Requesting More Objectivity Here

RaulRamirez

Legend
So why are almost all pros coming onto the scene with a two hander these days if there isn't anything wrong with having a one hander in modern baseline dominated tennis?

If they were objectively equal strokes and just a matter of taste and preference we'd surely see far closer to 50/50 representation rather than 99% 2 hander?
I've always enjoyed Roger's (and Stan's, and Richard's, among many recent or past) one-handed backhand, and would hate to see it disappear from the tour. As you indicated, I guess all things being equal, the two-hander may be more effective on today's tour.

That said, I don't know that we can, in effect, give Roger extra points for playing with a one-hander, as well before he was born, there were great players who excelled with the two-hander, including (of course) Connors and Borg. I don't know that the two-hander would've suited his style of play; apparently, he and his coaches didn't think so, nor did he choose to play with a larger frame earlier. It's all speculative as to what he would have accomplished if he had made either of these changes -- or the one earlier than he did.
 
I've always enjoyed Roger's (and Stan's, and Richard's, among many recent or past) one-handed backhand, and would hate to see it disappear from the tour. As you indicated, I guess all things being equal, the two-hander may be more effective on today's tour.

That said, I don't know that we can, in effect, give Roger extra points for playing with a one-hander, as well before he was born, there were great players who excelled with the two-hander, including (of course) Connors and Borg. I don't know that the two-hander would've suited his style of play; apparently, he and his coaches didn't think so, nor did he choose to play with a larger frame earlier. It's all speculative as to what he would have accomplished if he had made either of these changes -- or the one earlier than he did.
So even if 2 hander wouldn't suit him its irrelevant thats a separate issue, its still more impressive and difficult to win 20 grand slams with a Federer one hander than with a Djokobic 2 hander
 

mtommer

Hall of Fame
If they were objectively equal strokes and just a matter of taste and preference we'd surely see far closer to 50/50 representation rather than 99% 2 hander?
Why? Correlation doesn't equal causation.

Coaches teach two handed because it's easier to teach. Many kids don't even learn in clubs to begin with. Many, many kids and parents (also early teachers of kids obviously) pick it up at YMCA classes or Park and Rec city offerings. Once juniors become good enough for dedicated training, their foundation is with a 2HBH and even better coaches often aren't going to mess with it, if only not to have to deal with bickering parents. Federer isn't the only successful 1HBH slam winner in modern tennis.

As it stands, right now, as in this very second, all you're doing is tacitly proving the point that either is good enough to win at the highest level in the modern game. There's no legit posit for one to say that Federer would have won more slams with a 2HBH any moreso than to posit Nadal would have anymore if he had a 1HBH.
 

heftylefty

Hall of Fame
Objectively Djokovic has the most Slams of any male player. More weeks at No.1 and more Master titles. I don't believe anyone on this board is moving the goalpost. While there are arguments about the level of competition Djokovic now faces is not as high as Federer and Nadal; it's a silly argument because it's not Novak's fault how he faces on the other side of the new. With this being said; Djokovic fans need to be objective about the fact that Novak is not well liked, and it's not because he's Serbian.

The title of this thread should be Djokovic is now the GOAT, you must Love Him.
 

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
Objectively Djokovic has the most Slams of any male player. More weeks at No.1 and more Master titles. I don't believe anyone on this board is moving the goalpost. While there are arguments about the level of competition Djokovic now faces is not as high as Federer and Nadal; it's a silly argument because it's not Novak's fault how he faces on the other side of the new. With this being said; Djokovic fans need to be objective about the fact that Novak is not well liked, and it's not because he's Serbian.

The title of this thread should be Djokovic is now the GOAT, you must Love Him.
Not really.

No Nolefam expects Nole to be loved by all. And you are talking about level of competition, then nolefams will show Federer's competition was just as bad and nadal's competition was bad outside of RG.

I think this thread OP is saying only stats can determine the GOAT. But since GOAT is an opinion, it can't be unanimous.

I think majority will argue stats as the most important thing. But there are minority who have their own analysis and we can't say they are wrong as well because they are not making stuff up.

Nadal's clay dominance, Federer's slam dominance in 20s are not refutable as well. It's just what an individual thinks is more important.

I would say that apart from even the stats, the likability angle is part of the GOAT debate for some. We can't force anyone to accept our criteria. I think 90% of fedal fans accept that statistically Nole is the GOAT. But even in those 90%, 20 to 40% think statistics is not enough to be the GOAT.

And 10% think Nole is not even statistically the GOAT. Some of their reasoning is bs but they are allowed to have the opinions.
 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
: "It’s highly likely that Federer - at his best - is a better tennis player than Novak - at his best."

Federer at his best was Nadal's whipping boy, Novak at his best was nobody's whipping boy, this is what separates them.

Federer has a losing 7-13 H2H to Nadal from 2004-09 period which is his peak

Sampras, Nadal and Djokovic did not have a losing h2h to any main rival in their 6 years peaks after playing so many matches
 

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
Federer at his best was Nadal's whipping boy, Novak at his best was nobody's whipping boy, this is what separates them.

Federer has a losing 7-13 H2H to Nadal from 2004-09 period which is his peak

Sampras, Nadal and Djokovic did not have a losing h2h to any main rival in their 6 years peaks after playing so many matches
The matchup is real issue. Nothing to see here.

Nadal is bad matchup for 90% of the players. Even good players.

When matchup was not an issue, fed played Djokovic tough even during Djokovic's peak. But Djokovic beat fed once in his peak at 2008 AO and wasn't close in any other slam match.

Fed was close to beating Djokovic in 2011 USO, 2019 Wimbledon (which wasn't Nole's absolute peak) and beaten him in 2012 Wimby and 2011 RG.

Djokovic lost to Nadal many times in his absolute peak as well most notably in 2013 US open.
 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
The matchup is real issue. Nothing to see here.

Nadal is bad matchup for 90% of the players. Even good players.

When matchup was not an issue, fed played Djokovic tough even during Djokovic's peak. But Djokovic beat fed once in his peak at 2008 AO and wasn't close in any other slam match.

Fed was close to beating Djokovic in 2011 USO, 2019 Wimbledon (which wasn't Nole's absolute peak) and beaten him in 2012 Wimby and 2011 RG.

Djokovic lost to Nadal many times in his absolute peak as well most notably in 2013 US open.

There is a lot to see here.

If you have a bad matchup with someone and that person has achieved more than you then you are not even in the race for being the best of all time

It is a straightforward checkmate to the argument.

Federer was 7-13 to Nadal (2-6 in Slams) during 2004-2009.

Djokovic does not have a losing h2h to any rival in his peak 2011-2016.... the biggest losing h2h he has to anyone in that period is vs Jiri Vesley & Karlovic 0-1.... 1-2 matches played....

Don't defend Federer here, you have not seen Federer in that period, he was actually struggling to a teenager from the day 1 itself. These fed fans need to silenced when they talk of peaks and primes without even watching Fed play in that period. This Federev guy himself said he stopped following tennis after 90s and restarted in 2012, today he is suddenly talking of mythical peaks as if Federer ws not losing to anyone.
 

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
There is a lot to see here.

If you have a bad matchup with someone and that person has achieved more than you then you are not even in the race for being the best of all time

It is a straightforward checkmate to the argument.

Federer was 7-13 to Nadal (2-6 in Slams) during 2004-2009.

Djokovic does not have a losing h2h to any rival in his peak 2011-2016.... the biggest losing h2h he has to anyone in that period is vs Jiri Vesley & Karlovic 0-1.... 1-2 matches played....

Don't defend Federer here, you have not seen Federer in that period, he was actually struggling to a teenager from the day 1 itself. These fed fans need to silenced when they talk of peaks and primes without even watching Fed play in that period. This Federev guy himself said he stopped following tennis after 90s and restarted in 2012, today he is suddenly talking of mythical peaks as if Federer ws not losing to anyone.
I guess you have a point seeing Nadal lead Federer who was in his physical prime at every time period in their rivalry.

Only caveat I will add is Nadal started strong vs every single player in top 5 then. That was bizarre for a guy to be so dominant. But yes fed in his peak is not the best player ever. But then neither is anyone else. Djokovic didn't get dominated by Nadal but in general got dominated, he won 1 slam a year during his peak.
 

Texas Tennis Fan

Professional
There is a lot to see here.

If you have a bad matchup with someone and that person has achieved more than you then you are not even in the race for being the best of all time

It is a straightforward checkmate to the argument.

Federer was 7-13 to Nadal (2-6 in Slams) during 2004-2009.

Djokovic does not have a losing h2h to any rival in his peak 2011-2016.... the biggest losing h2h he has to anyone in that period is vs Jiri Vesley & Karlovic 0-1.... 1-2 matches played....

Don't defend Federer here, you have not seen Federer in that period, he was actually struggling to a teenager from the day 1 itself. These fed fans need to silenced when they talk of peaks and primes without even watching Fed play in that period. This Federev guy himself said he stopped following tennis after 90s and restarted in 2012, today he is suddenly talking of mythical peaks as if Federer ws not losing to anyone.
Always check what the surface was when dealing with Nadal H2H as he never missed any clay slams or Masters 1000s between 2007 and 2021.

So, up to 2009, the time period you are highlighting, the twenty matches that Federer and Nadal played were 9 off of clay and 11 on clay. So while there was a match up advantage with the OHBH, there is an even larger court surface advantage where Nadal met on his favorite surface a lot more than off of clay given that clay is only about 25 to 30% of the surface distribution.

If Federer and Nadal had met on the court surface that one expected, and their win percentage on grass ad hardcourt were maintained, then Nadal would still be leading, but more like 18 to 22 or 19 to 21 (instead of 16 to 24).

It is even worse with Djokovic where his one win lead over Nadal would be about 10 or even more given that Nadal has not taken a set off of Djokovic since 2013. The clay court skew has been used to confuse the Goat Race and I think calling Federer Thirderer is ill-founded given the clay skew that the defensive Nadal relies on. This is why most tennis evaluations using objective criteria throughout the season, have Djokovic No.1, Federer No. 2, and Nadal 3.
 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
I guess you have a point seeing Nadal lead Federer who was in his physical prime at every time period in their rivalry.

Only caveat I will add is Nadal started strong vs every single player in top 5 then. That was bizarre for a guy to be so dominant. But yes fed in his peak is not the best player ever. But then neither is anyone else. Djokovic didn't get dominated by Nadal but in general got dominated, he won 1 slam a year during his peak.

Djokovic was not dominated by anyone in 2011 & 2015

Federer in 2006 at his peak had a losing 2-4 h2h to Nadal that year

Always check what the surface was when dealing with Nadal H2H as he never missed any clay slams or Masters 1000s between 2007 and 2021.

So, up to 2009, the time period you are highlighting, the twenty matches that Federer and Nadal played were 9 off of clay and 11 on clay. So while there was a match up advantage with the OHBH, there is an even larger court surface advantage where Nadal met on his favorite surface a lot more than off of clay given that clay is only about 25 to 30% of the surface distribution.

If Federer and Nadal had met on the court surface that one expected, and their win percentage on grass ad hardcourt were maintained, then Nadal would still be leading, but more like 18 to 22 or 19 to 21 (instead of 16 to 24).

It is even worse with Djokovic where his one win lead over Nadal would be about 10 or even more given that Nadal has not taken a set off of Djokovic since 2013. The clay court skew has been used to confuse the Goat Race and I think calling Federer Thirderer is ill-founded given the clay skew that the defensive Nadal relies on. This is why most tennis evaluations using objective criteria throughout the season, have Djokovic No.1, Federer No. 2, and Nadal 3.

Even if their matches happened on clay it is not an excuse for having a losing h2h in the peak years.

Clay is precisely the why Federer is 3rd in stats today

Nadal beat Fed at W but Fed could not beat Nadal even once at FO .... Hence 22-20

If Federer was good enough to not lost at W to Nadal and was good to inflict at least 1 win at RG then it would be Fed on 22 and Nadal on 20

That explains it..... clay skew or no skew, Fed had a real problem against Nadal.
 

Texas Tennis Fan

Professional
Djokovic was not dominated by anyone in 2011 & 2015

Federer in 2006 at his peak had a losing 2-4 h2h to Nadal that year



Even if their matches happened on clay it is not an excuse for having a losing h2h in the peak years.

Clay is precisely the why Federer is 3rd in stats today

Nadal beat Fed at W but Fed could not beat Nadal even once at FO .... Hence 22-20

If Federer was good enough to not lost at W to Nadal and was good to inflict at least 1 win at RG then it would be Fed on 22 and Nadal on 20

That explains it..... clay skew or no skew, Fed had a real problem against Nadal.
I agree that Federer had a matchup issue against Nadal, but the skew was large on clay. There might have been 6 more matches off of clay which would have made the h2h much closer. Context is always important, especially in h2h.
 

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
Djokovic was not dominated by anyone in 2011 & 2015

Federer in 2006 at his peak had a losing 2-4 h2h to Nadal that year



Even if their matches happened on clay it is not an excuse for having a losing h2h in the peak years.

Clay is precisely the why Federer is 3rd in stats today

Nadal beat Fed at W but Fed could not beat Nadal even once at FO .... Hence 22-20

If Federer was good enough to not lost at W to Nadal and was good to inflict at least 1 win at RG then it would be Fed on 22 and Nadal on 20

That explains it..... clay skew or no skew, Fed had a real problem against Nadal.
None of that is deniable. But it still doesn't make anyone else's peak bigger than Federer, especially for multi year span.
Djokovic peak is 2011 and then 2014 Wimbledon to 2016 USOpen. He was sucking in between right?
 
I agree that Federer had a matchup issue against Nadal, but the skew was large on clay. There might have been 6 more matches off of clay which would have made the h2h much closer. Context is always important, especially in h2h.
Nadal is ahead of Federer now. 2 more slams, way more masters, double and winning H2H is enough.

Feds more weeks at no1, more atp finals and better at 3 of 4 slams still isn’t enough to overtake that.
 

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
None of that is deniable. But it still doesn't make anyone else's peak bigger than Federer, especially for multi year span.
Djokovic peak is 2011 and then 2014 Wimbledon to 2016 USOpen. He was sucking in between right?
A player in peak shouldn't lose multiple tournaments in a row. Especially multiple slams in a row. Let's see for Federer between 2004-07 and then for Nole from 2011-16

Let's first see slams for Federer.

2004- lost at RG vs Kuerten
2005 - lost back to back slams, AO 2005 loss was in epic match. RG 2005 was start of the KOC but yeah the match wasn't that epic
2006 - lost only match to Nadal where could have pushed fifth set
2007 - lost only match to Nadal where obviously he was inferior

Let's see Djokovic
2011 - lost at RG to Federer
2012 - lost back to back to back slams. RG 2012 wasn't that epic, like Federer RG 2005. Wimbledon lost in non epic match to Federer. Lost the ranking, USOpen lost the match to Murray who had never won a slam before
2013 - lost back to back to back slams. RG 2013 was epic. But Wimbledon lost another non epic match to Murray. USOpen lost another non epic match to Nadal. Lost the ranking again.
2014 - Lost back to back slams. AO14 loss to Wawrinka was in epic match, like AO2005. But lost to Nadal where was obviously inferior. Couldn't even push to five. Comparable to Federer 2007 match vs Nadal, USOpen lost to freaking kori kori
2015 - lost RG to Stan who had not even made a SF before here. Common agreement is Federer only lost to Nadal but Djokovic allowed Wawrinka to hold him hostage. Can't be refutable. Can't compare this to even Federer 2007 but still better than Federer 2008.

So all in all, Federer's 2006 is comparable to Nole's 2015.
Federer's 2007 is comparable to Nole's 2011 at slams.
And Federer's 2004 is comparable to Nole's nothing.
Federer's 2005 is superior to Nole's 2016 where Fed lost in epic 5 setter to Safin while Nole lost to Wawrinka in non epic match.

If peak is just a particular year, then I would say no one in past 50 years can match Nole's 2015. And if peak is more than a year, then no one can match Federer's 2006-07. If peak is more than 2 years then no one can match Federer's 2004-07 where he didn't lose the ranking once. He wasn't even clsoe to losing it. While Nole lost to first Federer in 2012 where he shouldn't have and then Nadal in 2013.

Now counter argument can be both Federer in 2012 and Nadal in 2013 are better rivals than anyone Federer faced in 2004-07 and I agree. But it won't justify Nole's 2015 RG , 2016 USO, 2012 Wimbledon, 2014 USO, 2013 Wimbledon, 2013 USO at all. Nole lost 6 non epic matches to players while in his absolute prime. Federer lost 3 non epic matches in his prime , all at rg in 2004, 2005, and 2007.

How can we really justify 2015 RG, 2016 USO, 2012 Wimbledon, 2014 USOpen, 2013 Wimbledon and 2013 USOpen?


And if Nole can't match Fed's peak then who can? Certainly not Rafa. He is 1 slam wonder. His biggest results happened in 2008-09 and that peak was just 1 year, between RG to AO. 2010 field was uber sh*t. And 2013, he got humiliated in R1 of Wimbledon.
 

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
Let's compare the results between Nole's post USOpen 2011 to Federer's. BTW Federer held mp vs Nole at USOpen but let's forget that for an instance.

Federer went undefeated post USOpen 2011 :
Basel win 500 pts
Bercy win 1000 pts
ATP finals 1500 pts
Coming to Doha 2012 loss in semis
AO semis 720 pts
Rotterdam win 500 pts
Dubai win 500 pts
IW win 1000 pts
Miami loss to Roddick
Madrid win 1000 pts
Rome loss to Djokovic (First match h2h after USOpen) 360 pts
Roland Garros loss to Djokovic. 720 pts
Halle win 250 pts
Wimbledon win 2000 pts (beat djokovic)
London Olympics loss to Murray in final
Cincinnati win 1000 pts (bagelling Djokovic)
USOpen QF loss

Federer lost 7 times within this time period. He won a slam, made a couple semis and won atp finals along with 4 masters.
Fed won 10 titles in this time period

Now Nole
Basel loss to Kori kori
Bercy loss to Tsonga
ATP finals losses to Ferrer
ATP finals loss to Tisparevic
Australian open win 2000 pts
Dubai loss to murray
IW loss to isner
Miami win 1000 pts
MC loss in final
Madrid loss in QF to tisparevic
Rome loss in QF
RG barely scraping through to reach finals and loss to Nadal
Wimbledon loss to Nadal
Olympics loss to Murray
Olympics loss to Delpo
Canada win 2000 pts
Cincy humiliated in final - lost rankings
USOpen loss to Myrray

Nole lost 15 times in this time period.

It was so bad that Djokovic won only 3 titles to Federer's 10.
Nole did perform better by reaching 2 slam finals to Federer's 0. But you are the guy who don't consider anything outside a W as important.

Nole lost the ranking to Federer on July 9th 2012 and it took till November for him to get the ranking back. That's 17 weeks Nole couldn't be number 1 against a guy who was not even dominating Tennis anymore.

Federer in 2011/12 was playing second fiddle to Rafole but he won 10 titles in a year and replaced both Rafa and Nole in 2012 in the rankings. We can't argue Nole's peak is better than Federer in multi year context if Nole lost his ranking to Federer who was second fiddle to both him and Rafa.

If we are talking one year, both 2015 season Nole and Nole at RG 2016 is absolute peak in ATP tennis. Fed can't touch him. But for multi year period Nole lags behind Fed.
 

Kralingen

Bionic Poster
Let's compare the results between Nole's post USOpen 2011 to Federer's. BTW Federer held mp vs Nole at USOpen but let's forget that for an instance.

Federer went undefeated post USOpen 2011 :
Basel win 500 pts
Bercy win 1000 pts
ATP finals 1500 pts
Coming to Doha 2012 loss in semis
AO semis 720 pts
Rotterdam win 500 pts
Dubai win 500 pts
IW win 1000 pts
Miami loss to Roddick
Madrid win 1000 pts
Rome loss to Djokovic (First match h2h after USOpen) 360 pts
Roland Garros loss to Djokovic. 720 pts
Halle win 250 pts
Wimbledon win 2000 pts (beat djokovic)
London Olympics loss to Murray in final
Cincinnati win 1000 pts (bagelling Djokovic)
USOpen QF loss

Federer lost 7 times within this time period. He won a slam, made a couple semis and won atp finals along with 4 masters.
Fed won 10 titles in this time period

Now Nole
Basel loss to Kori kori
Bercy loss to Tsonga
ATP finals losses to Ferrer
ATP finals loss to Tisparevic
Australian open win 2000 pts
Dubai loss to murray
IW loss to isner
Miami win 1000 pts
MC loss in final
Madrid loss in QF to tisparevic
Rome loss in QF
RG barely scraping through to reach finals and loss to Nadal
Wimbledon loss to Nadal
Olympics loss to Murray
Olympics loss to Delpo
Canada win 2000 pts
Cincy humiliated in final - lost rankings
USOpen loss to Myrray

Nole lost 15 times in this time period.

It was so bad that Djokovic won only 3 titles to Federer's 10.
Nole did perform better by reaching 2 slam finals to Federer's 0. But you are the guy who don't consider anything outside a W as important.

Nole lost the ranking to Federer on July 9th 2012 and it took till November for him to get the ranking back. That's 17 weeks Nole couldn't be number 1 against a guy who was not even dominating Tennis anymore.

Federer in 2011/12 was playing second fiddle to Rafole but he won 10 titles in a year and replaced both Rafa and Nole in 2012 in the rankings. We can't argue Nole's peak is better than Federer in multi year context if Nole lost his ranking to Federer who was second fiddle to both him and Rafa.

If we are talking one year, both 2015 season Nole and Nole at RG 2016 is absolute peak in ATP tennis. Fed can't touch him. But for multi year period Nole lags behind Fed.
This is extremely troubling if you believe Djokovic is GOAT.
 
I guess you have a point seeing Nadal lead Federer who was in his physical prime at every time period in their rivalry.

Only caveat I will add is Nadal started strong vs every single player in top 5 then. That was bizarre for a guy to be so dominant. But yes fed in his peak is not the best player ever. But then neither is anyone else. Djokovic didn't get dominated by Nadal but in general got dominated, he won 1 slam a year during his peak.
The two points that come to my mind are 1) over 70% of this forum just voted 05-08 Nadal superior to '10-'13 Nadal 2) Djokovic 2 hander gets immunity bonus to high bouncing massive lefty topspin thats almost imppossible to deal witg as one hander
 

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
Now let's see 2013 post AO to 2014 post AO.

First Djokovic
2013 Dubai W 500 pts
IW loss to Delpo
Miami loss to freaking Tommy Haas , enough excuses
MC win 1000 pts
Madrid loss to 20 year old Dimitrov
Rome loss to Berdych
RG loss to Nadal
Wimbledon loss to Murray
Canada loss to Nadal
Cincy loss to Isner
USOpen loss to Nadal
Beijing win 500 pts
Shanghai Win 1000 pts
Bercy win 1000 pts
ATP finals win 1500 pts
AO loss QF

Nadal in same time
Some random 250 L
Sao Paulo W
Acapulco W
IW W 1000 pts
MC L to Djokovic
Barcelona W
Madrid W
Rome W
Wimbledon R1 Shameful loss
Canada W
Cincy W
USOpen W
Beijing L to Djokovic
Shanghai L to Delpo
Bercy L to Tsonga
ATP finals L to Djokovic but regained ranking
Doha W
AO Final but was injured in the final

10 losses for Djokovic. 0 slams. 1 ATP final and 3 masters.

Vs Nadal

8 losses for Nadal. 2 slams and 5 masters.



Nadal again robbed Nole of ranking and this time it was straight shooting unlike in 2012 when Nole was hampered by 2011 fall season. No excuses.

This time Djokovic was not number 1 for almost 8 months between November and June. Not acceptable in his absolute peak.
Federer was number 1 for 237 weeks.
 

jga111

Hall of Fame
If you’re being objective then you have to give it to the man that came, conquered and then went home a pretty wife - all in 10 minutes. None of this 20 years rubbish.

Sampras #GOAT
 

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
If you’re being objective then you have to give it to the man that came, conquered and then went home a pretty wife - all in 10 minutes. None of this 20 years rubbish.

Sampras #GOAT
Sampras is barely in conversation in the debate by now. His wife is not even the prettiest wife in tennis WAGS. His rival Agassi scored better wife.

97_sgraff_01jpg.jpg
 
A Quick Rant – Not My First, and Probably not My Last

Especially with large portions of the world at war or in great turmoil, and personal challenges that we all face, there are a zillion things much more important than tennis, and GOAT races. And I admit that I enter a lot of these threads, and also know that tennis (playing, watching and discussing) can all be great fun. I wouldn’t be here otherwise.

And it really doesn’t matter to me, per se, that everyone agree with me on various discussion points, such as who the mythical GOAT is. It just bothers me (it’s how I’m wired, I suppose) that people can’t either present objective arguments or distinguish between their preference (what they’d like to see) and reality (what they have seen).

Some aspects of these discussions are truly subjective, and disagreements – if civil – can be fun, as they’re inherently unwinnable or I suppose, unlosable. There are no stats to support or rebut who your favorite player is, or who you find to be the most exciting, the greatest ambassador, even if you want to say who the “best person” is, not that we really know them personally. But bringing these considerations to objective discussions is ludicrous.

I see a lot of subjectivity as to who one sees as the best player at their absolute peak (even if just confined, as I do, to players who only competed in the Open Era. Subjectively, I don’t know who was the most talented or skilled player, but it seems that this comes down to, chronologically, Borg, Sampras, Roger, Rafa and Novak. Yes, there’s subjectivity there.

But if we – as I think is the only way to look at it – try to come to terms with who the mythical goat (Open Era) is, it has to be achievement-based or you’re just letting subjectivity come into play. Each of The Big 3 has left Borg, Sampras and everyone else way behind in achievements, and these three guys have the three-most played rivalries of the Open Era. Maybe, numbers would have looked different if they were all born in the same year, or in each other’s years (nobody has any clue if it would look different if that were the case), and it’s cool to speculate. But all the same junk about weak eras and weak draws and Career Inflation Eras, etc, is incredibly tiresome and either pure excuse-making or exercises in denigrating others.

So unless Rafa (and I love the guy and would never count him out) makes a miraculous comeback, how do you spin that he’s better than Novak when he has two fewer slams, three fewer M1000s, two fewer YE#1s, and 186 less weeks at #1? This doesn’t even mention ATP Finals and the Nole Slam.

And unless Roger unretires and performs more miracles (and I have all the admiration in the world for him), how do you spin that he’s better than Novak when he has four fewer slams, 11 fewer M1000s, two fewer YE#1s, and 85 less weeks at #1…not to mention the Nole Slam, two more career slams, etc.

Yes, I have long regarded the B3 as three mythical goats, and perhaps, to some degree, always will as they’re forever intertwined. But the achievement gap is sizable now, and nobody who is being honest can spin it differently – at least as it applies to these three.
LOL. Please crown Djokovic GOAT thread # 7289. ;)
 

Texas Tennis Fan

Professional
Nadal is ahead of Federer now. 2 more slams, way more masters, double and winning H2H is enough.

Feds more weeks at no1, more atp finals and better at 3 of 4 slams still isn’t enough to overtake that.
We can agree to disagree. The weakest stat for Nadal is that almost 2/3s of his slam wins are at one slam. That is great for saying he is great at that slam and is a wonderful achievement. It is not so good when he has 2*, 2, and 4 at the others. Federer also went deeper into tournaments than Nadal, in addition to the other stats you mentioned.
 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
None of that is deniable. But it still doesn't make anyone else's peak bigger than Federer, especially for multi year span.
Djokovic peak is 2011 and then 2014 Wimbledon to 2016 USOpen. He was sucking in between right?

Federer was sucking too but there weren't rivals who could demonstrate it.

Nandal was a baby in 04-06 period, he was jumping around and winning clay + some tournament outside slams on non clays surfaces but he did hit his prime. Thats why Federer got away with AO 2006, USO 2005, USO 2007 type slams. Marat Safin beat him in AO05 but nobody else had the strength to do it. A more consistent Nalbandian could have taken out Federer. David Nalbandian was defeated by Baghdatis, otherwise he would have beaten Federer if Federer had faced him. In the final Federer was utter garbage but still won it. Federer was garbage in uso05 and 07 finals too but got away with because his opponent was either on fumes or was some gluten allergic punk. Also Federer's first slam 2003W would have been harder for him to win if there was someone like 1998/2000 Sampras there to block him instead of a servebot like Philippoussis at the other end. Federer was a bit lucky in AO04 as well to not have Marat's draw which could have been harder for him to scale.
Dave Nalbandian & Marat Safin being unfit and inconsistent opened up the scope for Federer's peak to look as lethal as it did. Both of them, especially Marat were proper baseliners who could hang in with the Big 3 and produce high level Tennis. These guys were rated very high in the early-mid 2000s, today they might look like losers but it was not the case back then.

So don't let anyone sell you the theory of Fed's peak being invincible and godly while Novak being super weak ...... as invincible & magnificent as Fed's peak was, the era had a serious vacuum. 2012-2014 was serious competition, thats why Noval faltered in between before he caught hold of all the great rivals by their balls, unlike that Federer never had great men like Nadal blocking him, the potential greats of his peer group were inconsistent men (Safin & Nalby) and main beneficiary of this was Roger.

Murray and Roddick are same level guys but Murray's game matches better vs Novak than Roddick's did to Federer.
Safin was a better player than Murray but he not being great consistently was why Roger had no rivals.
Nalbandian was less athletic than Murray but had greater talent, he could have posed big problems.

Federer was lucky the 2 guys who were better than Roddick in his peer group did not click consistently, otherwise could have been a big pain in the arse for him..
 

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
Federer was sucking too but there weren't rivals who could demonstrate it.

Nandal was a baby in 04-06 period, he was jumping around and winning clay + some tournament outside slams on non clays surfaces but he did hit his prime. Thats why Federer got away with AO 2006, USO 2005, USO 2007 type slams. Marat Safin beat him in AO05 but nobody else had the strength to do it. A more consistent Nalbandian could have taken out Federer. David Nalbandian was defeated by Baghdatis, otherwise he would have beaten Federer if Federer had faced him. In the final Federer was utter garbage but still won it. Federer was garbage in uso05 and 07 finals too but got away with because his opponent was either on fumes or was some gluten allergic punk. Also Federer's first slam 2003W would have been harder for him to win if there was someone like 1998/2000 Sampras there to block him instead of a servebot like Philippoussis at the other end. Federer was a bit lucky in AO04 as well to not have Marat's draw which could have been harder for him to scale.
Dave Nalbandian & Marat Safin being unfit and inconsistent opened up the scope for Federer's peak to look as lethal as it did. Both of them, especially Marat were proper baseliners who could hang in with the Big 3 and produce high level Tennis. These guys were rated very high in the early-mid 2000s, today they might look like losers but it was not the case back then.

So don't let anyone sell you the theory of Fed's peak being invincible and godly while Novak being super weak ...... as invincible & magnificent as Fed's peak was, the era had a serious vacuum. 2012-2014 was serious competition, thats why Noval faltered in between before he caught hold of all the great rivals by their balls, unlike that Federer never had great men like Nadal blocking him, the potential greats of his peer group were inconsistent men (Safin & Nalby) and main beneficiary of this was Roger.

Murray and Roddick are same level guys but Murray's game matches better vs Novak than Roddick's did to Federer.
Safin was a better player than Murray but he not being great consistently was why Roger had no rivals.
Nalbandian was less athletic than Murray but had greater talent, he could have posed big problems.

Federer was lucky the 2 guys who were better than Roddick in his peer group did not click consistently, otherwise could have been a big pain in the arse for him..
Djokovic lost to tommy haas and tisparevic and baby dimitrov and in slams Nishikori.

This is truly bad.
 

Neptune

Hall of Fame
A player in peak shouldn't lose multiple tournaments in a row. Especially multiple slams in a row. Let's see for Federer between 2004-07 and then for Nole from 2011-16

And if Nole can't match Fed's peak then who can? Certainly not Rafa. He is 1 slam wonder. His biggest results happened in 2008-09 and that peak was just 1 year, between RG to AO. 2010 field was uber sh*t. And 2013, he got humiliated in R1 of Wimbledon.
Look at just a few games/tournaments and draw conclusion for multi-year performance, and absolutely no idea how to look at competition strength, doesn't make sense.
 
Last edited:
Why? Correlation doesn't equal causation.

Coaches teach two handed because it's easier to teach. Many kids don't even learn in clubs to begin with. Many, many kids and parents (also early teachers of kids obviously) pick it up at YMCA classes or Park and Rec city offerings. Once juniors become good enough for dedicated training, their foundation is with a 2HBH and even better coaches often aren't going to mess with it, if only not to have to deal with bickering parents. Federer isn't the only successful 1HBH slam winner in modern tennis.

As it stands, right now, as in this very second, all you're doing is tacitly proving the point that either is good enough to win at the highest level in the modern game. There's no legit posit for one to say that Federer would have won more slams with a 2HBH any moreso than to posit Nadal would have anymore if he had a 1HBH.
No, coaches teach to serious players, knowing that you have a much better chance on tour with a two handed BH.

As for the bolded, Federer is far, far, far ahead of any of his contemporaries who play with the one-handed backhand. I highly doubt that we‘re going to see any player come anywhere near close to Federer playing with the one handed BH.
 
Last edited:

mtommer

Hall of Fame
No, coaches teacher to serious players, knowing that you have a much better chance on tour with a two handed BH.
"Serious" players start as little Johnnies or Suzyies in groups with like. Once any one individual starts to show talent, then stroke mechanics (note - that's mechanics, not actual strokes) start the process of refinement. Again, it's much easier to teach groups of beginners, where almost all serious players start, the 2HBH and it has little to do with overall effectiveness.
 

Mark-Touch

Legend
No, I think you're missing my point(s).
If we're ranking players, at least do it with objectivity or recognize that you (I don't mean you) are incapable of doing so.
It's the complete inability of some to recognize this (whether about tennis, other sports or real life) that drives me bonkers.

You're the type of person who enjoys arguing ad nauseam as to who is the GOAT.
I on the other hand would much rather be playing tennis or watching players who I admire, or discussing their games/styles etc. here.

Yours is a futile endeavor.
But if that's what floats your boat, all the power to you!
 

RaulRamirez

Legend
You're the type of person who enjoys arguing ad nauseam as to who is the GOAT.
I on the other hand would much rather be playing tennis or watching players who I admire, or discussing their games/styles etc. here.

Yours is a futile endeavor.
But if that's what floats your boat, all the power to you!
Congratulations. This has to be one of the least appropriate replies on this long thread.
You have a great gift for misinterpreting almost everything I've written on this thread. I not only gave you a reply which showed appreciation for the player you mentioned (Mecir) who I also enjoyed watching, but I also supported your thread about players that we simply enjoy watching. I thought that was a terrific idea for a thread, and replied as such. I would like to see more of those threads.

But you have proven that it's impossible to reason with posters who are too judgmental and closed-minded to even take the time to read responses.
Not only did you get me almost 100% wrong, but there are responses all over this thread that illustrate this.
And yes, it's possible to enjoy playing and enjoy watching ...as I love the sport of tennis...and then come to the conclusion that if we're ranking players, at least try to be objective and fair-minded about it.
 

Mark-Touch

Legend
Congratulations. This has to be one of the least appropriate replies on this long thread.
You have a great gift for misinterpreting almost everything I've written on this thread. I not only gave you a reply which showed appreciation for the player you mentioned (Mecir) who I also enjoyed watching, but I also supported your thread about players that we simply enjoy watching. I thought that was a terrific idea for a thread, and replied as such. I would like to see more of those threads.

But you have proven that it's impossible to reason with posters who are too judgmental and closed-minded to even take the time to read responses.
Not only did you get me almost 100% wrong, but there are responses all over this thread that illustrate this.
And yes, it's possible to enjoy playing and enjoy watching ...as I love the sport of tennis...and then come to the conclusion that if we're ranking players, at least try to be objective and fair-minded about it.
I maintain what I said.
You WANT there to be a GOAT and so you started this thread.

Only people obsessed with arguing ad nauseam about who is GOAT would have the patience to read hundreds of posts in this thread.
I ain't one of them and so I simply read and replied to the only post written to me directly (yours).
I'm sure reading and replying to all the posts in this thread has kept you busy. :)
 

RaulRamirez

Legend
OP, why make yet another thread begging everyone to crown Djokovic GOAT and then complain about reasonable opposition? I’m truly curious.
No, not once did I beg anyone to call him "GOAT".

But it takes intelligence to see intelligence, and a sense of nuance (or at least thoroughness) to see nuance (or at least thoroughness), and a sense of objectivity to see and appreciate that in others,
 
Last edited:
No, not once did I beg anyone to call him "GOAT".

But it takes intelligence to see intelligence, and a sense of nuance (or at least thoroughness) to see nuance (or at least thoroughness), and a sense of objectivity to see and appreciate that in others,
And around and around we go. Nice circles you are spinning. "He's not GOAT, but clearly he is the 'objectively' best player ever, and if you understand the nuance and thoroughness of my argument, you'll agree with my contradictory thoughts if you are intelligent." Why am I feeding you? I just can't resist. o_O
 

NeutralFan

G.O.A.T.
Very well said. The 2019 Final is definitely a microcosm of this, the ideal test case. Federer at age 38 played 32-year old Djokovic to a standstill, 12-12 in the 5th, and yet it is viewed as Djokovic's ultimate triumph and Federer's saddest punch line. There is a perverted sort of irony there, isn't the match more a credit to Federer's greatness than Djokovic's given the margin of victory?

Lol
 

NeutralFan

G.O.A.T.
No, not once did I beg anyone to call him "GOAT".

But it takes intelligence to see intelligence, and a sense of nuance (or at least thoroughness) to see nuance (or at least thoroughness), and a sense of objectivity to see and appreciate that in others,

I don't know why this thread was required. Djokovic has the slam record and only objective thing is the record he holds. Subjective Titles are not objective. there's no GOAT, BOAT but the stats.
 
Last edited:

Federev

G.O.A.T.
Very well said. The 2019 Final is definitely a microcosm of this, the ideal test case. Federer at age 38 played 32-year old Djokovic to a standstill, 12-12 in the 5th, and yet it is viewed as Djokovic's ultimate triumph and Federer's saddest punch line. There is a perverted sort of irony there, isn't the match more a credit to Federer's greatness than Djokovic's given the margin of victory?
Very well said.

This really goes to my consistent argument about Federer v Novak and questions about who is really the better tennis player at their very best.

If six years older Federer played Novak this close and this well so far past his prime - including slam wins in 2011 at RG and 2012 at WB and MPs at USO in ‘11 - when Novak was in peak age physiologically and Fed was already on the other side of his - then it is not difficult to imagine that peak Fed would have done even better oral for peak - having dominated Novak at slams in his peak years as well - (of course when he should have as Novak was pre-peak.)
 
Last edited:
Top