The Goat Debate

[Ainsley]

I am not sure the GOAT debate should honge on metrics like number of titles, weeks at #1 etc ..it can only be a mix of all these plus head to head record against other candidates And our subjective view on how good someone was at his best..my vote has always been for Gonzales..certainly can change as more great players emerge..one day maybe Alcaraz will be a candidate ..

I was thinking of Alcaraz or maybe even some other player we don't even know yet that might emerge as a star for decades . Carlos Alcaraz is only 19 years old and has already achieved a top level of his game. If he is able to sustain this level for the rest of his career he could be in this mix.

[ponchi101]

The GOAT debate hinges on A LOT of metrics, indeed. In the small table I have at the beginning of this topic, there is the H2H of the Big three. It is part of the conversation.
What I disagree with are the "subjectives". There is this idiot commentator in ESPN (he is also Venezuelan) that once stated: "Nobody will ever be greater than Roger". Because, of course, he is blatantly a Roger fan (and there is no issue with that) but then he simply cannot accept facts. That is the part that I find difficult to accept. Novak has every metric over Roger (except total tournaments) and if you can't still accept it, well, your problem, not Novak's.
And yes, we will never know about players like Gonzalez. Or, the one that I believe is the biggest asterisk in tennis: Little Mo Connelly. She played 11 slams, reached all the finals, won 9. Won a calendar slam, and all that before she turned 20.
And then, one afternoon, she went for that catastrophic horse ride. And we will never know if she would be sitting alone at the top, with her 32 slam trophies next to her equestrian medals.

[ashkor87]

Oh I agree Djokovic is slightly ahead of Nadal and Federer, the h2h alone is enough. His elo is also the highest. I think the only other candidates would be those from other eras. Sampras, Laver, Gonzales...

[ponchi101]

Pete is my favorite player, ever. No doubt.
But I can't consider him the GOAT. There are no attenuating circumstances (did not play for 5 years, had to turn pro and was banned from slams) and his lack of accomplishments on clay affects him.
(And he won three clay events, plus that Russian DC).
Gonzales. You and I spoke about it, and I talked to the tennis pro at the place I play. He never played him, but heard and talked to the other big ones (he did play Laver and Rosewall). All the old ones said Gonzales was from a different planet. Therefore, we will never know.

[Ainsley]

Each of us has a favorite player. Mine is Taylor Fritz on the ATP tour. I heard someone say that Taylor Fritz goes about his game honestly believing he is the best player on the men's tour. Is he really the best player on the men's tour, no but I think it is great for him to step on the court with that mindset every time. Do I think Taylor fritz should be in the GOAT conversation, NO but I do love the way he plays and want him to win every match he plays. The same goes for Jess Pegula on the WTA tour.

It is really difficult not to look at the accomplishments of the players in determining who is the GOAT. I also think you have to take into consideration a bit of the future for these 3 players one of which is already retired. Rafa seems to be heading on the downside of his career with injuries mounting up almost continuously. You would think this would limit him in the future. Novak on the other hand seems to still be at the top of his game which with the exception of the US Open he could do quite well in the future. This is my reasoning why I believe at this time Novak will go down at the GOAT when all 3 have retired.

[Wheels]

I might be a little goofy but when I think of the Greatest at something, I think of someone who has one the most. The would be Jimmy Connors and Martina Navratilova. Most people would not say they were the GOATS of Men's and Women's tennis and I understand why because there are more factors that go into it then just the titles, but the titles are the main factor.

[mick1303]

Since Daniil got win #5 against Novak and joined a tight club of players who have 5 or more wins against him, it triggered me to make a small query and compare the number of players who have 5+ wins against "big 3".

Nadal has only 7 such players:

Player________________won_lost
Djokovic,_Novak________30___29
Federer,_Roger_________17___24
Murray,_Andy____________8___17
Del_Potro,_Juan_Martin__6___12
Ferrer,_David___________6___26
Thiem,_Dominic__________6____9
Davydenko,_Nikolay______6____5

Federer has 10:

Player________________won_lost
Djokovic,_Novak________27___23
Nadal,_Rafael__________24___17
Murray,_Andy___________11___14
Hewitt,_Lleyton_________9___18
Nalbandian,_David_______8___11
Tsonga,_Jo-Wilfried_____7___12
Del_Potro,_Juan_Martin__7___18
Berdych,_Tomas__________6___20
Henman,_Tim_____________6____7
Thiem,_Dominic__________5____2

Djokovic has 9:

Player________________won_lost
Nadal,_Rafael__________29___30
Federer,_Roger_________23___28
Murray,_Andy___________11___26
Tsonga,_Jo-Wilfried_____7___17
Wawrinka,_Stanislas_____6___20
Ferrer,_David___________5___16
Roddick,_Andy___________5____4
Thiem,_Dominic__________5____7
Medvedev,_Daniil________5____9

It is a common knowledge that Murray is on all 3 of those lists (hence the "big 4" at some point). Was surprised to see Thiem here. Only makes what is happening to him now harder to watch...

[ponchi101]

Great stats. And indeed, what is happening to Thiem. I have seen him play twice since his return, and he has no precision on his BH.
I think.

[ashkor87]

Am impressed and astonished that Ferrer has 6 wins agains Nadal..would have expected 0! Interestingly, not against Federer..

[mick1303]

Am impressed and astonished that Ferrer has 6 wins agains Nadal..would have expected 0! Interestingly, not against Federer..

He sure had a lot of tries though )) With 26 losses against those 6 wins. Never beaten Federer, but lost "only" 17 times ))

[mick1303]

Also probably worth noting that Tsonga has 7 wins against Federer and 7 wins against Djokovic. Did not make a cut against Nadal, but still 4-10 is not like 0-17.

[ashkor87]

Would be interesting to look at Ferrer's record against everyone except the big 3..my impression is he could not beat them but nobody else could beat him, either! He was the benchmark for a tier 1 player ..very reliable

[ashkor87]

Ferrer was 7-7 against Wawrinka but 6-14 against Murray ..

[mick1303]

Both Soderling and Nishikori are 10-4 against Ferrer.

Each of them was hurting Ferrer in its own way. Soderling was overpowering him and he was consistent enough so that Ferrer could not rely enough on his shot tolerance to outlast Soderling. Nishikori was hurting Ferrer the same way Davydenko did - by consistently taking the ball very early and robbing the opponent of time. Davydenko only played Ferrer 6 times, but was 4-2 against him. And I remember watching one of those, where Nikolay utterly destroyed him this way.

[mick1303]

Would be interesting to look at Ferrer's record against everyone except the big 3..my impression is he could not beat them but nobody else could beat him, either! He was the benchmark for a tier 1 player ..very reliable

If you look at the players who have at least 3 wins against Ferrer, there are 37 of those. 17 have positive H2H againt DF (including big 3), 6 have even H2H and 14 have negative H2H. So no, David Ferrer was not mauling the field.