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

[stotty]

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"?

An absolutely great point.

[arturohernandez]

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.

I hope Shapo breaksthrough too!

I like the idea of periods and factoring in court differences. I am surprised that there is not a quant out there crunching these types of numbers to create a difficulty rating of sort. My guess is that making it to the finals was not the same.

I mean if we take the finalists in 2004 Wimbledon, we can see that Federer and Roddick, did not even make it past the third round at RG.

Clearly, these were different surfaces and there must be some account of the difficulty of playing on such different surfaces at the time.

Calling all quants! Can someone create some form of metric that takes into account differences in surfaces, playing conditions and how that translates into year by year achievements?

[arturohernandez]

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.

Novak is hard to put away. But so was Agassi and Sampras managed to do so. I think with faster conditions and smaller rackets, Novak would be toast on most surfaces. Of course, Novak would not be Novak. He most likely would have played differently. So that argument becomes a hard one. The point is that let's say he played more like Sampras. Then he would definitely have been not as good from the backcourt.

What this does is put Agassi's accomplishments into perspective. Ability to win all four of the different surfaces is very unusual. However, he could not beat the best all-court player on a fast surface. In short, there was no way to rack up GS titles.

Novak can outlast people because the conditions allow it. In the past, I don't think that strategy would have worked.

[stroke]

Yahoo News: All hail Novak Djokovic, king of anti-tennis.

https://news.yahoo.com/hail-novak-djokovic-king-anti-030000251.html

[stotty]

Yahoo News: All hail Novak Djokovic, king of anti-tennis.
https://news.yahoo.com/hail-novak-dj...030000251.html

Good article. Objective and probably all true. Not sure about the drop shot claim, however.

[arturohernandez]

Good article. Objective and probably all true. Not sure about the drop shot claim, however.

Agreed! Shapo is trying to win with offense in an era where defense reins supreme. Djokovic is most like Agassi in the way he wins. What Brad Gilbert would call a Boa Constrictor. He just keeps tightening and tightening until the other player breaks.

[don_budge]

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.

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.

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

I hope Shapo breaksthrough too!

Very entertaining discussion about the hypothetical GOAT. Good luck as you spin yourselves into a nice tidy ball of yarn. Good luck with the Shapovalov lovers too...he lost to the number 249 ranked qualifier in his latest outing. Who did Shapovalov beat at Wimbledon...anyone know off the top of their head? Whoever it was, it was forgettable. I have a hard time seeing this confused individual going anywhere for any extended period of time. The hallmark of great tennis players is consistency. My coach always stressed that word. Consistency. Shapovalov consistently bounces the ball between his legs in his retarded preserve routine. It is moronic. Just like the backwards baseball cap, which to his credit he has lost for the moment at least. I don't find him entertaining at all. His flashes of brilliance are always offset by some terrible performance.

GOAT...GOAT...GOAT. No such thing. The hypothetical GOAT. The sensationalised GOAT. The hyped GOAT. What difference does it make? Tennis is a sport that is so engineered now it is no longer recognisable from the original. It is so easy to discount the old guys in previous eras. It is easy to do in order to make ourselves feel superior. I played doubles with Don Budge when he was 58 years old and just before he won the Senior Wimbledon Doubles with Vic Seixas. He was using a baseball bat for a racquet. A wooden blunderbuss. It amuses me to think of these one dimensional wonders playing such a game at such an age. They parade around with their snowshoe racquets...preening greatness in their own minds. Greatest of all time...it's amusing. It's ridiculous.

It wasn't Bud Collins who said that...he was an idiot too. Not that he didn't know a thing or two about tennis. It was none other than Jimmy Connors who said it...and that man's word carries weight in a comment like that. The GOAT? You are spinning your wheels. Consider the fact that the three names that are mentioned these days are Fafa Nadal, Novak Djokovic and "The King" himself...Roger Federer. Roger for some reason unknown to anyone other than himself gave away ten square inches of real estate in his equipment to his rivals until 2014 when he finally converted to 97 square inches...still a few smaller than his rivals. After the switch he reeled off six or seven sever ass kicking on the greatest imposter ever in the world of sports, Fafa Nadal. The sport is tainted. The equipment follies will never be lived down in any realist's mind...such as mine. Do you think that Federer was any better than Sampras? Really...why? You don't know for a fact. He beat Pete at the end of Pete's prime, just as Roger surrendered to Novak Djokovic.

Djokovic is only a product of the reengineered game of tennis which, incidentally, no longer tennis by definition. It is only a stupid game now. A really low level of entertainment without Roger Federer to provide any type of interest. R. I. P. tennis. A dead man walking. But sorry to interrupt...but there is no such thing. The GOAT. Novak Djokovic...the most one dimensional player top ranked player in an era of mediocrity. He's is boring beyond comprehension. He nearly put me to sleep one year at Roland Garros. Better than any lullaby or sleeping pill.

[doctorhl]

old school tennis- “ Mutual respect and admiration for their opponent was evident as the players exhibited a thrilling dance of elegance, cunning and skill”

new school tennis-“ The stage was set for the conqueror and the vanquished, all beauty subjugated to the kill”

[jimlosaltos]

An absolutely great point.

Thank you.