GOAT Debate

First topic message reminder :

For all GOAT debate posts, good or bad, better or worse, sickness and health.
We'll move stuff in here from other future threads, to keep it all together.

LF & JHM

Edit - I guess if this is to be for people who really want to have a GOAT debate, we'll have to remove posts from people who think the GOAT debate is worthless. So no opportunity for satire, humour or dismissiveness at the expense of the debate. Let's leave it to those who take it seriously and post accordingly. I think any poster's absence from this thread can be interpreted as having no interest in it. JHM.

Well you have to say that Djokovic's is growing in stature. He may well be playing the same players, but they have been rejuvenated in recent time and the fact he remains ahead of them speaks volumes. 

It's scary to think he could surpass Nadal/Sampras.

TRuffin wrote:I also think my prediction of a year ago is sure to happen. Djoko will pass nadal on the list and be seen as best player of his era and right behind fed

I doubt it will happen.  I think he will stop at 12-13 (plus Nadal may still win more slams).  He may end up with more weeks at #1 so they may be sort of neck-and-neck, but if I were to guess, I expect Rafa will end up ahead of him in general reckoning.  Nole would need to have at least as many slams as Rafa, and I do not think he will get there.

But then again, I thought he would not reach 10 either.

There's no way Federer is the goat now. Goats don't choke in every epic match. I'm sure I'll miss a few but here's my list:

Rome 2006
French open 2006 and 2007
Wim 2008
AO 09
Us open 09
us open 2010 and 2011
French open 2011
wimb 2015
us open 2015

Wimbledon 2015 a choke? I call that being f**ked!

Wimbledon 2014 was more of a choke than 2015 purely because in 5th he got tight serving at 4-4.

You mention Slams and then Rome is thrown in there? A tad random?

Oh god gg. Don't do this to us. I'll grant you one of his major weaknesses is that his 5 set record isn't what you'd expect from a goat contender. When you've played over a thousand matches though you are bound to be able to make a shortlist of close matches he lost. Wimby 2015 he could only match novak for a bit. Wimby 14 novak called on his reserves and played a blinding return in the final game

LK: where did I say I was listing only slams? Wimb 2015 in terms of being great against murray and then being asleep in final

Temp: For a guy with 17 slams, his close 5 set record is an aberration. It's not like there is an equivalent list of ones he has won. 09, 07 wimb are the only ones that could be put on an opposite list.

I am an avid Federer fan - have been ever since I saw him against Roddick in 2003, but I'm not blind. The guy chokes in the big matches.

Bear in mind all of those , bar one are against Djokovic and Nadal. People with superior h2h records against him.
This is therefore a bit of a confounder, this says more to his difficulties against those two, than anything about choking big matches.

Of course, his issues against those two are again his other big weakness, but my god I ain't going back to that

Remember, in most big matches, he never needed 5 sets, hence why you cant find many.
That fact is why some dont find him an enthralling as others, some prefer the Lleyton Hewitt style of struggle, but thats nowt to do with his tennis credentials.

temporary21 wrote:Bear in mind all of those , bar one are against Djokovic and Nadal. People with superior h2h records against him.
This is therefore a bit of a confounder, this says more to his difficulties against those two, than anything about choking big matches.

Of course, his issues against those two are again his other big weakness, but my god I ain't going back to that

It can't be explained soley by that because it's the break point chances he wasted. For example in the 2007 French open final he was 1/17 break point chances converted in the first set. If he was really struggling against him he wouldn't get all those chances. Hell, the fact that he took these matches to 5 sets is proof this isn't about h2h records. Why does he nearly always end up losing the last set. The answer is choking.

Just because you get to break point does not entitle you a break of serve. He rarely has this issue with other guys... could it be perhaps that his opponents are simply very strong at the crunch, better at holding themselves than him?

The problem isnt that he chokes on bp, its that Nadovic dont let him play the way he wants when it matters, through good aggressive depth and placement, and rarely ever give it away.

temporary21 wrote:Just because you get to break point does not entitle you a break of serve. He rarely has this issue with other guys... could it be perhaps that his opponents are simply very strong at the crunch, better at holding themselves than him?

The problem isnt that he chokes on bp, its that Nadovic dont let him play the way he wants when it matters, through good aggressive depth and placement, and rarely ever give it away.

'could it be perhaps that his opponents are simply very strong at the crunch, better at holding themselves than him'

yes he chokes.

'that Nadovic dont let him play the way he wants when it matters, through good aggressive depth and placement, and rarely ever give it away'

then how does he get to break point in the first place?

Federer = mentally weak against opponents who challenge him

Because he hits flowing shots up to break point. Then his opponents dig in, thats what happened again and again at the us open. Big second serves massive forehands, Fed barely got a decent aggressive chance in.
In other words, sometimes its about your opponent, the idea of Fed choking is ridiculous, he deserves much more credit than that

greengoblin wrote:LK: where did I say I was listing only slams? Wimb 2015 in terms of being great against murray and then being asleep in final

Temp: For a guy with 17 slams, his close 5 set record is an aberration. It's not like there is an equivalent list of ones he has won. 09, 07 wimb are the only ones that could be put on an opposite list.

I am an avid Federer fan - have been ever since I saw him against Roddick in 2003, but I'm not blind. The guy chokes in the big matches.

I know you specifically say Slams, but it was weird seeing the majority were Slam encounters and then one masters.

I think Wimbledon 2015 the match was lost after the 2nd set because it was nearly 2 hours for 2 sets. Was hard to see Roger winning from that part. Plus I feel Djokovic doesn't get the credit for ramping up the aggression in the match after the 2nd set.

I don't think USO 2009 was a choke. His serving let him down in that match. It was 50% in that match.

Yeah, 34 year old runs out of steamin slower conditions against much younger champion.

That's a choke.



I remember when people used to make strong arguments about GOAT status.

Are you suggesting a weak era of posting?

There are stranger arguments.

Laver declaring Novak the joint GOAT:

http://www.espn.co.uk/tennis/story/_/id/15452386/tennis-rod-laver-comes-goat-novak-djokovic-roger-federer-equal

After Novak's FO win, this elevates his status. Lendl, Agassi, and Mcenroe have all been left behind by now.

However if we look at factors such as slams won (or pro era equivalent), total years at no 1 and so on, I think I would still have him out of the top 5.

My top 5 are still Pancho Gonzalez, Federer, Rosewall, Laver, and Bill Tilden. However I can see Djokovic getting into my top 5 group eventually - and making it a top 6.

My top 10 would include Sampras, Nadal, Borg, Budge and now Djokovic. For the time being perhaps a little short of Nadal, Sampras and Borg although you could argue the case. If he wins the CYGS this year I’d put him at the top of this group though.

Honorable mention for Jimmy Connors; I didn’t quite find a space for him in my top ten.

HB, I do not feel confident at all about placing pre-open-era guys, but as far as the open era goes, I am just about in full agreement with you.

I personally might bump Sampras to the first category (on account of his weeks at #1 and my feel that it was probably a little bit harder to get to 14 slams then than now), but do not feel too strongly about that.

Also agree that, for now, I would probably have Djokovic somewhere towards the bottom of that second group.

summerblues wrote:HB, I do not feel confident at all about placing pre-open-era guys, but as far as the open era goes, I am just about in full agreement with you.

I personally might bump Sampras to the first category (on account of his weeks at #1 and my feel that it was probably a little bit harder to get to 14 slams then than now), but do not feel too strongly about that.

Also agree that, for now, I would probably have Djokovic somewhere towards the bottom of that second group.

The key words being 'for now'. Currently it is hard not to see Djokovic winning another handful of slams over the next couple of years - Murray might manage to nick the odd final especially at Wimbledon or USO, but there still looks to be a big gap between them and any of the youngsters. Thiem did well to reach the SF at RG, but there's still plenty for him to work on, while Kyrgios hasn't come through as quickly as some hoped. However, if we reckon Djokovic finishes close to Fed's slam count record, with his better haul of Masters and the non-calendar slam (so far), he'd certainly be well up into the absolute elite.

Interesting list here:

http://tennis-strangeforest.rhcloud.com/goatList

As well as stats there needs to be context.  For example I think Monica Seles was better than Steffi Graf.  But on stats alone Monica Seles is a footnote.  The context was a nine inch knife and her record prior to that knife entering her back.  With Djokovic at the moment there is going to be no substantive difference to my evaluation of him in relation to Federer and Nadal if he wins another two grand slams or another seven grand slams - it will only be relevant to his ability to sustain his performance levels in the wake of the Federer - Nadal era plus maybe an ability to adapt technique as his physical levels decline.

Similarly Del Potro position in the sport is probably greater than his single grand slam title alone would indicate.  Context.

I'm not sure I get that NS. You seem to be suggesting that if Novak were to do the CYGS this year (and repeat it next year) then you wouldn't change your assessment of his position relative to Federer and Nadal because he's only doing it absent peak Fed and peak Rafa?How do you know current Djokovic wouldn't have dominated in 2005-06 just as easily?

Seles is a different case (and Maureen Connolly back in the day) as is Rafa to an extent due to his injuries. We can say that they would have all probably have had greater success in different circumstances.

I stand by my comment.  

If it wasn't for Roger Federer (&likely Rafael Nadal) in 2011 Djokovic would have the calendar slam in 2011.  If it wasn't for an inspired Wawrinka, Djokovic would have had a calendar slam in 2015 (but already a post Federer - Nadal era).  

If it wasn't for a right knee injury Nadal would have likely had the calendar slam in 2010.  

If it wasn't for Nadal, Roger Federer would have had the calendar slams in 2006 and 2007.  

Statistics without context is not worth much especially when it comes to the "GOAT debate".  

What I am saying is Djokovic has already left a mark in the sport - his 2011 performance contains far more meaning in terms of the GOAT debate than anything he does in the post Fedal era.

If we were to base everything on pure statistics - titles won et cetera.  There would be no debate.  No debate at all.  If you believe there is something to debate beyond simple statistics (titles won etc) then you are at least agreeing with me that context plays a part.  

Then it just becomes an issue of how much weight one places on the context and what that context actually is.

Interesting methodology there...someone has taken a lot of time to bottom this out.
However...is Murray really the 15th best player of the Open Era and Laver only 12th?
Would most people say Connors was the 4th best...?
Courier having won 4 slams and reached #1 for a significant number of week is down in 22nd place...
Kuerten who won 3 slams, WTF and #1 for a significant number of weeks only at 29th?

As Hewitt would say..."Come orrrnnnn!"

lydian wrote:Interesting methodology there...someone has taken a lot of time to bottom this out.
However...is Murray really the 15th best player of the Open Era and Laver only 12th?
Would most people say Connors was the 4th best...?
Courier having won 4 slams and reached #1 for a significant number of week is down in 22nd place...
Kuerten who won 3 slams, WTF and #1 for a significant number of weeks only at 29th?

As Hewitt would say..."Come orrrnnnn!"

It depends on what you put stock in though. Kuerten is only 29th but reached No.1 but lacked anything like the consistency Murray has had. He has won one more slam (all on clay) than Murray but won 16 less tournaments and 6 less Masters titles yet reached No.1 unlike Murray which says that the door was open at that time when no real dominant players were around. Hewitt is the same - bewildering amount of weeks at No.1 but not eye-popping consistency. Again the window of opportunity was there for him to climb through and take No.1.

It looks a fairly reasonable system to me but probably does reward consistency above one-off great performances. I think it's hard to argue for Ferrer being above Kuerten for example.

The cross-over amateur-pro guys are hard to call. Laver won 5 slams in the Open era and it doesn't look like bonus points are given for the CYGS. He only made one other slam final which looks to be where he's losing most of his points to those above him. Obviously, his full career places him a lot higher but effectively we are rating him here solely on performances aged 30+.

Ferrer above Kuerten?? Give it a rest!

JuliusHMarx wrote:Ferrer above Kuerten?? Give it a rest!

Well yes that is stretching it a tad too far.

It's a question of adjusting the various weightings. But the idea behind it is commendable & something to build upon.

GOAT Ranking Points = Formula (input data).

Is the formula presented anywhere on that website?

Yeah but it looks very complex. I can't easily get to the bottom of it.

Ok I've nearly got to the bottom of it. Points breakdowns for Kuerten and Ferrer to follow:

Kuerten

Grand Slam wins : 24 points (8 x 3)
Grand Slam QF : 5 points (1 x 5)
Tour Finals win : 6 points (6 x 1)
Masters wins : 20 points (4 x 5)
Masters finals : 10 points (2 x 5)
Masters SF : 4 points (1 x 4)
500s : 9 points (2 x 4 wins; 1 x 1 final)
250s : 7 points (1 x 7 wins)

Tournament Points : 85

Best rank - 8 points (no 1)
Year end - 14 points (1 x no 1; 1 x no 2; 1 x no 5)
Weeks at no 1 - 4 points (1 per 10 weeks)

Ranking Points : 26 points

Other : 3 points (can't work out what these relate to!)

Total: 114 points

Looking at that I'd say straight away there is a flaw in slam wins compared to Masters wins (only 4 points difference is way too little). I'd put a slam win at 30 points (maybe more).

Ferrer 

Slam final : 4 points (4 x 1)
Slam SF : 10 points (2 x 5)
Slam QF : 11 points (1 x 11)
Tour finals : 4 points (3 x 1 final and 1 x 1 SF)
Masters wins : 4 points (4 x 1)
Masters finals : 12 points (2 x 6)
Masters SF : 10 points (1 x 10)
500s : 29 points (2 x 10 wins and 1 x 9 finals)
250s : 15 points (1 x 15 wins)
Team : 9 points (Davis Cup but not sure how calculated)

Tournament Points : 108 points


Best rank : 3 points (number 3)
YE rank : 6 points (1 x no 3; 3 x no 5)

Ranking Points : 9 points

Other (can't identify) : 2 points

Total : 119 points

CaledonianCraig wrote:Looking at that I'd say straight away there is a flaw in slam wins compared to Masters wins (only 4 points difference is way too little). I'd put a slam win at 30 points (maybe more).

Sorry, it might not be that clear from my post: 

Slam win - 8 points (Kuerten has 3 - hence 24 points total)
Masters win - 4 points (Kuerten has 5 - hence 20 points total)

Excellent work BS.  It looks like the points for tournaments is based on current points.  2000 for grand slam win.  1000 for masters win. ...

Okay he has it for Grand Slams:
Winner: 8
Finalist: 4
SF: 2
QF: 1

& Masters:
Winner: 4
Finalist: 2
SF: 1

500s:
Winner: 2
Finalist: 1

250s:
Winner:1


If he is including weeks at number one that is a form of double counting. He also has to take into account there are more mandatory tournaments now than in the past. But it is a good starting point.

Born Slippy wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Looking at that I'd say straight away there is a flaw in slam wins compared to Masters wins (only 4 points difference is way too little). I'd put a slam win at 30 points (maybe more).

Sorry, it might not be that clear from my post: 

Slam win - 8 points (Kuerten has 3 - hence 24 points total)
Masters win - 4 points (Kuerten has 5 - hence 20 points total)

Ah right. Got you now.

To answer the question posited on the forums today, and put it here because its where it goes...

Yes.

If he hits 6 in a row and a proper full grand slam, and the olympics, hes on what... 14?

He wont need 17 then

temporary21 wrote:To answer the question posited on the forums today, and put it here because its where it goes...

Yes.

If he hits 6 in a row and a proper full grand slam, and the olympics, hes on what... 14?

He wont need 17 then

That still would not have been enough.. You don't climb three slams just because you won a bunch in a row - That just shows dominance over a period - a short period. GOAT is about career accomplishments - there are no short cuts.

Don't believe in a single GOAT. In any case Djokovic is not even in the top tier yet.

federer

Comparing eras is very difficult, different conditions, different rivals... not to talk about pre open era...

all of us come to more or less the same names when it comes to goat debate, its clear that in the first decades players didnt even play all slams, so we can see huge domain of different names for each slam (renshaw and sears, doherty and larned, decugis...) all great names that probably didnt even play eachother.
its in the 1920s when the tour is more global and we get to see the first big names and rivalries (tilden, lacoste...) and fred perry and budge in the 30s, WWII in the 40s, pancho gonzales, and rosewall in the pro circuit in the 50s and 60s, Laver as the one man in the 60s to dominate first in the amateur circuit, then in the pro circuit and later in the open era too (probably the first globaly accepted goat until then, along with rosewall for similar reasons)
and after rosewall and laver, with open era already on the run we have what for me is the golden era, late 70s and all the 80s with Borg, Connors, Mcenroe, Lendl, edberg, wilander, becker... really amazing, but so many great names caused that they all shared the glory and since borg till sampras, nobody reaches double figures in slams, so in that time people dont give that much importance to slam count, for example emerson has 12, but mostly all consider mcenroe a bigger name for the sport, and also borg

but sampras comes and he stands alone, like nobody had in a few decades, is that because he was better than the giants of the 80s? or simply he faced lesser quality opponents? well he faced edberg and becker in the second an less impressive half of their careers, and agassi as his nemesis but not getting so many slams. So sampras gets to 14 and surpasses emerson, so the slam count is important again for some reason, also 14 seems unreachable so Sampras is considered a possible goat along with probably laver and borg.

There is probably a lapse of time between late 90s and early 2000s in which sampras is still winning some, agassi enlarges his CV and many more names get 1 or 2 slams, with lots of changes in number 1 until federer appears

federer wins in probably any way of analyzing the numbers, his domain in 2004,05,06,07 was previously unseen, but some may say the rivals were not incredible, but then nadal and later djokovic appared and even with them on tour the swiss has managed to get to an incredible 19 slams and 6wtf
now his career is also one of the longest, he is the king of grass and the only one to get to 5 wins in 3 different slams... and the way he plays

of course most of us have only seen tennis in the last 3-4 decades, so we cannot compare with laver, pancho gonzales, rosewall... but I feel one cannot make much mistake by thinking federer is the best tennis player the sport has seen.

Lets not forget that his strongest domain happened in 2004-2007 and nadal was around in those years winning RG every year, and getting to wimbledon finals too, so it cannot be said that federer´s better years had not important rivals. Also once Nadal explodes in 2008 he still comes back dominating in 2009 getting his beloved one and only roland garros. The raise of nadal and specially djokovic along with him getting to his 30s causes that he wins only 1 slam between 2011 and 2016, federer seems to be fading... and 2017 comes.
its true that murray and djokovic have problems, and some other top players have issues too, but nadal is there, and still roger gets 2 more slams... pure legend.

For me he is de GOAT

as for Nadal, I have to say he is my favourite, probably because I am spanish (not great reason, but very common among fans to cheer for his countrymates)

He started winning and roger was already there, in his prime, and nadal turned into the goat´s worse nightmare, roger simply couldnt win nadal on clay, so roland garros was forbidden for him at first.
Nadal grew and after 2 wimbledon finals he won in london and after that in australia... it was a dream for him and his fans, and we thought he could fight for goat condition, but injuries and djokovic made their act in the story, and in my opinion as much as I like nadal, I have to admit that his domain has never lasted more than a year, and he has existed in between two great leaders (fed and nole)
still, he is a great too, and without a doubt the best ever on clay.

to understand his absolute dictatorship in that surface take this data:
since he won his first montecarlo in 2005, until now, there have been 52 main clay tournaments (13 slams and 39 masters) he alone has won 32 of those 52 (the rest of the tour won the other 20 in these 13 years)

but is nadal only a claycourter? well, some may say he is, but the numbers speak for themselves:
Not counting his clay achievements he has won:
6 slams
8 masters
1 olimpic gold
and has reached a total of:
13 slam finals
16 master 1000 finals
2 WTF finals

if we take open era, and count slams, masters and wtf on hardcourts and grass we get this list:

...............m1000 slam wtf
fed ...........20 .....18..... 6..... 44
novak .......22 ......11..... 5.... 38
sampras ....10 ......14..... 5.... 29
mcenroe ....17 .......7...... 3.... 27
agassi .......16....... 7...... 1..... 24
lendl .........14....... 5...... 5 .....24
becker .......13...... 6 ......3...... 22
murray ......12....... 3..... 1 .....16
connors ......8 .......7...... 1 .....16
nadal .........8....... 6........0 ... 14
edberg .......7 .......6........ 1... 14
borg ..........7 .......5....... 2.... 14

so yes, after almost 50 years, only 9 players have a better hardcourt CV than Nadal (open era)

considering his vast superiority on clay and his more than competent performance on hardcourts, nadal has to be considered as one of the greatest names in tennis history, but for me he is not yet at the level of the best, which as I said for me is Roger.

Update:
Not counting his clay achievements he has won:
7 slams
10 masters
1 olimpic gold
and has reached a total of:
15 slam finals
19 master 1000 finals
2 WTF finals

if we take open era, and count slams, masters and wtf on hardcourts and grass we get this list:

...............m1000 slam wtf
fed ...........22 .....19..... 6..... 47
novak .......24 ......15..... 5.... 44
sampras ....10 ......14..... 5.... 29
mcenroe ....17 .......7...... 3.... 27
agassi .......16....... 7...... 1..... 24
lendl .........14....... 5...... 5 .....24
becker .......13...... 6 ......3...... 22
nadal .........10....... 7........0 ... 17
murray ......12....... 3..... 1 .....16
connors ......8 .......7...... 1 .....16
edberg .......7 .......6........ 1... 14
borg ..........7 .......5....... 2.... 14

so yes, after almost 50 years, only 7 players have a better grass-hardcourt CV than Nadal (open era)

considering his vast superiority on clay and his more than competent performance on hardcourts, nadal has to be considered as one of the greatest names in tennis history, but for me he is not yet at the level of the best, which as I said for me is Roger.

I think Murray is a clear example of someone who would have won many more slams if he hadn't have been born in the Federer - Nadal - Djokovic era.  

Murray would have also won many more slams if he hadn't have developed a career ending chronic injury (hip) - because he developed that injury at a time when the others appeared to be over the hill.  However with regard injury - maybe similar things could have been said of Nadal's injury of 2009 and 2012 (knees) and Djokovics chronic injury (elbow) of 2016.  

On the flip side is that Murray became a better player because of the benchmarks of Federer (older - set the standard) & Nadal (successful from an early age) and the competitition with Djokovic (essentialy the same age).

Overall it seems to me by pure stats of grand slam titles alone - Murray's level is under-represented.  

I was thinking adding supplementary metrics of grand slam finals totals, and grand slam semi-finals totals - would capture Murrays "level" better.

These supplementary metrics may also be helpful in assessing Nadals full "level" in off-clay tournaments. Nadal's clay court goatness level is very clear.

How exactly did Nadal recover from two apparently career threatening knee injuries?

Soul Requiem wrote:How exactly did Nadal recover from two apparently career threatening knee injuries?

Stem Cell therapy

Here is a collection of references.  It seems the 2012 injury was the most serious and this is supported statistically by his post 2012 results for Wimbledon.  Nadal has had a number of injuries the most enduring being the tendonitis in his knees.  Probably it is best to call it a condition that can be controlled, improved to some extent, but it can flare up and worsen requiring some sort of treatment.

In 2009 after beating Roger Federer in the final of the Australian Open it did seem that Nadal would go on to dominate on all surfaces - and this may have been one of the reasons for Roger Federer's tears.   But then Nadal's knee tendonitis started to flare up later.  It may have been a reason for Nadal's loss in the 4R at the 2009 French Open - but he pulled out of Wimbledon and had some sort of treatment.  

Was able to return for the 2009 US Open - but it was unclear if this was the "same Nadal" - he lost in the SF of the 2009 US Open and the QF of the 2010 Australian - Open.  Then had three in a row Slam titles from the French Open 2010 onwards.  Then in 2011 he encountered a previously unseen phenomenon of an upgraded Djokovic.  

Then in 2012 he lost in the second round of Wimbledon and withdrew from the 2012 US Open - for treatment of his knee condition.  Then after that he was never the same again at Wimbledon until more recently.

https://www.drlox.com/rafael-nadals-knee/
https://www.tennisworldusa.org/tennis/news/Rafael_Nadal/37489/all-the-injuries-rafael-nadal-has-had-during-his-career/
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-injuries-Rafael-Nadal-has-had-and-why

ps I wrote the above without having read the quora reference - but in there there is an extensive description of Nadals issue - which seem to have been due to a congenital issue with his foot - where one of the bones fails to develop properly - causing it to be weak and at risk of fracture.

pps: having now fully read it - Rafael Nadal has Köhler disease - a congenital disease involving a bone in his left foot - which failed to harden properly - and was diagnosed when he was 17.  He was told he would have to give up his tennis career.   Nadal's team was able to find a solution that involved specialised trainers that acted to protect his bone.  Those trainers had an inbuilt slope to then - and it had to be the same for both feet - so that Nadal had a balanced posture.  

Apparently it was those specialised trainers which allowed Nadal to keep on playing - plus the rise of an upgrading Djokovic in 2009 - that resulted in a new condition - tendonitis in the knees.  The trainers changed Nadal's balance overall and resulted (unknown to them) in more stress concentrating in the knees.  Then with a few marathon matches with Djokovic in the 2009 clay season - Nadal began feeling pain in his knees - he had developed tendonitis of the knees.  A condition that would remain with him - and another issue that had to be contained.  It first impacted him in 2009.  Then it flare up again more seriously in 2012.

So he's been playing a high intensity sport with Tendonitis of the knees for 10 years? Mmmmmm

Soul Requiem wrote:So he's been playing a high intensity sport with Tendonitis of the knees for 10 years? Mmmmmm

That's right. He's had to take quite a few long breaks at times when it's flared up, but due to advances in orthopaedic medicine, it is something that can be managed without surgery.
Federer for example has had to deal with a chronic back problem (which meant he was exempted from Swiss military service when young https://www.totalisimo.com/en/booking-athletes/roger-federer/), and due to modern medicine has still been able to compete quite well with it for years. Since 2013 it's been flaring up more regularly, but he's still in very good shape considering he's 38.

It Must Be Love wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:So he's been playing a high intensity sport with Tendonitis of the knees for 10 years? Mmmmmm

That's right. He's had to take quite a few long breaks at times when it's flared up, but due to advances in orthopaedic medicine, it is something that can be managed without surgery.
Federer for example has had to deal with a chronic back problem (which meant he was exempted from Swiss military service when young https://www.totalisimo.com/en/booking-athletes/roger-federer/), and due to modern medicine has still been able to compete quite well with it for years. Since 2013 it's been flaring up more regularly, but he's still in very good shape considering he's 38.

Modern medicine, I see.

Now that Nadal has tied Roger for the first time in slam count, GOAT debate is stronger than ever... but also at this point, rivalry between these two players and also between their fans is much more relaxed and friendly.

I think my post from september 2017 has aged pretty well in the sense that after re-reading it, I still make the same conclusions. Its true that Federer won one more, and Nadal has added 4 but I still think that Federer remains the GOAT.

I also think that Novak could be a stronger candidate for GOAT status than Nadal should he tie him in slams.

Of course, they are all still active, so little details can still change.

All in all, its nice that the story continues, eventhough we all like new faces lifting the big trophies.

If we look only at slams, Nadal takes the lead, but I think the goat debate will be soon over, and Djokovic will end it.

Of course, I would love Rafa to add more slams to his record, no matter who the goat is considered. If I could choose, I would love another wimbledon more than any other