GOAT points by year

Lew II

Hall of Fame
#1
http://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/goatList

This list puts Federer on top with a big margin, 150 points, so it has to be correct for Fed fans. At the bottom of the page you can see how it is produced.

Now let's see how many GOAT points did the top-5 and top-10 have by year, starting in the first year the Big3 won slams.

TOP-5

2003: 145
2004: 155
2005: 157
2006: 163
2007: 172
2008: 177
2009: 189
2010: 177
2011: 201
2012: 206
2013: 191
2014: 175
2015: 209
2016: 181
2017: 146
2018: 159

TOP-10

2003: 192
2004: 205
2005: 206
2006: 206
2007: 215
2008: 219
2009: 235
2010: 219
2011: 238
2012: 250
2013: 231
2014: 231
2015: 251
2016: 224
2017: 196
2018: 212
 
Last edited:

Lew II

Hall of Fame
#2
Slams won in the 3 best years (2015, 2012, 2011):

Djokovic 7
Nadal 2
Federer 1

Slams won in the 3 worst years (2003, 2017, 2004):

Federer 6
Nadal 2
Djokovic 0

Big titles won in the 3 best years (2015, 2012, 2011):

Djokovic 23
Federer 7
Nadal 5

Big titles won in the 3 worst years (2003, 2017, 2004):

Federer 14
Nadal 4
Djokovic 0
 
#3
Doesn't this statistic turn Federer's success and longevity against him? Or is it just asking how many GOAT points they gain during that year, not how many they have?
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
#4
Doesn't this statistic turn Federer's success and longevity against him? Or is it just asking how many GOAT points they gain during that year, not how many they have?
The stat shows the top players had better results in some years and worse results in other years.
 

Towny

Professional
#5
@Lew II you continue to make the same error. Of course Djokovic is going to have won more slams in the middle of his prime than Federer is. Therefore, looking at 'slams won' in 2011, 12 and 15 is a poor metric. What if we held Sampras to this standard? He'd be on 0 slams in this period evidently. What would that prove?

I've not spent a lot of time looking at the GOAT points metric but while interesting, I don't blindly accept something just because it has Federer on top

In any case, I don't disagree that Djokovic had stronger competition in his prime than Federer overall (mainly 2011-13 though). It's just not enough to make up a 6 slam deficit. Plus Federer has had to face huge levels of competition in his late 20s and 30s. It is doubtful Djokovic will have to face the same
 
Last edited:

Lew II

Hall of Fame
#6
@Lew II you continue to make the same error. Of course Djokovic is going to have won more slams in the middle of his prime than Federer is. Therefore, looking at 'slams won' in 2011, 12 and 15 is a poor metric. What if we held Sampras to this standard? He'd be on 0 slams in this period evidently. What would that prove?

I've not spent a lot of time looking at the GOAT points metric but while interesting, I don't blindly accept something just because it has Federer on top

In any case, I don't disagree that Djokovic had stronger competition in his prime than Federer overall (mainly 2011-13 though). It's just not enough to make up a 6 slam deficit. Plus Federer has had to face huge levels of competition in his late 20s and 30. It is doubtful Djokovic will have to face the same
Post #2 doesn't mean Federer should have won more in 2011-16, it means Djokovic peaked in tougher years.
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
#7
In any case, I don't disagree that Djokovic had stronger competition in his prime than Federer overall (mainly 2011-13 though). It's just not enough to make up a 6 slam deficit.
For career GOATness, you may be right.

For peak, 2011 or 2015 can very well be better than 2004 or 2006.
 
#8
Slams won in the 3 best years (2015, 2012, 2011):

Djokovic 7
Nadal 2
Federer 1

Slams won in the 3 worst years (2003, 2017, 2004):

Federer 6
Nadal 2
Djokovic 0

Big titles won in the 3 best years (2015, 2012, 2011):

Djokovic 23
Federer 7
Nadal 5

Big titles won in the 3 worst years (2003, 2017, 2004):

Federer 14
Nadal 4
Djokovic 0
is really 2015 one of the best year? come one please.
I can accept 2012 and even more 2011 but 2015 wasn't really a great year for tennis

In addition, Murray only 3 points (0,9%) lower than Laver demonstrates that this chart is completely garbage.
Del Potro higher than Wawrinka (1 vs 3 slams)
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
#12
is really 2015 one of the best year? come one please.
I can accept 2012 and even more 2011 but 2015 wasn't really a great year for tennis

In addition, Murray only 3 points (0,9%) lower than Laver demonstrates that this chart is completely garbage.
Del Potro higher than Wawrinka (1 vs 3 slams)
It is Open Era only.
 
#14
is really 2015 one of the best year? come one please.
I can accept 2012 and even more 2011 but 2015 wasn't really a great year for tennis

In addition, Murray only 3 points (0,9%) lower than Laver demonstrates that this chart is completely garbage.
Del Potro higher than Wawrinka (1 vs 3 slams)
The list only takes into consideration what Laver did during the Open Era - not his whole career. Same for Rosewall, for example.
 
#15
http://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/goatList

This list puts Federer on top with a big margin, 150 points, so it has to be correct for Fed fans. At the bottom of the page you can see how it is produced.

Now let's see how many GOAT points did the top-5 and top-10 have by year, starting in the first year the Big3 won slams.

TOP-5

2003: 145
2004: 155
2005: 157
2006: 163
2007: 172
2008: 177
2009: 189
2010: 177
2011: 201
2012: 206
2013: 191
2014: 175
2015: 209
2016: 181
2017: 146
2018: 159

TOP-10

2003: 192
2004: 205
2005: 206
2006: 206
2007: 215
2008: 219
2009: 235
2010: 219
2011: 238
2012: 250
2013: 231
2014: 231
2015: 251
2016: 224
2017: 196
2018: 212
Here we go. I think that there is a case for Novak, and one for Rafa, (as well as a case for Fed, of course), but this is the wrong one. I put some faith in "UTS", and give them credit as a great database for stats/results, and for having a methodology for ranking players - hence, the "GOAT List."

If you believe in their methodology for ranking players, you can make the case that Djokovic and Nadal have both earned more points per year on the tour. As I've posted consistently, it's mostly Fed's unbelievable longevity at the top that may have him retain the "GOAT points" lead by the time they're all retired.

Let's say Fed didn't win any "slams" after age 35. Then, Rafa would be tied with him at 17, with three more years to take a lead, and Novak would have about 4 more years to win three more to catch up and possibly surpass him. (That's just one element of GOAT points, though a big one.) Of course, Fed did win numbers 18-20, and he may not be done...and I'm not going to predict the future for any of them.

Any fan who thinks that any of these players is significantly better than the other two (in my opinion) is deluding himself/herself. They've all towered over the tour, albeit in different ways. Enjoy their greatness - which is also easy, because they're all pretty easy to root for.

(In advance: If anyone takes offense to this post...and there are always those who do...please read it through the whole way first, and think about it. Thank you.)
 
#16
Here we go. I think that there is a case for Novak, and one for Rafa, (as well as a case for Fed, of course), but this is the wrong one. I put some faith in "UTS", and give them credit as a great database for stats/results, and for having a methodology for ranking players - hence, the "GOAT List."

If you believe in their methodology for ranking players, you can make the case that Djokovic and Nadal have both earned more points per year on the tour. As I've posted consistently, it's mostly Fed's unbelievable longevity at the top that may have him retain the "GOAT points" lead by the time they're all retired.

Let's say Fed didn't win any "slams" after age 35. Then, Rafa would be tied with him at 17, with three more years to take a lead, and Novak would have about 4 more years to win three more to catch up and possibly surpass him. (That's just one element of GOAT points, though a big one.) Of course, Fed did win numbers 18-20, and he may not be done...and I'm not going to predict the future for any of them.

Any fan who thinks that any of these players is significantly better than the other two (in my opinion) is deluding himself/herself. They've all towered over the tour, albeit in different ways. Enjoy their greatness - which is also easy, because they're all pretty easy to root for.

(In advance: If anyone takes offense to this post...and there are always those who do...please read it through the whole way first, and think about it. Thank you.)

I think it's really difficult to say which is better between Fed and Djo, but I also add Sampras. They simply dominated their era...with different opponents of course but they have completely dominated it.
It's only possible to say which is your own favorite which automatically turn to be the best...for you.
 
#18
I think it's really difficult to say which is better between Fed and Djo, but I also add Sampras. They simply dominated their era...with different opponents of course but they have completely dominated it.
It's only possible to say which is your own favorite which automatically turn to be the best...for you.
There's something to that, but that certainly shouldn't be the case.
I think that a lot of people (if not a majority) start with an assumption, and then try to come up with a justification to support it. Perhaps, even a methodology to support it. Very few are capable of objectivity.
 

Pheasant

Hall of Fame
#19
In 2017, Tommy Haas won the GOAT points award. Look at it this way. No other person during the grass court season won a single set off of Federer. However, Haas beat Fed. 2017 Tommy Haas=100000 GOAT points. The Peakiest of all Feds on his best surface was simply owned by Haas. I think that Fed cried to his mom after getting completely obliterated by the much-better Haas. This version of Haas easily would have triple-bageled 2004-2006 Fed at Wimbledon.

Donskoy had 99999 GOAT points in 2017 for a close 2nd place. Donskoy was the only player to beat Fed during the Winter/Spring hard court season.

To sum up, through Wimbledon(last tourney that Fed was healthy in 2017), Fed was 0-2 vs Donskoy/Haas, but 29-0 against the rest of the field.

The above proves two things:

1. Federer in 2017>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2004-2006 Fed. The Fed of 2004-2006 wouldn't win a single game in 2017.
2. Donskoy/39 year Haas>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Peak Safin, Peak Roddick, Peak Nalbandian, and everybody else Fed played from 2004-2006.

Legend has it that Donskoy has been calling Federer a weak-era mug ever since that thrashing that he gave Peak Fed in Dubai.

And lastly, what is it with Peak Fed? After losing to Haas, he won 12 straight grass court matches in straight sets. And after losing to Donskoy, he won 8 straight hard court matches in straight sets. I think that Donskoy and the 39 year old Haas were so strong, that they prepared Fed for the next several matches. But at the same time, Peak Fed has been "ducking" Donskoy and Haas.
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
#20
In 2017, Tommy Haas won the GOAT points award. Look at it this way. No other person during the grass court season won a single set off of Federer. However, Haas beat Fed. 2017 Tommy Haas=100000 GOAT points. The Peakiest of all Feds on his best surface was simply owned by Haas. I think that Fed cried to his mom after getting completely obliterated by the much-better Haas. This version of Haas easily would have triple-bageled 2004-2006 Fed at Wimbledon.

Donskoy had 99999 GOAT points in 2017 for a close 2nd place. Donskoy was the only player to beat Fed during the Winter/Spring hard court season.

To sum up, through Wimbledon(last tourney that Fed was healthy in 2017), Fed was 0-2 vs Donskoy/Haas, but 29-0 against the rest of the field.

The above proves two things:

1. Federer in 2017>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2004-2006 Fed. The Fed of 2004-2006 wouldn't win a single game in 2017.
2. Donskoy/39 year Haas>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Peak Safin, Peak Roddick, Peak Nalbandian, and everybody else Fed played from 2004-2006.

Legend has it that Donskoy has been calling Federer a weak-era mug ever since that thrashing that he gave Peak Fed in Dubai.

And lastly, what is it with Peak Fed? After losing to Haas, he won 12 straight grass court matches in straight sets. And after losing to Donskoy, he won 8 straight hard court matches in straight sets. I think that Donskoy and the 39 year old Haas were so strong, that they prepared Fed for the next several matches. But at the same time, Peak Fed has been "ducking" Donskoy and Haas.
Haas and Donskoy had zero GOAT points in 2017.
 

Pheasant

Hall of Fame
#21
Haas and Donskoy had zero GOAT points in 2017.
I have Donskoy and Haas peaking 10 levels above Fed. It's not even close. To be fair, the 39 year old Haas had an age advantage over Peak Fed, who had 4 years less time to brush up his game. But this was Peak Fed. On a scale that has Donskoy and Haas with 0 GOAT points, Fed has -100000 points. So I get what you are saying here.

From Dubai through Wimbledon in 2017, Peak Fed was:
0-2 vs Donskoy and Haas, lost a total of 4 sets out of 6 played. Fed was owned badly here.
24-0 vs the rest of the field, lost a total of 2 sets out of 56 played.

Quite honestly, I think that Donskoy might be the GOAT. I've never seen Fed duck a player as much as he's ducked Donskoy. But I see why. Once they finally played, Fed was owned by Donskoy's incredible talent.
 
#22
As I've posted consistently, it's mostly Fed's unbelievable longevity at the top that may have him retain the "GOAT points" lead by the time they're all retired.
It’s almost surprising how much Fed’s legacy appears to depend on results at an age most other players have long since retired. Had Fed chosen to retire at 35, a perfectly reasonable decision, he would have finished at 17 slams and Nadal would likely be at 18 today (don’t think anyone else was stopping Nadal at AO 17). Nole would be only three slams behind and right now we would be seriously debating if Fed was going to end third in Slam wins among the Big 3.
 
#23
It’s almost surprising how much Fed’s legacy appears to depend on results at an age most other players have long since retired. Had Fed chosen to retire at 35, a perfectly reasonable decision, he would have finished at 17 slams and Nadal would likely be at 18 today (don’t think anyone else was stopping Nadal at AO 17). Nole would be only three slams behind and right now we would be seriously debating if Fed was going to end third in Slam wins among the Big 3.
Its because he's better at tennis. Pretty simple.
 
#27
It’s almost surprising how much Fed’s legacy appears to depend on results at an age most other players have long since retired. Had Fed chosen to retire at 35, a perfectly reasonable decision, he would have finished at 17 slams and Nadal would likely be at 18 today (don’t think anyone else was stopping Nadal at AO 17). Nole would be only three slams behind and right now we would be seriously debating if Fed was going to end third in Slam wins among the Big 3.
...which is one of the points I've made. I don't want to minimize that achievement, though, but yes, that late surge (and I don't count him out from winning even more) has secured his lead in majors. As far as legacy, all 3 should have very secure legacies.
 
#29
Damn, now Lew is finally making a lot of sense. I agree with that. I would just like to add:
1969 - the best year - Laver won 4 slams, Djokovic, Federer, Nadal won 0 slams. And we also went to the moon, so this was the toughest year ever.

But now Lew will say that lunar landing was fake, so Laver can't be the goat?
 
#30
Lew, we know you think Djokovic is better than Federer, I'm interested how do you rate Federer compared to other greats?

Let's say that I agree that Djokovic is the best in history. Who is the 2nd best, is Federer at least better than Nadal and Sampras or Borg or Laver?
 
#32
@Lew II you continue to make the same error. Of course Djokovic is going to have won more slams in the middle of his prime than Federer is. Therefore, looking at 'slams won' in 2011, 12 and 15 is a poor metric. What if we held Sampras to this standard? He'd be on 0 slams in this period evidently. What would that prove?

I've not spent a lot of time looking at the GOAT points metric but while interesting, I don't blindly accept something just because it has Federer on top

In any case, I don't disagree that Djokovic had stronger competition in his prime than Federer overall (mainly 2011-13 though). It's just not enough to make up a 6 slam deficit. Plus Federer has had to face huge levels of competition in his late 20s and 30s. It is doubtful Djokovic will have to face the same
Very good post.

Also, Djokovic didn’t play on the tour in 2003 and 2004, so how would he have won a Slam? LOL
 
#35
I’m not sure, but according to someone else Lew is indeed a woman. Maybe it’s Margaret Court.
Anyway, why is he/she surprised that Djokovic had it harder? Of course lesser players have tougher draws, that is how things are supposed to work, doesn't mean anything it's just how rankings work.

Fed was nr.2 on clay, so of course he always faced the clay goat, while Rafa faced 0 RG champions. Why do so many people have problem with this, it's like fifth grade logic basically.
 

Towny

Professional
#36
Very good post.

Also, Djokovic didn’t play on the tour in 2003 and 2004, so how would he have won a Slam? LOL
Very true. Lew will twist anything to make Federer look bad and Djokovic look good. I mean, he basically admitted to that agenda in the Elo thread:
Everything that puts 2003-07 low and 2011-16 high is correct to me. :-D
I honestly didn't know well how ELO works, but something that puts 2003-07 so low and 2011-16 so high was too tempting :whistle:
I know it was tongue in cheek, but still...
 
#37
http://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/goatList

This list puts Federer on top with a big margin, 150 points, so it has to be correct for Fed fans. At the bottom of the page you can see how it is produced.

Now let's see how many GOAT points did the top-5 and top-10 have by year, starting in the first year the Big3 won slams.

TOP-5

2003: 145
2004: 155
2005: 157
2006: 163
2007: 172
2008: 177
2009: 189
2010: 177
2011: 201
2012: 206
2013: 191
2014: 175
2015: 209
2016: 181
2017: 146
2018: 159

TOP-10

2003: 192
2004: 205
2005: 206
2006: 206
2007: 215
2008: 219
2009: 235
2010: 219
2011: 238
2012: 250
2013: 231
2014: 231
2015: 251
2016: 224
2017: 196
2018: 212
If you had to order your toughest years not just focusing on the stats and looking at playing level what would be your ranking of the strongest years from 2003 to 2018?
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
#38
If you had to order your toughest years not just focusing on the stats and looking at playing level what would be your ranking of the strongest years from 2003 to 2018?
I can't judge player's level by eye.

Differences are small, but small differences make the difference in tennis. The best players win like only 53% of points in a match.
 
#39
I can't judge player's level by eye.

Differences are small, but small differences make the difference in tennis. The best players win like only 53% of points in a match.
What about your opinion? I think I saw a thread of you talking about it on your other account but can’t remember the order .
 

Federev

Hall of Fame
#46
is really 2015 one of the best year? come one please.
I can accept 2012 and even more 2011 but 2015 wasn't really a great year for tennis

In addition, Murray only 3 points (0,9%) lower than Laver demonstrates that this chart is completely garbage.
Del Potro higher than Wawrinka (1 vs 3 slams)
But Nadal was so strong that year - what with his 500 level titles only.

And with Federer obviously hitting his peak at 33.

And with Novak still with his losing H2H w Fed.

They were all awesome that year.
 
Last edited:

Federev

Hall of Fame
#47
http://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/goatList

This list puts Federer on top with a big margin, 150 points, so it has to be correct for Fed fans. At the bottom of the page you can see how it is produced.

Now let's see how many GOAT points did the top-5 and top-10 have by year, starting in the first year the Big3 won slams.

TOP-5

2003: 145
2004: 155
2005: 157
2006: 163
2007: 172
2008: 177
2009: 189
2010: 177
2011: 201
2012: 206
2013: 191
2014: 175
2015: 209
2016: 181
2017: 146
2018: 159

TOP-10

2003: 192
2004: 205
2005: 206
2006: 206
2007: 215
2008: 219
2009: 235
2010: 219
2011: 238
2012: 250
2013: 231
2014: 231
2015: 251
2016: 224
2017: 196
2018: 212
It's funny how hard it seems you try to put Novak so clearly ahead of Fed from your stats lab.

It isn't that complicated.

There's no overwhelming case that Novak is the player Fed was at his peak. All the weak era arguments are full of speculation as peak to peak is impossible across those generations - as well as the impossible To quantify But significant way players affect each other's development in and across generations. Fed's overwhelming dominance over his generation is just as much an argument for the lack of accomplishment in slams for his generation - as he strangled their hopes as surely as Novak strangled Rafa's last week at the AO rendering him half the player we've seen in slams before. What if Novak arrived in Fed's generation and had to mature at the same time? How would a 23 year old old Novak deal with a 23 year old Fed without the benefit of watching and learning and maturing and being tested via a Fed 6 years ahead of him?

The fact that that it's taken 2 ATG guys from a generation 5-6 years younger to try to lasso Fed down doesn't help your arguments. The fact that they both had several years to watch him crush & demoralize a field that had no warning while they could mature up to the new standard he set, informed by his stature and then allowed to peak while he depletes via age difference (with the exception of Claydal - who was always better there) doesn't help.

Nole couldn't even keep an aging declining Fed off his own peak years, while Fed never lost slams to a geezer like him so significantly in his peak (03-07) years like Novak did. But Fed took him out solid at FO '11, WIMBY '12, bagels him at Cincy in the same year. Not to mention match points @ USO and allowed to win WTF in '11. All this when Novak - at his peak - should be clobbering the Swiss left and right and certainly talking prizes Fed is taking...if Nole is so obviously equal much less his better.

Fed even had the H2H lead at 33 years old. ... Heck, he barley lost to him in Paris a few months ago at 37 and injured.

I think we can see that Novak's certainly not yet made a clear case to be the consistent player Fed is now. With Roger hitting world #1or #2 EVERY year since 2003 up to last year - 16 years in a row! (hopefully for Fed fans - and counting) - when he returned to world #1 at 36 and still finished the year #3 winning his group AGAIN at WTF and giving Zverev an obviously better fight than Novak... at 37. It's too bad they didn't meet in 2017 to first half of 18. While Fed was winning 3 majors Novak couldn't manage even a single SF at a slam that ENTIRE year and a half. Nole was 29-30 years old.

Of course the catch 22 for Fed is that once he was past his peak of a few years he was always going to be at an age-decline disadvantage to Novak's generation. Either they are getting stronger as he gets weaker, or his resources are depleting progressively more rapidly than theirs are - as is the case now. After 2008 that was never going to go anywhere but down for him. So the longer he plays the more he'll naturally he should allow an ATG like Novak to rack up the H2H.

(Too bad Djokovic can't get Laver to enter a wildcard at the AO. He'd rack 'em there too!)

Novak is amazing no doubt. And I'm not contesting he may wind up with more slams or accomplish more amazing feats than Fed when it's all said and done. I think a CYGS is very possible this year considering the weakness of the field.

I'm contesting his obvious superiority over Fed.

It's obviously not obvious.
 
Last edited:

Lew II

Hall of Fame
#48
It's funny how hard it seems you try to put Novak so clearly ahead of Fed from your stats lab.

It isn't that complicated.

There's no overwhelming case that Novak is the player Fed was at his peak. All the weak era arguments are full of speculation as peak to peak is impossible across those generations - players affect each other's development in and across generations. Fed's overwhelming dominance over his generation is just as much an argument for the lack of accomplishment in slams for his generation - as he strangled their hopes as surely as Novak strangled Rafa's last week at the AO rendering half the player we've seen in slams before. What if Novak arrived in Fed's generation and had to mature at the same time? How would a 23 year old old Novak deal with a 23 year old Fed without the benefit of watching and learning and maturing and being tested via a Fed 6 years ahead of him?

The fact that that it's taken 2 ATG guys from a generation 5-6 years younger to try to lasso Fed down doesn't help your arguments. The fact that they both had several years to watch him crush & demoralize a field that had no warning while they could mature up to the new standard he set, informed by his stature and then allowed to peak while he depletes via age difference (with the exception of Claydal - who was always better there) doesn't help.

Nole couldn't even keep an aging declining Fed off his own peak years, while Fed never lost slams to a geezer like him so significantly in his peak (03-07) years like Novak did. But Fed took him out solid at FO '11, WIMBY '12, bagels him at Cincy in the same year. Not to mention match points @ USO and allowed to win WTF in '11. All this when Novak - at his peak - should be clobbering the Swiss left and right and certainly talking prizes Fed is taking...if Nole is so obviously equal much less his better.

Fed even had the H2H lead at 33 years old. ... Heck, he barley lost to him in Paris a few months ago at 37 and injured.

I think we can see that Novak's certainly not yet made a clear case to be the consistent player Fed is now. With Roger hitting world #1or #2 EVERY year since 2003 up to last year - 16 years in a row! (hopefully for Fed fans - and counting) - when he returned to world #1 at 36 and still finished the year #3 winning his group AGAIN at WTF and giving Zverev an obviously better fight than Novak... at 37. It's too bad they didn't meet in 2017 to first half of 18. While Fed was winning 3 majors Novak couldn't manage even a single SF at a slam that ENTIRE year and a half. Nole was 29-30 years old.

Of course the catch 22 for Fed is that once he was past his peak of a few years he was always going to be at an age-decline disadvantage to Novak's generation. Either they are getting stronger as he gets weaker, or his resources are depleting progressively more rapidly than theirs are - as is the case now. After 2008 that was never going to go anywhere but down for him. So the longer he plays the more he'll naturally he should allow an ATG like Novak to rack up the H2H.

(Too bad Djokovic can't get Laver to enter a wildcard at the AO. He'd rack 'em there too!)

Novak is amazing no doubt. And I'm not contesting he may wind up with more slams or accomplish more amazing feats than Fed when its all said and done. I think a CYGS is very possible this year considering the weakness of the field.

I'm contesting his obvious superiority over Fed.

It's obviously not obvious.
Thanks for re-upping one of my best threads (y)
 
#50
But maybe less homogenization is the reason why people weren't consistent in Fed's era and not that they weren't as good.

Murray and Nadal had a winning h2h versus Federer in 2006 and yet they weren't able to be consistent, which proves that it's conditions that are the problem and not the lack of competition. We can argue that this makes Fed's run even more impressive and I think Fed's era had a lot more raw talent.
 
Top