G.O.A.T Tennis player(Poll)

[KING JAMES1978]

G.O.A.T Tennis player(Poll)

Roger Federer
Pete Sampras
Bjorn Borg
John McEnroe
Rafael Nadal
Bill Tilden
Andre Agassi
Pancho Gonzalez
Rod Laver
Other(tell who at your post)

*I want to put Novak in this debate but I think is early and we must see longevity from him and more Slams.

[Doctor MJ]

Well I put Federer. Criteria doesn't actually matter, because I'd pick Federer by any normal metric, but wanted to say with your mention of Novak that if this were a matter of best peak ever, it might not be long before Novak not only joins the list but tops it...or he might not. lol

[Dr Positivity]

Novak could go undefeated the rest of this year and I'd still say peak Federer was playing better. I guess one thing I'd say is it looked a lot easier for Federer. I'm willing to say Djokovic has the GOAT year if he goes undefeated the rest of the way, but I won't say he's a better player at his peak than Fed, just from what my eyes told me

[Slava]

I'd agree that peak Federer was the best player I watched since may be Peak Sampras on a fast surface but he was also beating up a washed up Hewitt, Roddick, a early career Nadal and Fernando Gonzalez as his main opponents. He also has a neck to neck record against David Nalbandian even though they didn't face off in many grand slams.

[Doctor MJ]

Novak could go undefeated the rest of this year and I'd still say peak Federer was playing better. I guess one thing I'd say is it looked a lot easier for Federer. I'm willing to say Djokovic has the GOAT year if he goes undefeated the rest of the way, but I won't say he's a better player at his peak than Fed, just from what my eyes told me

I find the eyeball test tough. The players just don't do the same things in the same ways. If Novak were to end up with the GOAT season record while competing against peak Nadal & Murray and a still strong Federer, that's mind blowing for me.

[cb4_89]

Roger was killing everyone but he didn't really have the best competition though. This era now is tougher than what Roger played in when he won the bulk of his titles. It is hard to put Roger ahead of Rafa since he lost so many times to him. If you take out Rafa and Roger out of this entire season, then Novak would have similar competition that Roger had. This may be the best era in all of tennis. These 3 players are all all time greats basically.

[Doctor MJ]

Roger was killing everyone but he didn't really have the best competition though. This era now is tougher than what Roger played in when he won the bulk of his titles. It is hard to put Roger ahead of Rafa since he lost so many times to him. If you take out Rafa and Roger out of this entire season, then Novak would have similar competition that Roger had. This may be the best era in all of tennis. These 3 players are all all time greats basically.

People are way too quick to use the "weak era" thing against Federer. In terms of "how many guys prevented him from going undefeated", Nadal's best year was 2009 where he lost to 8 different people. In his 2 #1 years, he lost to 9 different people each year.

By contrast Federer in his peak lost to only 2 people one year, 4 people in other, and 6 people in a couple others. And of course now Djokovic might only lose to 2 people.

It is true that we are in an exceptional time right now, but peak Nadal has never been able to consistently dominate the field like Federer, or Djokovic, or McEnroe, or Lendl, etc. He absolutely should not get this dismissed because he plays in a strong era. That strong era didn't cause him to lose to 2 different people named Lopez last year.

Of course, if Nadal still ended up being more dominant on the big tournaments than Fed or Djokovic that would be a counterargument, but he actually never did. Djokovic just won 26 Grand Slam matches this year, Federer did that 3 times, Nadal never has. Nadal has a grand total of 4 years winning at least 20 Grand Slam matches, Federer has 4 of those years...in the last 4 years, otherwise known as his "post-prime".

The only thing Nadal has going for him that resonates in a debate with Federer is the head-to-head. And while that's fine, people drastically overrate even that because of where and when the two played. Essentially, Nadal had a stunning ability to avoid playing Federer by losing to scrubs in places where Federer was actually at his peak.

I say all this while saying Nadal still has a shot at GOAT and he has my favorite personality of any of these guys.

[cb4_89]

Novaks season so far is better than anything Federer has done in his peak since he had to go through Rafa and Roger this season. Federer never came close to having giants like that stand in his way.

The head to head is a very important argument. Rafa faced off against peak Federer and beat him. The reason why Roger's better seasons are better is because he never had to face off against Rafa in those seasons. He didn't really get worse or anything. He just met a guy that he couldn't demolish like the rest of the field. I mean just imagine if Rafa and Federer both had injuries that took them out for 3 years. Novak would win 9 or 10 grand slams or something like that.

Now lets get back to reality where he has to face BOTH of them in every major title since he is the top seed and will play the third seeded Federer in the semis and the second seeded rafa in the finals. And if Roger overtakes Rafa, he just plays rafa in the semis and roger in the finals. Prime Roger never had to go through to GOAT players EVERY grand slam.

Clearly you can see how Rogers "prime" was inflated due to subpar competition.

[Doctor MJ]

Novaks season so far is better than anything Federer has done in his peak since he had to go through Rafa and Roger this season. Federer never came close to having giants like that stand in his way.

The head to head is a very important argument. Rafa faced off against peak Federer and beat him. The reason why Roger's better seasons are better is because he never had to face off against Rafa in those seasons. He didn't really get worse or anything. He just met a guy that he couldn't demolish like the rest of the field. I mean just imagine if Rafa and Federer both had injuries that took them out for 3 years. Novak would win 9 or 10 grand slams or something like that.

Now lets get back to reality where he has to face BOTH of them in every major title since he is the top seed and will play the third seeded Federer in the semis and the second seeded rafa in the finals. And if Roger overtakes Rafa, he just plays rafa in the semis and roger in the finals. Prime Roger never had to go through to GOAT players EVERY grand slam.

Clearly you can see how Rogers "prime" was inflated due to subpar competition.

So, let me get this straight, Fed didn't get any worse, Rafa just got better? And that's why Federer went from losing to 2 people in all of 2006 to 10 people in 2008? Makes zero sense.

You're reasoning backwards dude. You want to believe that the only thing that changed was Rafa getting better, and viewed from that lens it's quite nice to believe that Fed didn't actually get worse, but the actual results tell a very different tale. Federer saw a drastic fall off in his ability consistently dominate the field. Meanwhile, Nadal's record has actually stayed pretty constant since he burst on the scene, with him continuing to lose to 8+ guys every year. Far more logical to conclude that Fed's got worse, like pretty much everyone does in their late 20s.

Re: "faced off against peak Fed and beat him". They played more than once y'know? And almost always during Fed's peak, they played on clay. The notion of holding such a skewed head-to-head competition as a holy grail is simply silly.

Re: "imagine if injuries for 3 years, Novak would win 10 slams!".

From 2008 to 2010 (3 years):

# of times Novak lost to Fed in major and Fed won title: 1
# of times Novak lost to Rafa in major and Rafa won title: 2

Effect of Novak not having to play in an era of great competition? He wins perhaps 4 slams in 3 years instead of 1.

Meanwhile, in that same time period

# of times Fed lost to Novak in major and Novak won title: 1

So the existence of this new great competition didn't affect Fed that much. Hell, even that 1 "lost" title was probably more due to mono than Novak considering that Fed was clearly the superior player for the next 2.5 years after that loss.

People never seem to go through and do the detailed analysis on this stuff. The reality is that typically tennis superstars get in each other's way far less often than people think. The reality is that what keeps all but the very greatest from getting to the promised land most of the time is losing to the kind of run of the mill player that exists at all times on the tour. And "the very greatest" who avoid this now includes two current players in Fed and Novak and thus belong in a conversation for greatest peak players of all-time.

[cb4_89]

Well first of all I meant injured for the next three years. Novak is clearly much better now than he was 3 years ago. Novak would win like 10 titles in the next 3 years if Rafa and Roger were out for all of them.

Also confidence clearly plays a large part in tennis. Roger losing to more guys and not dominating the field could be due to the fact that he started losing to Rafa and his fear of meeting up with him. He has obviously declined a bit by now. Him losing more when Rafa came onto the scene would just be his confidence being shot. Before he knew noone could beat him. Then comes along someone who can consistently and all of a sudden that "noone can touch me" attitude is gone.

[cb4_89]

Also I think you are mistaking me for a Rafa fan. I was a huge Roger fan until Novak came along. I still root for Roger every time he plays Rafa. I HATED Rafa when he first came along and started beating Federer. I thought Roger could go and get 30 titles or something before Rafa came along. But it is clear as day that Rafa is a better head to head player than Roger. Roger obviously has the better career accolades but the way Rafa dismantled him every time they played makes it hard to say Roger is a better Tennis player than Rafa.

Novak is clearly better than Rafa. I can't say he is clearly better than a prime Roger though. He might be but I think Roger would give him more troubles than Rafa (which he basically does now anyway).

[Doctor MJ]

Well first of all I meant injured for the next three years. Novak is clearly much better now than he was 3 years ago. Novak would win like 10 titles in the next 3 years if Rafa and Roger were out for all of them.

Novak just went through a year losing only one major match, and that was against Federer who is getting worse by the year. If Novak just keeps doing what he's doing, and Nadal & Fed stay healthy as they can, him simply matching this year's play would mean he wins 9+ slams. So I don't see what statement you're trying to make about the huge difference competition is making.

Also confidence clearly plays a large part in tennis. Roger losing to more guys and not dominating the field could be due to the fact that he started losing to Rafa and his fear of meeting up with him. He has obviously declined a bit by now. Him losing more when Rafa came onto the scene would just be his confidence being shot. Before he knew noone could beat him. Then comes along someone who can consistently and all of a sudden that "noone can touch me" attitude is gone.

I mean anything's possible, but why are you so set on trying to come up with psychological explanations when perfectly standard ones suffice? Most players get worse when the get into their late 20s. Why do we try to invent some other explanation in Fed's situation?

Also, I think you're about as far off as you can get with Fed being afraid to play Nadal. A Fed-Nadal match has pretty much always meant a finals match, and Nadal's always been the one less likely to make a final he was supposed to get to than Federer. That's why Fed has the insanely long Grand Slam semi-final streak and Nadal doesn't have anything close. In fact, all the way up through last year, it was still basically the case that Fed was about as likely to make a given final as Nadal, so there's certainly not a huge list of times where peak Nadal missed out playing Fed because Fed lost early.

[Doctor MJ]

Also I think you are mistaking me for a Rafa fan. I was a huge Roger fan until Novak came along. I still root for Roger every time he plays Rafa. I HATED Rafa when he first came along and started beating Federer. I thought Roger could go and get 30 titles or something before Rafa came along. But it is clear as day that Rafa is a better head to head player than Roger. Roger obviously has the better career accolades but the way Rafa dismantled him every time they played makes it hard to say Roger is a better Tennis player than Rafa.

Novak is clearly better than Rafa. I can't say he is clearly better than a prime Roger though. He might be but I think Roger would give him more troubles than Rafa (which he basically does now anyway).

Honestly, I'm just responding to your logic which to me seems very much distorted in a way that helps Rafa, and what's interesting about you saying you're not a fan, is that much of my frustration is that the neutral observers have bought into narratives about Nadal & Federer that just don't make sense when you do detailed analysis.

I'm simply doing things like actually looking at overall records, total grand slam performance, and the legitimacy of thinking that one or two new elite players totally changed the level of competition in the field in the last few years. For some reason, NO ONE seems to actually do this.

I want to add in that I've always disliked Djokovic. Thought he was an arrogant bully who couldn't take a punch without crying to his mama. Whereas I consider Nadal to be perhaps the single greatest tough guy in all of modern sports in terms of being able to play through pain and not get rattled. I love that about him. He also plays lefty like me, is humble, and actually admits to not knowing if there's a God instead of insisting that God wants him to beat everyone else. I really like this guy.

I argue against him so vehemently here because it's clear to me how drastically skewed the narrative is because of the head-to-head record. People are constantly making simply absurd statements that require all sorts of mental contortions simply to justify using the head-to-head matchup as the ultimate litmus test, and they need to be set right desperately.

[cb4_89]

Ive had a lot of heartbreak with tuning into Roger-Rafa matches with wanting nothing more than for Roger to smash Rafa's teeth in and watching a helpless Federer lose. Every single time I believe Roger will beat him and most times, that didn't happen.

Roger obviously has has the better career than Rafa so far. But you can't just dismiss the head to heads. When deciding who is a better player, it is hard to forget head to head matchups. It isn't like a Federer-Borg matchup which we will never see.

[Doctor MJ]

Ive had a lot of heartbreak with tuning into Roger-Rafa matches with wanting nothing more than for Roger to smash Rafa's teeth in and watching a helpless Federer lose. Every single time I believe Roger will beat him and most times, that didn't happen.

Roger obviously has has the better career than Rafa so far. But you can't just dismiss the head to heads. When deciding who is a better player, it is hard to forget head to head matchups. It isn't like a Federer-Borg matchup which we will never see.

Dismiss the head to heads? No, not dismiss. But first you need to properly gauge the dominance, and then you need to weight the whole relationship relative to everything else that's going on.

Again and again you watched Rafa win...on clay. Roger of course has the edge not-on-clay, and would have a far larger not-on-clay edge if Rafa had just gotten to the finals of more tournaments back when Roger was actually at his peak.

Literally, any interpretation of the head-to-head that has people thinking Rafa has a glaring edge anywhere but on clay is just wrong. And of course on clay, Rafa is the GOAT, and Federer is on his worst surface, and yet is probably the 3rd greatest clay court player in history. Rafa isn't anywhere near a top 3 player in history on grass or hard court.

This distortion of the head-to-head is rampant. It's why for example, people think Navratilova is clearly the better singles player over Evert, when any measurement of accolades clearly puts Evert ahead, and this is despite the fact that Evert dominated at a time where no one was really trying to maximize their grand slam titles like it was the end all be all. People just don't seem to realize: If Navratilova had been good enough to get to the finals consistently earlier in her career, Evert would have killed her in the head-to-head. Instead, people actually think less of Evert because she remained the 2nd or 3rd best player in the world for so long because it resulted in her having more opportunities to play and lose to Navratilova.

[oberyn3]

Again and again you watched Rafa win...on clay. Roger of course has the edge not-on-clay, and would have a far larger not-on-clay edge if Rafa had just gotten to the finals of more tournaments back when Roger was actually at his peak.

Federer's never actually led their head-to-head, though. Nadal beat Federer the first time they played . . . on hard court. Nadal has simply always been a poor match-up for Federer, regardless of surface, and the notion that the head-to-head is in Nadal's favor simply because they've met more frequently on clay than on other surfaces is a bit off. Nadal has at least held his own against Federer on Fed's best surfaces while absolutely dominating him on his (Nadal's) best surface.

I think the surface arguments get overblown when discussing tennis. Styles have a lot more to do with it. Look at Agassi dominating Becker for years on surfaces which "should" have favored Becker. Why? Agassi's style was a nightmare for Boris.

[Doctor MJ]

Federer's never actually led their head-to-head, though. Nadal beat Federer the first time they played . . . on hard court. Nadal has simply always been a poor match-up for Federer, regardless of surface, and the notion that the head-to-head is in Nadal's favor simply because they've met more frequently on clay than on other surfaces is a bit off. Nadal has at least held his own against Federer on Fed's best surfaces while absolutely dominating him on his (Nadal's) best surface.

I think the surface arguments get overblown when discussing tennis. Styles have a lot more to do with it. Look at Agassi dominating Becker for years on surfaces which "should" have favored Becker. Why? Agassi's style was a nightmare for Boris.

I won't disagree with any of that. As per usual, it's good to have you chime in and add nuance.

btw, is your name from the GRR Martin books?

[oberyn3]

btw, is your name from the GRR Martin books?

Guilty as charged.

[Doctor MJ]

btw, is your name from the GRR Martin books?

Guilty as charged.

Awesome. Just got introduced to the books through the HBO show and tore through them all. Love'em, and Oberyn & Sand Snakes are indeed awesome.

[oberyn3]

btw, is your name from the GRR Martin books?

Guilty as charged.

Awesome. Just got introduced to the books through the HBO show and tore through them all. Love'em, and Oberyn & Sand Snakes are indeed awesome.

I love the series. I actually read the first book way back in 1997 and so suffered through the 5-year wait for Book 4 and the 6 year wait for Book 5. Hopefully Book 6 won't take him as long.