BorgTheGOAT
Legend
How the heck has Djokovic not dominated his rivals?
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
Murray has made 11 slam finals not 14. Of course he is more consistent than Kraj but which of his wins can actually keep up with Krajicek’s Wimbledon 96?
messiahrobins
G.O.A.T.
At the Slams:
Nadal 11-7 Djokovic
Alcaraz 3-2 Djokovic
Sinner 3-2 Djokovic
Find me another GOAT contender with a losing record to THREE of his rivals at the best of 5 set events. Djokovic i think is also only tied with Wawrinka as well!!
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
Bc he is an artistedunno why but atm watching one of the many videos about fred's best shots on yt, mike and what about you?
Im good. Making ribs like @ChaelAZ
B
Barton
Guest
Never go full Beckerserve.
alexio
Hall of Fame
of course he is more consistent (subtext: but.. it doesnt count coz peak decides everything and erases everything what murray achieved including 11 finals, second part is coming and proving it i.e. ..which of his wins can actually keep up with Krajicek’s Wimbledon 96?), right?
Drob
Hall of Fame
You are right in saying zero Wimbledons eliminates Lendl from being in the top five. However you AO criticism is misplaced, if only by one year. 1989 is when AO made its comeback with a crack field. And 1990 was even stronger.
1989
Mats Wilander (second round)
Ivan Lendl (champion)
Boris Becker (fourth round)- Stefan Edberg (quarterfinals, withdrew)
Jakob Hlasek (first round)
Henri Leconte (first round)
John McEnroe (quarterfinals)- Yannick Noah (first round)
- Miloslav Mečíř (final)
- Aaron Krickstein (fourth round)
Thomas Muster (semifinals)- Mikael Pernfors (third round)
Pat Cash (fourth round)- Jonas Svensson (quarterfinals)
- John Fitzgerald (second round)
Amos Mansdorf (fourth round)
So the AOs are legit.
Pretty Good assessment.
OE only:
1. Big Three
2. Borg, Sampras, Laver,
3. Lendl, Mac, and probably Connors
4. Rosewall, Becker, Agassi, Alcaraz
5. Newcombe, Edberg, Murray, Courier, Wilander (this last omitted initially by oversight)
Hon. Mentions. Fill in the blank with your preferences. I'd say Stich, Sinner, Ashe, Stan Smith, Safin, Stanimal, Kuerten, Rafter, Rios, Nastase, Vilas, Hewitt, Muster, del Potro, Medvedev.
Last edited:
insideoutforehanders
Professional
Sinner and Alcaraz stat meaning anything is a joke for obvious reasons.
As for Nadal that is largely down to the disproportionate number of RG meetings vs other slams. Still more valid than the total joke of mentioning Sinner or Alcaraz.
You also dont mention Federer, I wonder why. And yes in fairness Djokovic clearly had an age advantage but not even the same stratosphere as Alcaraz and Sinner have against Djokovic and you mentioned them.
zagor
Bionic Poster
it doesn't erase everything but peak level counts when evaluating a player, in tennis or any other sport for that matter.
Any Wimbledon ATG would be far more scared of facing 1996 Krajicek than Murygoat who got straight-setted by 34 year old Fred and is 1-9 in sets against Nadal at Wimbledon.
zagor
Bionic Poster
He played Nadal at the FO more than other 3 slams combined (that usual Rafa impeccable timing when facing his rivals) and Alcaraz and Sinner are 16+ year younger.
Now Stan troubling peak Novak in slams is a valid argument. Of course everybody has a bad match-up or two.
GoatNo1
Hall of Fame
how it is objectively possible to argue for fed being the GOAT but not for rafa? no one is close to noles achievements. the only difference is that fed once had strong arguments but rafa never did!
Razer
G.O.A.T.
You are right in saying zero Wimbledons eliminates Lendl from being in the top five. However you AO criticism is misplaced, if only by one year. 1989 is when AO made its comeback with a crack field. And 1990 was even stronger.
1989
So the AOs are legit.
Pretty Good assessment.
OE only:
1. Big Three
2. Borg, Sampras, Laver,
3. Lendl, Mac, and probably Connors
4. Rosewall, Becker, Agassi, Alcaraz
5. Newcombe, Edberg, Murray, Courier
Hon. Mentions. Fill in the blank with your preferences. I'd say Stich, Sinner, Ashe, Safin, Stanimal, Kuerten, Rafter, Rios, Nastase, Vilas, Hewitt, Muster, del Potro, Medvedev.
I could agree with this but Murray there in 5 seems controversial for a few reason.
We need to remmeber that Edberg, Courier, Newcombe had a small phase when they were the best in the world, Murray never had such a phase. The 2016 phase was more because of a vacuum with Big 3 down and out.
Another thing which I should point is that not just Murray, even Big 3 all have homogenous conditions with 32 seeds, this assures them wins until QF before they face great players, this allow them to play themselve into form. Thats like 5/7 matches in a slam, which is like 71%. NO wonder we see their win% so high compared to the past, thats also why I dont rate Murray very high and he is no ATG because ATGs were leaders in their eras even if for brief periods of time.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
Edberg (and Wilander) are definitely ahead of Murray and Courier. Only Newcombe is debatable.
Razer
G.O.A.T.
Even Newcombe is probably the first ATG of the open era, he overall has 7 slams, 5 of them in the open era.
Vincent-C
Legend
Agreed- plus Newk's "big" personality helped grow the game a lot, imo.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
Yeah and while I am not a big fan of mixing doubles in there, 17 doubles slams is not too shabby when it was at a time where doubles still were played by top single players.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
Djokovic is 5-4 against Stan. Raz and Sinner are not relevant, they are way younger. Nadal of course might be a negative but let’s not forget he a) still leads him in total H2H and b) their slam meetings are not evenly spread (2 at AO, 10 at RG).
GoatNo1
Hall of Fame
in fact nole, in their meetings, did better vs rafa on clay (9-20) than rafa vs him on HC (7-20). and that is why he has positive h2h vs him despite almost a half of their matches (29 out of 60) was on clay, which is rafas best (by very very big margin) and noles worst (also by big margin) surface! and it shows how much skewed their h2h was (29 matches on clay and 27 on HC despite 9 big and mandatory tournaments being on HC and only 4 big and 3 mandatory tournaments on clay)! at slams is disparity even bigger there only 1 out of 4 is on clay (25%) but they played 10 out of 18 (56%) on that tournament. and, as you said, 2 on noles clearly best and rafas worst slam but 10 on rafas clearly best and noles worst slam. little bit to much to overcome.
alexio
Hall of Fame
if newcombe is atg then murray should be too or neither imho, dunno much about newcombe though but i see that he had about three wins in his winning ediitons over ten years older rosewall
Vincent-C
Legend
Seven singles majors for Newk- and three of them were Wimbledons.
What was that other dude's name again?
alexio
Hall of Fame
i know its seven but five in open era, plus who was the opposition, and lets compare it with what murray had, i dont focus much on numbers (same way as tiers) coz it can be deceptive
Poisoned Slice
Bionic Poster
I know of Newcombe because my Mum fancied him. She often asks me if he is still alive, you know, since everybody from a certain time period is dead and all. Sorry.
messiahrobins
G.O.A.T.
USO renders your argument irrelevant re Nadal and Djokovic.
And you Sinner Alcaraz way younger argument is laughably inept. Do better. Or are we now discounting all Djokovic wins over Federer from 2012 onwards?
messiahrobins
G.O.A.T.
USO renders you entire argument irrelevant as does Wimbledon outdoors. Nadal over 5 sets was too much for Djokovic outside Australia
messiahrobins
G.O.A.T.
Funniest bit of hypocrisy i have ever read lol.
4UTRMoutet
Professional
Grass is arguably Nole's worst. If Rafa did not exist, Novak would probably win more RG than Wimby, since older Fed wasn't too big of a problem at W than Rafa at RG. And the reason why Rafa had a worse h2h on HC than Novak on clay is also due in part to Novak's play style being a counter for Rafa (backhand could neutralize Rafa's spin very well).
Drob
Hall of Fame
Thanks for mentioning Wilander, who is certainly in the group with Edberg, Newk, Murray and Courier. Bad on me forgetting Mats.
Drob
Hall of Fame
Mostly Disagree.
Mac maybe. His style of play would be a serious problem. And he was lazy and did not train. That would be a problem. I'll give you Mac.
Borg would not be dominant today, but would be an RG and Italian champion for sure, also IW, maybe AO and would be respectable on the short indoor circuit at year-end. He would still be close to the fastest player in the game, and his style, although not of the big bashing of Sinner et al., is not completely unlike Djokovic's style. Maybe just a few Slams, but definitely would be a player of great distinction.
Connors would obviously need a first and second service. Otherwise, I think he would give most of the current guys fits, with his technical precision and go-for-broke aggression, and two things these guys cannot do very well - approach shot and volley put away on crucial points, and the offensive lob. Given Jimmy's competitive zeal, he would ramp up the training big time.
Laver is a slightly lesser Alcaraz. It would be an all-court game and the S/V would be only occasional - perhaps 20 percent, or almost double Alcaraz. Laver had the ground-stroke tool box. Considering the lethal things he could do with a wood racket, i think he would be Alcaraz-like w contemporary technology. Training would not be an issue. A slightly lesser Alcaraz is still a player capable of winning Slams on any surface in the present-day game.
01. Borg didn’t retire due to McEnroe - that is a persistent myth. He still beat McEnroe in 1982 and 1983 in non-grand Prix tournaments eg Suntory open
Last edited:
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
Mats Edberg and Newk are ahead of Murray and Courier.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
Where did I say it doesn’t count. Murray is more consistent and successful hence greater. Krajicek has the higher peak level. There is actually not much more to say about it.
GoatNo1
Hall of Fame
no, clay is his worst and it is not even close.
W: 7 titles, 10 F, 14 SF, 16 QF, W-L 89% despite W20 being cancel
RG: 3 titles, 7 F, 13 SF, 19 QF, W-L 86%
rafa stoppet nole at RG before SF only twice but h lost SF to fed and F to wawa
if we look only at noles peak years, his 2 eras:
2011-RG16
5 Ws: 3 titles, 4 Fs, 5 SFs
6 RGs: 1 title, 4 Fs, 6 SFs (rafa stopped him once in the F and once in the SF)
W18-23
5 Ws: 4 titles, 5 F (W20*)
5 RGs: 2 titles, 3 Fs, 4 SFs, 5 QFs (rafa stopped him once in the F and once in the QF)
peak nole (his 2 eras together)
10 Ws: 7 titles (70%), 9 Fs (90%), 10 SFs (100%) - W20 canceled
11 RGs: 3 titles (27%), 7 Fs (64%), 10 SFs (91%), 11 QFs (100%) - one more RG and rafa stopped him twice in the Fs, once in the SF and once in the QF
,,,
and for grass being his worst surface. if not for W20 cancelation with his 3-1 h2h vs fed (3-0 in the Fs) he could probable be arguably the greatest W player of all time. not bad for his worst slam!
Last edited:
alexio
Hall of Fame
its really close between clay and grass as his worst surface but i'd say clay is the worst, by a whisker
Razer
G.O.A.T.
Newcombe has 7 Grand Slams
Murray has only 3.
Sorry, Murray never was even close to being an ATG. He isn't even as good as Jim Courier who was a genuine winner at a young age and if not for injuries very early, could have won more.
So Alcaraz is a modern day better version of Rod Laver ? ... Interesting .. It could be possible.
I am sure Laver in old age is very happy to see Alcaraz win, it reaffirms his faith in his own chances in this era if he is fast on his foot and muscular like a TMNT which is what Alcaraz is.
Last edited:
zagor
Bionic Poster
USO H2H is a very small sample size with 2010 Novak not being prime Novak (he had a losing record against top 10 that year).
Regarding Wimbledon, Novak won their most marquee match there which was 2011 final.
Bottom line is they played 10(!) times at Nadal's best slam compared to only 2 times at Novak's best slam. It's nonsense to act like the slam H2H isn't skewed.
From the mid-eighties on, the AO consistently had the same top players competing as the other slams did.
jl809
Legend
Late 80s earliest, so after Borg, Connors and co., and around 20 years after the start of the OE
B
Barton
Guest
It's Beckerserve. You're wasting your time with him.
Drob
Hall of Fame
He has a positive H2H bc of 2015, 2016 and playing corpse Rafa at the Olympics
So, let's throw out 2006 - 2009 also? 0-8.
Rafa had somewhat down season in 2015 (61-20), and lousy 2016.
These are tennis CAREERS - things happen
2006-09 was a callow Djokovic and a PEAK Nadal, and as said, clay being Novak's weaker surface - back then especially. So we throw out the 0-8?
Here is an interesting H2H on clay:
2011-14.
4-5 in Rafa's favor.
I think we know Rafa had five Slams in seven finals, 9 M1000s in 16 finals, was No. 1 in 2013 and made his best YEC showing.
Last edited:
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
Djokovic was far better from 2007-2009 than Nadal was in 2015 and 16.
Drob
Hall of Fame
Which he was. Left Forearm bigger than Rocky Marciano, wrist bigger than Floyd Patterson. By concentrating on developing the left arm. Fast as anything - i think even by today's standards - and with contemporary training techniques . . . Obviously Carlos is totally tuscular, but in today's sports ethos, Laver would have been similarly, if not so totally, tusk. Areas where Carlos obviously superior, some of these would be equalized by technology, i.e. consistency. The forehand advantage to Carlos would be narrowed but still advantage Alcaraz. Laver obviously would be concentrating more on the FH and less on S/V and net play. With his athleticism and proven dedication, he would have a whallop of a FH. But let's give FH to Alcaraz, since it is real and not theoretical. Backhand would be interesting. Laver's near-revolutionary top-spin, missile backhand would be much more consistent, but can even the best one-handed BH be as effective over the long haul as Alcaraz's two-handed? Doubt Rocket could ever drop-shot with the Woo-li Master, but much better offensive lob. Service probably about equal, but possibly favoring Rocket. His serve was exceptional when "on" but he had his up-and-downs. Again, think technology would help. And minute advantage for "lefty factor"? Net play slight advantage to Rocket - still considered best BH volley ever.
But, as said, Carlos still has the FH advantage and probably the BH advantage. With serves roughly equal, speed close to equal, and the game being played primarily ground-to-ground, sure Carlos wins 70 percent.. With both being clutch players (Slam Champions), if Carlos wins 14 Slam titles, Sinner eight or 10, Laver wins about a half-dozen, maybe 5.
Last edited:
Drob
Hall of Fame
1969, 1971 were strong fields. There was an uptick around 1983 or 84, when both Lendl and McEnroe started to go, plus participation of Wilander and Edberg. But you are correct it did not field equal quality until very end of 1980s - '89 I think.
GoatNo1
Hall of Fame
rafa played most matches vs nole, 60 (18 at slams)
fed played most matches vs nole, 50+WO (17)
muzza played most matches vs nole, 36 (10)
wawa played most matches vs nole, 27 (9)
nole played 110 matches vs big3 (35 at slams)
rafa played 100 matches vs big3 (32 at slams)
fed played 90 matches vs big3 (31 at slams)
nole played 146 matches vs big4 (45 at slams)
rafa played 124 matches vs big4 (41 at slams)
fed played 115 matches vs big4 (37 at slams)
nole played 173 matches vs big5 (54 at slams)
rafa played 146 ,atches vs big5 (45 at slams)
fed played 141 match vs big 5 (45 at slams)
nole played 380 matches vs top10 players (210 vs top5)
fed played 346 matches vs top10 players (179 vs top5)
rafa played 291 match vs top10 players (156 vs top5)
nole won 261 matches vs top10 players (126 vs top5)
fed won 223 matches vs top10 players (104 vs top5)
rafa won 186 matches vs top10 players (93 vs top5)
fed played most matches vs nole, 50+WO (17)
muzza played most matches vs nole, 36 (10)
wawa played most matches vs nole, 27 (9)
nole played 110 matches vs big3 (35 at slams)
rafa played 100 matches vs big3 (32 at slams)
fed played 90 matches vs big3 (31 at slams)
nole played 146 matches vs big4 (45 at slams)
rafa played 124 matches vs big4 (41 at slams)
fed played 115 matches vs big4 (37 at slams)
nole played 173 matches vs big5 (54 at slams)
rafa played 146 ,atches vs big5 (45 at slams)
fed played 141 match vs big 5 (45 at slams)
nole played 380 matches vs top10 players (210 vs top5)
fed played 346 matches vs top10 players (179 vs top5)
rafa played 291 match vs top10 players (156 vs top5)
nole won 261 matches vs top10 players (126 vs top5)
fed won 223 matches vs top10 players (104 vs top5)
rafa won 186 matches vs top10 players (93 vs top5)
Jav
Rookie
There was a brief time when it was 20-22-20. As well as the sole Olympic gold medalist among them.
Since it's all basically about the GS count as you guys like to remind, I'd say he got indeed to be the GOAT.
I agree he's got the least argument of the 3 as of today though, whether you go for stats (Novak) or for the "different eras" approach (Fed). Though it's also true he got sandwiched between the two but he had not the best prime nor the best longevity at all, he sat just in the middle. Also him having no ATP Finals is pretty "ugly" as well.
What he's got I'd say is that he's the toughest adversary on a specific surface you could ever face.
Razer
G.O.A.T.
Ok so if Nishikori-Ferrer can be ranked in the top 5, Diego ranked 8th and Alcaraz winning double digits then Laver could also win slams since he was physically a mutant for his era.
Ok that is a fair argument. He would not be GOAT but he could still win some slams here and there.
messiahrobins
G.O.A.T.
There are two slams on hard courts, Djokovics best surface so its a nonsense to say the slam count isnt skewed. also 3 slam finals between the same two players at one event isnt a small sample at all. Hardly any players have had 3 slam finals at the same event three times!
The Djokovic fanbase im afraid over the years created problems for Novak with their contradictory arguments. Actually its less to do with Nadal rivalry, its with Federer where karma came back the hardest in terms of arguments made coming back to bite hard, most notably W2019.
gamelovergold
Hall of Fame
How fedrer can be above Novak.
ROLEX ad will not help in this.
Almost in every parameter fedrer is behind Novak.
If you want to compete against nadal and put a case for fedrer i am in full support.
Novak is clearly superior to both Roger and rafa.
