The Goat Debate

[jazzyg]

On the old TAT board, when Djokovic beat Nadal 10-8 in the fifth set of the 2018 Wimbledon semifinals, I wrote it would turn out to be the pivotal match in determining the GOAT, and it looks like that is exactly what happened. Nadal should have won that match because Djokovic was still rusty and not totally fit from his elbow issues and mental walkabout, but he never has really believed in himself against Djokovic off of clay and Djokovic won the important points, also benefitting from the match extending over two days and being kept indoors upon resumption.

If Nadal had won, he would have beaten Kevin Anderson easily in the final and added a third Wimbledon while dinting Djokovic's comeback for a little longer. Although I agree slam total is not the be-all, end-all for this conversation, a lot of people disagree and Nadal might have gone on to win more than he has ended up winning.

As it is, I don't see the race as particularly close anymore. The last time Nadal won a set off of Djokovic on a hard court was the 2013 U.S. Open, which is an amazing stat. Since then, Djokovic has won 19 consecutive sets and nine consecutive matches while also beating Nadal in five of 12 matches on clay.

[mick1303]

I like Djokovic much more than Nadal. But this particular stat does not prove anything if we consider the whole career. It just proves that Djokovic outlasted Nadal and was aging a lot slower. Added by the fact that Nadal became great at much earlier age and in the beginning enjoyed the dominance over Djokovic. For which he paid the price later. Their peaks just did not coincide. There was an overlap around 2011 and it was all Djokovic after that.
It does not look that straightforward, because Nadal still was better on clay. But this "better" was shrinking more and more with each year, which allowed Djokovic to be the biggest Nadal rival on clay. Outside of clay Nadal was not a rival to Djokovic after 2013.
Their careers (including Federer) are interconnected to such degree that it is really hard to separate those 3. One can always easily find plenty of arguments for or against any of them in this three-way race. And because it is 3-way, there is an element of asymmetry in it.
I.e, at the time when Nadal was much better than Djokovic he had to contend with prime or slightly after prime Federer, which hurt his numbers to much higher degree than it was for Novak, because Novak came later, when Federer was diminished to higher degree. But it is what it is and we can objectively rely only on numbers. And those numbers say more and more that Djokovic is the best.

[ponchi101]

The only thing I will add to what you are saying is that it is impossible NOT to connect these three. The least number of matches in between the three is 40, between Rafa and Roger. We have had many other "rivalries" between players that played not even half of that. Mac-Borg only played 14 times, for example.
These three are joined at the hip.

[jazzyg]

I have never agreed with the idea that Djokovic played with post-peak Federer primarily.

In my opinion--and not many people share it, but I know what I saw--the best Federer ever played in his career was 2015 (the SABR year) after he got totally comfortable with the bigger frame. I was convinced he would beat Djokovic in the 2015 Wimbledon final after he pummeled Murray in the semis, but Djokovic won fairly comfortably in four sets. Then I was convinced Federer would beat Djokovic in the final of the U.S. Open after he humiliated Gasquet in the semis, but the Djoker got him again in four sets. Both times, Federer acted on court during the match as if he knew Djokovic were the better player, going from frustration to resignation as the match wore on.

Nadal does deserve total credit for being significantly better than Djokovic early in their career since they were born only 11 months apart, but the idea the hard court results the past 10 years are not relevant makes zero sense. In that period, Nadal won the U.S. Open twice and the Australian Open once. There was no slippage. He was better on hard courts in that period that he was in the period when he beat Djokovic regularly. It's just that Djokovic improved exponentially, making it a mismatch.

[ashkor87]

Djokovic also had severe health issues earlier, which he got over with his new strict regimen..

[ashkor87]

I had posted somewhere here an analysis - considering only matches when BOTH players were between the ages of 23 and 32..just the h2h, Djokovic is significantly better than Nadal, who i himself ahead of Federer

[mick1303]

I have never agreed with the idea that Djokovic played with post-peak Federer primarily.

In my opinion--and not many people share it, but I know what I saw--the best Federer ever played in his career was 2015 (the SABR year) after he got totally comfortable with the bigger frame. I was convinced he would beat Djokovic in the 2015 Wimbledon final after he pummeled Murray in the semis, but Djokovic won fairly comfortably in four sets. Then I was convinced Federer would beat Djokovic in the final of the U.S. Open after he humiliated Gasquet in the semis, but the Djoker got him again in four sets. Both times, Federer acted on court during the match as if he knew Djokovic were the better player, going from frustration to resignation as the match wore on.

Nadal does deserve total credit for being significantly better than Djokovic early in their career since they were born only 11 months apart, but the idea the hard court results the past 10 years are not relevant makes zero sense. In that period, Nadal won the U.S. Open twice and the Australian Open once. There was no slippage. He was better on hard courts in that period that he was in the period when he beat Djokovic regularly. It's just that Djokovic improved exponentially, making it a mismatch.

The main strength of prime Federer, which is often getting overlooked because of his other strengths, was his incredible speed. If you watch 2006 YEC match between him and Nadal and then immediately any other match after 2008, you will see that Federer lost a bit of speed. And if you look at Rafa post 2012, you will see that he also lost a half-step. But because it is happening gradually, we tend to overlook it. Both prime Federer and prime Nadal were at least not slower that Alcaraz we see right now. So no, 2004-2007 Federer will beat 2015 Federer. Of course it is purely my opinion, because we don't have a time machine to match them )

[ponchi101]

I think he had more weapons later in his career (he improved his BH a lot), but the quickness did decline.
Tough call.

[mick1303]

I think he had more weapons later in his career (he improved his BH a lot), but the quickness did decline.
Tough call.

I saw many times as player's career progresses towards later stages he becomes more and more agressive and attacking-minded. Since winners tend to appear more often in highlight reels, they stick in memory and create more lasting impression. I.e Federer went for winners on bh side more and it creates and impression that his bh got better. What is left outside this analyses is how much his shot tolerance declined as a result of more attacking play. And how much his speed declined that now he hits bh, whereas earlier he had enough time to run around and hit it as fh.
My point is that transformation to "attacking-minded" is happening with all those players out of necessity rather than because they got "wiser" and decided that it is a way to success.

[jazzyg]

Check out Federer''s score lines from 2015.

At Wimbledon, he won 18 of 19 sets heading to the final, and not one of the sets he won went to a tiebreak. He beat Murray in straight sets in the semifinal after losing to him in straight sets three years earlier at the Olympics at the same place and beating him in four tough sets at Wimbledon a few weeks earlier. And ignoring the score line, I remember Murray saying it was the best he'd ever seen Federer play. Murray was 10-0 on grass that year before losing to Federer.

Then, after winning Cincinnati without dropping a set, including back-to-back victories over Murray and Djokovic in the semis and final, Federer won 18 consecutive sets on his way to the final of the U.S. Open, with only the three against John Isner closer than 6-4. I was mistaken earlier in saying he crushed Gasquet in the semis. That was the quarters. He avenged a French Open defeat to Wawrinka in the semis, destroying him 6-4, 6-3, 6-1. Wawrinka had lost one set on his way to the semis, beating Kevin Anderson 6-4, 6-4, 6-0 in the quarters.

Those are some raw numbers to back up what I saw. I don't dispute that Federer had lost half a step, but in my opinion he more than made up for it with his tremendously improved backhand thanks to his bigger frame and much fewer mishits on his forehand for the same reason. He was on fire on hard courts and grass, but when he faced Djokovic in finals, he went 2-5 while dominating everyone else. He was so confident, he started messing around with the SABR, which served no real purpose other than to keep him entertained.

[ponchi101]

I think he had more weapons later in his career (he improved his BH a lot), but the quickness did decline.
Tough call.

I saw many times as player's career progresses towards later stages he becomes more and more agressive and attacking-minded. Since winners tend to appear more often in highlight reels, they stick in memory and create more lasting impression. I.e Federer went for winners on bh side more and it creates and impression that his bh got better. What is left outside this analyses is how much his shot tolerance declined as a result of more attacking play. And how much his speed declined that now he hits bh, whereas earlier he had enough time to run around and hit it as fh.
My point is that transformation to "attacking-minded" is happening with all those players out of necessity rather than because they got "wiser" and decided that it is a way to success.

All I will add is that, indeed, we love to remember the spectacular because it does make the highlights reel. We then forget the 10,000 "Serve wide to the forehand, hit a FH winner into he opposite corner" bread and butter points. In that we agree.
JazzyG offers some great insight below your post. With you, I will disagree a bit on him hitting more BH's because he was unable to run around it; I think it was a calculated move, and one which I approve. I have seen too many players (very recently) running around their BH's to hit an approach FH down the line and then leaving 3/4 of the court open for the crosscourt passing shot. I actually believe that one of Thiem's problems with his comeback is that: he has an excellent BH, yet he tries to run around it over and over, and it leaves him out of good positioning.

[ti-amie]

[ponchi101]

I want somebody to compile the number of TOTAL PLAYERS EVER that won 350 matches during their careers.
These three monsters did it at Slams.

[mick1303]

According to my data there are 138 such players. 17 of them are active (or at least did not say that they are retired: Sam Querry, Verdasco...)
I was counting main tour wins.

[ashkor87]

As a great player ages, the first thing that goes off is service return..observed it with McEnroe and then Federer..the serve never falls off much..but they struggle to break serve..