OT: Djoker Becomes Undisputed GOAT

[EmpireFalls]

Best peak is Nadal. Plus he is most dominant on his best surface. He had GOAT peak overall.

When was his peak

[schnakenpopanz]

They’re all great for different reasons. Personally I’ll take Rafa’s 3 consecutive majors on each surface. Fed’s 2006 record was special tho. 92-5 with his only losses coming to Rafa (4) and Muzz (1) is insane.

[MissileMike]

Not what I was hoping to see today. You could tell something wasn't right with sinner even in the first game. Either he caught something or his sickly victorian frame finally succumbed to the heat.

[AleksandarN]

They’re all great for different reasons. Personally I’ll take Rafa’s 3 consecutive majors on each surface. Fed’s 2006 record was special tho. 92-5 with his only losses coming to Rafa (4) and Muzz (1) is insane.

I would take Novak’s 4 consecutive majors above Rafa’s by far. Also take his 2011 above Nadal’s. Also take Novak wining all Masters 1000s twice.

[schnakenpopanz]

They’re all great for different reasons. Personally I’ll take Rafa’s 3 consecutive majors on each surface. Fed’s 2006 record was special tho. 92-5 with his only losses coming to Rafa (4) and Muzz (1) is insane.

I would take Novak’s 4 consecutive majors above Rafa’s by far. Also take his 2011 above Nadal’s. Also take Novak wining all Masters 1000s twice.

You are serbian right?

[AleksandarN]

They’re all great for different reasons. Personally I’ll take Rafa’s 3 consecutive majors on each surface. Fed’s 2006 record was special tho. 92-5 with his only losses coming to Rafa (4) and Muzz (1) is insane.

I would take Novak’s 4 consecutive majors above Rafa’s by far. Also take his 2011 above Nadal’s. Also take Novak wining all Masters 1000s twice.

You are serbian right?

What I said is the true none the less.

[azcatz11]

The mixed doubles format is pretty good.

[schnakenpopanz]

I would take Novak’s 4 consecutive majors above Rafa’s by far. Also take his 2011 above Nadal’s. Also take Novak wining all Masters 1000s twice.

You are serbian right?

What I said is the true none the less.

There is no harm in being biased, everyone is.
Me too. A tiny bit of overvaluing your country's biggest sports figure of all time is not unusual. And that's the beauty of arguing on the Internet with strangers. We are all entitled to our personal opinion.

Gesendet von meinem Pixel 8 Pro mit Tapatalk

[Ryoga Hibiki]

I would take Novak’s 4 consecutive majors above Rafa’s by far. Also take his 2011 above Nadal’s. Also take Novak wining all Masters 1000s twice.

You are serbian right?

What I said is the true none the less.

no reason to doubt that you would take Novak's titles

[Ryoga Hibiki]

I think that combination of:
* the tour making all court surfaces more similar to each other
* greater attention to the slam titles as a goat measure
* training and medical progress making careers longer
* him being the youngest of the big3 + 90s talent pool being pretty shallow

helped Djokovic's case a lot (something similar happened to Serena).
I still have the feeling that, adjusting to era, Borg was the goat. But he cut his career to short, or his case would have been much stronger.

[Rust_Cohle]

I think that combination of:
* the tour making all court surfaces more similar to each other
* greater attention to the slam titles as a goat measure
* training and medical progress making careers longer
* him being the youngest of the big3 + 90s talent pool being pretty shallow

helped Djokovic's case a lot (something similar happened to Serena).
I still have the feeling that, adjusting to era, Borg was the goat. But he cut his career to short, or his case would have been much stronger.

Nah, Djokovic would’ve smoked bjorg. Even Sampras and Agassi said Djokovic would’ve been the best in any era. Bjorg was never going to have that kind of longevity while still winning grand slams despite an amazing peak. He tried a comeback and failed miserably. Didn’t win a single match for 2 years.

[Rust_Cohle]

They’re all great for different reasons. Personally I’ll take Rafa’s 3 consecutive majors on each surface. Fed’s 2006 record was special tho. 92-5 with his only losses coming to Rafa (4) and Muzz (1) is insane.

I would take Novak’s 4 consecutive majors above Rafa’s by far. Also take his 2011 above Nadal’s. Also take Novak wining all Masters 1000s twice.

Easily. Rafa hasn’t beaten Novak on a hard court in a grand slam since 2012.

[Rust_Cohle]

They’re all great for different reasons. Personally I’ll take Rafa’s 3 consecutive majors on each surface. Fed’s 2006 record was special tho. 92-5 with his only losses coming to Rafa (4) and Muzz (1) is insane.

2006 was some horrific competition, especially when looking at the ELO numbers. 2004-2006 were the dark ages of tennis.

[AleksandarN]

I think that combination of:
* the tour making all court surfaces more similar to each other
* greater attention to the slam titles as a goat measure
* training and medical progress making careers longer
* him being the youngest of the big3 + 90s talent pool being pretty shallow

helped Djokovic's case a lot (something similar happened to Serena).
I still have the feeling that, adjusting to era, Borg was the goat. But he cut his career to short, or his case would have been much stronger.

Ok let’s look at other measures not only slam titles . Longest weeks at number 1. Having the most 1000 titles, year end titles. It is not just majors Novak won them all and that’s with having to compete with two other all time greats during his playing time.

[Doctor MJ]

I think that combination of:
* the tour making all court surfaces more similar to each other
* greater attention to the slam titles as a goat measure
* training and medical progress making careers longer
* him being the youngest of the big3 + 90s talent pool being pretty shallow

helped Djokovic's case a lot (something similar happened to Serena).
I still have the feeling that, adjusting to era, Borg was the goat. But he cut his career to short, or his case would have been much stronger.

So, I'll just say:

I believe the primary beneficiary of making all court surfaces more similar to each other was the clay court specialists led by their king, Rafa. Prior to the changes, generally the best players in the world were stronger on hard & grass who would then lose on clay to guys who couldn't do much on a surface that let speed happen and allowed serve & volley tennis - traditionally the most exciting thing in tennis - to flourish. Then, in response to player serves getting too good on the back of the tennis world allowing ridiculously overpowered serves which meant "serve and volley" stopped being actually fun to watch, they made chances that crippled it and render the game one in which two guys stand basically as far away from each other as possible and try to win by tiring the other guy out - which then specifically favored guys who were not as good at tennis but better at cardio and pain tolerance, of which Rafa was again king.

Had they not made the chances, Rafa probably doesn't become a guy who wins on all surfaces. On the other hand, had the tennis world had the foresight to understand the problem of too much technology in a racket - like major league baseball did - Rafa's ultra-spin game simply wouldn't have worked at all, and so he wouldn't have done as well either. Rafa becomes an all-around GOAT candidate then because tennis a) didn't understand how technology would chance the sport, and then b) rather than undoing the issue, they used more technology to solve one part of the problem while creating others. Both moves specifically helped Rafa over everyone else.

Then you have Federer who could just do everything tennis. He'd be elite on any surface in any era, because he's the best tennis ball stroker in history, but would have particularly excelled in an era where ultra spin wasn't possible because that ultra spin kills the one-handed backhand (the single most beautiful stroke in the game of tennis) for normal-sized people.

As for Djokovic, to be honest, I see him as more like Federer. He's not as good with the racket as Federer - no one is - but he's taller, more flexible, more athletic, and better with the pain tolerance and late match endurance. For these reasons, it's very possible that Djokovic would be the better non-grass court player in any era, and so once the game went from grass-dominant to hard-dominant, Djokovic comes out on top as the top overall player.

Re: Borg. While I think you can definitely argue that Borg had the most dominant prime of the 20th century Open era, I have a hard time seeing his peak as matching McEnroe on grass & hard court. Borg would translate better to the modern singles game generally though as I think the changes made to the game would really hurt McEnroe's GOAT volley game's ability to shine. In later eras, McEnroe probably is just a double specialist... which frankly I would point to as a huge problem for the popularity of tennis going forward.

The fact that volleying has been relegated to such insignificance in the modern singles game just makes me shake my head. I find it a bit like what the NFL would look like if they changed the actual football to something that couldn't be thrown accurately and it was all 3 years and a cloud of dust forever.

[Ruma85]

I think that combination of:
* the tour making all court surfaces more similar to each other
* greater attention to the slam titles as a goat measure
* training and medical progress making careers longer
* him being the youngest of the big3 + 90s talent pool being pretty shallow

helped Djokovic's case a lot (something similar happened to Serena).
I still have the feeling that, adjusting to era, Borg was the goat. But he cut his career to short, or his case would have been much stronger.

So, I'll just say:

I believe the primary beneficiary of making all court surfaces more similar to each other was the clay court specialists led by their king, Rafa. Prior to the changes, generally the best players in the world were stronger on hard & grass who would then lose on clay to guys who couldn't do much on a surface that let speed happen and allowed serve & volley tennis - traditionally the most exciting thing in tennis - to flourish. Then, in response to player serves getting too good on the back of the tennis world allowing ridiculously overpowered serves which meant "serve and volley" stopped being actually fun to watch, they made chances that crippled it and render the game one in which two guys stand basically as far away from each other as possible and try to win by tiring the other guy out - which then specifically favored guys who were not as good at tennis but better at cardio and pain tolerance, of which Rafa was again king.

Had they not made the chances, Rafa probably doesn't become a guy who wins on all surfaces. On the other hand, had the tennis world had the foresight to understand the problem of too much technology in a racket - like major league baseball did - Rafa's ultra-spin game simply wouldn't have worked at all, and so he wouldn't have done as well either. Rafa becomes an all-around GOAT candidate then because tennis a) didn't understand how technology would chance the sport, and then b) rather than undoing the issue, they used more technology to solve one part of the problem while creating others. Both moves specifically helped Rafa over everyone else.

Then you have Federer who could just do everything tennis. He'd be elite on any surface in any era, because he's the best tennis ball stroker in history, but would have particularly excelled in an era where ultra spin wasn't possible because that ultra spin kills the one-handed backhand (the single most beautiful stroke in the game of tennis) for normal-sized people.

As for Djokovic, to be honest, I see him as more like Federer. He's not as good with the racket as Federer - no one is - but he's taller, more flexible, more athletic, and better with the pain tolerance and late match endurance. For these reasons, it's very possible that Djokovic would be the better non-grass court player in any era, and so once the game went from grass-dominant to hard-dominant, Djokovic comes out on top as the top overall player.

Re: Borg. While I think you can definitely argue that Borg had the most dominant prime of the 20th century Open era, I have a hard time seeing his peak as matching McEnroe on grass & hard court. Borg would translate better to the modern singles game generally though as I think the changes made to the game would really hurt McEnroe's GOAT volley game's ability to shine. In later eras, McEnroe probably is just a double specialist... which frankly I would point to as a huge problem for the popularity of tennis going forward.

The fact that volleying has been relegated to such insignificance in the modern singles game just makes me shake my head. I find it a bit like what the NFL would look like if they changed the actual football to something that couldn't be thrown accurately and it was all 3 years and a cloud of dust forever.

Do you mind elaborating on this please: McEnroe probably is just a double specialist... which frankly I would point to as a huge problem for the popularity of tennis going forward.

[Doctor MJ]

I think that combination of:
* the tour making all court surfaces more similar to each other
* greater attention to the slam titles as a goat measure
* training and medical progress making careers longer
* him being the youngest of the big3 + 90s talent pool being pretty shallow

helped Djokovic's case a lot (something similar happened to Serena).
I still have the feeling that, adjusting to era, Borg was the goat. But he cut his career to short, or his case would have been much stronger.

So, I'll just say:

I believe the primary beneficiary of making all court surfaces more similar to each other was the clay court specialists led by their king, Rafa. Prior to the changes, generally the best players in the world were stronger on hard & grass who would then lose on clay to guys who couldn't do much on a surface that let speed happen and allowed serve & volley tennis - traditionally the most exciting thing in tennis - to flourish. Then, in response to player serves getting too good on the back of the tennis world allowing ridiculously overpowered serves which meant "serve and volley" stopped being actually fun to watch, they made chances that crippled it and render the game one in which two guys stand basically as far away from each other as possible and try to win by tiring the other guy out - which then specifically favored guys who were not as good at tennis but better at cardio and pain tolerance, of which Rafa was again king.

Had they not made the chances, Rafa probably doesn't become a guy who wins on all surfaces. On the other hand, had the tennis world had the foresight to understand the problem of too much technology in a racket - like major league baseball did - Rafa's ultra-spin game simply wouldn't have worked at all, and so he wouldn't have done as well either. Rafa becomes an all-around GOAT candidate then because tennis a) didn't understand how technology would chance the sport, and then b) rather than undoing the issue, they used more technology to solve one part of the problem while creating others. Both moves specifically helped Rafa over everyone else.

Then you have Federer who could just do everything tennis. He'd be elite on any surface in any era, because he's the best tennis ball stroker in history, but would have particularly excelled in an era where ultra spin wasn't possible because that ultra spin kills the one-handed backhand (the single most beautiful stroke in the game of tennis) for normal-sized people.

As for Djokovic, to be honest, I see him as more like Federer. He's not as good with the racket as Federer - no one is - but he's taller, more flexible, more athletic, and better with the pain tolerance and late match endurance. For these reasons, it's very possible that Djokovic would be the better non-grass court player in any era, and so once the game went from grass-dominant to hard-dominant, Djokovic comes out on top as the top overall player.

Re: Borg. While I think you can definitely argue that Borg had the most dominant prime of the 20th century Open era, I have a hard time seeing his peak as matching McEnroe on grass & hard court. Borg would translate better to the modern singles game generally though as I think the changes made to the game would really hurt McEnroe's GOAT volley game's ability to shine. In later eras, McEnroe probably is just a double specialist... which frankly I would point to as a huge problem for the popularity of tennis going forward.

The fact that volleying has been relegated to such insignificance in the modern singles game just makes me shake my head. I find it a bit like what the NFL would look like if they changed the actual football to something that couldn't be thrown accurately and it was all 3 years and a cloud of dust forever.

Do you mind elaborating on this please: McEnroe probably is just a double specialist... which frankly I would point to as a huge problem for the popularity of tennis going forward.

Sure. McEnroe's a smaller guy. I don't think he'd have the power to be elite at either serve or groundstrokes in today's game, and today's singles game is basically just serve and groundstrokes.

On the other hand, elite doubles play will always be about volleying, and Mac was the GOAT at that.

So, not saying McEnroe couldn't have been a Top 100 singles player today or anything like that, but in terms of him winning the Slams, I'd say doubles would be where that happened.

And just for some historical reference here: Mac won his last singles Slam in 1984, but won his last doubles Slam in 1992, and in that last double Slam he won it with Michael Stich who really wasn't particularly known for his doubles. Now, because of financial incentives, a great doubles talent can simply not play that much doubles, so I'm not saying Stick was a bad doubles player or anything like that, but Mac was absolutely better suited to play doubles than singles because it allowed him to features his net game more.

[AleksandarN]

I think that combination of:
* the tour making all court surfaces more similar to each other
* greater attention to the slam titles as a goat measure
* training and medical progress making careers longer
* him being the youngest of the big3 + 90s talent pool being pretty shallow

helped Djokovic's case a lot (something similar happened to Serena).
I still have the feeling that, adjusting to era, Borg was the goat. But he cut his career to short, or his case would have been much stronger.

So, I'll just say:

I believe the primary beneficiary of making all court surfaces more similar to each other was the clay court specialists led by their king, Rafa. Prior to the changes, generally the best players in the world were stronger on hard & grass who would then lose on clay to guys who couldn't do much on a surface that let speed happen and allowed serve & volley tennis - traditionally the most exciting thing in tennis - to flourish. Then, in response to player serves getting too good on the back of the tennis world allowing ridiculously overpowered serves which meant "serve and volley" stopped being actually fun to watch, they made chances that crippled it and render the game one in which two guys stand basically as far away from each other as possible and try to win by tiring the other guy out - which then specifically favored guys who were not as good at tennis but better at cardio and pain tolerance, of which Rafa was again king.

Had they not made the chances, Rafa probably doesn't become a guy who wins on all surfaces. On the other hand, had the tennis world had the foresight to understand the problem of too much technology in a racket - like major league baseball did - Rafa's ultra-spin game simply wouldn't have worked at all, and so he wouldn't have done as well either. Rafa becomes an all-around GOAT candidate then because tennis a) didn't understand how technology would chance the sport, and then b) rather than undoing the issue, they used more technology to solve one part of the problem while creating others. Both moves specifically helped Rafa over everyone else.

Then you have Federer who could just do everything tennis. He'd be elite on any surface in any era, because he's the best tennis ball stroker in history, but would have particularly excelled in an era where ultra spin wasn't possible because that ultra spin kills the one-handed backhand (the single most beautiful stroke in the game of tennis) for normal-sized people.

As for Djokovic, to be honest, I see him as more like Federer. He's not as good with the racket as Federer - no one is - but he's taller, more flexible, more athletic, and better with the pain tolerance and late match endurance. For these reasons, it's very possible that Djokovic would be the better non-grass court player in any era, and so once the game went from grass-dominant to hard-dominant, Djokovic comes out on top as the top overall player.

Re: Borg. While I think you can definitely argue that Borg had the most dominant prime of the 20th century Open era, I have a hard time seeing his peak as matching McEnroe on grass & hard court. Borg would translate better to the modern singles game generally though as I think the changes made to the game would really hurt McEnroe's GOAT volley game's ability to shine. In later eras, McEnroe probably is just a double specialist... which frankly I would point to as a huge problem for the popularity of tennis going forward.

The fact that volleying has been relegated to such insignificance in the modern singles game just makes me shake my head. I find it a bit like what the NFL would look like if they changed the actual football to something that couldn't be thrown accurately and it was all 3 years and a cloud of dust forever.

I think you are underestimating Novak’s tactical game. While Roger is the better technical ball striker Novak is/was better at constructing the point. His tactical game I think was the best I have seen even better Borg.

[Doctor MJ]

I think that combination of:
* the tour making all court surfaces more similar to each other
* greater attention to the slam titles as a goat measure
* training and medical progress making careers longer
* him being the youngest of the big3 + 90s talent pool being pretty shallow

helped Djokovic's case a lot (something similar happened to Serena).
I still have the feeling that, adjusting to era, Borg was the goat. But he cut his career to short, or his case would have been much stronger.

So, I'll just say:

I believe the primary beneficiary of making all court surfaces more similar to each other was the clay court specialists led by their king, Rafa. Prior to the changes, generally the best players in the world were stronger on hard & grass who would then lose on clay to guys who couldn't do much on a surface that let speed happen and allowed serve & volley tennis - traditionally the most exciting thing in tennis - to flourish. Then, in response to player serves getting too good on the back of the tennis world allowing ridiculously overpowered serves which meant "serve and volley" stopped being actually fun to watch, they made chances that crippled it and render the game one in which two guys stand basically as far away from each other as possible and try to win by tiring the other guy out - which then specifically favored guys who were not as good at tennis but better at cardio and pain tolerance, of which Rafa was again king.

Had they not made the chances, Rafa probably doesn't become a guy who wins on all surfaces. On the other hand, had the tennis world had the foresight to understand the problem of too much technology in a racket - like major league baseball did - Rafa's ultra-spin game simply wouldn't have worked at all, and so he wouldn't have done as well either. Rafa becomes an all-around GOAT candidate then because tennis a) didn't understand how technology would chance the sport, and then b) rather than undoing the issue, they used more technology to solve one part of the problem while creating others. Both moves specifically helped Rafa over everyone else.

Then you have Federer who could just do everything tennis. He'd be elite on any surface in any era, because he's the best tennis ball stroker in history, but would have particularly excelled in an era where ultra spin wasn't possible because that ultra spin kills the one-handed backhand (the single most beautiful stroke in the game of tennis) for normal-sized people.

As for Djokovic, to be honest, I see him as more like Federer. He's not as good with the racket as Federer - no one is - but he's taller, more flexible, more athletic, and better with the pain tolerance and late match endurance. For these reasons, it's very possible that Djokovic would be the better non-grass court player in any era, and so once the game went from grass-dominant to hard-dominant, Djokovic comes out on top as the top overall player.

Re: Borg. While I think you can definitely argue that Borg had the most dominant prime of the 20th century Open era, I have a hard time seeing his peak as matching McEnroe on grass & hard court. Borg would translate better to the modern singles game generally though as I think the changes made to the game would really hurt McEnroe's GOAT volley game's ability to shine. In later eras, McEnroe probably is just a double specialist... which frankly I would point to as a huge problem for the popularity of tennis going forward.

The fact that volleying has been relegated to such insignificance in the modern singles game just makes me shake my head. I find it a bit like what the NFL would look like if they changed the actual football to something that couldn't be thrown accurately and it was all 3 years and a cloud of dust forever.

I think you are underestimating Novak’s tactical game. While Roger is the better technical ball striker Novak is/was better at constructing the point. His tactical game I think was the best I have seen even better Borg.

Ooh, well that's a great thing to bring up, though I'd like to hear you get more specific on what you mean here when we talk about tactics vs strategy.

Something I'll say is that I think with Fed vs Rafa, Rafa played with effectively a strategic/tactical advantage for most of their prime because of Rafa's uncle/coach have a very clear understanding of the matchup from the jump, while Federer came up with his own strategy/tactics and really resisted changing some things that were working so well for him against everyone else.

Of course there's just also the big thing: Federer had one glaring weakness for the modern game, his one-handed backhand, and after Rafa, that's what everyone tried to target. As I alluded to above, I think it was a long-term strategic mistake for tennis as a whole to do things like allow high-tech rackets, because tennis without one-handed backhands and elaborate net play is just an uglier, less exciting sport, but Fed should have adapted sooner than he did, having the right coach and accepting the coaching would have allowed for that adaptation, and it would have resulted in a lot less Rafa success against Fed on non-clay surfaces. (By contrast, I'm not really sure what adjustments to make against Djokovic when he's on from 2011-on. On a fast enough surface - like healthy grass - Fed's offense gives him the advantage, but short of that, Djokovic feels close to bullet proof.)

I tend to see Novak as halfway between Fed & Rafa in terms how much he was figuring out himself, and frankly, that was probably most optimal in the long-term.

I'll also say that I feel like better defensive players tend to be seen as better strategically when they win, and both Rafa & Nole were better defensive players than Fed due to their general athleticism, and in the case of Nole a longer & more flexible body (Rafa has the specific edge over all on clay which requires a particular kind of balance based on intuition & experience on the surface).

So with that laid out, what would you choose to focus on to emphasize Djokovic's tactical edge?

[bonita_the_frog]

Alcaraz 39-2 in his last 41 matches, about to win Year-End-#1 again (he also won it in 2022), GOAT in the making.