ATP Tennis/Non-India Davis Cup

[Rajiv]

Apparently, Rafa played his semis with an injury.

https://www.tennismajors.com/atp/nadal- ... 18585.html

As Guy Forget would go on to say---- the class of the man to not talk about it at all! Took the tournament director to reveal it after the finals.

[jai_in_canada]

Imho the GOAT. He clearly has he most balanced game.

Most debates about GOAT Tennis Player end up being a debate about criteria.

So, I am curious, what criteria do you use to decide for yourself that Djokovic is GOAT? Not disagreeing, BTW. I'm just interested to know how you arrived at your conclusion. Head-to-head. All surface titles. Number of majors. Number of Masters. Number of multiple wins at same tournament. Weight assigned to each factor.

For example, a friend of mine has a single interesting criterion for determining GOAT. He says if you ask 1000 random people (not just tennis fans) which ONE tennis player they would like to meet and/or have a picture taken with, whom they name is the GOAT. We can debate whether that is a good criterion or not, but it's his criterion. According to his criterion Federer is GOAT, because he believes that that is whom most of the 1000 randomly sampled people would name.

Personally, I have given up thinking about who is the GOAT and just enjoy what these guys are doing on and off the court.

BTW, look at this comparison timeline of when the 3 greats won their Major titles.
2004: RF (4), RN (0), ND (0)
2007: RF (12), RN (3), ND (0)
2011: RF (16), RN (10), ND (4)
2021: RF (20), RN (20), ND (19)

So in the past decade, Roger has won 4 majors, Rafa has won 10 majors, and Novak has won 15 majors. Roger won most of his titles before Rafa and Novak appeared on the scene.

[VReddy]

Jai: I think best to keep the scope to best player for GOAT discussion.


For any non-Tennis related stuff, it becomes a subjective matter and is heavily influenced by your peer group and the sports channels you follow (and whom they promote).

If we have to start looking at overall likeability, then arbitrary stuff comes in. I am a Nadal fan and for record - Nadal has the biggest online following. You can use Google Search Trends or even social media apps like Instagram (Nadal 11.2 million followers, Federer 8.3 million, Djokovic 8.4 million). Similar big lead for Nadal on Twitter too.

Going by your friend`s criteria, Maria Sharapova could also be right up there for me for GOAT. She has a great story and Ive read her autobiography and I generally have a soft corner for Soviet Union players in terms of the treatment they get in this sport.

[jai_in_canada]

Jai: I think best to keep the scope to best player for GOAT discussion.

As a long time tennis fan, I agree with you 100%.

You make a good point about Maria Sharapova. I'm going to use that to challenge my friend's criterion. His thinking was that a player that transcends tennis to attract casual sports fans, and thereby raising tennis' profile should be a factor. But to your point, in today's brand marketing driven online social media persona environment the likes of Sharapova and (God forbid) Eugenie Bouchard would score higher than Margaret Court, Steffi Graf, Martina Navratilova, Rod Laver, Bjorn Borg, Pete Sampras etc. Which is, of course, ridiculous.

But I find people can't even agree on which tennis-only criteria to include and what weight to give to each to try to somewhat rationally assess tennis greatness. I do recognize that it is also not fair or reasonable to compare across generations and eras.

That's why I personally have stopped thinking about GOAT and simply watch today's matches and classics just for their own intrinsic value, instead of trying to compare and contrast. For example, a Borg-McEnroe Wimbledon final in 1981 has its own value, as does a Becker-Edberg in 1989. I don't compare it to Djokovic-Tsitsipas 2021.

I might have opened up a can of worms trying to catalyze a debate on GOAT, which often ends up going nowhere, other than each person saying whom they like and why.

[PKBasu]

The GOAT argument is going Djokovic's way, although my heart still says Federer. It'll be interesting to see if Federer can pull something from his hat at Wimbledon.

I was disappointed that, yet again, the NextGen player came close but couldn't put it past one of the Big Three. Tsitsipas was brilliant in the second set (and the first set tiebreak), and seemed in complete control until 1-2 in the third set. That fourth game of the third set turned the tide: it was a lesson in how to hang on and put pressure on an opponent who seemed to be in command of the match. Remarkable game from Novak, and he never really looked back from there. Tsitsipas and Medvedev have come closest, but haven't been able to complete the job in Slams. I like Tsitsipas' game -- watched the wonderful SF in full as well -- but Djoker's mental fortitude is truly remarkable.

[VReddy]

As a long time tennis fan, I agree with you 100%.

You make a good point about Maria Sharapova. I'm going to use that to challenge my friend's criterion. His thinking was that a player that transcends tennis to attract casual sports fans, and thereby raising tennis' profile should be a factor. But to your point, in today's brand marketing driven online social media persona environment the likes of Sharapova and (God forbid) Eugenie Bouchard would score higher than Margaret Court, Steffi Graf, Martina Navratilova, Rod Laver, Bjorn Borg, Pete Sampras etc. Which is, of course, ridiculous.

But I find people can't even agree on which tennis-only criteria to include and what weight to give to each to try to somewhat rationally assess tennis greatness. I do recognize that it is also not fair or reasonable to compare across generations and eras.

That's why I personally have stopped thinking about GOAT and simply watch today's matches and classics just for their own intrinsic value, instead of trying to compare and contrast. For example, a Borg-McEnroe Wimbledon final in 1981 has its own value, as does a Becker-Edberg in 1989. I don't compare it to Djokovic-Tsitsipas 2021.

I might have opened up a can of worms trying to catalyze a debate on GOAT, which often ends up going nowhere, other than each person saying whom they like and why.

Pls don`t put Sharapova in the same bracket as Bouchard - it would be very demeaning and insulting. Maria has won 5 Grand Slams and reached final in 5 others. She is not in the league of Navratilova and all but 5 GS titles is no mean thing.

I became a fan of her only after the doping ban - a case of me feeling that the system gave a differential treatment to a Russian athlete vs if the athlete was from the US or any of the G7 countries. However this is a different topic.

I am just calling out in case I came across highlighting Sharapova from the fashion angle than the tennis angle.

[prasen9]

My criterion was that among the top GS winners, Djokovic's wins are (a) the least skewed across surfaces, and (b) he owns the head to head against Nadal and Federer. So, I think he is the best all-surface player I have seen, I think. Although I am a Nadal fan.

[jai_in_canada]

^^^ Good criteria, Prasen.

Along those lines, this piece shows Djokovic's accomplishments relative to Nadal and Federer.

Djokovic Extends Big Titles Lead Over Nadal, Federer
https://www.atptour.com/en/news/roland- ... les-update

Doesn't show the head-to-head, breakdown by surface, the fact that Djokovic is the only one to have won all the Masters 1000, and that Djokovic is the only one to have won every Slam more than once. It does show Djokovic with a more balanced record in the big tournaments. Strange that he and Federer haven't yet won an Olympic gold in Singles, which Nadal has. While the ATP World Tour Finals is conspicuously missing in Nadal's trophy list.

Nadal is the undisputed GOAT on clay, and Federer is arguably the GOAT on grass. But tennis is played on multiple surfaces, indoors and outdoors. It takes a better overall player to have a more balanced record. A bit strange that Djokovic, the GOAT on hard courts, has not won more USO titles - and he's won more Wimbledon titles instead.

[arjun2761]

The GOAT argument is going Djokovic's way, although my heart still says Federer. It'll be interesting to see if Federer can pull something from his hat at Wimbledon.

My feelings exactly. Subjectively, Federer at his peak played at a level that appears higher (relative to the rest of the contemporary field) than either Nadal or Djokovic. That is, he was better than his peers by a bigger gap than the others at their respective peaks. That is, Nadal was likely the best player on clay but was rarely the overall best player by quality for most of his career. Djokovic being the best well rounded player was the best for a longer period but he was rarely head-and-shoulders above the rest by as much as Federer was at his peak.

However, if you include longevity and consistency, especially measured by GS's, then Djokovic will likely take that crown as I see him ending with 22-24 GS titles before he is done. Federer still leads the overall ATP titles by 103-84 over Djokovic (with Nadal at 88) but that gap will also close over the next couple of years.

[Atithee]

Agree with recent posts and reasons that Novak is now more of a GOAT than the other two. To be honest, there is only one GOAT in recent times, and that’s on the women’s side—Serena Williams. But, even she seemed to have voted for Federer very recently. Anyway, she’s the real and only GOAT for me.

[jai_in_canada]

Definitely cannot be forgotten that Federer during his reign at the top was a lot more dominant - until Nadal and Djokovic showed up to challenge him - than Nadal or Djokovic have been. Djokovic has won 15 out 37 slams since 2011, compared 10 by Rafa, 4 by Federer, 3 by Murray, 3 by Wawrinka and 1 by Cilic (del Potro won his slam earlier than 2011).

If you want to use dominance over peers as a criterion, then Esther Vergeer is the hands down GOAT - not Serena Williams or Roger Federer.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esther_Vergeer

[VReddy]

Subjectively, Federer at his peak played at a level that appears higher (relative to the rest of the contemporary field) than either Nadal or Djokovic. That is, he was better than his peers by a bigger gap than the others at their respective peaks.

I think its important to qualitate that Federer`s early domination was aided by considerable lower quality of contemporaries.

Djokovic won his 2nd grand slam in 2011. By that stage, Federer reached 22 Grand Slam finals and pocketed 15 titles.

A quick look at the quality of opponents in those finals for you before Djokovic came onto the scene

1. Philippoussis (1)
2. Safin (1)
3. Roddick (4)
4. Hewitt (1)
5. Agassi (1) - close to retirement though
6. Baghdatis (1)
7. Nadal (7)
8. Gonzalez (1)
9. Djokovic (1)
10. Murray (2)
11. Soderling (1)
12. Del Potro (1)

The class opponents - Nadal, Djokovic, Murray and possibly Del Potro - he faced them all from mid-2006 and onwards.

I think we all agree that the likes of Philippousis, Safin, Hewitt, Baghdatis and so on.. Difficult to compare across generations but that they would not even be on par with the 2nd rung of talent in world tennis today.

So Federer dominating that phase to win 7-10 titles before a Nadal came onto the scene - Its no way less but important to factor that in.

[prasen9]

I think the reason that Djokovic has not won the USO as many times is because it is the least slanted wrt court-ball speed unlike grass and clay. And, the Djokovic years were divided among Djokovic and Nadal. Federer won his USO's between 2004 and 2008, at which time Djokovic was perhaps just 21. One way to look at Federer's early run was that he got a bunch of wins before the Djokovic-Nadal rivalry started at the USO, etc., at which point he was just 27, after which he did not win a single USO. Not that that the USO is the be-all and end-all but it is a reasonable middle ground to grass and clay. Whereas Djokovic has had to fight two greats and get his wins. I would not rate blowing out their peers more than fighting out two greats and coming out on top. AKA Strength of Schedule matters.

[Atithee]

011).

If you want to use dominance over peers as a criterion, then Esther Vergeer is the hands down GOAT - not Serena Williams or Roger Federer.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esther_Vergeer

I didn’t bother looking because I think you made this point before. It’s the wheelchair lady, right? Ok. It’s fine. As you said earlier, this is a topic that rises after every few months and there’s no perfect answer to that. I didn’t include Esther in my mix.

[Atithee]

Exactly. That Novak has won most of titles in the prime big three era is what sets him apart for me. And on all surfaces multiple times. Federer has one French title with an asterisk.

I think its important to qualitate that Federer`s early domination was aided by considerable lower quality of contemporaries.

Djokovic won his 2nd grand slam in 2011. By that stage, Federer reached 22 Grand Slam finals and pocketed 15 titles.

A quick look at the quality of opponents in those finals for you before Djokovic came onto the scene

1. Philippoussis (1)
2. Safin (1)
3. Roddick (4)
4. Hewitt (1)
5. Agassi (1) - close to retirement though
6. Baghdatis (1)
7. Nadal (7)
8. Gonzalez (1)
9. Djokovic (1)
10. Murray (2)
11. Soderling (1)
12. Del Potro (1)

The class opponents - Nadal, Djokovic, Murray and possibly Del Potro - he faced them all from mid-2006 and onwards.

I think we all agree that the likes of Philippousis, Safin, Hewitt, Baghdatis and so on.. Difficult to compare across generations but that they would not even be on par with the 2nd rung of talent in world tennis today.

So Federer dominating that phase to win 7-10 titles before a Nadal came onto the scene - Its no way less but important to factor that in.