don't think Slam count is the one and only metric for greatness. However, RF-18 moves goalposts quicker than a jackrabbit humps.
 

-NN-

G.O.A.T.
That's fine, as long as you have a logically consistent argument to go with it. I don't think Slam count is the one and only metric for greatness. However, RF-18 moves goalposts quicker than a jackrabbit humps.

I don't really care about logical consistency. Tennis isn't maths.
 

-NN-

G.O.A.T.
In that case, I don't really care what you think.
That's very myopic of you. You could at least have asked for an elaboration. By entering the GOAT realm one is already entering a realm of sheer nonsense. Logical consistency taken to extremes such as trying to distort the achievements across eras into one all encompassing "objective" system would be a most disingenuous mirage, for example. The sheer volume of change in tennis through its history engenders what many would deem to be logical inconsistencies in determining who the GOAT might be. This applies even within eras and among contemporaries.
 

Zhilady

Professional
That's very myopic of you. You could at least have asked for an elaboration. By entering the GOAT realm one is already entering a realm of sheer nonsense. Logical consistency taken to extremes such as trying to distort the achievements across eras into one all encompassing "objective" system would be a most disingenuous mirage, for example. The sheer volume of change in tennis through its history engenders what many would deem to be logical inconsistencies in determining who the GOAT might be.
I never actually compared achievements across eras without taking the discrepancies in tour conditions into account. For instance, I've never categorically stated that Federer > Laver/Rosewall, for example, because I know it's a difficult comparison to make. However, when we're comparing Federer and Djokovic who essentially played in the same era, logical consistency is the least you can expect.

Now, when you compare their Masters titles, you can mention the fact that Federer skipped 33% of Masters tournaments during his peak years of 2004-2006 before the tour setup was changed in 2007 and thereafter, but that can still be reconciled logically. However, when you claim that Djokovic > Federer because of the H2H and then dismiss his H2H against Roddick, that becomes logically inconsistent. When you claim that Djokovic has mastered the sport and is the GOAT because of his spot on the ITF Roll of Honor and disregard that Federer actually has more mentions on the ITF Roll of Honor than Djokovic does, that becomes logically inconsistent.
 
Last edited:

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
Fed did rack up 12 slams during a weak era, so when you subtract that from his total, you get 8 real majors. So Novak winning the French would be monumental because he won the NCYGS twice (one thing Fed didn't do) and won 16 majors, which is Fed's 8 real majors times 2/twice. Thanks for your contribution.
Then minus Nole’s weak slams (all of them post 2013)

8>6
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
That's fine, as long as you have a logically consistent argument to go with it. I don't think Slam count is the one and only metric for greatness. However, RF-18 moves goalposts quicker than a jackrabbit humps.
LOL
 

thrust

Hall of Fame
Based on what? There is no argument to put Djokovic as the GOAT.

H2H overall? Roddick leads overall Djokovic 5-4, so he would be the GOAT according to that criterion.

H2H in Grand Slams? Nadal leads Djokovic 9-6 in Grand Slams (inclduing 2-1 at the US Open), so he would be the GOAT according to that criterion.

NCYGS? Laver made the CYGS twice, not only once, so he would be the GOAT according to that criterion.
IMO, there is no one GOAT, just tier ATG players. Roger, Novak, Rafa, and a few others are tier one ATG players, equally great in their own way. Wasn't most of Roddick's wins over Novak before Novak reached his peak?
 

Subway Tennis

Hall of Fame
Very interesting discussions so far. Following the thread with interest.

My only gripe with the concepts presented here is the idea of docking federer certain majors because of level of competition.

That's a completely unfair policy that penalises Federer for something that is not only difficult to demonstrate as true, but also something over which he had no control.

Its the type of rhetorical comment designed to demean like when people discount Nadal's major count because of the french open tally.
 

TearTheRoofOff

Hall of Fame
IMO, there is no one GOAT, just tier ATG players. Roger, Novak, Rafa, and a few others are tier one ATG players, equally great in their own way. Wasn't most of Roddick's wins over Novak before Novak reached his peak?
And arguably after Roddick began to decline from his.
 

BHud

Hall of Fame
If he completes his second NCYGS beating Nadal in the final of Roland Garros wouldn't he be the GOAT in many people's eyes?

What would he have left to prove, really?
Only in his fan's eyes...everyone else...not so much.
 

TearTheRoofOff

Hall of Fame
Which is why H-H is not always relevant. Fact is though Novak has won 15 slams, Roddick, just one.
Indeed, but it can elucidate the fact that matchup and form are important factors when judging the quality of tennis and 'level' of opposition in given matches.
 

Fiero425

Hall of Fame
Indeed, but it can elucidate the fact that matchup and form are important factors when judging the quality of tennis and 'level' of opposition in given matches.
Well it's obvious Nole had to contend with 2 of the BOAT even though at the time Roddick had plenty of competition to overcome early on with Federer, Agassi, Safin, Hewitt, etc.! Djokovic didn't have to worry about as many great players, but they were the best and he does own H2H over Fedal regardless! :sneaky: :unsure: :rolleyes: ;)
 

Fiero425

Hall of Fame
Which is why H-H is not always relevant. Fact is though Novak has won 15 slams, Roddick, just one.
I love the inane commentary that Roddick supposedly has a winning h2h record against Nole, but overlooking who's set all kinds of records! The only record Andy has is the giant choke job at Wimbledon in '09 in the final! That's all he's really noted for IMO; being Federer's pigeon (b!tch)! :sneaky: :cautious: :rolleyes: ;)
 

TearTheRoofOff

Hall of Fame
I love the inane commentary that Roddick supposedly has a winning h2h record against Nole, but overlooking who's set all kinds of records! The only record Andy has is the giant choke job at Wimbledon in '09 in the final! That's all he's really noted for IMO; being Federer's pigeon (b!tch)! :sneaky::cautious::rolleyes:;)
It highlights that Roddick wasn't necessarily weak competition/a mug etc. as some would suggest. He was a capable champion.
 

Fiero425

Hall of Fame
It highlights that Roddick wasn't necessarily weak competition/a mug etc. as some would suggest. He was a capable champion.
Roddick was born a decade too late! He might have been a lot more success if he had come along before Fedalovic! He definitely would have won a Wimbledon on the old, slick grass before becoming a homogenize mess along with other court surfaces! :unsure: :cautious: :censored: :rolleyes: ;)
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Nole doesn't have:

-the most slams
-the most single titles
-the most weeks at #1
-the most YE #1
-the most ATP records

He's not close in GOAT conversation yet but IS a Tier 1 great.
 

TripleATeam

Legend
Nole doesn't have:

-the most slams
-the most single titles
-the most weeks at #1
-the most YE #1
-the most ATP records

He's not close in GOAT conversation yet but IS a Tier 1 great.
I agree with the premise but not the reasoning.

Connors has one of those and is not in GOAT contention. Nadal has none of those and is in GOAT contention.
 

Fiero425

Hall of Fame
Nole doesn't have:

-the most slams
-the most single titles
-the most weeks at #1
-the most YE #1
-the most ATP records

He's not close in GOAT conversation yet but IS a Tier 1 great.
People are always commiserating with Federer being older than Nadal and Djokovic, but forget they have time to eclipse all of his records being over 5 years younger! :sneaky:
 
Top