Dominance and the #1 stats should be as important as the Slam count

[Beerus]

It is too shallow in my eyes to have the Slam count above everything when it comes to greatness. Time spent as #1, how many years the player finished as #1 and how dominant the player was should be equally important. The more I think about this, the more I realize that Federer is still greater than Nadal. Federer has more weeks at #1, more consecutive weeks at #1, more consecutive YE #1s and an insane dominance across all surfaces/conditions apart from clay. He is arguably the most dominant #1 of all time while Nadal arguably had no era. Federer even has 6 YEC titles to Nadal's 0. The YEC is an underrated tournament on this forum. The YEC count should be far more important than the Masters count.

Having said that, Nadal is still one of the greatest of all time and the indisputable Clay GOAT. Nadal on clay is the closest thing to being the GOAT.

I'll add the poll so you are free to agree or disagree with me there.

 

[Phoenix*]

Djokovic has confirmed it's more important.

 

[Hitman]

Weeks at number one will always be a massive record, I put it behind slam count personally though, but it should be brought into discussion.

 

[alexio]

freddy is greater

 

[vanioMan]

Weeks at number one will always be a massive record, I put it behind slam count personally though, but it should be brought into discussion.

True. And unfortunately, Rafa lacks a bit there.
What comes after weeks? YE #1?

 

[Hitman]

True. And unfortunately, Rafa lacks a bit there.
What comes after weeks? YE #1?

Yes, the big three records in order

1 - Slam count
2 - Weeks at number one
3 - Year ending number one

 

[timnz]

It is too shallow in my eyes to have the Slam count above everything when it comes to greatness. Time spent as #1, how many years the player finished as #1 and how dominant the player was should be equally important. The more I think about this, the more I realize that Federer is still greater than Nadal. Federer has more weeks at #1, more consecutive weeks at #1, more consecutive YE #1s and an insane dominance across all surfaces/conditions apart from clay. He is arguably the most dominant #1 of all time while Nadal arguably had no era. Federer even has 6 YEC titles to Nadal's 0. The YEC is an underrated tournament on this forum. The YEC count should be far more important than the Masters count.

Having said that, Nadal is still one of the greatest of all time and the indisputable Clay GOAT. Nadal on clay is the closest thing to being the GOAT.

I'll add the poll so you are free to agree or disagree with me there.

To assess a players career absolutely it needs to be more than slam wins. yes, time at number 1 should be a factor. I agree about the WTF’s importance. This slam only lens started with Sampras’ focus on slam wins. A hugely great career but other than slams and wtf/grand slam cup titles, a relative falloff in his portfolio At masters 1000 and overall titles. Lendl is ‘only’ on 8 slam titles but he was the dominant player on 3 out of 4 surfaces/conditions for the whole decade of the 80s. and At a time of real surface/condition diversity. And on his weakest surface he still made 3 slam finals (AO 83, Wimbledon 86-87). I am not at all saying Sampras was behind Lendl, what I am saying is one can severely underrate Lendl if you view his career only through today‘s Slam only Lens

 

[Lauren_Girl']

Yes, the big three records in order

1 - Slam count
2 - Weeks at number one
3 - Year ending number one

Weeks and year should be 1 whole thing. If you have 1, you usually have the other one. That's the case in men's tennis and women's tennis. Though in Djokovic's case, I think his 7 YE1 record will be more vulnerable than his 390 weeks. In 2013, 2016, 2019, 2022 and (maybe) 2023 he spent half of the year at No1, but lost it at the very end of the year. In 2016 Murray literally vultured it after WTF in November. If Alcaraz gets it this year, I can see him reaching 8 YE1 some day, but 400 weeks will be more difficult... So I still think the number of weeks is more important but these 2 stats should be associated.
1) Slams
2) Weeks and Years-end at No1.
3 is debatable... each can decide.

IMO achievements like NCYGS and TCGS shouldn't be minimized. If all 3 had 22 Slams, I'd still put Djokovic at the top because of these. Now he also has 4 years with 3 Slams. 1 match away from the CYGS in 2021. 1 match away from another NCYGS in 2012. 7 titles in 2 different Slams. Record of finals and Semifinals. At least 7 finals and 85 wins in all 4 Slams. Most wins against top-10 in Slams. Some impressive Slam records that Fedal will never touch. That will make a huge difference if Nadal wins 2 Slams and ties him next year (very unlikely but if it happened, Djokovic would still be ahead).

I agree with OP that WTF is too underrated here.
If we include WTF and Olympics in the "Majors titles", we have
Djokovic 30
Federer 26
Nadal 23

 

[Hitman]

Weeks and year should be 1 whole thing. If you have 1, you usually have the other one. That's the case in men's tennis and women's tennis. Though in Djokovic's case, I think his 7 YE1 record will be more vulnerable than his 390 weeks. In 2013, 2016, 2019, 2022 and (maybe) 2023 he spent half of the year at No1, but lost it at the very end of the year. In 2016 Murray literally vultured it after WTF in November. If Alcaraz gets it this year, I can see him reaching 8 YE1 some day, but 400 weeks will be more difficult... So I still think the number of weeks is more important but these 2 stats should be associated.
1) Slams
2) Weeks and Years-end at No1.
3 is debatable... each can decide.

Then I think achievements like NCYGS and TCGS shouldn't be minimized. If all 3 had 22 Slams, I'd still put Djokovic at the top because of these. Now he also has 4 years with 3 Slams. 1 match away from the CYGS in 2021. 1 match away from another NCYGS in 2012. 7 titles in 2 different Slams. Record of finals and Semifinals. At least 7 finals and 85 wins in all 4 Slams. Most wins against top-10 in Slams. Some impressive Slam records that Fedal will never touch. That will make a huge difference if Nadal wins 2 Slams and ties him next year (very unlikely but if it happened, Djokovic would still be ahead).

I agree with OP that WTF is too underrated here.
If we include WTF and Olympics in the "Majors titles", we have
Djokovic 30
Federer 26
Nadal 23

The reason why I say this is, because the records were treated differently before.

Not sure if you familiar with the GOAT talk back in the 80s, but there were three angles to it. Connors angle to it was that he had 5 year ending number ones, and all in a row that made him claim as the greatest stronger. The weeks at number one was however with Lendl, and that was his claim. Open era slams were with Borg, and All time slams were with Emerson. Sampras said he was going to end the debate by holding all these records, and the way it was seen was, the slams were first, then he was looking at getting as many weeks at number one, and finally the year ending.

That is historically how the records have been seen, and in that order.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

freddy is greater

 

[thrust]

Yes, the big three records in order

1 - Slam count
2 - Weeks at number one
3 - Year ending number one

24-22-20
392-310-209
7-5-5
Overall, Novak is #1
Roger and Rafa are about even, though I would slightly rate Rafa over Roger.

 

[Backspin1183]

Nice try, OP. But Nadal has 2 more Slams than Federer. And this forum agreed that Nadal was the greatest of the three when he won 22 GS titles, and Djokovic was 2 behind him.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Nice try, OP. But Nadal has 2 more Slams than Federer. And this forum agreed that Nadal was the greatest of the three when he won 22 GS titles, and Djokovic was 2 behind him.

Hard too

 

[Razer]

True. And unfortunately, Rafa lacks a bit there.
What comes after weeks? YE #1?

01. Slams
02. Weeks at 1
03. Year End 1s
04. Winning H2H
05. ATP Final wins

This is the order

Federer leads in 2 and 5
Nadal leads in 1 and 4
3 is tied.

 

[itrium84]

It is too shallow in my eyes to have the Slam count above everything when it comes to greatness. Time spent as #1, how many years the player finished as #1 and how dominant the player was should be equally important. The more I think about this, the more I realize that Federer is still greater than Nadal. Federer has more weeks at #1, more consecutive weeks at #1, more consecutive YE #1s and an insane dominance across all surfaces/conditions apart from clay. He is arguably the most dominant #1 of all time while Nadal arguably had no era. Federer even has 6 YEC titles to Nadal's 0. The YEC is an underrated tournament on this forum. The YEC count should be far more important than the Masters count.

Having said that, Nadal is still one of the greatest of all time and the indisputable Clay GOAT. Nadal on clay is the closest thing to being the GOAT.

I'll add the poll so you are free to agree or disagree with me there.

I've been saying for years now,
There are 4 pillars of GOAThood:

1. Titles (with respect to significance hierarchy)
2. No1 (Weeks>Years)
3. Peak dominance (in 52+ weeks timeframe)
4. Career versatility (Success on different surfaces, different Big events,...)

This is why I consider Federer greater than Rafa:
1. Titles - Rafa a little bit better - 22 and 36, but 0 YEC.
2. No1 - Huge advantage Federer
3. Peak dominance - Fed in his best years, previously unseen and prolonged domination. Big advantage Fed.
4. Career versatility - slight advantage Fed. Rafa does have 2xCGS, but he's not even an ATG indoors.

 

[FeroBango]

I agree that they are as important as Slams and would place Federer ahead myself if forced to at gunpoint.

But for what it's worth, I didn't mind Nadal being called an equal if not greater than Fed when he'd equalled Pete in 2014.

These are astonishing players with breathtaking numbers. The differences between the Big 3 are quite frankly, minimal.

 

[JasonZ]

01. Slams
02. Weeks at 1
03. Year End 1s
04. Winning H2H
05. ATP Final wins

This is the order

Federer leads in 2 and 5
Nadal leads in 1 and 4
3 is tied.

winning h2h is less important than number of masters, atp final wins is definetely much more important.

 

[Beerus]

Nice try, OP. But Nadal has 2 more Slams than Federer. And this forum agreed that Nadal was the greatest of the three when he won 22 GS titles, and Djokovic was 2 behind him.

If Nadal wins the poll, he is greater.

 

[Razer]

winning h2h is less important than number of masters, atp final wins is definetely much more important.

Masters is all nerd level talk.

Except Djokovic fans I never heard of anyone talk of Masters count.

Winning h2h is very important when you compare 2 players.

 

[thrust]

Masters is all nerd level talk.

Except Djokovic fans I never heard of anyone talk of Masters count.

Winning h2h is very important when you compare 2 players.

The Masters are included in Big Titles Won count, therefore, very important tournaments. They are far more important than a tournament played only once every four years, IMO.

 

[Azure]

Weeks at number one does fold into the umbrella of dominance so yes, dominance is very important and that dominance has many facets - dominance over your rivals, dominance over a surface, dominance over the field, dominance over time etc

 

[nolefam_2024]

I think Federer is the better player. But history will remember Nadal as the better player because of his H2H advantage. Fed was a shot or 2 shots away from being ahead of Nadal, his two 40-15 matches are a black mark. He should have won both USOpen 2011 and Wimbledon 2019.

 

[GoatNo1]

everything mater!

my perception:
YE#1: 100p
50: weeks @ #1: 100p (1w=2p)
slam: 100p
WTF: 40p
OG: 40p
master: 20p
MM: 5p
ITF champ: ?

bonuses:
4 slams in the same time: 100p
CGS: 100p (each)
golden master: 100p (each)
W% record: 100p
ATP points record: 100p
slam record: 100p
weeks record: 100p
big titles record: 100p
all titles record: 100p

if between 2 players:
h2h: 100p
greater on a surface: 100p

 

[nolefam_2024]

Everything matters. That's why Federer is close to Nole in the goatlist than Rafa is to fed. Fed is alternate goat.

 

[Razer]

The Masters are included in Big Titles Won count, therefore, very important tournaments. They are far more important than a tournament played only once every four years, IMO.

Masters are included in weeks at 1, there is no specific count for masters count being marketed, only Nolefam keeps tracks of masters. The Big Titles count does get talked about, Masters are included in it.

The Olympics is a meaningless exhibition. The more the foolish Nole talks of Olympics the more these useless medals can wanked on his face to troll him.

Djokovic on the Olympics: "It's like a 5th Grand Slam, it has that importance for us, even more, because it happens once every four years. An Olympic Gold would crown my career."

Djoker will not win olympics in 2024 and then he will again be trolled for it, rightfully so.

 

[tennis_error]

I was always talking, even when Novak wasn't in slam lead, that slam can't be only parameter for greatness among big 3. And I say the same now when Novak leads slam race...

Posters mentioned other important parameters so I won't repeat. Anyway Federer can't be considered lesser player than Nadal, even if Nadal wins more clay slams, and not few on grass and hard, or win some wtf, No1 weeks...

 

[itrium84]

I think Federer is the better player. But history will remember Nadal as the better player because of his H2H advantage. Fed was a shot or 2 shots away from being ahead of Nadal, his two 40-15 matches are a black mark. He should have won both USOpen 2011 and Wimbledon 2019.

This would put all 3 of them to 22.

 

[Rafa4LifeEver]

22>20
24-16
4-10
OGM vs OSM
Come on

 

[Federev]

It is too shallow in my eyes to have the Slam count above everything when it comes to greatness. Time spent as #1, how many years the player finished as #1 and how dominant the player was should be equally important. The more I think about this, the more I realize that Federer is still greater than Nadal. Federer has more weeks at #1, more consecutive weeks at #1, more consecutive YE #1s and an insane dominance across all surfaces/conditions apart from clay. He is arguably the most dominant #1 of all time while Nadal arguably had no era. Federer even has 6 YEC titles to Nadal's 0. The YEC is an underrated tournament on this forum. The YEC count should be far more important than the Masters count.

Having said that, Nadal is still one of the greatest of all time and the indisputable Clay GOAT. Nadal on clay is the closest thing to being the GOAT.

I'll add the poll so you are free to agree or disagree with me there.

“Nadal on clay is the closest thing to being the GOAT.”

Facts.

 

[Razer]

I was always talking, even when Novak wasn't in slam lead, that slam can't be only parameter for greatness among big 3. And I say the same now when Novak leads slam race...

Posters mentioned other important parameters so I won't repeat. Anyway Federer can't be considered lesser player than Nadal, even if Nadal wins more clay slams, and not few on grass and hard, or win some wtf, No1 weeks...

Slams are everything, they have always been everything.
Then comes Rank 1 stats
Then comes personal H2H when we compare 2 players
ATP finals are also included in the rank 1 stats but they are highlighted a bit, so they are 4th in the hierarchy.

Nadal leads Federer in Slams and in personal H2H, so basically Nadal owns Federer tenniswise

Federer could say that he is on par with Nadal based on his weeks @ 1 and his stature in Tennis which is much higher in popularity

Of course these stature arguments wont work against Djokovic because Djoker holds all the records now, that trumps over the stature argument, but it could be used to hold its own vs Nadal but not to a large extent because Slams and H2H are pillars for doing comparison between players.

 

[timnz]

Weeks and year should be 1 whole thing. If you have 1, you usually have the other one. That's the case in men's tennis and women's tennis. Though in Djokovic's case, I think his 7 YE1 record will be more vulnerable than his 390 weeks. In 2013, 2016, 2019, 2022 and (maybe) 2023 he spent half of the year at No1, but lost it at the very end of the year. In 2016 Murray literally vultured it after WTF in November. If Alcaraz gets it this year, I can see him reaching 8 YE1 some day, but 400 weeks will be more difficult... So I still think the number of weeks is more important but these 2 stats should be associated.
1) Slams
2) Weeks and Years-end at No1.
3 is debatable... each can decide.

IMO achievements like NCYGS and TCGS shouldn't be minimized. If all 3 had 22 Slams, I'd still put Djokovic at the top because of these. Now he also has 4 years with 3 Slams. 1 match away from the CYGS in 2021. 1 match away from another NCYGS in 2012. 7 titles in 2 different Slams. Record of finals and Semifinals. At least 7 finals and 85 wins in all 4 Slams. Most wins against top-10 in Slams. Some impressive Slam records that Fedal will never touch. That will make a huge difference if Nadal wins 2 Slams and ties him next year (very unlikely but if it happened, Djokovic would still be ahead).

I agree with OP that WTF is too underrated here.
If we include WTF and Olympics in the "Majors titles", we have
Djokovic 30
Federer 26
Nadal 23

Sometimes weeks at number 1 doesn’t correlate at all with Slam achievement. Take Boris Becker for example. His total weeks at number 1 was 12 weeks, less than Roddick who had 1/6th of the slam wins as Boris. That is because number 1 is also dependent on who else is competing for the spot. The 80s were dominanted by Lendl, who didn’t quite reach the absolute peak play of Becker, but he was far more consistent. So time at number 1 is a factor in a players portfolio, but it is just one ingredient.

for another example with Becker, compare him to Edberg. Becker dominated Edberg 25-10. He also had a significant lead in best of 5 set matches. he had 5 season end championships (3 wtf and 2 grand slam cups) to 1 for edberg At a time when indoor tennis was a big deal. Despite this edberg has 2 ye number 1 and 72 weeks there compare to 12 for Becker.

 

[Razer]

Weeks at number one does fold into the umbrella of dominance so yes, dominance is very important and that dominance has many facets - dominance over your rivals, dominance over a surface, dominance over the field, dominance over time etc

Who is Top 3 now in Big 3 ? State your hierarchy Now dont say that you consider Big 3 equal.

State your top 5 tennis players in rank.

 

[GoatNo1]

“Nadal on clay is the closest thing to being the GOAT.”

Facts.

nadal on clay IS the GOAT on clay.
nobody dispute it!

 

[thrust]

Who is Top 3 now in Big 3 ? State your hierarchy Now dont say that you consider Big 3 equal.

State your top 5 tennis players in rank.

Djokovic
Nadal
Federer
Sampras
Borg

 

[Azure]

Who is Top 3 now in Big 3 ? State your hierarchy Now dont say that you consider Big 3 equal.

State your top 5 tennis players in rank.

Always has been Fred at the top for me, nothing changes that. Nadal is 2 and Djokovic is 3. No matter what anyone does to improve his resume. I don't know whom to put at 4 and 5 --- perhaps Laver, Borg or Pete.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Hahah lol

Nadal can be behind or ahead of rog.

But Nole will be firmly ahead of rog.

More slams, masters, golden masters twice, soon will have more titles overall, H2H, more years at number 1, more slam semis and soon will have more quarters and match wins at slams, more peak ATP points, ncygs, more 3 slam seasons, more Roland Garros, more wins vs Nadal at clay.

Nole is going to ERASE Federer. That's why he was born.

 

[TheNachoMan]

Djokovic > Nadal > Federer

Nadal’s biggest hole is his lack of weeks at #1 and no WTF title. But I still have him slightly ahead of Federer.

 

[alexio]

freddy demolishin jason in the poll, not bad

 

[tennis_error]

Slams are everything, they have always been everything.
Then comes Rank 1 stats
Then comes personal H2H when we compare 2 players
ATP finals are also included in the rank 1 stats but they are highlighted a bit, so they are 4th in the hierarchy.

Nadal leads Federer in Slams and in personal H2H, so basically Nadal owns Federer tenniswise

Federer could say that he is on par with Nadal based on his weeks @ 1 and his stature in Tennis which is much higher in popularity

Of course these stature arguments wont work against Djokovic because Djoker holds all the records now, that trumps over the stature argument, but it could be used to hold its own vs Nadal but not to a large extent because Slams and H2H are pillars for doing comparison between players.

Yes, Novak holds the slam record and I still say that is not enough to be considered better than Nadal. When we include other stuff, he is better.
In that way Nadal can't be better than Fed just because of 2 slams when fed is so better overall, across different surfaces. Nadal is clay goat. Period.

 

[WeekendTennisHack]

Consecutive weeks at #1 may well be the second most important stat.

 

[joekapa]

It's a mixture. Generally they go together. Weeks at #1 generally reflects the number of slams you have won in the long run.

In my opinion, Nadal's 2 more slams, DO NOT outweigh Federer's 100+ weeks more at #1.

Generally weeks at #1 show that you have dominated an era of tennis. Federer has an era. So does Djokovic. Nadal floated between the 2 eras.....

 

[joekapa]

Djokovic > Nadal > Federer

Nadal’s biggest hole is his lack of weeks at #1 and no WTF title. But I still have him slightly ahead of Federer.

Those are big holes.

 

[TheNachoMan]

Those are big holes.

Federer’s holes are bigger. No DCGS and losing H2H against his main rivals.

 

[Texas Tennis Fan]

Yes, the big three records in order

1 - Slam count
2 - Weeks at number one
3 - Year ending number one

Slam balance is also important. Nadal has a slam clay skew (64% at RG, no one else is close), a masters 1000 clay skew, a tournament wins clay skew, and a YEC clay skew (meaning he has won zero).

 

[Texas Tennis Fan]

I think Federer is the better player. But history will remember Nadal as the better player because of his H2H advantage. Fed was a shot or 2 shots away from being ahead of Nadal, his two 40-15 matches are a black mark. He should have won both USOpen 2011 and Wimbledon 2019.

Nadal would still be ahead of Federer in H2h, bit just barely if they had not played a large percentage on clay. Nadal never beat Federer or clay after 2014. The clay skew and this and the YEC and the 100 weeks more at Number 1 are the reason I put Federer ahead of Nadal. I mean, he only has 2 Wi and 2 AO, the second one with an asterix since Djokovic would have taken him out in the QFs since Nadal has failed to get a set off of Djokovic on hard court in TEN years. Embarrassing!

 

[sportsfan1]

Always has been Fred at the top for me, nothing changes that. Nadal is 2 and Djokovic is 3

Absolutely right.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Absolutely right.

Wrong

 

[Razer]

Always has been Fred at the top for me, nothing changes that. Nadal is 2 and Djokovic is 3. No matter what anyone does to improve his resume. I don't know whom to put at 4 and 5 --- perhaps Laver, Borg or Pete.

Ok, so I guess you are not looking at numbers at all, just based on feel during their peak and their popularity ?

 

[nolefam_2024]

Feel means nothing.

 

[Razer]

Feel means nothing.

Yes, maybe we understand this feel factor of watching them live but people born in 2010s/2020s/2030s won't care for feel at all, they will just look at numbers and decide who was what.

Only numbers will stand the test of time.

Whoever achieved numbers will be ahead if not already ahead.