The problem with the whole 'GOAT' debate.

conjoshruk

conjoshruk

Semi-Pro
Time and time again, I have come across threads regarding whether Djokovic, Nadal or Federer can be considered to be the greatest of all time or 'GOAT' of the open era of mens tennis.

Main arguments:
Novak Djokovic: Has demonstrated his ability to win slams on all surfaces. Played in an era with much more competition from other members of the Big 3. His consistency in terms of game play, means he does not have any true weapons (ie he is not a servebot).

Rafael Nadal: Has won a record 11 French opens and shown that his game can be adapted to hard courts and grass tournaments. The number of French opens titles and clay court dominance makes his successes appear slightly lopsided.

Roger Federer: At the age of 37, has excelled in terms of longevity, particularly on grass, but also other surfaces. Was able to benefit from the 'weak era' before Nadal and Nole were in their primes.

I'm sick and tired of coming across these threads, I understand that everyone is entitled to their own opinion of course, but the truth is, I feel it is impossible to identify any of these players as being a 'goat', as in reality there are just as great as each other.
I guess the one objective factor that can be used to assess ones 'greatness' could be the number of slams, and therefore Roger would currently be the greatest at 20 grand slams. But as I mentioned before, I think there are many other factors that need to be considered.
 
AlexanderTheGreat08 said:
I fail to understand how Nadal resume is seen as lopsided thanks to how good he’s on on clay but it’s okay for Djokovic to have 9 HC majors out of his 14 GS titles
Click to expand...
Well there are two HC majors, so you could theoretically have twice as many HC majors as grass or clay majors without it being "lopsided" over all four tournaments. Also the two HC majors are quite different.

I think distribution matters a bit, but not all that much. Fed having 5+ at three different slams looks fantastic for instance, but I don't think Nadal has serious distribution issues compared to Fed or Djoker. All three have one slam they've only won once.
 
Towser83 said:
There is no GOAT. They're all great players in their own way and we should just appreciate them
Click to expand...
Federer has said as much telling fans they should respect nadal and Djoker fans and vice versa. We can play hypotheticals all day long. Young Federer with a 2017 backhand, Nadal with his 2019 or 2008 serve, Djokovic, well just being Djokovic. I think for Nadal's legacy however, this match is huge, yes the prime years are over and done, but if Nadal can beat Djoker tommorow it will set a precedent as to why he struggled with him some much in the past. In other words, perhaps Nadal with a one two punch of a strong serve and easier first ball to hit on his forehand will be what he was missing all along.
 
Benben245 said:
Federer has said as much telling fans they should respect nadal and Djoker fans and vice versa. We can play hypotheticals all day long. Young Federer with a 2017 backhand, Nadal with his 2019 or 2008 serve, Djokovic, well just being Djokovic. I think for Nadal's legacy however, this match is huge, yes the prime years are over and done, but if Nadal can beat Djoker tommorow it will set a precedent as to why he struggled with him some much in the past. In other words, perhaps Nadal with a one two punch of a strong serve and easier first ball to hit on his forehand will be what he was missing all along.
Click to expand...

True but then if he played like that all along maybe Novak would have figured out his game. Nadal has won a lot playing the way he has I think he's just realised different tines in your life call for different styles
 
Just throwing this out there:

I think one admittedly subjective area in which I think Fed is leading Nadal a lot in terms of majors is that he's an eight-time Wimbledon champion. Wimbledon is the epitome of tennis and I think having eight Wimbledon titles compared to two is pretty significant if you're trying to make an argument that the two-time Wimb champion is greater overall than the eight-time one where the rest of their slam resumes are fairly even (11 HC slams for Fed with perfect distribution between AO and USO + 1 RG, and 11 clay slams for Nadal + 4 at the other two, weighted heavily to the USO)

For a Tier 1 player contending at the GOAT level, Nadal is exceptionally light on Wimbledon wins.
The Tier 1 players are probably Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Sampras, Borg, and Laver.
All of them except Nadal have 4+ Wimbledon titles.

Now again, of course this is pretty subjective, and I'm not saying it's make or break even for me but calling a guy the best when there's several guys with at least twice as many wins at the home of tennis seems a little off.
 
It’s a pointless debate. Impossible to compare eras as the game has changed beyond recognition since Laver. Also Borg possibly was happy to match Laver 11 Majors, and Sampras maybe quit thinking 14 was uncatchable. The point being each generation has new goals to aim at and try to improve on.

I get the feeling Federer has resigned himself to not being GOAT but one of the GOATs...something Nadal seemed to have accepted years ago but his motivation is to keep improving.

All three are beyond sensational and any true tennis fan surely accepts that no matter which of the three they support.
 
Pantera said:
It’s a pointless debate. Impossible to compare eras as the game has changed beyond recognition since Laver. Also Borg possibly was happy to match Laver 11 Majors, and Sampras maybe quit thinking 14 was uncatchable. The point being each generation has new goals to aim at and try to improve on.

I get the feeling Federer has resigned himself to not being GOAT but one of the GOATs...something Nadal seemed to have accepted years ago but his motivation is to keep improving.

All three are beyond sensational and any true tennis fan surely accepts that no matter which of the three they support.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's never going to be unanimously resolved. Even in cricket which has one of the most obvious GOATs (Bradman) you have people arguing it's Tendulkar. Jordan and Ali aren't universally accepted either. It's always going to happen.

In tennis you've got these three guys who will always have large camps arguing for each of them. Easier to just enjoy them play but an argument can sometimes be fun. If it wasn't none of us on here would do it as we're not being forced to spend time on here.
 
Firstservingman said:
Just throwing this out there:

I think one admittedly subjective area in which I think Fed is leading Nadal a lot in terms of majors is that he's an eight-time Wimbledon champion. Wimbledon is the epitome of tennis and I think having eight Wimbledon titles compared to two is pretty significant if you're trying to make an argument that the two-time Wimb champion is greater overall than the eight-time one where the rest of their slam resumes are fairly even (11 HC slams for Fed with perfect distribution between AO and USO + 1 RG, and 11 clay slams for Nadal + 4 at the other two, weighted heavily to the USO)

For a Tier 1 player contending at the GOAT level, Nadal is exceptionally light on Wimbledon wins.
The Tier 1 players are probably Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Sampras, Borg, and Laver.
All of them except Nadal have 4+ Wimbledon titles.

Now again, of course this is pretty subjective, and I'm not saying it's make or break even for me but calling a guy the best when there's several guys with at least twice as many wins at the home of tennis seems a little off.
Click to expand...
To be fair you raise an interesting point, not so much as to comparing Nadal and Federer who clearly are off the scale in terms of greatness but more about the status of Wimbledon compared to other slams. Is it still the pinnacle? Or has its old fashioned rules and regulations (the pompous queues and royal box seems out of touch with the 21st Century) brought it back to a level playing field?

The Australian Open is clearly the best event for the paying public to attend...by a distance. Is it fair to call it the 4th Major? All that being said as a Nadal fan I’ve always felt it would be nice for Nadal to have a 3rd Wimbledon. His number of early losses there probably are his biggest disappointments of his career.
 
Essentially, tennis is a sport of 0's and 1's and we try to measure how good a player is based on the order of those 0's and 1's, but there is a story behind every single 0 and 1 that we don't see if we are not watching. The story behind those numbers are much more important than the numbers itself. What I'm trying to say is, just watch the tennis and decide for yourself.
 
Pantera said:
To be fair you raise an interesting point, not so much as to comparing Nadal and Federer who clearly are off the scale in terms of greatness but more about the status of Wimbledon compared to other slams. Is it still the pinnacle? Or has its old fashioned rules and regulations (the pompous queues and royal box seems out of touch with the 21st Century) brought it back to a level playing field?

The Australian Open is clearly the best event for the paying public to attend...by a distance. Is it fair to call it the 4th Major? All that being said as a Nadal fan I’ve always felt it would be nice for Nadal to have a 3rd Wimbledon. His number of early losses there probably are his biggest disappointments of his career.
Click to expand...
I think the USO is the fourth major at this point. It had a few years of being awesome (up till about 2012) but has tanked the last few years. The roof was a mistake. Wimbledon still has the prestige and the history, even if the scheduling is awful, and as an attendee on multiple occasions I can say it is awful.
 
The whole problem with GOAT talk is...it wasn't the real reason why any of us became tennis fans, and now sadly this is all most of us talk about, instead of just getting joy out of watching them play and entertain us.
 
This one's easy. Whoever among these three has the most majors at retirement is the best of the 3. Right now the co-goats are Laver and Fed.
 
Shank Volley said:
Because as much as you Nadal fans would love the Australian Open and US Opens to just be viewed as the same slam, they're different events with different playing conditions.
Click to expand...
Last time I checked it’s still Hardcourts , It’s way easier for a hardcourter to adapt to either conditions than RG’s clay and Wimbledon’s grass
 
Spencer Gore said:
Nadal's resume isn't really more lopsided than the other two.

Federer:
Hard Court -11
Grass -8
Clay -1

Djokovic
Hard Court -9
Grass -4
Clay -1

Nadal
Clay -11
Hard Court -4
Grass -2

If anything, Nadal has a more even spread-having won more than once on each surface.
Click to expand...
Highest % of slams on one surface:

Nadal - 67.4%
Djokovic - 64.2%
Federer - 55%

Welcome to the real world.
 
Spencer Gore said:
Nadal's resume isn't really more lopsided than the other two.

Federer:
Hard Court -11
Grass -8
Clay -1

Djokovic
Hard Court -9
Grass -4
Clay -1

Nadal
Clay -11
Hard Court -4
Grass -2

If anything, Nadal has a more even spread-having won more than once on each surface.
Click to expand...


I think the issue that most people have with Nadal's slam distribution is that the vast majority of his slams have occurred at only one slam. One of the most compelling reasons for Federer being considered GOAT is that he is leader or joint all time title leader of three of the four slams - that is a mind boggling achievement. Nadal is the all time title leader of only one of the four slams though to be fair his achievements at that one slam are incredible.
 
conjoshruk said:
I'm sick and tired of coming across these threads, I understand that everyone is entitled to their own opinion of course, but the truth is, I feel it is impossible to identify any of these players as being a 'goat', as in reality there are just as great as each other.
Click to expand...

There's only one highest mountain.
 
conjoshruk said:
Time and time again, I have come across threads regarding whether Djokovic, Nadal or Federer can be considered to be the greatest of all time or 'GOAT' of the open era of mens tennis.

Main arguments:
Novak Djokovic: Has demonstrated his ability to win slams on all surfaces. Played in an era with much more competition from other members of the Big 3. His consistency in terms of game play, means he does not have any true weapons (ie he is not a servebot).

Rafael Nadal: Has won a record 11 French opens and shown that his game can be adapted to hard courts and grass tournaments. The number of French opens titles and clay court dominance makes his successes appear slightly lopsided.

Roger Federer: At the age of 37, has excelled in terms of longevity, particularly on grass, but also other surfaces. Was able to benefit from the 'weak era' before Nadal and Nole were in their primes.

I'm sick and tired of coming across these threads, I understand that everyone is entitled to their own opinion of course, but the truth is, I feel it is impossible to identify any of these players as being a 'goat', as in reality there are just as great as each other.
I guess the one objective factor that can be used to assess ones 'greatness' could be the number of slams, and therefore Roger would currently be the greatest at 20 grand slams. But as I mentioned before, I think there are many other factors that need to be considered.
Click to expand...
tl;dr
freder goat
 
conjoshruk said:
I agree, feel like there are four surfaces rather than three:
1. Clay
2. Grass
3. AO Hardcourt (PlexiCushion)
4. US Open hardcourt (DecoTurf)
Click to expand...

Yep. One's 8 layers of acrylic and was designed to be a hardcourt clay-hybrid and the other is concrete.

Rafa has made 4 finals since the AO surface was changed in 08.
 
AlexanderTheGreat08 said:
I fail to understand how Nadal resume is seen as lopsided thanks to how good he’s on on clay but it’s okay for Djokovic to have 9 HC majors out of his 14 GS titles
Click to expand...
Context maybe? The eye test tells you Djoker is actually a top 5ish clay courter. He was just blocked by the greatest clay courter ever. And limiting him to hardcourt when almost no one has won more Wimbledon’s than him? Wut?
 
vex said:
Context maybe? The eye test tells you Djoker is actually a top 5ish clay courter. He was just blocked by the greatest clay courter ever. And limiting him to hardcourt when almost no one has won more Wimbledon’s than him? Wut?
Click to expand...

And Fed would have been the no1 clay courter if not for Nadal.

What's your point?
 
This debate will go on forever, especially if Nadal and Fed retire with 20 slams each, Djoker falls just short on something like 18 but holds the weeks and YE # 1 record plus the H2H over the other two. Rafa holds the M1000 record and the DCGS, Djoker holds the WTF record and Fed has more ever all titles.

And this scenario is not that far fetched
 
It's ridiculous trying to determine who is the GOAT. All 3 of them are so close, having achieved things the others haven't and breaking every single record. It's totally subjective how much weight you put on Slams, weeks at no. 1, WTF, Masters or Head to Head so you can never have an objective answer since they are so close.
Stop hating and appreciate this because it's a unique era to be a tennis fan.
 
Firstservingman said:
Just throwing this out there:

I think one admittedly subjective area in which I think Fed is leading Nadal a lot in terms of majors is that he's an eight-time Wimbledon champion. Wimbledon is the epitome of tennis and I think having eight Wimbledon titles compared to two is pretty significant if you're trying to make an argument that the two-time Wimb champion is greater overall than the eight-time one where the rest of their slam resumes are fairly even (11 HC slams for Fed with perfect distribution between AO and USO + 1 RG, and 11 clay slams for Nadal + 4 at the other two, weighted heavily to the USO)

For a Tier 1 player contending at the GOAT level, Nadal is exceptionally light on Wimbledon wins.
The Tier 1 players are probably Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Sampras, Borg, and Laver.
All of them except Nadal have 4+ Wimbledon titles.

Now again, of course this is pretty subjective, and I'm not saying it's make or break even for me but calling a guy the best when there's several guys with at least twice as many wins at the home of tennis seems a little off.
Click to expand...
But don't put Laver on the list with 4 Wimbledons, because when he won the amateur titles he was absolutely not the best player in the world on grass...
 
conjoshruk said:
Yes I realised the irony when i started the thread, but i thought it was a valid point really.
Click to expand...
Hmmm.... In what way is it any more valid, or different for that matter, than any other thread intended to denounce the GOAT debate?

"I'm sick and tired of coming across these threads..." yet here you've created a thread that pretty much guarantees that you and everyone else will come across just by opening the page.
 
AlexanderTheGreat08 said:
I fail to understand how Nadal resume is seen as lopsided thanks to how good he’s on on clay but it’s okay for Djokovic to have 9 HC majors out of his 14 GS titles
Click to expand...

Outside 11 HC Slams, Fed still owns 9 Slams
Outside of 8 Grass Slams, Fed still owns 12 Slams

Compared to that, people claim Ned's resume to be lopsided. Truth is, Federer is an anomaly in this, not the norm. Nadal is great on non-clay surfaces because he has 6 Slams, the career total of Becker f.e.
 
Spencer Gore said:
And what about all the years he couldn't play?
Click to expand...
What does one have to do with the other?

You either give Laver credit for his amateur wins, when didn't have to play the best in the world, or you give him credit for all the amazing things he did when he could not play majors, which is just different. But don't do both, which some do, and then he becomes bigger than life, better than any modern players, and that's not fair either.

I don't do the Goat thing. I think it's stupid. But Laver in my mind is as good a player as we've ever seen, so he has my full admiration, and he was also a model of good sportsmanship, hardly true of many other ATGs.
 
Firstservingman said:
Just throwing this out there:

I think one admittedly subjective area in which I think Fed is leading Nadal a lot in terms of majors is that he's an eight-time Wimbledon champion. Wimbledon is the epitome of tennis and I think having eight Wimbledon titles compared to two is pretty significant if you're trying to make an argument that the two-time Wimb champion is greater overall than the eight-time one where the rest of their slam resumes are fairly even (11 HC slams for Fed with perfect distribution between AO and USO + 1 RG, and 11 clay slams for Nadal + 4 at the other two, weighted heavily to the USO)

For a Tier 1 player contending at the GOAT level, Nadal is exceptionally light on Wimbledon wins.
The Tier 1 players are probably Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Sampras, Borg, and Laver.
All of them except Nadal have 4+ Wimbledon titles.

Now again, of course this is pretty subjective, and I'm not saying it's make or break even for me but calling a guy the best when there's several guys with at least twice as many wins at the home of tennis seems a little off.
Click to expand...

??

Why is Wimbledon worth more?

Each Slam is worth the same amount of points.
 
Firstservingman said:
Just throwing this out there:

I think one admittedly subjective area in which I think Fed is leading Nadal a lot in terms of majors is that he's an eight-time Wimbledon champion. Wimbledon is the epitome of tennis and I think having eight Wimbledon titles compared to two is pretty significant if you're trying to make an argument that the two-time Wimb champion is greater overall than the eight-time one where the rest of their slam resumes are fairly even (11 HC slams for Fed with perfect distribution between AO and USO + 1 RG, and 11 clay slams for Nadal + 4 at the other two, weighted heavily to the USO)

For a Tier 1 player contending at the GOAT level, Nadal is exceptionally light on Wimbledon wins.
The Tier 1 players are probably Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Sampras, Borg, and Laver.
All of them except Nadal have 4+ Wimbledon titles.

Now again, of course this is pretty subjective, and I'm not saying it's make or break even for me but calling a guy the best when there's several guys with at least twice as many wins at the home of tennis seems a little off.
Click to expand...
Calling a guy the best who is severely behind his rivals at 3/4 slams and 2/3 surfaces is also a bit off.
 
tennis132325 said:
??

Why is Wimbledon worth more?

Each Slam is worth the same amount of points.
Click to expand...
Yeah they're worth the same ranking-wise but Wimbledon was the first tennis tournament, is the longest-running, and is universally considered to be the home of tennis. Historically it has been valued much higher - the idea of them all being worth the same is relatively recent.

That said, I'm not claiming that it's worth much more than the others or anything now. But it's the first among equals now at the very least.
 
Hitman said:
The whole problem with GOAT talk is...it wasn't the real reason why any of us became tennis fans, and now sadly this is all most of us talk about, instead of just getting joy out of watching them play and entertain us.
Click to expand...

Wish I could like this a 1000 times. Honestly, when I started watching Federer I did it because I was an impressionable 13 year old and his style fascinated me.
 
GS Finals % wins

Fed P30 W20 = 66.6%
Nad P25 W17 = 68.0%
Djok P24 W15 = 62.5%

Ultimately 20>17>15

Ridiculously close between the top 3.
Whoever ends up with most GS wins will appear 1st on Wikipedia search as most GS wins is considered the most important stat in tennis.

We’ll just have to 3/4/5 years to find out the answer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

saram
The GOAT...
Replies
28
Views
3K
Hitman
Hitman
P
Federer vs Nadal: The GOAT debate...:
Replies
20
Views
3K
ThreadintheNeedle
T
F
Federer v Djokovic: Reframing the "GOAT" debate
2
Replies
59
Views
7K
underground
underground
Forehand Of Doom
Slams Record + Masters Record = GOAT?
2
Replies
53
Views
4K
beast of mallorca
beast of mallorca
GameSampras
Does having poor h2h's against his rivals Hurt Fed's resume as GOAT?
2 3
Replies
141
Views
10K
Gizo
G
Back
Top