If Djokovic wins the remaining two slams and goes 6 in a row is the GOAT conversation over?

First of all, I actually don't think it is likely he will win the next two slams, and that is part of the reason that I am talking about it right now. Hypothetically, could Fed lose the mythical title of GOAT in the wider world if Novak does do something only done by a male player 3 times and ties the all time consecutive slam mark. I mean Novak last lost in a slam 388 days ago to Wawrinka playing video game tennis. Of course this conversation will likely live on even if Novak does the unlikely and pulls off the slam. Already I have sensed a change in the coverage of Djokovic since he has gone 4 in a row and done something that neither Fed or Rafa could ever manage. Now you openly hearing journalists questioning whether Djokovic is the GOAT, something that would have been unthinkable 18 months ago. But his domination later in his career has put many unbreakable Fed records in deep jeopardy. I still think 17 is pretty safe and in fact don't think Novak will do the slam this year. However, weeks at number 1 total is in big jeopardy, at this rate a player would have to win everything beating Novak over and over again for 7 or 8 months to overhaul. And this year he will tie Fed with 5 year end #1s and be the heavy favorite next year to tie Sampras' all time record of 6 YE 1s. He could also break the record for most year end Masters Cups he already has 5 and has been lights out indoors in recent years.

So will the conversation change, will Fed as GOAT become a minority position online and among journalists if Novak pulls off the next two slams? Will Djokovic in the majority of neutral minds supplant Fed as GOAT if this hypothetical takes place?

Ask me in the GOAT sticky and I'll answer you!
I am not necessarily in favour of having a GOAT sticky, but maybe we should respect the moderation decision.

Henman Bill wrote:Ask me in the GOAT sticky and I'll answer you!
I am not necessarily in favour of having a GOAT sticky, but maybe we should respect the moderation decision.

I thought we were going to be more free flowing and less formalistic, wouldn't that also involve sticky enforcement in the new relaxed attitude. I don't know personally why you wouldn't just respond to the question if you were going to, if it happened in another section. I think its an interesting discussion and maybe others would, I don't know why you would want to just show up on thread to throw cold water on it and be a bit snide in your tone frankly.

Well I did think there was a chance you might not even know about the GOAT sticky, or have forgotten about it, so I was trying to help you out.

You criticizing me for my tone is like Andy Murray criticizing Pete Sampras's second serve.

I agree with Socal that potentially inflammatory GOAT debates are really the least of this forum's worries at the moment. Any debate at all would be good.

In answer to the question, no way! I've never been much of a believer in the GOAT label anyway, but, in my book, it can never be a matter of pure statistics. You have to factor in the competition and, however brilliantly Novak is playing, I think he's benefitting from a window of opportunity at the top. I know the same arguably applied to Fed earlier in his career, but my point is a period of domination alone can never be enough.

Perversely, as Fed also found out, complete domination can actually harm your case, as people start to question the quality of the opposition. Ultimately, it's a circular argument and you have to dig deeper than simple wins and losses to resolve.

Good comeback by the way HB. Prepare for a whirlwind of socalesque retorts.

Aut0Gr4ph wrote:I agree with Socal that potentially inflammatory GOAT debates are really the least of this forum's worries at the moment. Any debate at all would be good.

In answer to the question, no way! I've never been much of a believer in the GOAT label anyway, but, in my book, it can never be a matter of pure statistics. You have to factor in the competition and, however brilliantly Novak is playing, I think he's benefitting from a window of opportunity at the top. I know the same arguably applied to Fed earlier in his career, but my point is a period of domination alone can never be enough.

Perversely, as Fed also found out, complete domination can actually harm your case, as people start to question the quality of the opposition. Ultimately, it's a circular argument and you have to dig deeper than simple wins and losses to resolve.

I actually, agree with much of what you are writing. Myself I don't view Fed as the GOAT but view him in the first tier candidates and view the question as a subjective one that probably will always be a matter of some debate. My question is more to not what your personal views are but do you think the tide of opinion among fans and journalists would tilt away from Fed lets say hypothetically if Novak wins the next two slams.

And I agree that no single period of dominance makes someone GOAT, but this year is coming after 2015 and 2011, and even the years in between when except for Nadal's ridiculous 2013 he was the best player pretty much for the whole period.

Henman Bill wrote:Well I did think there was a chance you might not even know about the GOAT sticky, or have forgotten about it, so I was trying to help you out.

You criticizing me for my tone is like Andy Murray criticizing Pete Sampras's second serve.

Thanks for the tip on the sticky, duly noted I would prefer to talk about the topic right here if you don't mind.

Counter punchers will never be the GOAT for any sport even if they win every championship from beginning to the end. Next.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Counter punchers will never be the GOAT for any sport even if they win every championship from beginning to the end. Next.

Except he isn't counterpuncher, most of the times in most matches he wins by attacking the other player from the first ball on. Simply an inaccurate read of his game to deem him a counterpuncher. I would posit that he spends about 80 plus percent of his time on court attacking and not counterpunching. If you watched what he did to Murray on slow wet cement at RG you wouldn't call him a counterpuncher. All players should be counterpunchers if those array of winners in bunches flow from their racquet the way they did against Murray on a slow clay court.

Some people are easily fooled because of his great movement and defensive skills. The reality is that for the vast majority of the time he is firmly on the front foot and dictating play (although that does depend on who he's playing to some degree).

Aut0Gr4ph wrote:Some people are easily fooled because of his great movement and defensive skills. The reality is that for the vast majority of the time he is firmly on the front foot and dictating play (although that does depend on who he's playing to some degree).

I agree just because he can defend doesn't mean he spends most of the time in most matches doing that. The vast majority of guys can't get him to be a counter puncher. The guys that can redline the power then typically can't keep it up enough to hit thru him. But let's take his matches with Murray and Nadal, he is almost in all those matches the aggressor. So really even other big 4 players have to for the most part cede the initiative to him. The different matchup is fed who with his better serve can maintain his role aggressor whether or not he wins or not.

I actually don't think he is being given enough credit for winning four in a row. It's an incredible achievement, which neither Federer or Nadal were able to do in their primes.

I do think Murray will win Wimbledon, but if Djokovic were to win Wimbledon & US Open then it would be an amazing achievement.

GOAT will always be subjective. It's what you like or rate really. He's definitely in the conversation already...the more he achieves the more relevant he becomes in the conversation.

Guest82 wrote:I actually don't think he is being given enough credit for winning four in a row.  It's an incredible achievement, which neither Federer or Nadal were able to do in their primes.  

I do think Murray will win Wimbledon, but if Djokovic were to win Wimbledon & US Open then it would be an amazing achievement.  

GOAT will always be subjective.  It's what you like or rate really.  He's definitely in the conversation already...the more he achieves the more relevant he becomes in the conversation.

I think he is getting the credit though. I mean Novak winning the career slam after Fed and Rafa have done it in recent years didn't seem to capture the imagination of the media. But the fact that he is only the 3rd player in 125 years of slam tennis as a male to hold 4 at once has been heavily covered. Now I have seen a sort of sea change in coverage of Novak in the states since he won the RG its accelerated. The media is firmly putting him in that conversation and they never really did till he accomplished something spectacular that Rafa and Roger weren't ever able to do. This record that he holds that Fedal don't has done more for his reputation then his consistent dominance of the last 5 years of tennis. So I think we will see an even bigger sea change in perception in the wider sports world if he does manage pulling off a golden slam, I think he will supplant in most neutrals minds Fed as the GOAT. Now Fed has a huge cadre of loyalists and fans, Novak could win 30 slams and not convince them. So I would not be talking about them changing their side in the debate, but the neutrals who aren't tied to one or the other, well I think the majority of them would be swayed by a feat that was thought to be impossible in modern tennis.

In the UK I don't think the four in a row got enough media coverage. Non-tennis fans seem to know he is the best player and dominating, just because he beats Murray quite often.

Maybe it is different in the US, but I actually think the fact that he completed the career slam got more coverage than him holding all four at once.

I think the coverage of the 4 slams in a row in states has been very big. Much bigger than the career slam. Both get mentioned but the fact that fedal  failed to do this and that the last guy to do it is Laver, and the fact that Serena famously failed in the same quest just last year has already made the public aware of the record. To me frankly he already has matched what Laver did,  I do think there is a bit more prestige involved in doing it in one year. But is there a real difference to winning every slam between June 2015 to June 2016 by changing the months to January? To be honest if he does win 6 slams in a row, tying an 80 year old record I think we will see a majority of neutral observers put him on top of the Goat list.

socal1976 wrote:To me frankly he already has matched what Laver did,  I do think there is a bit more prestige involved in doing it in one year.

Laver had 2 CYGSes. . Once you start splitting hairs, then the GOAT debate is no longer a worthwhile one.

It is quite understandable that CYGS is a record, and if Djokovic gets it, it would be good for the sport as record. It also shows that it is not easy to win slams, leave alone multiple ones.

CYGS or Budge's record is not the only factor for GOAT debates. There is a lot more to it. Bud Collins passed away, but carried the flame for Pancho, despite many records falling in the Open Era.

No.

He needs at least 17 slams and as many weeks at number 1 - then the debate can begin in earnest. Cleaning up with no competition doesn't allow him to jump the queue.
This is the weakest era in open history.

Not a single elite player to emerge between age 19 and 28 (except JMDP who's been AWOL through injuries). A decade of no competition.

The truth is Djokovic was dominated by Federer until the latter got old.
He was also dominated by Nadal apart from one season.
He is still behind Rafa in the GOAT stakes and miles behind Federer.

I think these ridiculously premature threads should be kept to a minimum or you're gonna look pretty stupid if the eggs don't hatch.

As for four in a row - if this had been the competition in Fed's prime he would have had 10 in a row.

Only the greatest clay courter ever in his clay prime prevented that. So Novak's four in a row is being seen like Serena's - nice, but nothing to write home about.

Djokovic will never become the GOAT, Federer is the GOAT or Nadal. Case closed.

Bashing up a veteran Federer or a crippled Nadal doesn't make anyone a GOAT.

4 slams in a row isn't the be all and end all when you factor in the current weak era.

I'd be happy to put Djokovic into the conversation once his records warrants it. But even if he were to win the calendar slam and end the year on 14 he would still be 3 slams behind Federer and behind on just about every other meaningful stat.

GOAThood is about your overall record. As things stand, or even if Djokovic were to win the last 2 slams of the season, his overall record would be inferior by some distance and the H2H is basically even despite Djokovic having the age advantage for the majority of their careers.

So lets not jump the gun. We can have a sensible discussion about it if and when his numbers warrant it.

One thing I will say however is that Federer is a virtuoso - a magician. Not just the most successful but also the most talented. He is so talented that at age 34 he finished number two in the world and would have won two slams (probably 3 - this years OZ) had it not been for peak Djokovic stopping him.

Jermaine2015 wrote:Djokovic will never become the GOAT, Federer is the GOAT or Nadal. Case closed.

Bashing up a veteran Federer or a crippled Nadal doesn't make anyone a GOAT.

4 slams in a row isn't the be all and end all when you factor in the current weak era.

If you care about objectivity by far the best year any of them dominated in terms of competition was Djokovic in 2011. In that year Nadal went into the AO on the Rafa Slam, he played in the finals of almost every tournament for six months. Federer by the way was about a year older than Djokovic is now and two years later would win his last slam and reach number one for the last time. That level of competition buries Empanada Dave, the Russian playboy, the one hipped Aussie, and One shot Andy. Anyone who argues against it really must not understand the game or be a blinded Djoko hater.

emancipator wrote:I'd be happy to put Djokovic into the conversation once his records warrants it. But even if he were to win the calendar slam and end the year on 14 he would still be 3 slams behind Federer and behind on just about every other meaningful stat.

GOAThood is about your overall record. As things stand, or even if Djokovic were to win the last 2 slams of the season, his overall record would be inferior by some distance and the H2H is basically even despite Djokovic having the age advantage for the majority of their careers.

So lets not jump the gun. We can have a sensible discussion about it if and when his numbers warrant it.

One thing I will say however is that Federer is a virtuoso - a magician. Not just the most successful but also the most talented. He is so talented that at age 34 he finished number two in the world and would have won two slams (probably 3 - this years OZ) had it not been for peak Djokovic stopping him.

Yeah, but I say very clearly this is a hypo and actually don't think Novak will win the next two slams. I stated earlier before the year that Novak would win the AO and FO and that would be his only two slams. The way he is playing he might get one of the next two and probably most likely will but I don't think he will get both. And as we speak he is laying an egg against Querry to validate the initial premise right there in the OP. One reason I am talking about it prematurely because I don't think it will happen.

That being said I think if Novak did manage to turn around the match against Querrey, and win the next two slams the majority opinion of neutral observers and journalists would turn against Fed. 11 of 12 Novak slams were against Fed, Nadal, or Murray vastly superior to the Fat Dave and Stoli Safin generation that Fed beat up on. If he does I think in 6 months time the majority of neutrals would supplant Fed for Djoko in the GOAT race. The Grand Slam, although frankly for me he already has won the grandslam.

Totally disagree. 14 slams isn't enough. You don't get to jump the queue because of a calendar slam against Murray (lol).

When the competition was still respectable Djokovic managed to win a slam a year (12-14) and lost his number one slot on two occasions (to Fed and then Rafa). Since then he's been dining out on no competition.

No one's talking about him as the GOAT except you and some crazy Serbian fans on other forums (who no one can understand anyway).

In the short term some people may start to make that claim but unless he continues to bolster his numbers, once the dust has settled, people will remember the total slam count and the weeks at number one.

Oh and of course the fact that he plays a boring robotic form of tennis compared to the beautiful mastery of Roger or the ferocious competitiveness of Rafa means he'll always be second fiddle to those two in the public imagination.

So if I were you, I'd hold your horses for a while yet.

socal1976 wrote:

Jermaine2015 wrote:Djokovic will never become the GOAT, Federer is the GOAT or Nadal. Case closed.

Bashing up a veteran Federer or a crippled Nadal doesn't make anyone a GOAT.

4 slams in a row isn't the be all and end all when you factor in the current weak era.

If you care about objectivity by far the best year any of them dominated in terms of competition was Djokovic in 2011. In that year Nadal went into the AO on the Rafa Slam, he played in the finals of almost every tournament for six months. Federer by the way was about a year older than Djokovic is now and two years later would win his last slam and reach number one for the last time. That level of competition buries Empanada Dave, the Russian playboy, the one hipped Aussie, and One shot Andy. Anyone who argues against it really must not understand the game or be a blinded Djoko hater.

That was a mightily impressive year. But lets not forget he lost to a Federer two months short of his 30th birthday and still playing with a 90 square inch racquet at the French open. He then should have lost to the 30 year old Federer 2 months later at the USO. He squeaked by him. He did dominate Nadal and kudos for that but he certainly didn't dominate an old Federer.

socal1976 wrote:That level of competition buries Empanada Dave, the Russian playboy, the one hipped Aussie, and One shot Andy. Anyone who argues against it really must not understand the game or be a blinded Djoko hater.

socal1976 wrote:To me frankly ...

You claim to understand the game, and yet add your own subjectivity into the argument, which shows what a blinded Djoko lover can write. Djokovic is doing well, and you should be happy as a fan, but a trench war shows your lack of understanding of the sport.

Federer is being chastised for the competition when he came on the scene, but Djokovic is being lauded for the current climate. If you espouse Wee Keira, be prepared for other's subjectivity come chasing all your arguments.  

@SoCal... the loss to Query may put things in a better perspective. .

Greater than Federer? My German arse is Djokovic in that class.
Feel free to close this topic your boy got humped!

LOL

What an epic fail.

This must rank alongside Dr Sincere's premature speculation

Bogbrush where are you?

Irrespective of this result, Djokovic simply isn't in Federer or Nadals league.

Didn't take long for that huge hypothetical to be blown up. Djoko is best player of his generation and should end up in top 3 all time easy, But "neutral" observers,etc- he's going to have to do a lot more to catch Federer.

Interestingly- ESPN just did a poll of journalist, players, experts of best tennis player all time male and female combined- Federer at #1, Novak at 8 , 1 ahead of Rafa, but behind laver, Sampras, bjorg amongst the men. To me he's ahead of Sampras, but either way he will climb that list

TRuffin wrote:Didn't take long for that huge hypothetical to be blown up.  Djoko is best player of his generation and should end up in top 3 all time easy,   But "neutral" observers,etc-  he's going to have to do a lot more to catch Federer.

Interestingly- ESPN just did a poll of journalist, players, experts of best tennis player all time male and female combined-  Federer at #1,   Novak at 8 , 1 ahead of Rafa, but behind laver, Sampras, bjorg amongst the men. To me he's ahead of Sampras,  but either way he will climb that list

Best player of his generation? Federer and Nadal where a figure of my imagination then?

Nadal has Djokovic covered with ease. He dominated a peak Federer not a veteran that Djokovic has been bullying...

Federer isn't djokovic generation. I'm talking about age group generation, and I do rank Novak ahead if nadal.

Fed is goat and has spanned 2 maybe 3 generations.

Djokovic lost to Querrey. So obviously this is now completely theoretical from the hypothetical. He missed a big chance, for some reason fans put more emphasis on 4 in a row from Jan to Jan as opposed to 4 in a row from June to June.

Fed's number one records are in deep jeopardy, while I think that 17 slams number is safe. Novak already is at low 200s and it would take 30 weeks or 35 weeks of unconscious tennis from someone to overhaul him. So he is already in the mid 200s, another year and half of good tennis and he can take that record.

Personally, I am agnostic about Djokovic and don't really care for him to be recognized as GOAT. I thought it was an interesting hypothetical though.

What I found ridiculous about this OP is the phrasing of the question.

How does Djokovic winning the calendar slam end the GOAT conversation. It would have elevated him to the top tier, but end the conversation? That just deserves derision.

Anyway it's a mute point now. But Socal I did warn you

I must be Nostrafreakingdamus to borrow a quote.



emancipator

emancipator wrote:mute

moot

Certainly the weeks at number one is under threat as is the slam total because, let's face it, there isn't much elite competition around.

But this loss has preserved some Federer records for a long time.

Consecutive slam finals, semis, and quarters.

And Federer never lost to such a lowly player at a slam for a stretch of 10 years. In fact I think the lowest ranked player he lost to in that period was either Tsonga or Berdych both of whom were top ten players.

TRuffin wrote:To me he's ahead of Sampras

You mean ahead of Sampras now, or if he had won CYGS?  To me he would probably be behind Sampras either way.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

emancipator wrote:mute

moot

Just keeping you on your toes

summerblues wrote:

TRuffin wrote:To me he's ahead of Sampras

You mean ahead of Sampras now, or if he had won CYGS?  To me he would probably be behind Sampras either way.

Yeah, no way is he ahead of Sampras at this point in time.

emancipator wrote:Certainly the weeks at number one is under threat as is the slam total because, let's face it, there isn't much elite competition around.

But this loss has preserved some Federer records for a long time.

Consecutive slam finals, semis, and quarters.

And Federer never lost to such a lowly player at a slam for a stretch of 10 years. In fact I think the lowest ranked player he lost to in that period was either Tsonga or Berdych both of whom were top ten players.

Yeah it was a strange match, a lot of stops and starts that I don't think helped him. Plus he didn't have a good serving day himself, and when he does have one of those days he becomes susceptible to a big server on a fast court. This whole tournament he has been a little scratchy but the first two opponents couldn't hurt him.

Yes I agree on those Fed records. But Djokovic will take the all time masters mark and that record has gained in prestige as all the masters have become mandatory except for the vets. I think he has a better than 50/50 as finishing with the most weeks at number 1 and tying the record for most YE 1s with Sampras. Those records in and of themselves would be incredible on any CV. Plus he is the only the second player in the open era to hold all the titles at once, well up until the end of this tournament.

Basically, all gravy from here on out for the Djokovic fans, because he far exceeded mine and everyone's expectations.

Didn't the OP once say Djokovic will break all the records?

No channel slam and now no chance to beat Feds GS QF streak

Yep, who would have thought in 2010 that 6 years later he'd be on 12 slams. And of course he's far from finished.

emancipator wrote:What I found ridiculous about this OP is the phrasing of the question.

How does Djokovic winning the calendar slam end the GOAT conversation. It would have elevated him to the top tier, but end the conversation? That just deserves derision.

Anyway it's a mute point now. But Socal I did warn you

I must be Nostrafreakingdamus to borrow a quote.



emancipator

You must have a reading comprehension problem since I said in the first line of the OP that I didn't think Novak would win the next two slams. In fact, I said the reason I was talking about it now was because it would not happen. My prediction this year by the way was that Novak, on record, on this site, that Novak would win 2 slams this year the FO and AO, that he would complete the Novak slam and win no other slams.

NOSTRAFREAKINGDAMUS REIGNS!!!

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Didn't the OP once say Djokovic will break all the records?

No channel slam and now no chance to beat Feds GS QF streak

No go back and read the OP where I said Novak wouldn't win the next two slams right in the first post of this thread. This was not a prediction thread it was a hypothetical, and in fact said I was talking about it now because I didn't think it would happen although it would be a great opportunity for him.

By the way, I don't give a p--- about channel slams and so such. Djokovic won a real slam, 4 in a row, not a girly career slam like your loverboy Fed.

But your 'hypothetical' question had so much arrogant presumption.

Why would winning the calendar slam end the conversation? It would only have started it.

As it stands he's miles behind.

To me, 14 slams with six in a row, including CYGS is - everything else being equal - still below 17.

CYGS and six-in-a-row are interesting records in their own right, but they are more about shorter-term dominance (best year ever, undefeated year, best slam ever, etc etc).  They add to the legend of a player, but GOAThood is - to me - more about the overall body of work.  If you get CYGS but a total of only 14, it means that somewhere along the way you must have missed some other slams.

I think those kinds of shortcut claims to GOAThood tend to be advertised as they happen - to better sell the current top dog, especially if their hard numbers are not (yet?) quite good enough.  I think it was similar when people were using H2H to big up Rafa.

Now, irrespectively of whether in some "absolute universe" 14+CYGS is better than 17+no CYGS, I am pretty sure that media and most neutral fans would in the long run view it as inferior, simply because the narrative is simpler that way.

Suppose Nole did win CYGS this year but ended up stuck on 14 slams, and suppose a few years down the road the next star starts chasing records.  When do you declare them to be the best ever?  When they reach 14 because that is where the GOAT is?  Certainly not.  So when they reach 17 because that is where Fed is?  Well, but Nole is better than that, so 17 might not be enough either....  

It just does not make for a clean storyline.

So yes, if he had won all four this year, there would have been a lot of talk about how that might make him better than Fed, but that talk would have subsided and later everyone would use Fed as the yardstick.

emancipator wrote:But your 'hypothetical' question had so much arrogant presumption.

Why would winning the calendar slam end the conversation? It would only have started it.

As it stands he's miles behind.

Ok other than stating it in English for you in the opening thread and phrasing the headline like a hypothetical and in fact stating that I didn't think it will happen I don't know how much more clarification I can provide. The reason the conversation was started was because a lot of people have been talking about it, he did win 4 in a row and 5 of 6. Not some mere girlish career slam.

Oh I'm LOVING this... the relaxing of moderation was lauded and applauded though I was not so keen on the idea then I am now... heh heh
Keeping short of personal abuse of course.. never was my scene  anyway.
But there we have a hen house full of mostly on the faces of certain Novak fans. Like him I doubt you want to talk about it awwwwwww!!!!
Pride comes before the fall, one that was inevitable it wasn't a case of if but when..
the unlikely victor, who I actually have never been a fan of, none other than Querry.. the saviour of tennis and one who has now become my hero.
Humility was never one of Novak's strengths or attributes and I would give it to Roger having played to Brits and withstood all the cheers and applause aimed at his opponents never once did I see him look at the crowd for support... but then he is a class act as we all know.
So what was Novak's problem, apart from our God damn awful European weather, where we have liquid sunshine, ?? the scheduling ?? the draw??? the crowd?? his stiff neck???
None of it... Querry had his number, and took his game to him.
On the basis of what I saw Novak would never have won Wimbers anyway. GOAT my arras not on your life... get in the queue..
So to all his smug self satisfied supporters ... I do hope you can now sympathise with the rest of us.. being a Nadal fan he and we have eaten so much humble pie we choked on it.. so we thought we might serve you up a helping   ... lets hope it wont be your last.

signed MUMMA BEAR !!!! Cheers have a drink on me

summerblues wrote:To me, 14 slams with six in a row, including CYGS is - everything else being equal - still below 17.

CYGS and six-in-a-row are interesting records in their own right, but they are more about shorter-term dominance (best year ever, undefeated year, best slam ever, etc etc).  They add to the legend of a player, but GOAThood is - to me - more about the overall body of work.  If you get CYGS but a total of only 14, it means that somewhere along the way you must have missed some other slams.

I think those kinds of shortcut claims to GOAThood tend to be advertised as they happen - to better sell the current top dog, especially if their hard numbers are not (yet?) quite good enough.  I think it was similar when people were using H2H to big up Rafa.

Now, irrespectively of whether in some "absolute universe" 14+CYGS is better than 17+no CYGS, I am pretty sure that media and most neutral fans would in the long run view it as inferior, simply because the narrative is simpler that way.

Suppose Nole did win CYGS this year but ended up stuck on 14 slams, and suppose a few years down the road the next star starts chasing records.  When do you declare them to be the best ever?  When they reach 14 because that is where the GOAT is?  Certainly not.  So when they reach 17 because that is where Fed is?  Well, but Nole is better than that, so 17 might not be enough either....  

It just does not make for a clean storyline.

So yes, if he had won all four this year, there would have been a lot of talk about how that might make him better than Fed, but that talk would have subsided and later everyone would use Fed as the yardstick.

Good post, though I disagree there is a certain fascination in sports with certain records and Novak missed a big opportunity to capture the imagination. By the way he is still winning almost everything in sight so we have to see where he finishes. That is why from the outset this was meant to be hypothetical. I think many critics would conclude that winning 6 straight slams in the modern era and dominating the rankings by such a level for that period of time would show that at his best, Novak was a lot more dominant than Federer when looking peak to peak.