Djokovic, To GOAT or not To GOAT, that is the question

[arturohernandez]

I am moving Glacier Guy, Stroke and my thoughts on Djokovic as the GOAT here.

As you can see there is some disagreement.

Feel free to chime in.

[arturohernandez]

From Glacier Guy:

When considering the GOAT question, a little thought experiment can help. Imagine someone comes along who can serve unreturnable 200mph every time, and can also hack a few groundstrokes. They're going to win every tournament. Would that make them the GOAT? Yes, but only by the narrowest definition - that of who wins most tournaments. They're effective at winning, but that's it. No-one wants to watch. No-one wants to pick up a tennis racquet and learn the game. Tennis dies. The tennis-killing GOAT.

[arturohernandez]

I think it has to do with technology. Tennis should have put a limit on technology, the way that baseball did. Maybe not wood but they could have regulated racket head size and strings better. Right now they need to create at least one major with very fast conditions like in the 90's. They also need to make clay and grass different.

The tennis-killing GOAT had a lot of help in killing tennis when the powers that be took away the Sampras option. Sampras never won the French and barely won the Australian Open.

I think on the old grass with the old conditions, Sampras would have killed someone who played like Djokovic. Even at the US Open.

Djokovic exists as an option because tennis regulations allowed him to exist.

Now everyone plays with two hands, everyone stays back, everyone is a carbon copy.

I think Djokovic is just a symptom not the disease. The disease is homogenization where everyone plays the same because of the conditions.

Hardly any one handed backhands and no S&V tennis. It is tennis killing and our new GOAT may be the result of that.

Given the current conditions, Djokovic is a master. At some point he has to get his due for being perfectly suited for today's game.

I agree that today's game is boring but it's not really Djokovic's fault.

So, what do you guys say, is Novak the tennis-killing goat as glacier guy says?

[arturohernandez]

From Stroke:

As far as the so called GOAT goes, the fat lady has sung. If one logically looks at at argument, at this point Roger is a clear #3. The Master's 1000 titles to me have to be integrated into to equation. Novak is beyond argument the clear winner there. He has won all 11 twice. No one else had even won all 11 once.. Stand alone there. He is tied with Nadal for total titles but he alone had won all of them. No one else has won all 11 even once.. He has a head to head career advantage over both Nadal and Roger. They are all tied right now on Majors. The GOAT is clear right now.

[johnyandell]

Do we really need a goat? To me it's all about who I have enjoyed watching play. Top three in no particular order: McEnroe, Sampras, Federer. I also have some vague memories of Rod Laver's amazing shot making from the early 1960s. Yes they have won a lot but I don't really love watching Djokovic or Nadal play. I'd rather watch Shapovolov!

[stotty]

Do we really need a goat? To me it's all about who I have enjoyed watching play. Top three in no particular order: McEnroe, Sampras, Federer. I also have some vague memories of Rod Laver's amazing shot making from the early 1960s. Yes they have won a lot but I don't really love watching Djokovic or Nadal play. I'd rather watch Shapovolov!

I know what you mean. I'll take McEnroe, Mecir and Nastase as my most watchable players, basically players with an incredible amount of talent. I like Roger very much too...and Rios. It doesn't always follow, however. Kygrios is very talented but I get little out of watching him as I find his game essentially ugly.

The GOAT debate is a different subject altogether. It's can only be about achievement because that's the only metric that can work.

I like Djokovic in the same way I liked Borg. Neither player is particularly watchable in their own entity, but both are incredibly good and it's great to watch the rest of the field fathom a way to try and beat them. Being the man to beat has a certain appeal in itself.

[arturohernandez]

Do we really need a goat? To me it's all about who I have enjoyed watching play. Top three in no particular order: McEnroe, Sampras, Federer. I also have some vague memories of Rod Laver's amazing shot making from the early 1960s. Yes they have won a lot but I don't really love watching Djokovic or Nadal play. I'd rather watch Shapovolov!

It's always nice when the player we love to watch is the one we want to win. Shapo is great to watch. He has that electricity. Rivalries are great too and right now we don't see have any.

[jthb1021]

Goat? If three guys can get 20+ slams in one generation what does that mean when one driven individual takes over the sport completely in the near future. The points at all four majors look very similar with the same patterns winning at the French Open to Wimbledon and the hard courts as well. It is very doable for one man to win 3 or 4 slams in a year, and I’d go so far as to say multiple years in a row. I don’t believe we have seen the GOAT if you go by slam wins. In the early days the best grass court player would be the GOAT with 3 of 4 slams on grass. When I grew up watching in the late 80’s and 90’s clay court tennis and grass court tennis were a different sport. My heroes competed in a different generation where the points we different and you really had to adjust your game for Wimbledon especially. They still do but not even close to the way it was. With Wimbledon the way it is now Agassi might’ve won 4 Wimbledon’s. Jim Courier might’ve had a chance to win the grand slams in ‘91 or ‘92 on this grass, but no chance in hell on the grass of yesteryear.
GOAT- we haven’t seen it yet! Roger is the easiest on the eyes game wise. He has all the shots and plays the beautiful attacking tennis that looks so pure! If I could play tennis and look like anyone it would be him. But mentally I think he is weak for a GOAT. He wouldn’t make my top 10 best competitors. He can’t stick to a game plan and he loses a lot of big matches. Federer fans get their hearts broken all the time!
Rafa is amazing and his 13 French Open titles I would be willing to bet a good bit of money that that record lasts long long long after I’m gone! No goat though!
Novak- amazing how the crowd is against him in every big match and he finds a way. His mental toughness is incredible! He stays present point after point and has a belief in himself that mentally is amazing. In this generation Rafa is right there and Roger is no where close. I respect his game and his talent. The lockdown mode is the best baseline tennis I’ve ever seen. But is that the GOAT?
Pete- he would have served out that 2019 Wimbledon final vs Novak at 40-15. Mentally he was a winner!
Borg- mentally wound a little too tight I guess and just snapped. How many slams would he have won if he kept it together mentally?
Laver- thank goodness he couldn’t win as many as he could’ve if he’d have been able to play in his prime. Novak would be chasing 34 or something like that.

LET’S BE GRATEFUL TO ALL THE GREATS THAT MADE TENNIS WHAT IT IS TODAY. These 3 should feel fortunate to make lots of money and enjoy the benefits of being in the greatest conversation. (They sure have had it the easiest as far as surface) But if it is about slams and weeks at number 1 I imagine Novak’s record will be broken in the next 20-30 years.

Rafas 13 will probably be like DiMaggios 56 game hitting streak. It’s an amazing record that will likely be the only one left from these three amazing players. One man will dominate our sport alone in the coming years. But will he be the GOAT, or will people argue he played in a soft generation? Who knows and who cares?!

if I had to have someone play a match for my life savings on a random draw of surface. At this point i would take Novak first and Sampras 2nd. In my opinion from what I’ve witnessed they are the best competitors.

[stotty]

Good point about the homogenised surfaces of the slams back in the classic era...and Roger fans having their hearts broken.

Lots of things get skewed over time. It was the Goran v Sampras finals that put the nail in the coffin of the low bouncing grass back in 2002. Fans got so bored on finals days they went out for Pimms and strawberries just to alleviate the boredom of watching one unreturnable serve after another. It was getting unwatchable well before those two also.

What people forget also is the ball was popping around at 40 to 50mph in the classic era whereas these days it's between 80 and 90mph...big difference. People talk about faster courts...what about faster tennis! Players these days have very little problem with fast, what they have a problem with is low. Wimbledon is wide open for someone to come along who is good on grass, but it will never happen because who's going to train for a grass court season a month long with only minor points (outside of Wimbledon) in the offing. Things would swiftly change with a 3 month grass court swing and ATP 1000 events thrown in. If you want change, pump more money in and more points.

I think it was Bud Collins who said: If I had to choose someone to play for my life, it would be Pancho Gonzales. He was right. He is still the player above all others in that situation. Gonzales was a well watched player for over ten years and no one could ever recollect him losing his serve when serving for the match. That's the result of a perfect motion and a very steely temperament.

A player can only ever be the best in their time and Novak is certainly the best in his. Equipment has made tennis unrecognisable from the game it once was and comparisons are futile and probably pointless. It's always a fun discussion though if not taken too seriously.

[tenniscoach1]

EVERY guy at the top in the top 25 can play the game and has big weapons - but, NJ has the most confidence in his training - off-court and supplementation program of them all. Belief and confidence in your program is a big part of this business and a major separator. The only better competitor and small detail guys I ever saw was Lance Armstrong. There are some young kids like the Russian kid from Canada and the Italian kid that is a former skier that are high end potential players - but, will they be willing to do what this guy does day in and day out? This guys perfected sports science.

[arturohernandez]

EVERY guy at the top in the top 25 can play the game and has big weapons - but, NJ has the most confidence in his training - off-court and supplementation program of them all. Belief and confidence in your program is a big part of this business and a major separator. The only better competitor and small detail guys I ever saw was Lance Armstrong. There are some young kids like the Russian kid from Canada and the Italian kid that is a former skier that are high end potential players - but, will they be willing to do what this guy does day in and day out? This guys perfected sports science.

Interesting. Kind of like the Lendl or Navratilova of this era. They pushed the science to a new level. Doesn't he have some kind of Michael Jackson pod he sleeps in to increase his red blood cells.

[arturohernandez]

Good point about the homogenised surfaces of the slams back in the classic era...and Roger fans having their hearts broken.

Lots of things get skewed over time. It was the Goran v Sampras finals that put the nail in the coffin of the low bouncing grass back in 2002. Fans got so bored on finals days they went out for Pimms and strawberries just to alleviate the boredom of watching one unreturnable serve after another. It was getting unwatchable well before those two also.

What people forget also is the ball was popping around at 40 to 50mph in the classic era whereas these days it's between 80 and 90mph...big difference. People talk about faster courts...what about faster tennis! Players these days have very little problem with fast, what they have a problem with is low. Wimbledon is wide open for someone to come along who is good on grass, but it will never happen because who's going to train for a grass court season a month long with only minor points (outside of Wimbledon) in the offing. Things would swiftly change with a 3 month grass court swing and ATP 1000 events thrown in. If you want change, pump more money in and more points.

I think it was Bud Collins who said: If I had to choose someone to play for my life, it would be Pancho Gonzales. He was right. He is still the player above all others in that situation. Gonzales was a well watched player for over ten years and no one could ever recollect him losing his serve when serving for the match. That's the result of a perfect motion and a very steely temperament.

A player can only ever be the best in their time and Novak is certainly the best in his. Equipment has made tennis unrecognisable from the game it once was and comparisons are futile and probably pointless. It's always a fun discussion though if not taken too seriously.

So then the slowed everything down. Federer came in and had some great finals against Roddick on the still faster grass. And the game certainly looked faster on hard courts too. They could have reduced head size or done something else to make it like the 90's.

But, yes, I think the fact that Borg and Agassi won Wimbledon on grass when it was fast is testament to how good they were. Today winning all the slams is not the same as it was in the past.

I am just not sure we will see someone break 20. I mean, one thing is to be chasing Sampras at 14, another is to be trying to get to 20 slams. Djokovic was chasing Rafa and Federer. Had he started out trying to win 20 slams, I am not sure he would have been able to do it.

Then again, we figured that Sampras's 14 slams were unreachable. So go figure, maybe someone will reach 25 or 30 some day.

[tenniscoach1]

Interesting. Kind of like the Lendl or Navratilova of this era. They pushed the science to a new level. Doesn't he have some kind of Michael Jackson pod he sleeps in to increase his red blood cells.

CVAC pod ...

[stotty]

So then the slowed everything down. Federer came in and had some great finals against Roddick on the still faster grass. And the game certainly looked faster on hard courts too. They could have reduced head size or done something else to make it like the 90's.

But, yes, I think the fact that Borg and Agassi won Wimbledon on grass when it was fast is testament to how good they were. Today winning all the slams is not the same as it was in the past.

I am just not sure we will see someone break 20. I mean, one thing is to be chasing Sampras at 14, another is to be trying to get to 20 slams. Djokovic was chasing Rafa and Federer. Had he started out trying to win 20 slams, I am not sure he would have been able to do it.

Then again, we figured that Sampras's 14 slams were unreachable. So go figure, maybe someone will reach 25 or 30 some day.

Borg is the classic era (defined by a wooden racket in the purest sense) so one has to immediately draw a line in the sand here. With wood, it's a different game that barely resembles, if at all, the modern game. Players then played for a lot less money and counting grand slams wasn't the point of the game. While winning Wimbledon or the US Open really mattered, there was no defining urge to win these events countless times, none at all. Besides this, classic tennis is entirely different (technically) from modern tennis and the two cannot be compared. Novak or Rafa...or even Roger couldn't play anything like they do today with a wooden racket. It isn't possible.

Classic and modern are two different games.

I can easily see a player winning 30 slams. Just imagine if Rafa and Novak had appeared 3 years later than they did. Roger would have reached 30 slams in that gap. All it needs is a great player to come along with very little competition to rack up slams. Besides this, players look after themselves so well these days. Novak is 34 and has slowed down not one iota that I can detect.

Novak is a very strange player. His temperament is not so brilliantly rock solid as say Borg or Gonzales, but at the same time he is so incredibly hard to put away...weird.

[jimlosaltos]

Do we really need a goat? To me it's all about who I have enjoyed watching play. Top three in no particular order: McEnroe, Sampras, Federer. I also have some vague memories of Rod Laver's amazing shot making from the early 1960s. Yes they have won a lot but I don't really love watching Djokovic or Nadal play. I'd rather watch Shapovolov!

Good points all. I personally find it difficult to define a GOAT in tennis, even if one artificially constrains that to the period of post-aerospace material rackets. What are the right criteria? But it does perplex me that tennis arguments about a GOAT seem to revolve on total titles. In other fields, say acting, a "Lifetime Achievement Award" is for those that did good things but never rose to the level of the greatest. Those get Oscars for recognition of great performances. A Noble prize in science goes to a breakthrough accomplishment, not decades of nice work adding up. Why should a tennis GOAT supposedly be defined in a sterile list of titles over decades?

If Fed or Rafa or Novak retired at, say 28 yo, would any of them be a lesser player? If Borg played for another decade would that have made him "Greater"?

Ever increasing life-time totals in tennis seem to be overly influenced by today's homogenization of play. The "Channel Slam" by Borg was a stunning achievement, switching in weeks from different conditions to play different surface experts, from Guillermo Villas on clay to Vijay Armitraj, Vitas Gerulatis and Rosco Tanner on grass. Today's "Chunnel Slam" doesn't even require changing tactics nor practicing in a tune up event.

If I picked a GOAT in men's tennis it would be based on the highest, sustained level of achievement. I'd nominate Fed for 2004-2007/8 when, as Andy Roddick said, "Federer was both the best offensive and defensive player in tennis at the same time." I can't recall when that's been achieved. But you can define it many other ways.

P.S. Yes, I'd also rather watch Shapo than baseline grinders. Let's hope he's achieved a breakthrough.