Ranking(YE #1 and weeks at #1) and Wimbledon only matters when it suits Nole's fans argument

[TMF]

I'm getting tired of the double-standard.

During the debate about who's greater between Sampras-Nole when both players have 14 slams each, Nole fans relentlessly argue for Nole because of his many MS1000 titles and a better player on clay. Yet, they don't want to mention about Pete's YE #1 and weeks at #1 when it's one of the most important criteria in evaluating ATG besides the slam count. And when someone argue for Pete, they downgrade the important of the ranking. To them, Nole 4 consecutive slam wins is the biggest thing ever happened in tennis, yet Sampras 6 consecutive YE #1 is a minuscule achievement. Even his 7 Wimbledon titles which is the Holy Grail of tennis is irrelevant to them. No surprise because Nole can't compete with Pete.

However, when a debate about Nadal-Nole, the argument turns completely 180 degree. Nole fans weigh heavily on weeks at #1 and YE #1 mainly because Nadal is totally inferior to Nole. While belittling Sampras for no FO title, they short-change Nadal's achievement because he's too clay centric for winning 11 FO. And then Wimbledon is so glamorous, so prestigious tournament that Nole has the edge with 4 titles to 2 for Nadal. With that being said, despite Nadal has 2 more slam titles, they want to argue for Nole being ahead in ATG.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

Yes I agree Novak needs to tie Rafa in slams to be unequivocally ahead. Other things matter but slam count will always be the most important imo.

 

[TheGhostOfAgassi]

Everyone will never agree to the goat and fan stuff anyway

I prefer to watch Rafa over the other two. In fact I avoid to to watch Fed and Novak as I like other players more enjoyable to watch.
All in all thats what its about.

Federer and Novak can win 30 slams each and I like Rafa like I always did. Doesnt make any difference for me.

 

[TheAssassin]

It's just presenting arguments in Novak's favor, not ignoring the ones that are in Sampras' or Nadal's. The other group does the same.

 

[SecondToNone]

Not mentioning YEC(WTF) because it's not suiting my agenda.

 

[OhYes]

Don't know why, but those users with Osaka pic are rather hostile to Novak and his fanbase.

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

And we never hear constant undervaluing of Djokovic's Wimbledon wins because he would win none in the 90s, as well as the undervaluing of his domination and NCYGS because anyone decent could beat the competition he did, and so on and so on...

 

[TheGhostOfAgassi]

Don't know why, but those users with Osaka pic are rather hostile to Novak and his fanbase.

I tried to pm you but not possible, think your settings

 

[uscwang]

Pete is left behind. As the saying goes, 15 > 14. Don't beat Pete anymore.
I don't believe that many Novak fans think Novak is ahead of Nadal already. 15 < 17. There is a lot of tennis to be played.

 

[-NN-]

I dunno.

People wanna be subtle and detailed all the time to push an agenda, but then almost everyone defaults to something like 15>14 therefore X.


****ing ********.

 

[NoleFam]

When Djokovic and Sampras were tied, the only thing Sampras had over him was YE #1 and weeks at #1. Djokovic had the career GS, massive more success on clay, two 3 Slam seasons, his Nole Slam and multiple more Masters. There really was no comparison at that point. As far as Nadal, not to say Djokovic has surpassed him at this point, but weeks at #1 and YE #1 are not the only things he has over him. He's better than Nadal at 3/4 Slams (not just Wimbledon), has 5 WTFs to none and the Nole Slam.

 

[upchuck]

Won't comment on Nadal vs Djokovic in the GOAT race. What I will say is this: it's much smarter to consider weeks at #1 and YE rankings between contemporaries than between players from different generations. Ranking is dependent on competition and it's possible to be number 1 in one year with results that wouldn't put you in the top 5 in another year. Ranking comparisons among the big 4 is very much fair therefore. Ranking comparisons between Djokovic and Sampras or Federer and Sampras are much less so.

 

[Luka888]

I'm not sure who these Nole fans are, but I do know that people here, in general, can twist and turn any stats or facts depending what their respective agendas are or shall I say who they support.

It doesn't really matter.

 

[Krish872007]

So what?

Pretty much everyone brings up some factors when it suits them and places less importance on stats that go against their arguments.

 

[Rabe87]

When Djokovic and Sampras were tied, the only thing Sampras had over him was YE #1 and weeks at #1. Djokovic had the career GS, massive more success on clay, two 3 Slam seasons, his Nole Slam and multiple more Masters. There really was no comparison at that point. As far as Nadal, not to say Djokovic has surpassed him at this point, but weeks at #1 and YE #1 are not the only things he has over him. He's better than Nadal at 3/4 Slams (not just Wimbledon), has 5 WTFs to none and the Nole Slam.

This

 

[OhYes]

I tried to pm you but not possible, think your settings

Not guilty I think I never touched anything apart from indicator being online. Will check.

 

[Rabe87]

I don't know why Sampras is even mentioned in the same breath as Joe, when he's not even in the same stratosphere of dominance let alone the same league. If the Slams are the 4 pinnacles of the sport, each one a fragment comprising one whole world championship, then the only male player to have won the NCYGS is Joe. He held all fragments and thus the 4 biggest titles on tour (held the WTF also mind you) so how, in the hell, can anyone compare Sampras to Joe when Sampras *never* won RG.

 

[Rabe87]

*Only player to have held all four Slams across 3 surfaces, let's not pretend Laver and co were anywhere near as deft as Djoko when 3/4 slams were played on grass.

 

[OhYes]

Not guilty I think I never touched anything apart from indicator being online. Will check.

I think I corrected all fields now.

 

[mika1979]

I'm getting tired of the double-standard.

During the debate about who's greater between Sampras-Nole when both players have 14 slams each, Nole fans relentlessly argue for Nole because of his many MS1000 titles and a better player on clay. Yet, they don't want to mention about Pete's YE #1 and weeks at #1 when it's one of the most important criteria in evaluating ATG besides the slam count. And when someone argue for Pete, they downgrade the important of the ranking. To them, Nole 4 consecutive slam wins is the biggest thing ever happened in tennis, yet Sampras 6 consecutive YE #1 is a minuscule achievement. Even his 7 Wimbledon titles which is the Holy Grail of tennis is irrelevant to them. No surprise because Nole can't compete with Pete.

However, when a debate about Nadal-Nole, the argument turns completely 180 degree. Nole fans weigh heavily on weeks at #1 and YE #1 mainly because Nadal is totally inferior to Nole. While belittling Sampras for no FO title, they short-change Nadal's achievement because he's too clay centric for winning 11 FO. And then Wimbledon is so glamorous, so prestigious tournament that Nole has the edge with 4 titles to 2 for Nadal. With that being said, despite Nadal has 2 more slam titles, they want to argue for Nole being ahead in ATG.

I think you are way off base bro. Novak is ahead of Pete and was before the AO, because of winning on all surfaces, holding all 4, better win %, these are objective facts. The weeks and year end numbers are great for Pete however he isn't that far ahead in that regard, and they aren't that significant compared to all four, and it is being subjective, also Pete would have needed more points to be number 1 2003 onwards than during his time.

Regarding Nadal, I don't think weeks at number one is the factor which gets them closer together despite 2 slam difference, more so four in a row and 5 wtf to 0. Comparing Rafa and Pete, obviously Pete being a non factor at the French is big, the wtfs are big for Pete, but then you go into other tournaments the rankings points etc and Nadal is better.

Having difference between 0 and 1 titles is bigger than having 6 or 7 or 10 or 11. Weeks at number one are important but with all due respect Nadal Djokovic and Federer were bigger competition for each other than what Pete had

 

[TripleATeam]

More or less, you're simplifying arguments and creating a thread just to complain. Let me address your points without a lens, then with my subjective opinion following.

Sampras vs. Djokovic pre-2019:

Slams: 14-14. Tied.
YE#1: 6-5. Sampras leads, slightly.
Weeks at #1: 286 - 232(?) Sampras leads by a year. Sizeable.
Titles: 64-72 Djokovic. Not the largest of leads.
Masters: 10-32. Sizeable lead for Djokovic.
YEC: 5-5. Tied.
Win% (Overall, HC, Clay, Grass, Carpet): (77%, 80%, 63%, 83%, 77%) - (83%, 84%, 79%, 83%, 71%)
Intangibles: Impossible to judge. Both sides will argue their own. Career grand slam may be important, but I'll ignore it for now.

My take: Djokovic has the same number of slams and YEC as Sampras. The only place he led pre-AO was at YE#1 and weeks at #1. Sure, that shows dominance over his contemporaries, but it doesn't mean his performance backed that up elsewhere. Djokovic, however, leads in several areas as well.

He is ahead in terms of titles, roughly by a year or two's worth of them. That's not a bad lead, but could be greater. He leads in terms of win% overall, on hard courts, on clay courts, and ties Sampras on grass. The only place Sampras leads is on carpet, where Djokovic was only able to play his first 4 years on the tour. We can claim "7 Wimbledons in a row" and "NCYGS" all we want, but it doesn't change the fact that Sampras played very well at the majors, somewhat lacking elsewhere. Clearly slams are the great metric, but when tied or close, it comes down to other achievements, and Sampras had little to gloat about outside slams and YEC, where Djokovic has him tied.

Conclusion: Novak leads Sampras.



Nadal vs. Djokovic currently:

Slams: 17-15. Nadal clearly leads.
YE#1: 4-5 Djokovic leads, but not by a large margin.
Weeks at #1: 196-236. Djokovic leads by 40 weeks, likely to increase further, but that's beside the point.
Titles: 80-73. Nadal leads.
Masters: 33-32. Almost tied.
YEC: 0-5. Djokovic dominates.
Win% (Overall, HC, Clay, Grass, Carpet): (83%, 77%, 92%, 78%, 25%) - (83%, 84%, 79%, 83%, 71%)
Intangibles: Impossible to judge. Both sides will argue their own. Could come into play, but too subjective for me to judge.

My take: Nadal leads by 2 slams, a huge clay win%, and titles overall. That's what Djokovic needs to make up. Can 5 YEC, 40 weeks at #1 (including a YE finish), and superior numbers on every other surface (ignoring carpet) make up that difference?

My opinion is no. 5 YEC is certainly a great accomplishment, but 2 slams is a large lead. It on its own cannot make up for that, nor can the weeks at #1 really, since the gap isn't incredibly huge. I definitely would value the time at #1 and the 5 YEC above a single slam, but not two. On top of that, Nadal still leads in titles overall.

Furthermore, Novak's lead on the other surfaces is not very impressive numerically when compared to the clay dominance Nadal has shown. Novak may show versatility, but the flip side of that coin is dominance, and it comes down to a subjective opinion over which is more valuable. At the end of the day, the fact that Novak is more versatile won't serve much use unless they get closer than two slams.

Conclusion: Nadal leads Djokovic somewhat, but Novak will lead Nadal if he closes the gap to one slam.

 

[-NN-]

I think the basic upshot I'm sensing on this forum and probably in general is that Slams are not quite everything, but the wiggle room tends to equate to 1.

15 too far away from 17, but 16? We'll talk.


Still very simplistic but not completely robotic.

 

[TripleATeam]

I think the basic upshot I'm sensing on this forum and probably in general is that Slams are not quite everything, but the wiggle room tends to equate to 1.

15 too far away from 17, but 16? We'll talk.


Still very simplistic but not completely robotic.

More or less. I think it scales with the number of slams we're talking about, though.

0 or 1, clearly we know. 10 or 11, there's an argument.
3 or 5? Easy. 25 or 27? Harder.

Now, in the teens is my "between 1 and 2" space. Nadal doesn't lag super far behind, and is ahead in total titles, as well as slams. If Novak got 300 weeks at #1, another YE#1 or two, another WTF, and a few more masters when Nadal got none, then I could see an argument for being equal with a 2 slam gap. Say 16 = 18 at the end of this year, assuming Novak holds #1 the whole time and wins the WTF and 4-5 masters.

Clearly it's different with Federer. His resume is already packed full. 20 slams, 6 YEC, 300+ weeks, 5 YE#1, 97(?) titles. It doesn't leave a lot of room to gain a sizeable lead. The only place Novak could gain some ground potentially is to win the actual Grand Slam or have a monstrous lead in Masters 1000s, and slightly beat him at YE#1, weeks, and YEC (probably tie there).

Even the debate could only begin when he got within 1 slam of Federer if we're even trying to be objective. Maybe 2 if he got the Grand Slam and 6 in a row. Maybe.

 

[Federer and Del Potro]

So what?

Pretty much everyone brings up some factors when it suits them and places less importance on stats that go against their arguments.

Berdych has 0 slams for one simple reason. He is a handsome king that has always dropped crumbs to his peasants. He bageled both RAFA and Fed in practice at Wimbledon. Strutting his real peak. I’m hoping the gracious king claims at least one slem for himself before he retires/abdicates the throne.

 

[True Fanerer]

Slams aren't everything when you don't have them. That's pretty much the story here. Sad and insecure. There's no one out there that Djokovic should be losing to anytime soon, so go out there and get the slams! NO EXCUSES

 

[USOPEN1991]

More or less. I think it scales with the number of slams we're talking about, though.

0 or 1, clearly we know. 10 or 11, there's an argument.
3 or 5? Easy. 25 or 27? Harder.

Now, in the teens is my "between 1 and 2" space. Nadal doesn't lag super far behind, and is ahead in total titles, as well as slams. If Novak got 300 weeks at #1, another YE#1 or two, another WTF, and a few more masters when Nadal got none, then I could see an argument for being equal with a 2 slam gap. Say 16 = 18 at the end of this year, assuming Novak holds #1 the whole time and wins the WTF and 4-5 masters.

Clearly it's different with Federer. His resume is already packed full. 20 slams, 6 YEC, 300+ weeks, 5 YE#1, 97(?) titles. It doesn't leave a lot of room to gain a sizeable lead. The only place Novak could gain some ground potentially is to win the actual Grand Slam or have a monstrous lead in Masters 1000s, and slightly beat him at YE#1, weeks, and YEC (probably tie there).

Even the debate could only begin when he got within 1 slam of Federer if we're even trying to be objective. Maybe 2 if he got the Grand Slam and 6 in a row. Maybe.

I can not imagine six in a row. This means that at some point there will be another disappointment.
The big goal must be somehow to come to this Paris finale and Nadal then hit there with all your might once. Hard enough.
The problem is not so much that Novak does not win every Grand Slam, but instead that another player wins in his place when he weakens.
We have to keep our fingers crossed for him because he is the best player.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

To me Nadal is still greater, nothing has changed.

Now, if Djokovic wins RG in a few months time, gets his second NCYGS and moves to within one of Nadal, then there is an argument that the two are now equal, still no undisputed, but Novak will have a much better case than now. Two slam difference is still pretty big.

 

[Red Rick]

It was always sh*t record.

It shouldn't matter, no matter who has it.

 

[USOPEN1991]

I just hope that Federer will soon stop or get hurt. Or both. Then at this point, it's finally time to rest. It sucks. I just can not see him anymore.
The problem is that with Zverev lurks the next unbearable player. It's all so unfair. I want the good guys to win.
By that I mean Djokovic, Delpo, Nadal or, in an emergency, little Thiem. Everything else with the men does not work at all. Or?

 

[Sysyphus]

TTW has always suffered from a woeful tunnel vision in its slam-centrism, that much is certain. The bean counters would maybe also have you believe that you could rank Rembrandt's greatness merely by counting how many colors he used.

But building on the backs of former ttw visionaries who saw the need for a more holistic approach, I think I have found a more fair and nuanced way to assess the standing of the current field.

@Red Rick approved

 

[TripleATeam]

I just hope that Federer will soon stop or get hurt. Or both. Then at this point, it's finally time to rest. It sucks. I just can not see him anymore.
The problem is that with Zverev lurks the next unbearable player. It's all so unfair. I want the good guys to win.
By that I mean Djokovic, Delpo, Nadal or, in an emergency, little Thiem. Everything else with the men does not work at all. Or?

Well, wishing injury on a player is going a bit far, no?

 

[Djokovic2011]

Slams aren't everything when you don't have them. That's pretty much the story here. Sad and insecure. There's no one out there that Djokovic should be losing to anytime soon, so go out there and get the slams! NO EXCUSES

Haha, you're feeling really exasperated with us Nole fans this week aren't you mate?

 

[True Fanerer]

Haha, you're feeling really exasperated with us Nole fans this week aren't you mate?

Not all of you. Only about 80%

 

[The Fedfather]

TTW has always suffered from a woeful tunnel vision in its slam-centrism, that much is certain. The bean counters would maybe also have you believe that you could rank Rembrandt's greatness merely by counting how many colors he used.

But building on the backs of former ttw visionaries who saw the need for a more holistic approach, I think I have found a more fair and nuanced way to assess standing the current field.

@Red Rick approved

Looks like it's time to revive the #Bel18ve.

 

[jm1980]

A couple of Pete's YE #1 finishes were rather weak...
In 98 he won a single Slam and a couple of ATP Series Gold (equivalent to today's 500s)
His 97 YE #1 was similar to Djokovic's 2018 YE #1 campaign as well - two Slams but not much else
A single Slam in 96, no Masters titles... Still YE #1 - something he'd never be able to do today

His most dominant season was 94, but it can't be compared with Djoker's 2011 and 2015 seasons

 

[USOPEN1991]

Well, wishing injury on a player is going a bit far, no?

You know what I mean. In this case. ❗

 

[Djokovic2011]

Not all of you. Only about 80%

Can't blame us for still being on cloud nine that our favourite player's won another GS trophy. Things were looking so bleak this time last year!

 

[Gary Duane]

Everyone will never agree to the goat and fan stuff anyway

I prefer to watch Rafa over the other two. In fact I avoid to to watch Fed and Novak as I like other players more enjoyable to watch.
All in all thats what its about.

Federer and Novak can win 30 slams each and I like Rafa like I always did. Doesnt make any difference for me.

For me, Pete and Fed, totally enjoyable, Nadal a bit less so, but I've gotten really behind him in past years, like 2013, then Novak way down. That's my enjoyability index, making up a word, I think.

But just watching them all, only based on accomplishments, I have to say that what Novak has done this past year is amazing, so I get his fans excitement. It doesn't bother me. When all these players are done, things will sort themselves out in better perspective. The fact is that if he wins another NYCGS and gets to two of them, that's huge and has to put him in a class by myself. This is just his year to break records, and now it's Nadal's year to stop him. Or maybe Fed, if a miracle occurs and he finds his form again at nearly age 38.

 

[Gary Duane]

To me Nadal is still greater, nothing has changed.

Now, if Djokovic wins RG in a few months time, gets his second NCYGS and moves to within one of Nadal, then there is an argument that the two are now equal, still no undisputed, but Novak will have a much better case than now. Two slam difference is still pretty big.

That's pretty much what I just said.

 

[Sport]

When Djokovic and Sampras were tied, the only thing Sampras had over him was YE #1 and weeks at #1. Djokovic had the career GS, massive more success on clay, two 3 Slam seasons, his Nole Slam and multiple more Masters. There really was no comparison at that point. As far as Nadal, not to say Djokovic has surpassed him at this point, but weeks at #1 and YE #1 are not the only things he has over him. He's better than Nadal at 3/4 Slams (not just Wimbledon), has 5 WTFs to none and the Nole Slam.

Djokovic is not better than Nadal at the US Open. Nadal and Djokovic are tied in US Open titles with 3 each. Djokovic has more finals but Nadal leads the H2H there, which compensates or arguably gives an edge to Nadal. Noval needs to win one more US Open to surpass Nadal at the US Open. 3 = 3. Djokovic only surpass Nadal in titles in 2 of the 4 Grand Slams.

Also, Sampras was better in 3 of the 4 Grand Slams than Nadal, yet most people consider Nadal greater. It seems like the Grand Slam count is more relevant than being better in 3 of the 4.

Also, Nadal leads Djokovic in many departments not only the Grand Slam count.

1) Grand Slams distribution by surface. Nadal has his Grand Slam titles more evenly distributed by surface than Djokovic. In effect, Nadal has won at least 2 Grand Slams on each surface (hard, grass and clay). Djokovic only has 1 Grand Slam on clay. 2 Grand Slams on each surface >>> 1 Grand Slam on each surface.

2) H2H in Grand Slams. Nadal leads the H2H over Djokovic 9-6 in Grand Slams (including 2-1 at the US Open)

3) Nadal has the Olympic Gold in singles which Djokovic lacks.

4) Nadal has the Masters 1000 record.

5) Nadal has more Masters 500 than Djokovic.

 

[True Fanerer]

Can't blame us for still being on cloud nine that our favourite player's won another GS trophy. Things were looking so bleak this time last year!

I get it. I do.

Djokovic is great enough in that Fedal doesn't have to be brought down in the process. I still have respect for what Nadal has done no matter how many jokes are flung his way. I feel like Djokovic is being rushed along a little too quickly.

 

[Djokodal Fan]

I don't which set of Novak fans are fighting and cribbing. All i see is haters coming out of their holes nowadays. 3 slam wins seem to have ruffled some feathers

 

[TheGhostOfAgassi]

For me, Pete and Fed, totally enjoyable, Nadal a bit less so, but I've gotten really behind him in past years, like 2013, then Novak way down. That's my enjoyability index, making up a word, I think.

But just watching them all, only based on accomplishments, I have to say that what Novak has done this past year is amazing, so I get his fans excitement. It doesn't bother me. When all these players are done, things will sort themselves out in better perspective. The fact is that if he wins another NYCGS and gets to two of them, that's huge and has to put him in a class by myself. This is just his year to break records, and now it's Nadal's year to stop him. Or maybe Fed, if a miracle occurs and he finds his form again at nearly age 38.

I have probably 30 players I like to watch play pro tennis.
When Rafa retire I will spend just as much time watching tennis.

I was never into Federer. I didnt even watch him play finals if he didnt play players I liked. Federer was in a way Rafas underdog for many years even though being older, I never saw him as a threat. I have felt for more than 10 years Rafa is a better player than Federer and Rafa is therefor the one I see as the goat.
Nothing that anyone else has said in this forum has made me change my mind, and I have pretty much read it all.
And... I like Sampras and Agassi btw. So I am not getting into an argument about that.

 

[NoleFam]

Djokovic is not better than Nadal at the US Open. Nadal and Djokovic are tied in US Open titles with 3 each. Djokovic has more finals but Nadal leads the H2H there, which compensates or arguably gives an edge to Nadal. Noval needs to win one more US Open to surpass Nadal at the US Open. 3 = 3. Djokovic only surpass Nadal in titles in 2 of the 4 Grand Slams.

Also, Sampras was better in 3 of the 4 Grand Slams than Nadal, yet most people consider Nadal greater. It seems like the Grand Slam count is more relevant than being better in 3 of the 4.

Also, Nadal leads Djokovic in many departments not only the Grand Slam count.

1) Grand Slams distribution by surface. Nadal has his Grand Slam titles more evenly distributed by surface than Djokovic. In effect, Nadal has won at least 2 Grand Slams on each surface (hard, grass and clay). Djokovic only has 1 Grand Slam on clay. 2 Grand Slams on each surface >>> 1 Grand Slam on each surface.

2) H2H in Grand Slams. Nadal leads the H2H over Djokovic 9-6 in Grand Slams (including 2-1 at the US Open)

3) Nadal has the Olympic Gold in singles which Djokovic lacks.

4) Nadal has the Masters 1000 record.

5) Nadal has more Masters 500 than Djokovic.

Djokovic is better than Nadal at the USO and it's obvious. They both have 3 titles but Djokovic has a far superior record there than he does, and has double the finals: 8 vs. 4. Any argument about a 2-1 head to head at the USO being relevant is frankly ridiculous considering Nadal hasn't played him there in 5 and a half years and would not walk away with a positive head to head against Djokovic there if they met more times.

Sampras is behind in 3 Slams and doesn't have a CGS so of course Nadal is greater.

The five points you made are trivial at best and don't outweigh the things I laid out. More 500 tournaments? Dude please. You also are getting carried away because I don't think Djokovic has surpassed Nadal yet and never said he did. I just outlined the important metrics where Djokovic is better.

 

[TripleATeam]

Looks like it's time to revive the #Bel18ve.

#Bul18ve?

 

[The Fedfather]

#Bul18ve?

 

[Sudacafan]

Don't know why, but those users with Osaka pic are rather hostile to Novak and his fanbase.

I am also wondering why would that be.

 

[Sport]

Djokovic is better than Nadal at the USO and it's obvious. They both have 3 titles but Djokovic has a far superior record there than he does, and has double the finals: 8 vs. 4. Any argument about a 2-1 head to head at the USO being relevant is frankly ridiculous considering Nadal hasn't played him there in 5 and a half years and would not walk away with a positive head to head against Djokovic there if they met more times.

Sampras is behind in 3 Slams and doesn't have a CGS so of course Nadal is greater.

The five points you made are trivial at best and don't outweigh the things I laid out. More 500 tournaments? Dude please. You also are getting carried away because I don't think Djokovic has surpassed Nadal yet and never said he did. I just outlined the important metrics where Djokovic is better.

No he isn't. 3 = 3. They are tied in US Open titles. Djokovic needs another to surpass Nadal. Djokovic may have more finals but it doesn't compensate his losing H2H to Nadal at the US Open.

H2H >>> extra finals.

Djokovic needs another title to definetely surpass Nadal at the US Open.

 

[Sudacafan]

My plan is not to comment about GOAT prospects of Fedalovic until the three of them retire.
How does this sound?

 

[Mainad]

T'is a truth universally acknowledged, that no tournament is worth winning until your favourite player wins it.