Fellow Novak fans, would you be happy with Nadal having the all time slam record?

steenkash

Professional
I think I wouldn't mind, I really like Nadal, I've enjoyed all the Novak and Nadal battles, it's a shame Novak only started winning multiple Grand Slams since 2011, otherwise I think he would be the GS count leader.
 

TripleATeam

Legend
Well, no. I'd rather Novak have it.
To elaborate, as a fan of Djokovic first, then Federer, I'd rather Novak have it, then Federer if that were impossible. The thing is, if I were to speak as a purely Djokovic fan and that my happiness were based entirely in his GOAThood, I'd have to say I wouldn't be angry with Nadal being ahead, as long as it's only 1 or 2.

See, against Nadal, it would be possible to argue Djokovic is greater even with 1 slam fewer - whether due to WTF count, weeks at #1, H2H, or intangibles, the argument is still there. Against Federer, that's much less apparent. Federer has as many YE#1s, more time at #1, more WTF, more slams, and more titles, whereas Novak has the H2H and Masters. Novak would need to equal Federer's slam count, #1 time, and WTF titles, then he'd be ahead. With Nadal, it's less open and shut.
 

steenkash

Professional
To elaborate, as a fan of Djokovic first, then Federer, I'd rather Novak have it, then Federer if that were impossible. The thing is, if I were to speak as a purely Djokovic fan and that my happiness were based entirely in his GOAThood, I'd have to say I wouldn't be angry with Nadal being ahead, as long as it's only 1 or 2.

See, against Nadal, it would be possible to argue Djokovic is greater even with 1 slam fewer - whether due to WTF count, weeks at #1, H2H, or intangibles, the argument is still there. Against Federer, that's much less apparent. Federer has as many YE#1s, more time at #1, more WTF, more slams, and more titles, whereas Novak has the H2H and Masters. Novak would need to equal Federer's slam count, #1 time, and WTF titles, then he'd be ahead. With Nadal, it's less open and shut.
Best answer yet.
 

ps2dcgba

Rookie
The thing for about records..... they are meant to be broken.....maybe we won't be able to witness it.... so far the record, at the time this is being written, Federer has the record at 20.......10-15 years from now, possibly sooner, some player could smash the record, win 3 consecutive calender Grand Slams in a row.....
 

OhYes

Legend
We had war with words between Fed and Novak early in their careers. That pretty much defined their relationship. Rafa was tame and didn't get into conflicts although he was boiling inside in many occasions.
Therefore I just can't help it, Rafa is much more acceptable GOAT than Fed who was so arrogantly portrayed as one while still competing.
 

Born_to_slice

Professional
I don't like Nadal's tennis one bit. Even prefer Federer's arrogant persona to a fake humble one of Nadal. So, it's very unfortunate if Nadal ends up with most slams. OTOH, it's just sport and it shouldn't really affect our lives as much as it does.
 

Sport

Legend
To elaborate, as a fan of Djokovic first, then Federer, I'd rather Novak have it, then Federer if that were impossible. The thing is, if I were to speak as a purely Djokovic fan and that my happiness were based entirely in his GOAThood, I'd have to say I wouldn't be angry with Nadal being ahead, as long as it's only 1 or 2.

See, against Nadal, it would be possible to argue Djokovic is greater even with 1 slam fewer - whether due to WTF count, weeks at #1, H2H, or intangibles, the argument is still there. Against Federer, that's much less apparent. Federer has as many YE#1s, more time at #1, more WTF, more slams, and more titles, whereas Novak has the H2H and Masters. Novak would need to equal Federer's slam count, #1 time, and WTF titles, then he'd be ahead. With Nadal, it's less open and shut.
But Nadal has the Olympics, H2H in Slams, Masters 1000 and ATP 500 advantage. Not to mention that Nadal has the highest % of victories in ATP matches and has won at least 2 Slams on every surface (while Djokovic only has 1 Slam on clay). So it's not like Nadal only would lead Djokovic in Slams in this scenario. In my view, it would be dishonest to argue that Djokovic is the GOAT if he has less Slams (even if only 1) than Nadal playing in the same era. If you are the GOAT, you are the best, and the best should be talented enough to win the most Grand Slams. If you are not good enough to win the most Grand Slams, you are not the GOAT.

Of course you can argue whatever you want changing the main criterion. You can also argue that Sampras is greater than Federer inventing a new criterion (arguing that YE #1 is the most releveant GOAT criterion for example). But, the thing is, people from future generations will not by those excuses. They will see the Big 3 played all in the same era, and most people will recognize the GOAT as the one with most Slams won. The number of Grand Slams is widely recognized as the most relevant all-time great criterion, other criteria are just tie-breakers in case two players are tied in Slams.

As a Nadal fan, I would never never put excuses if Djokovic (or Federer for that matter) end up leading the Grand Slam race. If Djokovic wins more Slams than anyone, he is the GOAT. If Federer wins more Slams than anybody, he is the GOAT. If Nadal wins more Slams than anybody, he is the GOAT. Only if the three end up tied in 20 you can start bringing new criteria like H2H overall, H2H in Slams, Olympics, ATP finals, weeks as #1, Masters 1000, etc.
 
Last edited:

paolo2143

Rookie
But Nadal has the Olympics, H2H in Slams, Masters 1000 and ATP 500 advantage. Not to mention that Nadal has the highest % of victories in ATP matches and has won at least 2 Slams on every surface (while Djokovic only has 1 Slam on clay). So it's not like Nadal only would lead Djokovic in Slams in this scenario. In my view, it would be dishonest to argue that Djokovic is the GOAT if he has less Slams (even if only 1) than Nadal playing in the same era. If you are the GOAT, you are the best, and the best should be talented enough to win the most Grand Slams. If you are not good enough to win the most Grand Slams, you are not the GOAT.

Of course you can argue whatever you want changing the main criterion. You can also argue that Sampras is greater than Federer inventing a new criterion (arguing that YE #1 is the most releveant GOAT criterion for example). But, the thing is, people from future generations will not by those excuses. They will see the Big 3 played all in the same era, and most people will recognize the GOAT as the one with most Slams won. The number of Grand Slams is widely recognized as the most relevant all-time great criterion, other criteria are just tie-breakers in case two players are tied in Slams.

As a Nadal fan, I would never never put excuses if Djokovic (or Federer for that matter) end up leading the Grand Slam race. If Djokovic wins more Slams than anyone, he is the GOAT. If Federer wins more Slams than anybody, he is the GOAT. If Nadal wins more Slams than anybody, he is the GOAT. Only if the three end up tied in 20 you can start bringing new criteria like H2H overall, H2H in Slams, Olympics, ATP finals, weeks as #1, Masters 1000, etc.
Sorry not as simple as that if Roger wins 21 slams, Rafa 20 and Novak 19 or indeed the other way round, it is not as simple as saying they are the GOAT because they have one more slam.
 

TripleATeam

Legend
But Nadal has the Olympics, H2H in Slams, Masters 1000 and ATP 500 advantage. Not to mention that Nadal has the highest % of victories in ATP matches and has won at least 2 Slams on every surface (while Djokovic only has 1 Slam on clay). So it's not like Nadal only would lead Djokovic in Slams in this scenario. In my view, it would be dishonest to argue that Djokovic is the GOAT if he has less Slams (even if only 1) than Nadal playing in the same era. If you are the GOAT, you are the best, and the best should be talented enough to win the most Grand Slams. If you are not good enough to win the most Grand Slams, you are not the GOAT.

Of course you can argue whatever you want changing the main criterion. You can also argue that Sampras is greater than Federer inventing a new criterion (arguing that YE #1 is the most releveant GOAT criterion for example). But, the thing is, people from future generations will not by those excuses. They will see the Big 3 played all in the same era, and most people will recognize the GOAT as the one with most Slams won. The number of Grand Slams is widely recognized as the most relevant all-time great criterion, other criteria are just tie-breakers in case two players are tied in Slams.

As a Nadal fan, I would never never put excuses if Djokovic (or Federer for that matter) end up leading the Grand Slam race. If Djokovic wins more Slams than anyone, he is the GOAT. If Federer wins more Slams than anybody, he is the GOAT. If Nadal wins more Slams than anybody, he is the GOAT. Only if the three end up tied in 20 you can start bringing new criteria like H2H overall, H2H in Slams, Olympics, ATP finals, weeks as #1, Masters 1000, etc.
Sure. I take a holistic approach, but even so it's a tough call as to whether the weeks and WTF can make up for a slam title. I think the Olympics and Masters are important too, so Novak would probably need to at least tie those metrics as well. I just meant it's easier to argue against Nadal given a slam gap. Much harder for Federer.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
We had war with words between Fed and Novak early in their careers. That pretty much defined their relationship. Rafa was tame and didn't get into conflicts although he was boiling inside in many occasions.
Therefore I just can't help it, Rafa is much more acceptable GOAT than Fed who was so arrogantly portrayed as one while still competing.
Yes, it is much more preferable to be fakely praised than justly criticised because your behaviour is questionable and your parents behave like DBs.


:-D:-D:-D
 

ADuck

Hall of Fame
But Nadal has the Olympics, H2H in Slams, Masters 1000 and ATP 500 advantage. Not to mention that Nadal has the highest % of victories in ATP matches and has won at least 2 Slams on every surface (while Djokovic only has 1 Slam on clay). So it's not like Nadal only would lead Djokovic in Slams in this scenario. In my view, it would be dishonest to argue that Djokovic is the GOAT if he has less Slams (even if only 1) than Nadal playing in the same era. If you are the GOAT, you are the best, and the best should be talented enough to win the most Grand Slams. If you are not good enough to win the most Grand Slams, you are not the GOAT.

Of course you can argue whatever you want changing the main criterion. You can also argue that Sampras is greater than Federer inventing a new criterion (arguing that YE #1 is the most releveant GOAT criterion for example). But, the thing is, people from future generations will not by those excuses. They will see the Big 3 played all in the same era, and most people will recognize the GOAT as the one with most Slams won. The number of Grand Slams is widely recognized as the most relevant all-time great criterion, other criteria are just tie-breakers in case two players are tied in Slams.

As a Nadal fan, I would never never put excuses if Djokovic (or Federer for that matter) end up leading the Grand Slam race. If Djokovic wins more Slams than anyone, he is the GOAT. If Federer wins more Slams than anybody, he is the GOAT. If Nadal wins more Slams than anybody, he is the GOAT. Only if the three end up tied in 20 you can start bringing new criteria like H2H overall, H2H in Slams, Olympics, ATP finals, weeks as #1, Masters 1000, etc.
Nadal would be the most successful player of the open era if he wins the most slams, only that much is certain. On this forum it's sort of accepted that greatness = how much success you have. So I guess by the logic of this forum, Nadal would be the greatest. But for people outside this forum, the debate would be more nuanced than that.
 

Karma Tennis

Hall of Fame
IMO, raw number of Major Titles is not important.

It is the ability to be successful at the extreme ends of the spectrum. Rafa has been very successful on Clay and reasonably successful on Grass. Federer and Djokovic have not.

At this stage Rafa is the best chance of the three to achieve the Double Career GRAND SLAM - a very rare feat in this sport.

None of the current crop is going to win the GRAND SLAM now. So Laver's incredible achievement stands alone in that regard.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
IMO, raw number of Major Titles is not important.

It is the ability to be successful at the extreme ends of the spectrum. Rafa has been very successful on Clay and reasonably successful on Grass. Federer and Djokovic have not.
Yes, instead they have been only hugely successful on HC, Grass and Indoor. Otherwise they have been not.

Do you need a shelter?


:cool:
 

airchallenge2

Professional
Nadal is good with me. Actually I used to be a Rafa fan before Nole showed up. Now Nadal is number 2 on my favorite list.
 

Sunny Ali

Hall of Fame
I think I wouldn't mind, I really like Nadal, I've enjoyed all the Novak and Nadal battles, it's a shame Novak only started winning multiple Grand Slams since 2011, otherwise I think he would be the GS count leader.
Yes, I'll be happy with Nadal holding that record. Though I'd prefer Djokovic, records are meant to be broken regardless of who does it. Looking forward to seeing Nadal (or Djokovic) break Federer's record.
 

RF-18

G.O.A.T.
How do all you haters survive all this time knowing Fed's been in front since 2009? When you say "anyone but Federer," it IS Federer right now and has been for a decade. Novak is nowhere near passing him and needs 5 more to do it. And after today, Novak takes another hit because Nadal will be 4 ahead of him in order to pass.
Slam count is one thing but I rate a players whole career and not just based on one event.
 

tudwell

Legend
Anyone but Federer
Would you (and others on team #ABF) prefer the slam race to end:

1. Federer
2. Djokovic
3. Nadal

or:

1. Nadal
2. Federer
3. Djokovic

?

I.e., would you rather Djokovic be higher even if Fed is on top, or is the most important thing for Fed not to finish first?
 

TennisFan3

Legend
QUOTE="BeatlesFan, post: 13739329, member: 740525"]
How do all you haters survive all this time knowing Fed's been in front since 2009? When you say "anyone but Federer," it IS Federer right now and has been for a decade. Novak is nowhere near passing him and needs 5 more to do it. And after today, Novak takes another hit because Nadal will be 4 ahead of him in order to pass.
[/QUOTE]

The match has yet to be played and Nadal might lose. Also I still feel that Novak overtakes Fed and Nadal both.
He is 4 behind Fed. He is the favorite in 3 out of the 4 slams every year. Do the math and see that it's impossible for him NOT to break Fed's record, barring career ending injury.
 

zuluzazu

Rookie
How do all you haters survive all this time knowing Fed's been in front since 2009? When you say "anyone but Federer," it IS Federer right now and has been for a decade. Novak is nowhere near passing him and needs 5 more to do it. And after today, Novak takes another hit because Nadal will be 4 ahead of him in order to pass.
You seem to attack that comment about anyone but federer but @vive le beau jeau constantly hates and writes ABTN(Anyone but the nadal) but nobody including you dint say anything and instead everybody like him and supports. Not that I support hating but I hate hypocrisy.
 

Incognito

Legend
Slam count is one thing but I rate a players whole career and not just based on one event.
When you say whole career, you mean Fed winning his first major in 2003 is is still making finals of majors today, winning his latest last year? Or do you mean Nadal winning majors and master for 10 straight years, also winning majors in his teens, 20s and in his 30s?

Like Sampras said: ”it’s all about the majors!!
 

RF-18

G.O.A.T.
When you say whole career, you mean Fed winning his first major in 2003 is is still making finals of majors today, winning his latest last year? Or do you mean Nadal winning majors and master for 10 straight years, also winning majors in his teens, 20s and in his 30s?

Like Sampras said: ”it’s all about the majors!!
I mean I don't just look at the slam count. I look at a players overall career.
 

hipolymer

Hall of Fame
Don't really care either way, but technically Nadal having the record is worse for Novak as his slam H2H is worse against Nadal
 
Top