GOAT points by year

Lew II

Legend
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.
And suddenly in 2007 homogenization came, with Djokovic and Nadal having a better season than every player other than Federer in 2003-06.

And then in 2017 homogenization disappeared.
 

Lew II

Legend
top5 + top10 points:

2015 - 460
2012 - 456
2011 - 439
2009 - 424
2013 - 422
2014 - 406
2016 - 405
2008 / 2010 - 396
2007 - 387
2018 - 371
2006 - 369
2005 - 363
2004 - 360
2017 - 342
2003 - 337
 
Last edited:

RS

Hall of Fame
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
2019: 170

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
2019: 208
How long this take you to find?
 

Pandora Mikado

Semi-Pro
@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
If GOAT factors competition Nadal had his titles during the best years of both Federer and Djokovic.

If GOAT does not factor competition Federer is still the king until either Nadal or Djokovic take over, which seems likely in next 1~2 years.

Wait your turn, Djokovic seems determined to get there. He has a good window.

Sampras left in the dust.

Laver :-D:-D:-D
 

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
If GOAT factors competition Nadal had his titles during the best years of both Federer and Djokovic.

If GOAT does not factor competition Federer is still the king until either Nadal or Djokovic take over, which seems likely in next 1~2 years.

Wait your turn, Djokovic seems determined to get there. He has a good window.

Sampras left in the dust.

Laver :-D:-D:-D
Nadal has profited from weak clay court field more than any of the other two has profited from weak competition overall.

Djokovic has profited from weak tour and no younger ATG's on his back more than anyone, with Nadal a close second.

Federer is still the King.

Sampras is still the king of fast grass.

Laver is still the king of his own era (by far).

 
Top