Slam count isn't everything

[pirateofthecarribean]

Let's say Novak wins RG next year and completes career slam. There would be no definitive argument that Roger would have accomplished more than Novak, especially considering these two already match each other very closely in prize money. One would be able to argue that Roger racked up most of his slams between 2004 and 2007 when competition was weak. Let's face it, Andy is nowhere NEAR as talented as Novak. As it stands, Roger's 17 / Novak's 10 is not even 2. It's not a total blowout like Serena's 21 / Maria's 5 is more than 4.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Prize money is everything.

 

[pirateofthecarribean]

Prize money is everything.

Prize money adjusted for inflation is part of the equation, but it is only a factor, it is not everything.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Prize money adjusted for inflation is part of the equation, but it is only a factor, it is not everything.

Sorry, I was wrong.

 

[WhiskeyEE]

The GOAT debate will largely depend on how Nadal and Novak age. The relevance of Federer's current success depends on that.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

The GOAT debate will largely depend on how Nadal and Novak age. The relevance of Federer's current success depends on that.

There won't be a debate until Nadal or Djokovic gets to at least 15 Slams.

 

[RF20Lennon]

Let's say Novak wins RG next year and completes career slam. There would be no definitive argument that Roger would have accomplished more than Novak, especially considering these two already match each other very closely in prize money. One would be able to argue that Roger racked up most of his slams between 2004 and 2007 when competition was weak. Let's face it, Andy is nowhere NEAR as talented as Novak. As it stands, 17 / 10 is not even 2. It's not a total blowout unlike Serena's 21 / Maria's 5 is more than 4.

Djokovic is far away from achieving Federer's resume and records. But he's getting there. A difference of 7 slams is quite a lot. Slam count is the FIRST thing then we look into other factors. Why was Pete considered GOAT before Federer came along?

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

There won't be a debate until Nadal or Djokovic gets to at least 15 Slams.

I think at least quite a lot of people would disagree should Djokovic attain 14 by winning 6 in a row.

 

[pirateofthecarribean]

Djokovic is far away from achieving Federer's resume and records. But he's getting there. A difference of 7 slams is quite a lot. Slam count is the FIRST thing then we look into other factors. Why was Pete considered GOAT before Federer came along?

Pete does not have career slam like Andre does.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Pete does not have career slam like Andre does.

Exactly. That's why Andre is greater than Pete.

 

[RF20Lennon]

Pete does not have career slam like Andre does.

Yeah that's why people always kept going on about how Andre was the GOAT.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

I think at least quite a lot of people would disagree should Djokovic attain 14 by winning 6 in a row.

Let me rephrase: "There won't be a logically sound debate until Nadal or Djokovic gets to at least 15 Slams."

 

[Prabhanjan]

It is strange what the opinion was of Nole about slam finals merely six slams ago. Enjoy the success and just chill

 

[Dave1982]

There won't be a debate until Nadal or Djokovic gets to at least 15 Slams.

I'm a big Nadal fan but in all honesty with regards to All Time Greats, I'm nearly of the opinion that Novak is ahead of Nadal.

My reasoning is that if you remove each of their most dominant Slam's from their overall tally they both sit on 5...highlighting how Nadal's utter dominance on a single surface has greatly inflated his overall Salm count. Don't get me wrong I'm not trying to deny him but it surely a players ability to achieve across a variety of surfaces has to be taken into consideration for such a debate.
Of course Nadal has a Career Slam which probably is the lone factor which in my opinion keeps him ahead of Djokovic in such a debate....once Djokovic wins the French, provided Nadal doesn't add another non-French Slam to his tally I'd be finding it pretty difficult to argue Nadal ahead of Djokovic.

In addition Djokovic now has 4 X YE1 crowns to his name as opposed to Nadal's 3....again this to me says consistent dominance across all surfaces for the duration of the season.

Overall we are splitting hairs between 2 absolute champions of the game and who should both be applauded for their efforts to date and the contribution they have made to the game we all love.

 

[tennisaddict]

What else ? Number of MC titles or Halle ?

 

[Russeljones]

Two sets of identical twins. It's unfair.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

I'm a big Nadal fan but in all honesty with regards to All Time Greats, I'm nearly of the opinion that Novak is ahead of Nadal.

My reasoning is that if you remove each of their most dominant Slam's from their overall tally they both sit on 5...highlighting how Nadal's utter dominance on a single surface has greatly inflated his overall Salm count. Don't get me wrong I'm not trying to deny him but it surely a players ability to achieve across a variety of surfaces has to be taken into consideration for such a debate.
Of course Nadal has a Career Slam which probably is the lone factor which in my opinion keeps him ahead of Djokovic in such a debate....once Djokovic wins the French, provided Nadal doesn't add another non-French Slam to his tally I'd be finding it pretty difficult to argue Nadal ahead of Djokovic.

In addition Djokovic now has 4 X YE1 crowns to his name as opposed to Nadal's 3....again this to me says consistent dominance across all surfaces for the duration of the season.

Overall we are splitting hairs between 2 absolute champions of the game and who should both be applauded for their efforts to date and the contribution they have made to the game we all love.

I dislike Nadal, and I like Djokovic, but I wouldn't see a case for Djokovic being above Nadal until he gets to at least 12 Slams. I don't attach any value to ranking-related achievements.

 

[Dave1982]

I dislike Nadal, and I like Djokovic, but I wouldn't see a case for Djokovic being above Nadal until he gets to at least 12 Slams. I don't attach any value to ranking-related achievements.

And that's your opinion and that's fair enough...obviously it's all completely subjective and we are all trying measure what for the most part is immeasurable!

 

[oneness]

I'm a big Nadal fan but in all honesty with regards to All Time Greats, I'm nearly of the opinion that Novak is ahead of Nadal.

My reasoning is that if you remove each of their most dominant Slam's from their overall tally they both sit on 5...highlighting how Nadal's utter dominance on a single surface has greatly inflated his overall Salm count. Don't get me wrong I'm not trying to deny him but it surely a players ability to achieve across a variety of surfaces has to be taken into consideration for such a debate.
Of course Nadal has a Career Slam which probably is the lone factor which in my opinion keeps him ahead of Djokovic in such a debate....once Djokovic wins the French, provided Nadal doesn't add another non-French Slam to his tally I'd be finding it pretty difficult to argue Nadal ahead of Djokovic.

In addition Djokovic now has 4 X YE1 crowns to his name as opposed to Nadal's 3....again this to me says consistent dominance across all surfaces for the duration of the season.

Overall we are splitting hairs between 2 absolute champions of the game and who should both be applauded for their efforts to date and the contribution they have made to the game we all love.

Do you think rafa will not dominate if the majority of the tournaments are on his favorite surface like it is the case for Djokovic. This is why I am not too hung up on these GOAT debates and I agree with your last statement.

 

[GabeT]

Sorry, I was wrong.

Someone is wrong on the Internet!

 

[The_18th_Slam]

And that's your opinion and that's fair enough...obviously it's all completely subjective and we are all trying measure what for the most part is immeasurable!

I know that's my opinion, but thanks for pointing it out for me.

 

[mattosgrant]

There won't be a debate until Nadal or Djokovic gets to at least 15 Slams.

I would say atleast 16 is more like it.

 

[mattosgrant]

As for Nadal vs Djokovic, I agree Djokovic doesn't have a case to be above until he gets to 12 slams atleast. However if he does get to 12 slams AND wins a RG title I would have him above. I suspect for most others it would be more like 13 and a RG title, for some even 14, but for me 12 and a RG title with it would be enough. He is just so far above Nadal in most other areas, and he isn't like Federer who has a really bad H2H with Nadal either.

 

[Djokovic2011]

As for Nadal vs Djokovic, I agree Djokovic doesn't have a case to be above until he gets to 12 slams atleast. However if he does get to 12 slams AND wins a RG title I would have him above. I suspect for most others it would be more like 13 and a RG title, for some even 14, but for me 12 and a RG title with it would be enough. He is just so far above Nadal in most other areas, and he isn't like Federer who has a really bad H2H with Nadal either.

Just wondering mattosgrant, if Djokovic finishes on 14 slams without winning RG, do you think there'd still be an argument for him being above Nadal?(provided Nadal remains on 14 of course). I mean Lendl and Agassi both have 8 slams but the general consensus seems to be that Lendl is ahead of him, despite never winning Wimbledon and Andre achieving the Career Grand Slam.

 

[duaneeo]

My reasoning is that if you remove each of their most dominant Slam's from their overall tally they both sit on 5...highlighting how Nadal's utter dominance on a single surface has greatly inflated his overall Salm count.

Djokovic had many opportunities to end Nadal's utter dominance at Roland Garros. But he double-faulted on match point in 2012, lost a break lead in the 5th set by running into the net in 2013, and double-faulted on match point in 2014. For 3 consecutive years, Nadal beat the one player truly capable of knocking him off his RG throne (and favored by most to do so). That's an important factor in the GOAT discussion.

 

[mattosgrant]

Just wondering mattosgrant, if Djokovic finishes on 14 slams without winning RG, do you think there'd still be an argument for him being above Nadal?(provided Nadal remains on 14 of course). I mean Lendl and Agassi both have 8 slams but the general consensus seems to be that Lendl is ahead of him, despite never winning Wimbledon and Andre achieving the Career Grand Slam.

Absolutely. I would put Djokovic with 14 slams, but not RG, over Nadal. All his other advantages over Nadal which are building, more than make up for the Career Slam which is IMO somewhat overrated anyway.

Your example of Lendl and Agassi is a good one. Connors is also generally seen as over Agassi without the Career Slam, and also having 8 slams. Many even have McEnroe with 7 slams and without winning at 2 of the 4 slams over Agassi.

 

[Dave1982]

I know that's my opinion, but thanks for pointing it out for me.

Pleasure, happy to help anytime.

 

[Dave1982]

Djokovic had many opportunities to end Nadal's utter dominance at Roland Garros. But he double-faulted on match point in 2012, lost a break lead in the 5th set by running into the net in 2013, and double-faulted on match point in 2014. For 3 consecutive years, Nadal beat the one player truly capable of knocking him off his RG throne (and favored by most to do so). That's an important factor in the GOAT discussion.

Absolutely he's had his chances against Nadal at FO...guess you could say this year he finally took them....unfortunately though he just couldn't finish the job.

 

[mattosgrant]

Djokovic had many opportunities to end Nadal's utter dominance at Roland Garros. But he double-faulted on match point in 2012, lost a break lead in the 5th set by running into the net in 2013, and double-faulted on match point in 2014. For 3 consecutive years, Nadal beat the one player truly capable of knocking him off his RG throne (and favored by most to do so). That's an important factor in the GOAT discussion.

Just wanted to say while he had chances all 3 years, Djokovic was definitely not favored to win in 2012. Nadal was unbeaten on clay that year, had already smoked Djokovic twice on clay before RG, and was the heavy bookies favorite. So you should not add that as a year of Djokovic failing to Nadal as favorite.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Absolutely. I would put Djokovic with 14 slams, but not RG, over Nadal. All his other advantages over Nadal which are building, more than make up for the Career Slam which is IMO somewhat overrated anyway.

Your example of Lendl and Agassi is a good one. Connors is also generally seen as over Agassi without the Career Slam, and also having 8 slams. Many even have McEnroe with 7 slams and without winning at 2 of the 4 slams over Agassi.

Yeah, this is pretty much how I feel too. Do you think Novak would need to get to at least 14 without winning RG to be above Nadal or would 13 be enough given all the other achievements he has such as WTFs and YE#1?

 

[mattosgrant]

Yeah, this is pretty much how I feel too. Do you think Novak would need to get to at least 14 without winning RG to be above Nadal or would 13 be enough given all the other achievements he has such as WTFs and YE#1?

Hmm good question. I cant give a definitive answer to that simply because I don't know yet exactly how many WTF titles and YE#1 Djokovic would have in that scenario with 13. If he say ends 2016 and 2017 at #1 or is #1 well into 2017, and wins 2 of the next 3 YEC (or 1 of 2 if it is not the end of 2017 yet), and is at 13 at that point with no RG, then yes I would.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Hmm good question. I cant give a definitive answer to that simply because I don't know yet exactly how many WTF titles and YE#1 Djokovic would have in that scenario with 13. If he say ends 2016 and 2017 at #1 or is #1 well into 2017, and wins 2 of the next 3 YEC (or 1 of 2 if it is not the end of 2017 yet), and is at 13 at that point with no RG, then yes I would.

Fair enough but personally I don't think he'd need to even do that much. For me, 13 slams without RG + 5YE#1 + 5 WTF would be better than 14 slams including the Career Slam + 3 YE#1 + 0 WTF.

 

[bluetrain4]

There's no definitive "everything". For some, Slam count is everything. For others not. One position isn't more "true" than the other. There's no hard and fast rules for what matters (though there are things plenty of people agree on).

 

[Deleted member 740774]

Let's say Novak wins RG next year and completes career slam. There would be no definitive argument that Roger would have accomplished more than Novak

Holy **** this is unreal, how can anyone believe this? I think everyone with half a brain know GS titles are everything, but it's so obvious that people try to use counter logic against it

 

[duaneeo]

Nadal was unbeaten on clay that year, had already smoked Djokovic twice on clay before RG, and was the heavy bookies favorite.

Nole had won 4 of the last 5 slams, and had beaten Nadal in 3 consecutive slam finals.

And, Nadal wasn't unbeaten on clay that year. He lost to Verdasco at Madrid.

 

[RanchDressing]

I dislike Nadal, and I like Djokovic, but I wouldn't see a case for Djokovic being above Nadal until he gets to at least 12 Slams. I don't attach any value to ranking-related achievements.

I think he means that novak is really closing in on nadal in several regards. He's already surpassed him at weeks number one, and the difference in WTF wins is glaring. Take away novak's dominance at AO, and take away Nadal's dominance at RG... Novak has 5 Nadal has 5.

I agree with the general idea that Nadal's dominance on clay has kind of "over buffed" him because it really inflates his GS count. And his h2h with roger combined made him seem like the greatest. He'll forever be the GOAT on clay, but you take that away and on the rest of the surfaces he's lost quite a lot to people not of major winning caliber. To me that's a huge knock on his "Tennis GOAT" status, whether it be for roger or novak or anyone else.

I don't however think that slams can be replaced by masters 1000's events. Masters and slams together make the ATP points race, and that is simply summed up with weeks at number one. So yeah in that category novak has surpassed nadal. He really played very well this entire year. I didn't think he'd do as well as he did. I'm impressed with another 3 major year, and he was remarkably close to a calendar slam next to a career slam. Yeah he lost in a pretty brutal way at the french, but technically being two sets away from a calender slam is frankly an incredible performance for the year.

I think it's silly to start talking about novak's goat status just yet. But he's definitely making a strong bid for the best hardcourt player of the open era in my book. Assuming he can win another 2 hardcourt titles, he'll equal fed in HC majors.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

I think he means that novak is really closing in on nadal in several regards. He's already surpassed him at weeks number one, and the difference in WTF wins is glaring. Take away novak's dominance at AO, and take away Nadal's dominance at RG... Novak has 5 Nadal has 5.

I agree with the general idea that Nadal's dominance on clay has kind of "over buffed" him because it really inflates his GS count. And his h2h with roger combined made him seem like the greatest. He'll forever be the GOAT on clay, but you take that away and on the rest of the surfaces he's lost quite a lot to people not of major winning caliber. To me that's a huge knock on his "Tennis GOAT" status, whether it be for roger or novak or anyone else.

I don't however think that slams can be replaced by masters 1000's events. Masters and slams together make the ATP points race, and that is simply summed up with weeks at number one. So yeah in that category novak has surpassed nadal. He really played very well this entire year. I didn't think he'd do as well as he did. I'm impressed with another 3 major year, and he was remarkably close to a calendar slam next to a career slam. Yeah he lost in a pretty brutal way at the french, but technically being two sets away from a calender slam is frankly an incredible performance for the year.

I think it's silly to start talking about novak's goat status just yet. But he's definitely making a strong bid for the best hardcourt player of the open era in my book. Assuming he can win another 2 hardcourt titles, he'll equal fed in HC majors.

But I don't get this line of reasoning. Do Nadal's French Open titles mean any less because he was so dominant there? Why would anyone dismiss 4 Slam titles?

 

[RanchDressing]

But I don't get this line of reasoning. Do Nadal's French Open titles mean any less because he was so dominant there? Why would anyone dismiss 4 Slam titles?

4 slam titles lol.

Well I think it makes sense... Think about it this way. He won on a specific surface that is quite unlike the surfaces played the entire rest of the year. Shouldn't the GOAT Tennis player be a master of all surfaces, and not just REALLY good at one, then kind of good at the rest? Novak's game translates to all the surfaces very well, same with roger. Nadal's is like specifically designed for the clay. But that's only one out of four majors. You take out roger's grass and he has ten majors still. You take out rafa's clay and he has five.
Do you see what I'm trying to say? The GOAT tennis player should be more than like a freak gimmick player. He should be a master of the game, not a specific shot pattern that just fundamentally screwed over his best competition in roger, yet consistently year after year loses to "lesser" players in other majors.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

4 slam titles lol.

Well I think it makes sense... Think about it this way. He won on a specific surface that is quite unlike the surfaces played the entire rest of the year. Shouldn't the GOAT Tennis player be a master of all surfaces, and not just REALLY good at one, then kind of good at the rest? Novak's game translates to all the surfaces very well, same with roger. Nadal's is like specifically designed for the clay. But that's only one out of four majors. You take out roger's grass and he has ten majors still. You take out rafa's clay and he has five.
Do you see what I'm trying to say? The GOAT tennis player should be more than like a freak gimmick player. He should be a master of the game, not a specific shot pattern that just fundamentally screwed over his best competition in roger, yet consistently year after year loses to "lesser" players in other majors.

I can see that perspective. I just don't agree with it. You go out there to win the big ones. And Nadal has done that significantly more often than Djokovic has (for now). So I give him the edge, no matter where they came from, because they're the big ones. That's not to say Djokovic can't make up for 1 or 2 of them through achievements outside of Slam wins, of course. I also value Slam runners-up, WTFs, and (current-day) Masters fairly highly.

 

[VexlanderPrime]

Prize money is everything.

heh, gotz ta get paid! Flying Boris around on private jets doesn't pay for itself. I did kinda laugh at the end of the USO ceremony when they gave Djoker a bonus $500,000.00 for something I didn't quite catch (this was after the main check and trophy were presented) and his expression was like "oh yah? you don't say. ok /shrug"

 

[RanchDressing]

I can see that perspective. I just don't agree with it. You go out there to win the big ones. And Nadal has done that significantly more than Djokovic (for now). So I give him the edge, no matter where they came from, because they're big ones. That's not to say Djokovic can't make up for 1 or 2 of them through achievements outside of Slam wins, of course. I also value Slam runners-up, WTFs, and (current-day) Masters fairly highly.

I get that. To me just being good on surfaces that a huge amount of the world plays on is important to being called the greatest ever, yet nadal has lost a lot of times and come dangerously close to many people who will never win a single major. That's kind of the bigger issue behind not winning more on other surfaces. It's not that he lost to Fed, he lost before he could get to fed. That really is kind of glaring to me. I also am not really a fan of the injury cop outs. I think Fed for example really avoided stating injuries to not diminish his opponent's wins, and nadal for years has kind of done the opposite. The worst was against wawrinka last year. It just seemed to completely undermine that major even though nadal was NOT the one to beat. Rather novak was the one to beat, and Wawrinka did. That alone makes that title majorly impressive. It's a tangent yes, but I think novak since he's really grown into his game, has really been respectful to his opponents. I just feel like the injury thing that's always floated around with nadal, real or not, undermined his opponents victories and looking back seems very petty.


As for slam runner ups novak has quite a few LOL, and is likely going to catch fed with WTFs. He's been killing it there for a while now. And 1000's he's been doing great as well.

 

[BGod]

That 04-07 era was a solid level above the current **** poor talent at the top. So Djokovic piling up Slams now is pedestrian.

 

[ForumMember]

As for Nadal vs Djokovic, I agree Djokovic doesn't have a case to be above until he gets to 12 slams atleast. However if he does get to 12 slams AND wins a RG title I would have him above. I suspect for most others it would be more like 13 and a RG title, for some even 14, but for me 12 and a RG title with it would be enough. He is just so far above Nadal in most other areas, and he isn't like Federer who has a really bad H2H with Nadal either.

I am big Rafa fan. But i would say that if Djoko gets to 13 with RG, I may have to put him ahead of Nadal and Federer.

 

[Adv. Edberg]

Prize money adjusted for inflation is part of the equation, but it is only a factor, it is not everything.

But the prize money increase is greater than that of inflation so still means nothing. Borg won peanuts in prize money even adjusted for inflation.

 

[Adv. Edberg]

Holy **** this is unreal, how can anyone believe this? I think everyone with half a brain know GS titles are everything, but it's so obvious that people try to use counter logic against it

Why? In the 70s and 80s people didn't even bother playing AO. So there was only FO, W and USO. Rome was the fourth slam if anything. So counting slams alone is pointless.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

I am big Rafa fan. But i would say that if Djoko gets to 13 with RG, I may have to put him ahead of Nadal and Federer.

13 with RG and ahead of Federer? Seriously?

Even with RG he'd need at least 17 to equal Federer, and 18 to surpass him. Mainly because his achievements more or less coincide with Federer's.. which is why he wouldn't need as many to surpass Nadal (who has various holes in his resume) compared to Federer.

 

[Anaconda]

There won't be a debate until Nadal or Djokovic gets to at least 15 Slams.

I agree somewhat, but if Djokovic ends up with 15 slams (one of them being the FO to complete the slam), a winning record over Federer and Nadal, the all time masters and WTF record, as well as making one of the slams his own (some say he has already at the AO), and has a winning record over multiple slam champions like Murray and Wawrinka as well as single time slam champions like Cilic and JMDP then I would rate Djokovic as the greatest player ever.


I think the weaker competition Federer faced equals an allowance of 2 slams; I know for a fact Safin wasn't 100% at AO 04, and he had to face pusher Roddick in 05 and 06 at W and US. Federer has quite a few holes in his resume, which Djokovic doesn't.



@Sabratha, I'd say 15 and he is on an even keel, maybe slightly ahead of Federer, but he does need to win FO.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Sorry, I was wrong.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

@Sabratha, I'd say 15 and he is on an even keel, maybe slightly ahead of Federer, but he does need to win FO.

15 wouldn't be enough for me. It'd have to be 17 plus everything else you've mentioned. I don't buy into this "weak era" talk that much.

For one you don't know if Safin would for sure beat Federer at the AO in 2004. I agree that if Safin was at 100% health it wouldn't be a beatdown by any means (probably another 5 setter) but with the way Federer was playing and the confidence he had at the time (he beat Hewitt in the 4th round, a guy who at the time troubled him the most out of everybody else) I'd lean towards him, especially considering Safin was low on confidence/coming off some horrific injuries in 2003.

In regard to Roddick, I just think he was mentally shot against Federer by 2005/2006. Even if he was playing some good stuff (like he did in 2009) he'd still find a way to lose against him.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

I agree somewhat, but if Djokovic ends up with 15 slams (one of them being the FO to complete the slam), a winning record over Federer and Nadal, the all time masters and WTF record, as well as making one of the slams his own (some say he has already at the AO), and has a winning record over multiple slam champions like Murray and Wawrinka as well as single time slam champions like Cilic and JMDP then I would rate Djokovic as the greatest player ever.

I think the weaker competition Federer faced equals an allowance of 2 slams;

Lol at "weaker competition". Like Djokovic is facing a bunch of world-beaters now. And no, past-retirement-age Federer isn't tough competition.