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.

Regarding GOAT status:

Number of Slams_ Nadal takes the lead, but this will change and the three of them are so close it shall not be a deal breaker
Weeks at number 1_ no contest, Novak is the best
Year end number 1_ Novak leads 7-5-5
ATP finals_ Nadal is far behind here and Novak and Roger are in similar numbers (0-5-6)
Masters 1000_ Roger is behind here, Nadal and Novak so close it cannot make a difference

As much as I am a Nadal fan, I can only see fight here between Roger and Novak, and even though I prefer Roger, I think numbers will point at Novak clearly at the end of their careers

2005-2022: 18 seasons, each season 1 slam and 3 masters on clay = 71 clay tournaments (17 RG and 54 masters) (Roland garros 2022 doesnt count)

Nadal won 13 Roland Garros and 26 masters 1000: 39 titles

Over 18 years, Nadal 39 - Rest of the circuit 32

As for the Nadal - Djokovic rivalry

it is 30-29 now for djokovic, but it is interesting to see how it happened.

Clearly in the first 5 years of their rivalry (2006-2010) Nadal was dominant, he is only one year older, but clearly he started to dominate the game earlier than Novak.
2010 ended with the h2h 16-7 for Nadal (clay 9-0, grass 2-0, and 5-7 for Novak on hard)

in the period between 2011 and 2016 (both included) Novak was absolutely dominating in the h2h and specially in 2015-2016 when Nadal was clearly in his worst moment
this 6 year period ended with a 19-7 h2h for Novak (7-5 on clay, 1-0 on grass and 11-2 on hard)

and in the last 6 years (2017-2022), where they have met significantly less, counting from 2017 when Nadal had some kind of a rebirth after the negative period of 2015-16 and also when djokovic struggled with injuries in 2017-18
in this period Nadal wins 6-4 (6-1 on clay, 0-1 on grass, 0-2 on hard)

#22

It's unbelievable to think that he has as many French Open titles as Pete Sampras has grand slams.

naxroy wrote:2005-2022: 18 seasons, each season 1 slam and 3 masters on clay = 71 clay tournaments (17 RG and 54 masters) (Roland garros 2022 doesnt count)

Nadal won 13 Roland Garros and 26 masters 1000: 39 titles

Over 18 years, Nadal 39 - Rest of the circuit 32

40-32

Rafa is the greatest on clay but overall no.

AlciG wrote:It's unbelievable to think that he has as many French Open titles as Pete Sampras has grand slams.

Sampras does however have Nadal trumped at Wimbledon and the US open whilst they're equal at the Aussie open. It could be argued that Sampras was a better player on two surfaces as opposed to one for Nadal.

Soul Requiem wrote:Rafa is the greatest on clay but overall no.

agree as one can read on my posts ini the matter

Soul Requiem wrote:

AlciG wrote:It's unbelievable to think that he has as many French Open titles as Pete Sampras has grand slams.

Sampras does however have Nadal trumped at Wimbledon and the US open whilst they're equal at the Aussie open. It could be argued that Sampras was a better player on two surfaces as opposed to one for Nadal.

without entering the debate of "who is better Nadal or Sampras", it is amazing to think that Nadal has as many RG as Pete´s total tally of slams, because back in 2002 we all thought 14 was an unreachable number

For years I assumed that it would be Federer who'd end up with the overall raw numbers on his side, with his relatively poor head-to-head record against Nadal being the uncomfortable elephant in the room and pretty much the only stick to beat him with. Turns out that's not going to be the case as both Djokovic and Nadal have done an astonishing job of matching or even overhauling him in almost all of those key numbers.

Federer's numbers (while still absolutely amazing - the guy has won 20 Slams and spent 310 weeks at #1, for Gawd's sake) look like they'll end up being marginally inferior to those guys' overall, so I expect those arguing Federer's corner in the coming years to focus more and more on the aspects which are harder to measure. His all-round talent and shot-making, his role in popularising the sport even more across the globe and his cultural impact as a sporting icon.

To be fair, it does feel to me (could be bias as I loved it being so at the time) that the word 'Federer' became synonymous with dominance, sustained excellence and sporting genius between the years of c. 2004 - 2008 in a way that 'Djokovic' or 'Nadal' never quite have.

Personally, for the last two or three years I've tended to go with Djokovic by a slither as the Greatest of the Open Era, but the margins are so fine that all of a sudden Nadal going two ahead again in the Slam race (which for me is the record all three of them would want above all others), when it looked certain that he was about to fall behind in the Autumn of 2021, feels significant.

I'd still go with Novak if I had to pick one, based on all factors, but it's a big Wimbledon coming up for him.

On djokovic´s side, he really looks in great form, so one could expect 3-4 more years with him of top of the game.... whereas with Rafa the end appears to be closer.

Also, up untill today, Roland Garros was always a safe bet for Rafa, but this wasnt the case with the rest of the slams, but a fit Novak is hot favourite in the other three slams and even in Roland Garros if Nadal is not around, so either the young guns start to fire, or Novak could add 4-5 more slams in just a couple of years.

Is it agreed that if the Nadal or Djokovic's of today were somehow faced with themselves of yesteryear - their yesteryear versions would win? If you agree with this, then does it really matter how many more slams they win to decide on their goat status?

No name Bertie wrote:Is it agreed that if the Nadal or Djokovic's of today were somehow faced with themselves of yesteryear - their yesteryear versions would win?  If you agree with this, then does it really matter how many more slams they win to decide on their goat status?

Interesting


I think top Novak (2011 and 2015-16) is better than any Nadal, but still... I do think it all counts untill they retire.

naxroy wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

AlciG wrote:It's unbelievable to think that he has as many French Open titles as Pete Sampras has grand slams.

Sampras does however have Nadal trumped at Wimbledon and the US open whilst they're equal at the Aussie open. It could be argued that Sampras was a better player on two surfaces as opposed to one for Nadal.

without entering the debate of "who is better Nadal or Sampras", it is amazing to think that Nadal has as many RG as Pete´s total tally of slams, because back in 2002 we all thought 14 was an unreachable number

Didn't they change the grass courts at Wimbledon to take away the advantage of the serve and volley players? Imagine how many French Opens Sampras could have won if somehow they had changed the French to be a friendlier surface to serve and volley players?

Atila wrote:

naxroy wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

AlciG wrote:It's unbelievable to think that he has as many French Open titles as Pete Sampras has grand slams.

Sampras does however have Nadal trumped at Wimbledon and the US open whilst they're equal at the Aussie open. It could be argued that Sampras was a better player on two surfaces as opposed to one for Nadal.

without entering the debate of "who is better Nadal or Sampras", it is amazing to think that Nadal has as many RG as Pete´s total tally of slams, because back in 2002 we all thought 14 was an unreachable number

Didn't they change the grass courts at Wimbledon to take away the advantage of the serve and volley players? Imagine how many French Opens Sampras could have won if somehow they had changed the French to be a friendlier surface to serve and volley players?

The point I was trying to make is: 14 wins in just one slam is crazy

is it better to have 0,14,0,0 than 3,4,4,3? no it is not better, we would all probably value more the second option, but that doesnt change the fact that winning one same slam 14 times is simply unreal.

It has been a particularly weak time for top class clay court players outside of the obvious two, i've always wondered how many times Nadal would have lost in the 90's for instance? He'd still come out of head and shoulders above the rest but can't help but imagine that Muster, Kuerten, Bruguera or Courier beat him on occasion.

I highly doubt anyone from the 90s era gets near Nadal on clay especially at Roland Garros.
Nadal’s never lost a best of 5 set match on clay to a single handed back hand - so for me that rules out Guga and Muster. Also factor in Muster was never the same player after he was run over in that car accident.
And the only time Nadal did lose bo5 on clay both players had missile two handed back hands - Soderling and Djokovic.
Neither Courier or Bruguerw had such weaponry.

Sure these guy might’ve pushed Nadal for a while but eventually he’d win. Let’s not forget Nadal rarely went to 5 sets on clay.

It has been said that the strength, conditioning, athleticism and stamina of todays tennis player is significantly higher than in the past with better nutrition, training regimes, medical testing, supplements, cutting out of alcohol etc. It has been suggested that players like Borg would have stood no chance against someone like Nadal because of this.

No name Bertie wrote:It has been said that the strength, conditioning, athleticism and stamina of todays tennis player is significantly higher than in the past with better nutrition, training regimes, medical testing, supplements, cutting out of alcohol etc.  It has been suggested that players like Borg would have stood no chance against someone like Nadal because of this.

With fantasy matchups like Borg vs Nadal at the French you have to imagine all things being equal. It's very unfair to imagine Borg, with his wooden rackets with late 70's and early 80's conditioning and training techniques having a chance against todays version of Nadal.

However, and this seem like blasphemy to some, it's certainly not out of the question that Borg was actually a better clay court player in his day than Nadal is today or even that Borg was better on clay period. I don't know because I never saw Borg at the French. But before Nadal came along I'd heard him referred to as the best clay court player ever.

It is those aspects of development that makes me not like GOAT debates when they are oversimplified. It is said that it was Lendl that brought in improved methods of physical conditioning and preparation including nutrition and then people followed him. In that sense, and if true, Lendl was a pioneer. I think Nadal and Djokovic and some others were pioneers in extending time between points in order to aid in short term recovery. Of course they bring other attributes to the table as well.

One thing is clear, there wont be universal consensus about who the GOAT is.

In the end, there have been quite a good amount of great players along history, and remembering all their stories and achievements is what I like about tennis, apart from following present time events.

And without a doubt, Nadal belongs to that group of all time greats, no matter if Novak or Roger are or have been better than him.

If someone wins 20 grand slams and someone else wins 24 grand slams is that enough of a difference to say yes definitely the 24 slam winner is "better"? One thing however that is very significant - Nadal performances on clay and especially at Roland Garros is "off the charts". In the Open Era Nadal has won 14 mens singles titles and the next best is 6 and the next best is 3.

No name Bertie wrote:If someone wins 20 grand slams and someone else wins 24 grand slams is that enough of a difference to say yes definitely the 24 slam winner is "better"?  One thing however that is very significant - Nadal performances on clay and especially at Roland Garros is "off the charts".  In the Open Era Nadal has won 14 mens singles titles and the next best is 6 and the next best is 3.

absolutely... I mean 14?? we were talking about Borg before, of course he is an all time great, he has been considered the greatest overall, for a long time... and I dont want to go into that, I mention him because his whole career merely reached 12 years in total. To win 14 editions of the same any tournament means to be absolutley dominant over two decades. This guy has won 14 out of 18

Just going to swing this across to the women's game for a moment, with Serena appearing to announce an imminent retirement (presumably after the USO).

I follow quite a few American sports, and so get news feeds from some of the shows like Sports Center. The consensus there was that Serena is not just the GOAT female player, but has a good case for being the best female athlete ever. One contributor made the argument that it really isn't so clear cut, and that a good case could be made for Steffi Graf or Martina Navratilova to be GOAT.

Looking at Serena's record, it is something of a mixed bag - obviously dominant in 2002/3, winning 5 of the 6 slams she competed in, and then returning to dominance 2014/15 with 4 slams in a row, but outside of that it's mostly one slam a season between 1999 and 2017 ( 4 years of 2 slams, 4 of no slams). There's no ridiculous streaks like Federer's 22 semi finals in a row, or continued dominance of a single slam, so her record in based largely on longevity. 22 slams over an 18 year period. Obviously, none of this considers her background and influence on the wider game.

Steffi was certainly more dominant at her best, but didn't have the same longevity 13 years between first and last slam, 10 years between first and penultimate. From FO 1987 to the end of 1990, won 9 of 15 slams, and lost the final of 5 of the 6 others, with a Wimbledon semi final in 1990 being the one blemish. 1993-1996 she won 10 of the 14 slams she competed in. The biggest negative in Graf's legacy is the 'what if' of Seles being stabbed and so losing the one rival that seemed to have an edge on her.

To make a case for Navratilova, you really have to include her doubles record - singles she's a little behind with 18 slams, primarily concentrated between 1981 and 1987 (15 in 7 years), and with a record that is skewed by domination at Wimbledon (9 titles in 13 years is getting close to Nadal at RG levels of dominance). 31 women's doubles titles and 10 mixed doubles titles put her miles ahead in the 'all-rounder' stakes.

Obviously Margaret Court has the most slam wins, but not during the open era, so is difficult to evaluate by comparison.

It's an interesting one again, as I don't think there's a clear cut winner based on record - depends a bit on what you want to consider regarding dominance v longevity, and excellence on one surface v consistency across multiple. Personally, I'd still go for Graf being the best but can certainly see arguments in other directions.

Monica Seles had won 8 grand slam singles titles at 19 years of age. She had won the Australian Open, French Open and US Open and had reached the final of Wimbledon. She had won three end of year tour finals in a row. She was clearly on a trajectory to be the best ever (up to that time) tennis player. Then she was stabbed in the back by a deranged tennis fan of Steffi Graf.

Greatest womens singles player is Graf, yes there's Seles but her domination of the game before and after that is some unrivalled by anyone else, add in winning each slam at least four times you're talking about a real all rounder. I'd then have Navratilova and Evert pretty much equal at second, the fact they had each other to compete against for over a decade is a rivalry that we'll never see in the womens game again. Serena would then slot in at four but with the caveat of being a long way behind the other three.

Overall it has to be Martina Navratilova though, she's only player to have completed the boxed set in the open era, finally winning the Aussie mixed doubles at the age of 46, she was still one of the finest doubles players in the world when she finally retired at 49.

In looking up some of the info above, there was a quote from Evert saying that during their time, Martina was the best ever fast court player and she was arguably the best ever slow court player, but Graf came along and was better than each on their strongest surface.

The Evert v Navratilova H2H is interesting - Evert is a couple of years older, but also peaked earlier. By 1977, Evert led their head to head 20 wins to 4, and they were quite evenly matched over the next 18 months or so , with the rivalry going to 25-9 by Wimbledon 79. Subsequently there was a big swing in Martina's favour - 30-18 became 30-31, 35-40 and ultimately 37-43. Maybe it's because at my age (that I recall tennis in the 80s but not the 70s)and a possibly Wimbledon-centric point of view (based on the TV coverage of the time) I recall Navratilova's dominance and greatness much more than I recall Evert's.