Novak ia 7 match wins away from becoming GOAT

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Slam count is the be-all and end-all and nothing else matter, that is too simple and lazy.


The ATG should be evaluated base on the following criteria:

* Number of Major Titles won
* Overall performance at Grand Slam Events
* Player Ranking
* Performance at ATP/WTA events
* Performance(Win/loss record) at Davis & Fed Cup events
* Records held or broken(i.e. Consecutive winning streaks)
* Intangibles(Overall contribution to tennis)

This is the most accurate and complete list because it covers the player's entire tennis career achievements.
 

Beckerserve

Hall of Fame
LOL. You are dumber than **** and are living in complete denial. Djoker leads both head to head and is going to end up with more grand slams.

24- djoker
22- nadal
20 - federer

this will be the final list. Enjoy djokers nuts the next 5 years hater...
20-20-18 . Major h2h Nadal 10-6 Djokovic.
I prefer Nadals tree house to Novaks. No hate here.
 

Beckerserve

Hall of Fame
Slam count is the be-all and end-all and nothing else matter, that is too simple and lazy.


The ATG should be evaluated base on the following criteria:

* Number of Major Titles won
* Overall performance at Grand Slam Events
* Player Ranking
* Performance at ATP/WTA events
* Performance(Win/loss record) at Davis & Fed Cup events
* Records held or broken(i.e. Consecutive winning streaks)
* Intangibles(Overall contribution to tennis)

This is the most accurate and complete list because it covers the player's entire tennis career achievements.
That is all true but it will never be how things are done by lamestream media.
Federer has over 100 titles yet people focus on Majors. So according to most 80 titles are irrelevant.
I like using peoples arguments against them. So Majors are the be all and end all according to pundits
 

CYGS

Legend
That is all true but it will never be how things are done by lamestream media.
Federer has over 100 titles yet people focus on Majors. So according to most 80 titles are irrelevant.
I like using peoples arguments against them. So Majors are the be all and end all according to pundits
Most of the rest are Mickey Mouse tournaments. If total title count is what determines the GOAT it will not be him anyway.
 

FRV4

Semi-Pro
The thing about GOAT is, it never really makes sense. Some people even bring off the court stuff into it. If we go by resume, I’d give the edge to a Nadal. But Imo, the greatest to pick up a racket is probably Djokovic already, now it’s just whether he’ll become the most accomplished. 2nd place probably goes to Nadal. Federer is the most legendary, and he set the bar for both Nadal and Djokovic to surpass him. If Nadal and Djokovic don’t surpass Federer significantly, we might ponder the idea whether Fed could have remained GOAT had he been born in around the same years as Nadal and Djokovic. He never reached his true potential because there was no Federer of his own forcing him to develop.

But imo, even though I like Fed the most, the greatest will be Djokovic or Nadal. If everything stopped now, I’d say Fed is greatest (even though I would be hiding the fact it could be Nadal), but I am extrapolating a bit.

Man, I always ramble. Reading over what I wrote, I must say this has been the most amazing sport to follow. There is a case for each of the big 3 being GOAT.
 

CYGS

Legend
That excludes OG. Fact is 500 events matter according to Djokovic fans as they keep saying 29-27. That must mean Qatar and Beijing are big no?
Weak sauce - you do know Djokovic is only 4 titles away from catching Nadal’s total title count right? And using total title count instead of slam count, Nadal is only 4th and no way close to the GOAT, who would be Connors, instead of Fed.
What’s up with this stupid and pointless argument?
 

Beckerserve

Hall of Fame
Weak sauce - you do know Djokovic is only 4 titles away from catching Nadal’s total title count right? And using total title count instead of slam count, Nadal is only 4th and no way close to the GOAT, who would be Connors, instead of Fed.
What’s up with this stupid and pointless argument?
I am merely using Djokovic fan logic. I was unaware Nadal had more titles actually. Connors was better than Mcenroe for sure. However there were more events then than now so cannot compare to federer in that metric.
 

Djoker458

New User
I am merely using Djokovic fan logic. I was unaware Nadal had more titles actually. Connors was better than Mcenroe for sure. However there were more events then than now so cannot compare to federer in that metric.
The best part is that you are going to be able to use whatever logic you like at some point when it comes to djoker and it’s not going to be close
 

anarosevoli

Rookie
Winning all slams at least twice, winning all 4 in a row and holding the YE#1/weeks #1 record would be enough to cover a gap of 2 slams.
This really would change everything. For now, two on every surface gives Nadal the lead. One (fluke one) on every surface is simply not enough to be a real contender if slam count is about the same.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
That is all true but it will never be how things are done by lamestream media.
Federer has over 100 titles yet people focus on Majors. So according to most 80 titles are irrelevant.
I like using peoples arguments against them. So Majors are the be all and end all according to pundits
That's why I don't take their opinion seriously. Having tunnel vision by leaving out many important metric.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
If Nadal and Djokovic don’t surpass Federer significantly, we might ponder the idea whether Fed could have remained GOAT had he been born in around the same years as Nadal and Djokovic. He never reached his true potential because there was no Federer of his own forcing him to develop.
Very good point (y)

I too think he would have been an even better player if he had started out playing against a fellow GOAT contender too.
 

Beckerserve

Hall of Fame
Did we say that’s the GOAT metric? Use it all you want, Nadal is no way close to being the GOAT. See where it gets you.
Nadal is currently GOAT. That is pretty much universally accepted as FO 2020 was as Brad Gilbert said and what almost all pundits agrees the GOAT decider for now. And that was predicated on the belief Djokovic would win AO 2021. I am using the metrics Djokovic fans and the media drew up before the FO 2020 final. The bed was made. Now we all lie in it.
 

CYGS

Legend
Nadal is currently GOAT. That is pretty much universally accepted as FO 2020 was as Brad Gilbert said and what almost all pundits agrees the GOAT decider for now. And that was predicated on the belief Djokovic would win AO 2021. I am using the metrics Djokovic fans and the media drew up before the FO 2020 final. The bed was made. Now we all lie in it.
Garbage, nobody brought it up except for you. Give it a rest.
 

zvelf

Professional
That is all true but it will never be how things are done by lamestream media.
Federer has over 100 titles yet people focus on Majors. So according to most 80 titles are irrelevant.
I like using peoples arguments against them. So Majors are the be all and end all according to pundits
That you adopt standards that you yourself don't believe in shows how disingenuous you are both to yourself and outwardly. Also pundits don't only count total majors as the end-all be-all. Graf and Navratilova are generally seen as superior to Court despite having a lower slam count. Tennis Channel polled their "experts" for GOAT in 2013 and both came ahead of Court. ESPN did the same in 2016 and both came ahead of Court.
 

Beckerserve

Hall of Fame
That you adopt standards that you yourself don't believe in shows how disingenuous you are both to yourself and outwardly. Also pundits don't only count total majors as the end-all be-all. Graf and Navratilova are generally seen as superior to Court despite having a lower slam count. Tennis Channel polled their "experts" for GOAT in 2013 and both came ahead of Court. ESPN did the same in 2016 and both came ahead of Court.
Recency bias. Also political as well. Court is GOAT. She is the benchmark.
 

Beckerserve

Hall of Fame
So conveniently for you, pundit opinion only counts for Djokovic but not for Court. In other words, you get to choose your hypocrisy.
Not one pundit has Djokovic GOAT. Most say Nadal after FO 2020. Many also have Federer. Not one i have seen says Djokovic.
 

vex

Hall of Fame
It's pretty hard to imagine Novak winning RG2021, especially with non-injured Nadal. But...
If he wins all 7 matches at RG, that's it, he's GOAT.
19 GS titles
(NCY)GS
2xCGS
Most years no1
Most weeks no1

Agree?
Disagree. Get to 20 and he can make a case
 

socallefty

Hall of Fame
What tactics can Djokovic use to beat Nadal again at Roland Garros if Nadal is in his usual clay court form? He tried out-hitting him in his prime and even last year, but it has never worked on French clay. Does he have the fitness to out-grind him especially if he also serves big? This might be possible especially if Nadal had a tough 5-setter against Tsitsipas or Thiem in the semifinal while Djokovic has an easier semifinal.

I think it is key for Novak to have an easy semifinal if he is to stand a chance against Nadal in the final - he can’t grind out two tough matches in a row anymore on clay at the later stages of the Bof5 FO. I don’t see him out-hitting Nadal and I hope he doesn’t try that failed 2020 strategy again in 2021 if they meet again.
 

One

New User
Only way is if Novak is well rested, Rafa super tired and Novak playing best clay match after 2016. Since 2017 most of GS winers were determined on the draw, so if Rafa has to beat Zverev or Tsitsi, Thiem, Novak and one more tough match before QF im not sure how he can count on winning final.
 

zvelf

Professional
Not one pundit has Djokovic GOAT. Most say Nadal after FO 2020. Many also have Federer. Not one i have seen says Djokovic.
You're moving the goal post of the debate. You said that pundits exclusively use the slam count to determine GOAT so therefore, only slam count should count. I pointed out this is not true as pundits see Graf and Navratilova as superior to Court even though their slam counts are lower. Your response is bias and politics. Well, that's irrelevant. All that shows is I'm correct and pundits don't exclusively look at slam count.
 

Beckerserve

Hall of Fame
You're moving the goal post of the debate. You said that pundits exclusively use the slam count to determine GOAT so therefore, only slam count should count. I pointed out this is not true as pundits see Graf and Navratilova as superior to Court even though their slam counts are lower. Your response is bias and politics. Well, that's irrelevant. All that shows is I'm correct and pundits don't exclusively look at slam count.
You are wrong. Every pundit has Court a GOAT i have seen. You made a statement and i qualified why pundits you refer to as submitted albeit not verified may have said what you claimed.
 

zvelf

Professional
You are wrong. Every pundit has Court a GOAT i have seen. You made a statement and i qualified why pundits you refer to as submitted albeit not verified may have said what you claimed.
40+ ESPN sports analysts came up with this list in which 5 women, all with fewer slams than Court, were ranked above Court. So either you have very limited exposure to pundits or you're just flat wrong. More to my point, McEnroe, who has fewer slams than Connors is one spot above Connors. Djokovic with fewer slams than Nadal is one spot above Nadal. Laver with fewer slams than Sampras is one spot above Sampras. Remember, pundits are your criteria, not mine, so I'm playing devil's advocate about these rankings.

 

Beckerserve

Hall of Fame
40+ ESPN sports analysts came up with this list in which 5 women, all with fewer slams than Court, were ranked above Court. So either you have very limited exposure to pundits or you're just flat wrong. More to my point, McEnroe, who has fewer slams than Connors is one spot above Connors. Djokovic with fewer slams than Nadal is one spot above Nadal. Laver with fewer slams than Sampras is one spot above Sampras. Graf with fewer slams than Serena is one spot above Serena. Remember, pundits are your criteria, not mine, so I'm playing devil's advocate about these rankings.

I would hardly call ESPN pundits. Fox had Nadal as GOAT years ago. They are journalists with favourites. Not pundits.
 

zvelf

Professional
I would hardly call ESPN pundits. Fox had Nadal as GOAT years ago. They are journalists with favourites. Not pundits.
Now you're just playing semantics. Many journalists are pundits and many pundits are journalists. Being called upon to give expert opinion on a sport that they have followed journalistically is to act in the capacity of a pundit and that's exactly what ESPN's list is here, an act of punditry.
 
Top