Is there any NBA player who has a legacy as grand as Rafael Nadal?

[ArbitraryWater]

Nadal just extended the slam record to 22 and is winning the tennis GOAT race.


Is LeBron comparable?


Jordan?


Kareem?

[ShawkFactory]

Yes..

The fact that it's not clear that he's the GOAT of his sport, and probably isn't, tells you what you need to know.

[AlternativeAcc.]

No Clay, no Play

[rmt]

The only GOAT race Nadal is winning is that of CLAY GOAT - 14 of his 22 Grand Slams are at French Open on clay.

How can you be GOAT when you only have 209 weeks at number 1 - 6th on the list behind Djokovic (353 - admittedly exaggerated because of Covid), Federer (310), Sampras (286), Lendl (270) and Connors (268) and never won the year end ATP Finals (round robin for top 8 players)? That's 370 weeks at number 2 and never winning against the year end top 8 (because this is during the indoor season and never played on clay)

[PeroAntic]

No Clay, no Play

:D

[ArbitraryWater]

The only GOAT race Nadal is winning is that of CLAY GOAT - 14 of his 22 Grand Slams are at French Open on clay. How can you be GOAT when you only have 209 weeks at number one - 6th on the list behind Djokovic (353 - admittedly exaggerated because of Covid), Federer (310), Sampras (286), Lendl (270) and Connors (268) and never won the year end ATP Finals (round robin for top 8 players)?

Weeks at #1 are trivial.

He's a 100 weeks behind Federer but 2 slams ahead while crushing him H2H, beating better competition and doing it more dominantly still...

And he has an Olympic Gold on top, which neither Djokovic or Federer have.

Federer is not close anymore.



Funny how weeks at #1 got so important since Rafa lept everyone else in the slams :lol

[ArbitraryWater]

No Clay, no Play

You could make the same argument removing HC for Djok or grass for Federer.

It boils down to them being similarly impressive off their favorite surface, but Rafa being much more impressive on their respective best surface.

[rmt]

Weeks at #1 are trivial.

He's a 100 weeks behind Federer but 2 slams ahead while crushing him H2H, beating better competition and doing it more dominantly still...

And he has an Olympic Gold on top, which neither Djokovic or Federer have.

Federer is not close anymore.



Funny how weeks at #1 got so important since Rafa lept everyone else in the slams :lol

So one can be GOAT but (hardly) ever the best (number 1) player in the world - sure. That's like winning rings but never MVP in the NBA. Please name a GOAT candidate that's never won a MVP.

[Shooter]

Good question, I'm not sure but you would probably know. What is comparable to LeBron in terms of tennis with all of his playoff records?

Is anything close to this?

https://i.postimg.cc/zD4f1CMg/Le-Playoff-Goat-Le-First.png

Win Shares
Points
30.0 PERs thru Finals
Steals
Defensive Win Shares
Field Goals
Triple Doubles
VORP
Game Winners
Elimination Game PPG

[ShawkFactory]

Weeks at #1 are trivial.

He's a 100 weeks behind Federer but 2 slams ahead while crushing him H2H, beating better competition and doing it more dominantly still...

And he has an Olympic Gold on top, which neither Djokovic or Federer have.

Federer is not close anymore.



Funny how weeks at #1 got so important since Rafa lept everyone else in the slams :lol

So when Novak inevitably passes Rafa in slams what will the argument be for him?

[ShawkFactory]

You could make the same argument removing HC for Djok or grass for Federer.

It boils down to them being similarly impressive off their favorite surface, but Rafa being much more impressive on their respective best surface.

I guess you could. But it wouldn’t be a good argument.

[DMAVS41]

So one can be GOAT but (hardly) ever the best (number 1) player in the world - sure. That's like winning rings but never MVP in the NBA. Please name a GOAT candidate that's never won a MVP.

I don't think Nadal's career is equivalent to not winning an MVP in the NBA. Rafa was the MVP of tennis in 2010 imo...probably at least another year or two as well...I'd just have to think about it more.

I also don't think he's the GOAT either...but it isn't crazy to argue that...I personally think Novak is the best player ever (didn't see Laver)...and if you made me pick...I'd take Fed over Rafa as well...

But the truth is that everyone in tennis cares the most about majors and he's got 22...yes, the clay thing inflates it...but it is still crazy and he's won the other majors multiple times each...and I think the US open 3 or 4 times

[plowking]

Must bug OP that Djokovic is generally considered the better player even with less titles. lol...

[coastalmarker99]

Nadal is the Goat he has played in fewer slams than Novak and Federer and yet he still has two more.


If not for injuries you could seriously argue that he should have 16 french opens.

[coastalmarker99]

Must bug OP that Djokovic is generally considered the better player even with less titles. lol...

He won't be considered the better player over Nadal when it's all said and done lol.

[ArbitraryWater]

So one can be GOAT but (hardly) ever the best (number 1) player in the world - sure. That's like winning rings but never MVP in the NBA. Please name a GOAT candidate that's never won a MVP.

There is absolutely zero correlation, but nice try in attempting.

The best players win the slams.

#1 has to do with health and availability.


Yea sure, winning slams could be like winning rings but not being the MVP aka the best.


How delusional are you?

Tennis is about slams, not weeks at #1.

[ArbitraryWater]

Must bug OP that Djokovic is generally considered the better player even with less titles. lol...

feels more like you coping tbh


there isnt a country on planet earth except serbia where Djokovic is considered the better player :lol

[ArbitraryWater]

I guess you could. But it wouldn’t be a good argument.

no shit. thats the point.

[ArbitraryWater]

I don't think Nadal's career is equivalent to not winning an MVP in the NBA. Rafa was the MVP of tennis in 2010 imo...probably at least another year or two as well...I'd just have to think about it more.

I also don't think he's the GOAT either...but it isn't crazy to argue that...I personally think Novak is the best player ever (didn't see Laver)...and if you made me pick...I'd take Fed over Rafa as well...

But the truth is that everyone in tennis cares the most about majors and he's got 22...yes, the clay thing inflates it...but it is still crazy and he's won the other majors multiple times each...and I think the US open 3 or 4 times

i'd be interested in any kind of rational / logical argument behind that.


cause it really doesnt exist.


it'd be like saying kobe is better than lebron.


you dont seem to have a firm grasp on this tennis thing either way when you have to guess on how often he's won the USP or believe in made up things like "clay inflation".

[rmt]

You could make the same argument removing HC for Djok or grass for Federer.

It boils down to them being similarly impressive off their favorite surface, but Rafa being much more impressive on their respective best surface.

Djokovic and Federer have much more balance at the Grand Slams. There are 2 GSs played on hard court (in the past AO was slow/USO fast - now AO is fast/USO slow) so removing their favorite surface below. 12 is not similar to 7.

Nadal - 7, Djokovic 8 (this is kinda unfair to him because his favorite is really a SLOW hard court/AO which would really leave 11), Federer 12.

Nadal - Australian Open (hard court - 2), French Open (clay - 14), Wimbledon (grass - 2), US Open (hard court - 4)
Djokovic - Australian Open (hard court - 9), French Open (clay - 2), Wimbledon (grass - 6), US Open (hard court - 3)
Federer - Australian Open (hard - 6), French Open (clay - 1), Wimbledon (grass - 8), US Open (hard court - 5)

[DMAVS41]

i'd be interested in any kind of rational / logical argument behind that.


cause it really doesnt exist.


it'd be like saying kobe is better than lebron.


you dont seem to have a firm grasp on this tennis thing either way when you have to guess on how often he's won the USP or believe in made up things like "clay inflation".

I've been watching tennis for my entire life and not knowing, without looking it up, if Nadal has won 3 or 4 US Opens, means nothing.

If you want to say the GOAT is simply who has more grand slams...great...I disagree....and I'd love the rational / logical argument behind the notion that the French Open hasn't inflated his grand slams won.

[FromDowntown]

Djokovic and Federer have much more balance at the Grand Slams. There are 2 GSs played on hard court (in the past AO was slow/USO fast - now AO is fast/USO slow) so removing their favorite surface below. 12 is not similar to 7.

Nadal - 7, Djokovic 8 (this is kinda unfair to him because his favorite is really a SLOW hard court/AO which would really leave 11), Federer 12.

Nadal - Australian Open (hard court - 2), French Open (clay - 14), Wimbledon (grass - 2), US Open (hard court - 4)
Djokovic - Australian Open (hard court - 9), French Open (clay - 2), Wimbledon (grass - 6), US Open (hard court - 3)
Federer - Australian Open (hard - 6), French Open (clay - 1), Wimbledon (grass - 8), US Open (hard court - 5)

i feel like i just did a crash course in tennis and learned nadal is the king of clay and federer is the king of grass

[warriorfan]

Nadal is the undisputed goat of clay (obviously).

After that it’s very debatable.

[ShawkFactory]

no shit. thats the point.

You misunderstand. The argument for clay benefiting Rafa is very real.

You saying that Grass and HC has a similar effect for Fed and Djok isn’t.

[FromDowntown]

You misunderstand. The argument in Clay benefiting Rafa is real.

You saying that Grass and HC has a similar effect for Fed and Djok isn’t.

whats the diff in clay vs grass and hard court what does clay do diff? ball speed or ball angles?

[Spurs m8]

Bron stans don't even know basketball....now they're talking about tennis too :roll:

[ShawkFactory]

Bron stans don't even know basketball....now they're talking about tennis too :roll:

So if someone doesn’t know much about string theory does that disqualify them from a conversation about french cuisine?

[plowking]

feels more like you coping tbh


there isnt a country on planet earth except serbia where Djokovic is considered the better player :lol

lol...

I don't particularly care at all.

Might be the case as most tennis fans have booed Djokovic ever since he became a threat and overtook both Fed and Nadal. Every tournament he plays in and whoops on Fed and Nadal, and even other no names who give him a game, he is playing away from home. Yet he keeps winning.

Nadal winning a couple at the end here doesn't make him better than Djokovic. In reality, at their best, Djokovic was the best player, and Nadal was more than likely 3rd behind Fed.

[rmt]

Nadal is very obviously the king of clay, but on every other surface (grass, hard court [both fast and slow], carpet/indoor), I'd choose Djokovic over Federer (I'm a Fed fan). Djokovic is very balanced, and he has beaten Nadal twice at French Open on clay.

[iamgine]

Nadal literally cockblocked both Federer and Djokovic out of ~8 titles just cause no one can beat him on Clay. :lol

[ClipperRevival]

The only GOAT race Nadal is winning is that of CLAY GOAT - 14 of his 22 Grand Slams are at French Open on clay.

How can you be GOAT when you only have 209 weeks at number 1 - 6th on the list behind Djokovic (353 - admittedly exaggerated because of Covid), Federer (310), Sampras (286), Lendl (270) and Connors (268) and never won the year end ATP Finals (round robin for top 8 players)? That's 370 weeks at number 2 and never winning against the year end top 8 (because this is during the indoor season and never played on clay)

One factor to counter your point is that Nadal has missed a lot of time due to injury, so that certainly affects his rankings.

[ShawkFactory]

whats the diff in clay vs grass and hard court what does clay do diff? ball speed or ball angles?

Ball plays and bounces differently which suits certain styles better than others. Grass plays fast and low as the ball tends to slide and skid, which suits guys with great service and attacking games like Federer and Sampras.

The ball bounces higher on clay which suits Nadals heavy top spin forehand and athletic defending.

[Bronbron23]

Nadal just extended the slam record to 22 and is winning the tennis GOAT race.


Is LeBron comparable?


Jordan?


Kareem?

It's impossible to compare man. He's definitely as great of a champion as anyone though.

[ClipperRevival]

Djokovic and Federer have much more balance at the Grand Slams. There are 2 GSs played on hard court (in the past AO was slow/USO fast - now AO is fast/USO slow) so removing their favorite surface below. 12 is not similar to 7.

Nadal - 7, Djokovic 8 (this is kinda unfair to him because his favorite is really a SLOW hard court/AO which would really leave 11), Federer 12.

Nadal - Australian Open (hard court - 2), French Open (clay - 14), Wimbledon (grass - 2), US Open (hard court - 4)
Djokovic - Australian Open (hard court - 9), French Open (clay - 2), Wimbledon (grass - 6), US Open (hard court - 3)
Federer - Australian Open (hard - 6), French Open (clay - 1), Wimbledon (grass - 8), US Open (hard court - 5)

True, Fed and Novak have a more balanced resume.

But the script isn't finished yet. I think Fed is done winning any more slams so it's between Novak/Rafa.

Let's see where they end up. If it's anywhere close to even, I have to give the edge to Novak given his more well rounded game. But we have to see where it ends.

[rmt]

One factor to counter your point is that Nadal has missed a lot of time due to injury, so that certainly affects his rankings.

Injuries are part of the game, and I am tired of Nadal's injury excuses. He said during this French Open that his foot is so bad, any match could be his last here at FO (as in career ending) but yet he goes 5 sets with FAA and 4 sets with Djokovic. Are injuries what one uses for Bill Walton?

Djovokic is very flexible, takes care of his diet/body, and I predict will last a LONG time.

[ClipperRevival]

Injuries are part of the game, and I am tired of Nadal's injury excuses. He said during this French Open that his foot is so bad, any match could be his last here at FO (as in career ending) but yet he goes 5 sets with FAA and 4 sets with Djokovic. Are injuries what one uses for Bill Walton?

Djovokic is very flexible, takes care of his diet/body, and I predict will last a LONG time.

Sounding like a hater when it comes to Rafa but regarding Nole, it wouldn't surprise me if he ends up with something ridiculous like 27 spams. He gets these in chunks.

[rmt]

Sounding like a hater when it comes to Rafa but regarding Nole, it wouldn't surprise me if he ends up with something ridiculous like 27 spams. He gets these in chunks.

I'm not the one constantly whining about injuries (yet winning GSs) - I think he just says that to play with opponent's head and take pressure off himself.

[ClipperRevival]

I'm not the one constantly whining about injuries (yet winning GSs) - I think he just says that to play with opponent's head and take pressure off himself.

Yup, you're emotionally invested in this argument.

[Im Still Ballin]

Nadal will end up with the most simply because he's got such a good chance of winning Roland Garros each year. I think he's won 14/18 French Opens or something. If he sticks around for another 7-8 years, he'll probably win 3-4 more -- if he can stay healthy.

[Sportal]

So when Novak inevitably passes Rafa in slams what will the argument be for him?

I don't think it's that inevitable anymore... That top8 is stacked... Medvedev is nasty, Zverev, Tsitsipas, Alvarez, Ruud who just played in the final... There's not a lot of gimmes anymore... Djokovic has been at tournaments where Nadal, Federer, Murray have broken down... These young guys aren't gonna go away.

[rmt]

Nadal will end up with the most simply because he's got such a good chance of winning Roland Garros each year. I think he's won 14/18 French Opens or something. If he sticks around for another 7-8 years, he'll probably win 3-4 more -- if he can stay healthy.

He's only lost 3 times at French Open - twice to Djokovic and once to Soderling (that's the year Fed won French).

I disagree that he will end up with the most - Djokovic has a great chance at winning the other 3 GSs every year and is not as injury-prone as Nadal. He misses GSs because of things like lack of vaccine and hitting lines people (being defaulted) - meaning stupid reasons.

[2much_knowledge]

Good question, I'm not sure but you would probably know. What is comparable to LeBron in terms of tennis with all of his playoff records?

Is anything close to this?

https://i.postimg.cc/zD4f1CMg/Le-Playoff-Goat-Le-First.png

Win Shares
Points
30.0 PERs thru Finals
Steals
Defensive Win Shares
Field Goals
Triple Doubles
VORP
Game Winners
Elimination Game PPG

7 post later, no mention of a single Nba player, none. Until of course, you found a way to slide lebrons name in there and slurp some more lol

[rmt]

I don't think it's that inevitable anymore... That top8 is stacked... Medvedev is nasty, Zverev, Tsitsipas, Alvarez, Ruud who just played in the final... There's not a lot of gimmes anymore... Djokovic has been at tournaments where Nadal, Federer, Murray have broken down... These young guys aren't gonna go away.

The young guys haven't gotten there - they are still losing to the Nole/Nadal. They just don't have the mental aspect to beat them in best of 5. Only Medvedev has broken through once - and that when Djokovic was facing immense pressure trying to win the Calendar Year Grand Slam.

[2much_knowledge]

Thats the beuty of tennis. Only sport ever where we can witness a live goat race. As a tennis player myself, i could see an argument for all the big 3

Respect for nadal, he keeps doing it and has kept that hunger to be the best for a long time. A class act too

Respect foe novak, probably the most well rounder, best defender and really cought up faaaaast

However, i still gotta go with fed, who was untouchable un his prime. Still relevant before the injury after 21 years of being top 5 best in the world. His resume expands from sampras and agassi, to nadal and novak and the eye test. Easily the most elegant game and the way he carries himself too

[plowking]

Thats the beuty of tennis. Only sport ever where we can witness a live goat race. As a tennis player myself, i could see an argument for all the big 3

Respect for nadal, he keeps doing it and has kept that hunger to be the best for a long time. A class act too

Respect foe novak, probably the most well rounder, best defender and really cought up faaaaast

However, i still gotta go with fed, who was untouchable un his prime. Still relevant before the injury after 21 years of being top 5 best in the world. His resume expands from sampras and agassi, to nadal and novak and the eye test. Easily the most elegant game and the way he carries himself too

Literally 85-90% of the stats point to Djokovic. When they were all at their peaks, he was the one winning. He has objectively had the toughest road out of all of them, particularly with the way he is treated on tour and at majors. Always booed, and always cheered against, yet he comes out on top. Say what you want, that is a massive impact - even if Djokovic pretends it isn't and his detractors say it isn't.

Djokovic holds every advantage over Nadal aside from Clay wins and total titles. Every thing else goes to Djokovic. Masters, head to head, time at the top, finals reached, longest stretch at number 1, etc.
Meanwhile he holds everything over Fed.

[rmt]

Thats the beuty of tennis. Only sport ever where we can witness a live goat race. As a tennis player myself, i could see an argument for all the big 3

Respect for nadal, he keeps doing it and has kept that hunger to be the best for a long time. A class act too

Respect foe novak, probably the most well rounder, best defender and really cought up faaaaast

However, i still gotta go with fed, who was untouchable un his prime. Still relevant before the injury after 21 years of being top 5 best in the world. His resume expands from sampras and agassi, to nadal and novak and the eye test. Easily the most elegant game and the way he carries himself too

IMO, Fed is the most talented ever, but his refusal to switch to bigger racquet cost him GSs in his prime.

I've been watching tennis since the 70s and the usual scenario is the young come up from behind and displace those on top - not so with these 3. But like the NBA, the powers that be have changed the game (homogenizing the surfaces in order to have rivalries). Back in the day, clay courters didn't play Wimbledon and grass courters didn't play French Open - now, anybody can win (and win and win) anywhere.

[2much_knowledge]

IMO, Fed is the most talented ever, but his refusal to switch to bigger racquet cost him GSs in his prime.

I've been watching tennis since the 70s and the usual scenario is the young come up from behind and displace those on top - not so with these 3. But like the NBA, the powers that be have changed the game (homogenizing the surfaces in order to have rivalries). Back in the day, clay courters didn't play Wimbledon and grass courters didn't play French Open - now, anybody can win (and win and win) anywhere.

Can you expand on the bigger racquet comment? Thats amazing the last sentence. Didnt know that

[2much_knowledge]

Literally 85-90% of the stats point to Djokovic. When they were all at their peaks, he was the one winning. He has objectively had the toughest road out of all of them, particularly with the way he is treated on tour and at majors. Always booed, and always cheered against, yet he comes out on top. Say what you want, that is a massive impact - even if Djokovic pretends it isn't and his detractors say it isn't.

Djokovic holds every advantage over Nadal aside from Clay wins and total titles. Every thing else goes to Djokovic. Masters, head to head, time at the top, finals reached, longest stretch at number 1, etc.
Meanwhile he holds everything over Fed.

I suspect bias here. When did peak fed and peak Novak played each other??? Federers peak was from 2004 to 2008/09 maybe.

[ArbitraryWater]

I've been watching tennis for my entire life and not knowing, without looking it up, if Nadal has won 3 or 4 US Opens, means nothing.

If you want to say the GOAT is simply who has more grand slams...great...I disagree....and I'd love the rational / logical argument behind the notion that the French Open hasn't inflated his grand slams won.

What does that mean, specifically?

The comment makes no sense.

It's like saying the NBA Finals inflated Jordan's ring count...


well yeah, that's where rings / slams are won.


It makes no sense.


And if you can't tell from memory how many USO's Rafa has won, you're not in touch with this sport at all.

[ArbitraryWater]

Djokovic and Federer have much more balance at the Grand Slams. There are 2 GSs played on hard court (in the past AO was slow/USO fast - now AO is fast/USO slow) so removing their favorite surface below. 12 is not similar to 7.

Nadal - 7, Djokovic 8 (this is kinda unfair to him because his favorite is really a SLOW hard court/AO which would really leave 11), Federer 12.

Nadal - Australian Open (hard court - 2), French Open (clay - 14), Wimbledon (grass - 2), US Open (hard court - 4)
Djokovic - Australian Open (hard court - 9), French Open (clay - 2), Wimbledon (grass - 6), US Open (hard court - 3)
Federer - Australian Open (hard - 6), French Open (clay - 1), Wimbledon (grass - 8), US Open (hard court - 5)


So?


Tell me how that is relevant?


Prove to me, to anyone, why having a more level slam spread is superior to having a more top heavy/dominant slam spread.



This is like the nature fallacy.


Injuries are part of the game, and I am tired of Nadal's injury excuses. He said during this French Open that his foot is so bad, any match could be his last here at FO (as in career ending) but yet he goes 5 sets with FAA and 4 sets with Djokovic. Are injuries what one uses for Bill Walton?

Djovokic is very flexible, takes care of his diet/body, and I predict will last a LONG time.




I'm not the one constantly whining about injuries (yet winning GSs) - I think he just says that to play with opponent's head and take pressure off himself.

sorry dude, you can't be taken seriously at all on this, as clipperrevival said.

[ArbitraryWater]

You misunderstand. The argument for clay benefiting Rafa is very real.

You saying that Grass and HC has a similar effect for Fed and Djok isn’t.


Okay, did you forget the part where you need to explain/elaborate why that would be the case? :lol

Try doing it without getting your personal taste involved.

[ArbitraryWater]

Literally 85-90% of the stats point to Djokovic. When they were all at their peaks, he was the one winning. He has objectively had the toughest road out of all of them, particularly with the way he is treated on tour and at majors. Always booed, and always cheered against, yet he comes out on top. Say what you want, that is a massive impact - even if Djokovic pretends it isn't and his detractors say it isn't.

Djokovic holds every advantage over Nadal aside from Clay wins and total titles. Every thing else goes to Djokovic. Masters, head to head, time at the top, finals reached, longest stretch at number 1, etc.
Meanwhile he holds everything over Fed.

Oh really?


Djokovic won 1 slam a year for 3 years straight when he was 24-28 years old and Nadal was 25-29 years old.


Stop lying.

You've said this "toughest road" crap for years.

Nadal has beaten Federer or Djokovic en route to 15/22 slams, the other 7 being: Söderling (10 FO), Murray (10 WB), Thiem+Wawrinka (17 FO), Potro (17 USO), Thiem (18 FO), Med (19 USO), Med (22 AO).

He's beaten a multi slam champ for 17/22 slams (not gonna be an ass and include 3R Hewitt for 10 FO), soon to be 19/22 slams when Med wins his next.

Djokovic has beaten Federer or Nadal en route to 14/20 slams (kindly counting 20 AO with Federer even though thats bs), the other 6 being: Murray 3x (13 AO, 15 AO, 16 FO), Del Potro (18 USO), Med (21 AO), Berrettini (21 WB).

Adding to that, since you pleayed the peak game, clearly Nadal beat a stronger Federer for his slams than Djokovic did, so it would be impossible for Djokovic to have played superior competition.


Djokovic also does not hold every advantage over Nadal at all.

Nadal has more titles, match wins, better match win %, better slam WR, and trails Masters and H2H by only 1.


Basically, Djokovic's only edge is longevity/health (weeks at #1).

[hold this L]

He ain't the goat, just the goat clay merchant.

[ShawkFactory]

Okay, did you forget the part where you need to explain/elaborate why that would be the case? :lol

Try doing it without getting your personal taste involved.

Do we need to discuss the early exits that Nadal has had on grass and HC over the years?

Didn’t Fed in particular make at least the semis in every tournament for like 15 straight years, regardless of surface?

[coastalmarker99]

Anyone who attempts to diminish Nadal's legacy "because Clay" is missing the point.

We've never seen someone that dominant on a surface.


The fact that federer and Novak haven't stolen more than a couple of French's opens are on them... that's their own fault that's not on Rafa.


Rafa to his credit beat Roger on his own turf which was something Federer was unable to do.

[Hakeem Olajuwon]

Is there any NBA player who has a legacy as grand as Rafael Nadal?
No.

No NBA player's career is similar to any tennis player's legacy (be it Nadal, Federer, Djokovic, Sampras, Laver...)

[SouBeachTalents]

Do we need to discuss the early exits that Nadal has had on grass and HC over the years?

Didn’t Fed in particular make at least the semis in every tournament for like 15 straight years, regardless of surface?
This is honestly the most important criteria, at least to me, consistency. Federer in his prime made 18 Finals in 19 slams, 23 consecutive semis & 36 consecutive quarters. He literally made at least the quarterfinals of a major 9 years in a row. Just for reference, Nadal hasn't even made 9 consecutive quarters at the French Open.

Djokovic had a similar run of dominance, he made 18 Finals in 22 slams, 14 consecutive semis (and 23 in 24 slams) & 28 consecutive quarters.

Nadal's longest run of each, 8 Finals in 10 slams, 7 consecutive semis, 11 consecutive quarters.

Comparing early exits, pre quarters, obviously only using their contending years

Federer: 7 (from 2004-2019)
Djokovic: 7 (from 2008-now)
Nadal: 11 (from 2006-now)

This to me is the biggest reason why I probably wouldn't have Nadal as the GOAT. He put together a significantly shorter run of consistent dominance than the other two, and had several more early exits. And unlike the other 2, they happened on numerous occasions in his mid-late 20's.

[John8204]

I don't think Nadal is the "goat" but he has a lot of titles and longevity so Mikan or Russell..perhaps Magic if you put him top five.

[ClipperRevival]

This is honestly the most important criteria, at least to me, consistency. Federer in his prime made 18 Finals in 19 slams, 23 consecutive semis & 36 consecutive quarters. He literally made at least the quarterfinals of a major 9 years in a row. Just for reference, Nadal hasn't even made 9 consecutive quarters at the French Open.

Djokovic had a similar run of dominance, he made 18 Finals in 22 slams, 14 consecutive semis (and 23 in 24 slams) & 28 consecutive quarters.

Nadal's longest run of each, 8 Finals in 10 slams, 7 consecutive semis, 11 consecutive quarters.

Comparing early exits, pre quarters, obviously only using their contending years

Federer: 7 (from 2004-2019)
Djokovic: 7 (from 2008-now)
Nadal: 11 (from 2006-now)

This to me is the biggest reason why I probably wouldn't have Nadal as the GOAT. He put together a significantly shorter run of consistent dominance than the other two, and had several more early exits. And unlike the other 2, they happened on numerous occasions in his mid-late 20's.

So having a few more early exits does it for you?

That's a bit odd given that in tennis, it's one and done and not like bball where the best team wins 90% of the time. So tennis can be more fluky.

One argument that can be used against Fed is that he got a good chunk of his GS prior to Nadal/Novak. But it's also true that Fed didn't get to choose what era he played in. You can also argue Fed at his best might've won against these guys.

Just think the jist of your argument is a bit weak when deciding GOAT criteria. I'm just a novice when it comes to tennis though. Just watch the GS.

[ArbitraryWater]

Do we need to discuss the early exits that Nadal has had on grass and HC over the years?

Didn’t Fed in particular make at least the semis in every tournament for like 15 straight years, regardless of surface?

Uhm, I think we do, please try to make an actual argument out of it cause I believe you have no idea what you're talking about :lol

[fsvr54]

i'd be interested in any kind of rational / logical argument behind that.


cause it really doesnt exist.


it'd be like saying kobe is better than lebron.


you dont seem to have a firm grasp on this tennis thing either way when you have to guess on how often he's won the USP or believe in made up things like "clay inflation".

Kobe is a much better basketball player than stiff-arm, traveling Lebron

[ShawkFactory]

Uhm, I think we do, please try to make an actual argument out of it cause I believe you have no idea what you're talking about :lol

Wouldn't losing early more often on surfaces that aren't your preferred one than someone else...mean that the someone else benefits less from a particular surface?

I'm not even saying that Fed or Djokovic > Rafa though, which I'm sure you've probably forgotten because this seems like an emotional thing for you. My argument was that he's benefited from being dominant on a particular surface more than the other two. Which is not an insane thing to ssay.

[ArbitraryWater]

This is honestly the most important criteria, at least to me, consistency. Federer in his prime made 18 Finals in 19 slams, 23 consecutive semis & 36 consecutive quarters. He literally made at least the quarterfinals of a major 9 years in a row. Just for reference, Nadal hasn't even made 9 consecutive quarters at the French Open.

Djokovic had a similar run of dominance, he made 18 Finals in 22 slams, 14 consecutive semis (and 23 in 24 slams) & 28 consecutive quarters.

Nadal's longest run of each, 8 Finals in 10 slams, 7 consecutive semis, 11 consecutive quarters.

Comparing early exits, pre quarters, obviously only using their contending years

Federer: 7 (from 2004-2019)
Djokovic: 7 (from 2008-now)
Nadal: 11 (from 2006-now)

This to me is the biggest reason why I probably wouldn't have Nadal as the GOAT. He put together a significantly shorter run of consistent dominance than the other two, and had several more early exits. And unlike the other 2, they happened on numerous occasions in his mid-late 20's.

That's the argument?

One that literally resides around one player having an injury pop up between those streaks which is why the streak is not as long?

I've never even heard this argument in tennis circles, this is a different sport than basketball mate.

Nadal's run of dominance hasn't been shorter at all.

Nadal won a slam for 10 years straight, he is the longest running top 10'er of all time, he won a slam earlier than Federer and will probably win one later than Federer.

Nobody cares about a QF/SF streak, to be perfectly honest with you. That's trivial stuff for the most winningest players in history.

What is actually of use and includes the totality: Nadal has a higher match win% at slams than Federer and a higher slam WR than Federer. You might wanna try to say that's because of Federer's decline, but it isn't. It's because Federer was a substantially worse player early on, and much less of a slam winner after 26 when Nadal and Djokovic joined the scene. Federer's slam match winning % did not decrease the last 4 years.

[ArbitraryWater]

Wouldn't losing early more often on surfaces that aren't your preferred one than someone else...mean that the someone else benefits less from a particular surface?

I'm not even saying that Fed or Djokovic > Rafa though, which I'm sure you've probably forgotten because this seems like an emotional thing for you. My argument was that he's benefited from being dominant on a particular surface more than the other two. Which is not an insane thing to ssay.

I'm still waiting for the actual argument.


You're just saying things and pretending they're fact, for the 4th post straight.

You need to actually make an argument. I haven't heard one so far.

[ClipperRevival]

Wouldn't losing early more often on surfaces that aren't your preferred one than someone else...mean that the someone else benefits less from a particular surface?

I'm not even saying that Fed or Djokovic > Rafa though, which I'm sure you've probably forgotten because this seems like an emotional thing for you. My argument was that he's benefited from being dominant on a particular surface more than the other two. Which is not an insane thing to ssay.

Nadal has:

2 - Wimbledons
2 - Australian
4 - US

That's 8 outside of clay. That's no small matter. Yeah, he's not as well rounded as the other 2 but to get at least 2 in each of these is impressive.

[ShawkFactory]

Nadal has:

2 - Wimbledons
2 - Australian
4 - US

That's 8 outside of clay. That's no small matter. Yeah, he's not as well rounded as the other 2 but to get at least 2 in each of these is impressive.

Of course it is. Some people are being a little too emotional and thinking that I'm downplaying Rafa or saying that he isn't a worthy GOAT. I'm not.

[ShawkFactory]

I'm still waiting for the actual argument.


You're just saying things and pretending they're fact, for the 4th post straight.

You need to actually make an argument. I haven't heard one so far.

The argument for what?

[ClipperRevival]

I still think unless if Novak falls off a cliff, he could EASILY end up with 25+ slams and end the GOAT debate. He really picks up slams in chunks. If he goes into this summer in good form, he could add, Wimbledon, US and Australian to his resume. But tennis is a brutal sport and nothing is given, especially 5 set grand slams. He still has to go out there and earn it.

[ArbitraryWater]

The argument for what?

Are you parodying yourself? :oldlol:


Whatever your argument is, you need to actually make it. Can't just take stabs in the dark. Surely you know better.

[ShawkFactory]

Are you parodying yourself? :oldlol:


Whatever your argument is, you need to actually make it. Can't just take stabs in the dark. Surely you know better.

I've provided one. You said that it was trivial.

If grass was as represented overall as Clay or HC it's pretty much even amongst the 3 as far as Head-to-head. In a Fed/Nadal argument in particular it's tough because they've played on Clay like 4x as much as grass. If that was more even their H2H is pretty close. And in majors haven't like half of their meetings been at Roland Garros? But the fact that clay is so over-represented in their meetings can't be a coincidence. If so you can let me know.

Either way, I'm not making the argument that Rafa isn't the GOAT. But you seem to be implying that he's like the Wayne Gretzky of tennis or something.

[Rysio]

Jordan. 10 scoring titles 5 mvps 6 fmvps 1 dpoy. 22 individual awards.

[ArbitraryWater]

I've provided one. You said that it was trivial.

If grass was as represented overall as Clay or HC it's pretty much even amongst the 3 as far as Head-to-head. In a Fed/Nadal argument in particular it's tough because they've played on Clay like 4x as much as grass. If that was more even their H2H is pretty close. And in majors haven't like half of their meetings been at Roland Garros? But the fact that clay is so over-represented in their meetings can't be a coincidence. If so you can let me know.

Either way, I'm not making the argument that Rafa isn't the GOAT. But you seem to be implying that he's like the Wayne Gretzky of tennis or something.

what is it?

this is the first time i can detect an argument.

but its a useless one.


the tennis tour is what it is.

clay is simply a bigger / more meaningful part of tennis than grass is.


and hard court is a bigger / more meaningful part of tennis than clay is.

i could make the same argument for clay, "imagine if clay had as many majors as hard court!"

And the facts are that Nadal leads Federer 3-1 at the AO, and it was closer to being 4-0 than 2-2.

[ShawkFactory]

what is it?

this is the first time i can detect an argument.

but its a useless one.


the tennis tour is what it is.

clay is simply a bigger / more meaningful part of tennis than grass is.


and hard court is a bigger / more meaningful part of tennis than clay is.

i could make the same argument for clay, "imagine if clay had as many majors as hard court!"

And the facts are that Nadal leads Federer 3-1 at the AO, and it was closer to being 4-0 than 2-2.

How? Both matches were close and splitting is appropriate.

4 matches over 18 years or whatever is too small of a sample to really conclude much. 2012-2015 was a period were Fed had some injuries and wasn't really in top form and that constitutes half of those matchups.

[DMAVS41]

What does that mean, specifically?

The comment makes no sense.

It's like saying the NBA Finals inflated Jordan's ring count...


well yeah, that's where rings / slams are won.


It makes no sense.


And if you can't tell from memory how many USO's Rafa has won, you're not in touch with this sport at all.

This is a terrible comparison.

It would be like if they played some of the playoffs on different surfaces...one on cement and one player was significantly better on cement, but on the other surfaces he was great, but not the best and his game dropped noticeably.

How much one does or should weigh the performances on that surface absolutely is fair for debate.

Again, if you want to say Nadal is the best or that all that matters are the total count of majors...I won't argue much...as I said in my first post...but this notion that it makes no sense to acknowledge that 65% or whatever 14/22 grand slams come at the French is simply biased.

[ArbitraryWater]

How? Both matches were close and splitting is appropriate.

4 matches over 18 years or whatever is too small of a sample to really conclude much. 2012-2015 was a period were Fed had some injuries and wasn't really in top form and that constitutes half of those matchups.


What are you talking about, both matches?

They played 4 times. Nadal won 3 times. The closest of their matches (2017) was won by Federer.

You just named a ****ing 4-year window where "Fed had some injuries", injuries which at best cover a 2 month timeframe, and you did so in order to cover a freaking 4-year window...

that's absolutely insane.

Federer in fact was completely injury-free 2012, 2014, 2015.

At the 2012 AO, Federer was actually the bookies favorite.

Federer was unbeaten on the year and on a 25-match win streak (!), with his last loss being the infamous Djokovic 40-15 loss at the US Open. And he would go on to win 3 of the next 4 tournaments after said Australian Open.

So to briefly summarize that match among the others with that "where he had injuries" claim is disingenous at best, but really a flat out lie.

And Nadal whopped him.


4 matches at one specific slam is actually not a small sample size at all. They've never even played at the US Open, as you surely know. 4 matches at one slam is just fine of a reference.

At the 2014 AO, Nadal was a slight favorite, but not close to overwhelmingly. It was a 1.6-2.3 edge.

Only the beatdown was overwhelming.

As usual, expectations were tamed AFTER the fact.

[ArbitraryWater]

This is a terrible comparison.

It would be like if they played some of the playoffs on different surfaces...one on cement and one player was significantly better on cement, but on the other surfaces he was great, but not the best and his game dropped noticeably.

How much one does or should weigh the performances on that surface absolutely is fair for debate.

Again, if you want to say Nadal is the best or that all that matters are the total count of majors...I won't argue much...as I said in my first post...but this notion that it makes no sense to acknowledge that 65% or whatever 14/22 grand slams come at the French is simply biased.

You can acknowledge it, but the burden of proof to somehow determine that that lessens the worth of his slams is still on you, and there is nothing you have to prove that notion.

We are weighing the "other performances". And look what you get? 22 slams for Nadal and 20 for Federer :oldlol:
The fact is that Nadal has as many off-clay slams as Federer has Wimbledon's, and 4 USO's to Federer's 5 USO's. Of course Federer has a decent edge due to WB and AO, but Nadal has a gigantic edge on clay, and that's that.

Nadal has been able to beat Federer on his 2 best surfaces, repeatedly; and gotten close on other occasions.
Federer quite frankly has never come close to beating Nadal at his best surface.

And that's what it comes down to.

There is simply no argument for Federer.

[Full Court]

Wait....people actually watch tennis? How do you guys even know who all these people are?

[ShawkFactory]

What are you talking about, both matches?

They played 4 times. Nadal won 3 times. The closest of their matches (2017) was won by Federer.

You just named a ****ing 4-year window where "Fed had some injuries", injuries which at best cover a 2 month timeframe, and you did so in order to cover a freaking 4-year window...

that's absolutely insane.

Federer in fact was completely injury-free 2012, 2014, 2015.

At the 2012 AO, Federer was actually the bookies favorite.

Federer was unbeaten on the year and on a 25-match win streak (!), with his last loss being the infamous Djokovic 40-15 loss at the US Open. And he would go on to win 3 of the next 4 tournaments after said Australian Open.

So to briefly summarize that match among the others with that "where he had injuries" claim is disingenous at best, but really a flat out lie.

And Nadal whopped him.


4 matches at one specific slam is actually not a small sample size at all. They've never even played at the US Open, as you surely know. 4 matches at one slam is just fine of a reference.

At the 2014 AO, Nadal was a slight favorite, but not close to overwhelmingly. It was a 1.6-2.3 edge.

Only the beatdown was overwhelming.

As usual, expectations were tamed AFTER the fact.

Both 5 set matches. You said it was closer to 4-0 than 3-1. That's a disingenous way to go about that. 2 of their 4 matches were particularly close and they split. That's like when people talk about how unlucky Brady was in the 2007 and 2011 finals while ignoring the fortunes in 2014 and 2016. It's just not a way I like to argue.

As for the sample size..we'll just have to agree to disagree on that. One off day can turn a 2-2 split into a 3-1 lead. And over 18 years that just doesn't seem right to place that much emphasis on it. Could you mention it? Sure but it shouldn't be that big of a point IMO.

Like I'm not going to make an argument for Federer being better on grass because he leads 3-1 at Wimbledon. There's loads of other evidence that suggests that he's stronger on that surface. And the career match, game, point percentages suggest that he's better on HC as well. Although not by as much.

Maybe I went overboard with the injuries but in the middle 2010s he clearly wasn't at the top of his game. Had a resurgence in 2017 but that could have been due to the secondary talent outside of the big 3 thinning out a bit.

[DMAVS41]

You can acknowledge it, but the burden of proof to somehow determine that that lessens the worth of his slams is still on you, and there is nothing you have to prove that notion.

We are weighing the "other performances". And look what you get? 22 slams for Nadal and 20 for Federer :oldlol:
The fact is that Nadal has as many off-clay slams as Federer has Wimbledon's, and 4 USO's to Federer's 5 USO's. Of course Federer has a decent edge due to WB and AO, but Nadal has a gigantic edge on clay, and that's that.

Nadal has been able to beat Federer on his 2 best surfaces, repeatedly; and gotten close on other occasions.
Federer quite frankly has never come close to beating Nadal at his best surface.

And that's what it comes down to.

There is simply no argument for Federer.


I agree with just about everything you say until the bold...I don't think that is true yet....maybe it will be in 2 years if Nadal is able to continue this.

[plowking]

Oh really?


Djokovic won 1 slam a year for 3 years straight when he was 24-28 years old and Nadal was 25-29 years old.


Stop lying.

You've said this "toughest road" crap for years.

Djokovic came into his own while the two best players of all time were already at their peaks, winning.

He also has the crowd against him in every single tournament he plays in, yet he is as accomplished, if not more than both Nadal and Fed.



Djokovic also does not hold every advantage over Nadal at all.

Nadal has more titles, match wins, better match win %, better slam WR, and trails Masters and H2H by only 1.

You've literally repeated shit there in different words. lol...

More titles? Cool. Nadal winning two recently doesn't make him better than Djokovic all of a sudden when both are not close to their peak. Djokovic was getting GOAT talks at 8 titles. Reason? He was a more dominating player, and far more consistent than Rafa was.
Slam WR? Sure - Djokovic reaches the finals more consistently lol... You're using shitty backwards logic that you hate MJ fans doing against Bron.

The reality is - he has 2 more titles because Djokovic was banned from playing in a tournament he more than likely would have won.

Djokovic has been more dominant, more time at number 1, has a more balanced resume, has an advantage over Nadal in head to head.

How are you going to argue that someone who has spent more time at number 1 and has a better head to head record as being worse? lol... Insane. Even with the great disparity in playing on Nadal's favoured court most of the time because he would drop off a lot of times early on grass or hard court.

You can keep parroting this for as long as you like and hope it sticks, but most know Djokovic is the GOAT. By popular estimation, Nadal and Fed will get talked about in the same tier and often outvote Djokovic, but the tennis fans, and most greats all have Djoker as the best.

And to be honest - Fed>Nadal.



Basically, Djokovic's only edge is longevity/health (weeks at #1).

Sure lol.

[ArbitraryWater]

Both 5 set matches. You said it was closer to 4-0 than 3-1. That's a disingenous way to go about that. 2 of their 4 matches were particularly close and they split. That's like when people talk about how unlucky Brady was in the 2007 and 2011 finals while ignoring the fortunes in 2014 and 2016. It's just not a way I like to argue.

As for the sample size..we'll just have to agree to disagree on that. One off day can turn a 2-2 split into a 3-1 lead. And over 18 years that just doesn't seem right to place that much emphasis on it. Could you mention it? Sure but it shouldn't be that big of a point IMO.

Like I'm not going to make an argument for Federer being better on grass because he leads 3-1 at Wimbledon. There's loads of other evidence that suggests that he's stronger on that surface. And the career match, game, point percentages suggest that he's better on HC as well. Although not by as much.

Maybe I went overboard with the injuries but in the middle 2010s he clearly wasn't at the top of his game. Had a resurgence in 2017 but that could have been due to the secondary talent outside of the big 3 thinning out a bit.

It's not disingenous at all.

Clearly the 2017 one in which Nadal had game point for 4-2 is closer than 2009 in which Federer was down quick and lost it 6-2.

One off day hah...

you don't get "off day" excuses when it comes to GOAT's playing against each other.

You can't just argue the 3-1 might be 2-2 when it's actually closer to 4-0.

And the biggest reason to those 17-18 AO titles for Federer, was AO being sped up and playing at Wimbledon speeds.

If you think that 2017 may have been due to talent thinning out a bit, then there really is no point in talking about this, because visually it should have been obvious he was playing some of his best offensive tennis ever, which also created the "Neo backhand" moniker.

To just say he wasn't at the top of his game in the "middle 2010s" is vague and of no use.

He was absolutely at the top of his game 2010-2012 and then again in 2015.

People have the wrong impression of athletes.

They think because of a one time occurence that drops the level initially (fever, back, new raquet, etc.) there is a permanent drop off and the player is never the same again.

The fact is Federer was up to his '04-'07 standards many many years after 2007, because you re-gain that edge. It just takes a little. It took him to mid '08. After the AO hangover and back issues in 2010 it took him until Cincy. Then he had his worst injury to date in 2013 and it basically took him until 2015 although he was competing again in the '13 fall.


And obviously Federer is superior on grass to Nadal, but nowhere near as superior as Nadal is to him on clay, both H2H and against the field. And that's the problem for Federer, because any supposed HC edge is not big enough to make up for that.

[ArbitraryWater]

Djokovic came into his own while the two best players of all time were already at their peaks, winning.

He also has the crowd against him in every single tournament he plays in, yet he is as accomplished, if not more than both Nadal and Fed.




You've literally repeated shit there in different words. lol...

What are you talking about?

They are 4 completely different things.

Titles
Match wins
Match win %
Slam win rate

Where am I repeating myself??


More titles? Cool. Nadal winning two recently doesn't make him better than Djokovic all of a sudden when both are not close to their peak. Djokovic was getting GOAT talks at 8 titles. Reason? He was a more dominating player, and far more consistent than Rafa was.

What the **** are you talking about dude? :oldlol:

Nice of you to talk without substance so none of this stuff can be rebutted.


Slam WR? Sure - Djokovic reaches the finals more consistently lol... You're using shitty backwards logic that you hate MJ fans doing against Bron.


That's a lie. Djokovic does not reach finals more consistently. He has 31/67 and Nadal has 30/64.

something as logical as slam win rate is now shitty backwards logic, and Djokovic reaching the final more consistantly apparently matters...
winning 2 more slams doesn't, but having 1 more final in 3 more slams played, does.

Tennis has to be the topic where you by far make the least sense.


The reality is - he has 2 more titles because Djokovic was banned from playing in a tournament he more than likely would have won.


The fact you try to argue he has more titles because of that one tournament, when the volume is at nearly 100 and Nadal has missed more tournaments and big tournaments than Djokovic, having to retire deep into tournaments more often, is so absurd dude... like that should just tell you you have no respect for any honesty here.


How are you going to argue that someone who has spent more time at number 1 and has a better head to head record as being worse? lol... Insane. Even with the great disparity in playing on Nadal's favoured court most of the time because he would drop off a lot of times early on grass or hard court.


How am I going to argue someone who spent more time at number 1 with a better h2h is worse?

It's very simple, that player trails by 2 slams, 1 olympics, and the h2h is at a difference of 1.

There you go.


You can keep parroting this for as long as you like and hope it sticks, but most know Djokovic is the GOAT. By popular estimation, Nadal and Fed will get talked about in the same tier and often outvote Djokovic, but the tennis fans, and most greats all have Djoker as the best.


who is this "most" ?

Cause I ain't seen em.

Its definitely not the public, and its definitely not the journalists.


And to be honest - Fed>Nadal.

So you've vehemently argued Djokovic to be better than Nadal because of H2H and weeks at #1, and I think we can agree slams might just play a role too, right?

And now you declare Federer to be better than Nadal.

Clearly you can't be taken seriously.

[AlternativeAcc.]

You could make the same argument removing HC for Djok or grass for Federer.

It boils down to them being similarly impressive off their favorite surface, but Rafa being much more impressive on their respective best surface.

I mostly agree I just couldn't resist the pun.

I haven't payed attention to tennis in years, but I've always said Nadal when healthy is the best and most clutch player ever.

[rmt]

Basically, Djokovic's only edge is longevity/health (weeks at #1).

How can someone who is younger, turned pro later (2003 vs 2001), won first GS later (2008 vs 2005) and both are still playing - have more longevity than the older player who turned pro and won their first GS at an earlier age (19 vs 21)? Djokovic has many more weeks at #1 (373 and still going vs 209) in much less time (2 years less).

[rmt]

From 1881 to 1974, US championships was played on grass. From 1905 to 1987, Australian championships was played on grass. And of course, Wimbledon has always been grass and French championships always clay. So until 1975, 3 of the 4 grand slams were on grass. How then do you think Nadal would fare on slick, low bouncing, lightning quick grass? And how many GSs would Federer win if 3 of the 4 GSs were on grass. Just food for thought.

That's why my comment about the powers that be fiddling with the surfaces and balls. They've slowed down the grass and hard courts till even Wimbledon plays like a clay court by the second week. The closer the surfaces are - the less (surface) specialists, the more you see the same faces in the GS finals (building rivalries) - it's all about MONEY. There's a reason why Evert won 7 French titles but only 2 Wimbledons while Navratilova won 9 Wimbledons and only 2 French Opens. That's how much surface matters. When asking who is the GOAT question, the accompanying comment should be ON WHAT SURFACE.

[rmt]

And props to Bjorn Borg (my 2nd favorite player) who won 5 consecutive Wimbledons (on super fast grass) and 6 French Opens (on slow clay) - including 3 straight FO/W COMBO with just 2 weeks between them - (now they've added an extra week between FO/W). He only went to Australian Open once (players didn't chase GSs then as they do now) but sadly retired at age 26 at the height of his career.

[Da_Realist]

Nadal is very obviously the king of clay, but on every other surface (grass, hard court [both fast and slow], carpet/indoor), I'd choose Djokovic over Federer (I'm a Fed fan). Djokovic is very balanced, and he has beaten Nadal twice at French Open on clay.

Agreed.

[Da_Realist]

IMO, Fed is the most talented ever, but his refusal to switch to bigger racquet cost him GSs in his prime.

I've been watching tennis since the 70s and the usual scenario is the young come up from behind and displace those on top - not so with these 3. But like the NBA, the powers that be have changed the game (homogenizing the surfaces in order to have rivalries). Back in the day, clay courters didn't play Wimbledon and grass courters didn't play French Open - now, anybody can win (and win and win) anywhere.

Agree with this too

[rmt]

Can you expand on the bigger racquet comment? Thats amazing the last sentence. Didnt know that

https://www.tennis.com/news/articles/roger-federer-credits-switch-to-bigger-racquet-for-improved-backhand explains - basically a bigger racquet allowed him to come over the ball (with topspin - more aggressive) on the backhand as opposed to slicing (more defensive). Before 2014, Nadal would pick on Fed's one handed backhand hitting with heavy, high bouncing topspin to his one handed backhand constantly. From 2014 when Fed switched to the bigger racquet, not so much.

Year Event Surface RND Winner Result
2019 Wimbledon Outdoor Grass SF Roger Federer 763 16 63 64
2019 Roland Garros Outdoor Clay SF Rafael Nadal 63 64 62
2019 ATP Masters 1000 Outdoor Hard SF Roger Federer W/O
2017 ATP Masters 1000 Outdoor Hard F Roger Federer 64 63
2017 ATP Masters 1000 Outdoor Hard F Roger Federer 63 64
2017 ATP Masters 1000 Outdoor Hard R16 Roger Federer 62 63
2017 Australian Open Outdoor Hard F Roger Federer 64 36 61 36 63
2015 Basel Indoor Hard F Roger Federer 63 57 63
2014 Australian Open Outdoor Hard SF Rafael Nadal 764 63 63
2013 ATP Finals Indoor Hard SF Rafael Nadal 75 63
2013 ATP Masters 1000 Hard QF Rafael Nadal 57 64 63
2013 ATP Masters 1000 Outdoor Clay F Rafael Nadal 61 63
2013 ATP Masters 1000 Outdoor Hard QF Rafael Nadal 64 62
2012 ATP Masters 1000 Outdoor Hard SF Roger Federer 63 64
2012 Australian Open Outdoor Hard SF Rafael Nadal 675 62 765 64
2011 ATP Finals Indoor Hard RR Roger Federer 63 60
2011 Roland Garros. Outdoor Clay F Rafael Nadal 763 57 61
2011 ATP Masters 1000 Outdoor Clay SF Rafael Nadal 57 61 63
2011 ATP Masters 1000 Outdoor Hard SF Rafael Nadal 63 62
2010 ATP Finals Indoor Hard F Roger Federer 63 36 61
2010 ATP Masters 1000 Outdoor Clay F Rafael Nadal. 64 765
2009 ATP Masters 1000 Outdoor Clay F Roger Federer 64 64
2009 Australian Open Outdoor Hard F Rafael Nadal 75 36 763 36 62
2008 Wimbledon Outdoor Grass F Rafael Nadal 64 64 675 678 97
2008 Roland Garros Outdoor Clay F Rafael Nadal 61 63 60
2008 ATP Masters 1000 Outdoor Clay F Rafael Nadal 75 673 63
2008 ATP Masters 1000 Outdoor Clay F Rafael Nadal 75 75
2007 Tennis Masters Cup Indoor Hard SF Roger Federer 64 61
2007 Wimbledon Outdoor Grass F Roger Federer 767 46 763 26 62
2007 Roland Garros. Outdoor Clay F Rafael Nadal 63 46 63 64
2007 ATP Masters 1000 Outdoor Clay F Roger Federer 26 62 60
2007 ATP Masters 1000 Outdoor Clay F Rafael Nadal 64 64
2006 Tennis Masters Cup Indoor Hard SF Roger Federer 64 75
2006 Wimbledon Outdoor Grass F Roger Federer 60 765 672 63
2006 Roland Garros Outdoor Clay F Rafael Nadal 16 61 64 764
2006 ATP Masters 1000 Outdoor Clay F Rafael Nadal 670 765 64 26 765
2006 ATP Masters 1000 Outdoor Clay F Rafael Nadal 62 672 63 765
2006 Dubai Outdoor Hard F Rafael Nadal 26 64 64
2005 Roland Garros Outdoor Clay SF Rafael Nadal 63 46 64 63
2005 ATP Masters 1000 Outdoor Hard F Roger Federer 26 674 765 63 61
2004 ATP Masters 1000 Outdoor Hard R32 Rafael Nadal 63 63

Nadal's topspin is not a problem for Djokovic who has a 2-handed backhand (and it's his better side too). Matchups are fascinating.

[ClipperRevival]

I'm just a novice tennis fan. But I think it's obvious we are entrenched in the GOAT era for men's tennis. Personally, I love Nadal but I can see the argument for any of the 3.

[ArbitraryWater]

Nadal's topspin is not a problem for Djokovic who has a 2-handed backhand (and it's his better side too). Matchups are fascinating.

Matchup issues are technical issues exposed.

Having a "bad matchup" is not an excuse to anything.

It's not like Nadal's match-up only works on Federer. He's just one of everyone.

Djokovic has a much better backhand than Federer however. This isn't "match-up" related, he's just better.


How can someone who is younger, turned pro later (2003 vs 2001), won first GS later (2008 vs 2005) and both are still playing - have more longevity than the older player who turned pro and won their first GS at an earlier age (19 vs 21)? Djokovic has many more weeks at #1 (373 and still going vs 209) in much less time (2 years less).

Did you miss Nadal having cut 5 seasons short at the US Open mark (2012, 2014, 2016, 2018, 2021), 2 of which he was on pace to become YE1 in?


I mostly agree I just couldn't resist the pun.

I haven't payed attention to tennis in years, but I've always said Nadal when healthy is the best and most clutch player ever.

I know bre :cheers:

I remember your posts at 2014 AO.

[ArbitraryWater]

I don't care how often this rmt nut wants to tell us how long he's been watching tennis :oldlol:


Sure, Nadal only owned Federer because Federer's racquet was 7 inches smaller.


the FH decline that move is likely to have been responsible for as well is conveniently left out, if we're gonna act like the racquet did wonders to either side.

[ArbitraryWater]

Agreed.

Did you forget what you preached in years past?

https://i.gyazo.com/d6547417f16ba209f8afb6a60f4a7524.png



pure facts

[ArbitraryWater]

lol at rmt always going on about how long he has been watching for


https://i.gyazo.com/f411005147e9aba0da25c9bb2b6f8901.png

[rmt]

Matchup issues are technical issues exposed.

Having a "bad matchup" is not an excuse to anything.

It's not like Nadal's match-up only works on Federer. He's just one of everyone.

Djokovic has a much better backhand than Federer however. This isn't "match-up" related, he's just better.

The match-up works with ANY one handed-backhand. With 2-handed backhands or being tall enough (like these 6'5" current group) or both, the topspin doesn't give as many problems. So, if not for the bigger racquet, how do you explain Federer winning 7 of their last 8 matches (the only loss was on clay)? Did Fed just discover a fountain of youth when previously, the matchup was so lopsided?


Did you miss Nadal having cut 5 seasons short at the US Open mark (2012, 2014, 2016, 2018, 2021), 2 of which he was on pace to become YE1 in?
The reason Nadal cuts his season short after the US Open is because that's the indoor/carpet season which is Nadal's worst surface (again not ever having won the ATP Finals played indoors on carpet) and because he's worn himself out in the early part of the season (clay) - that's his time to recover and recuperate.

[rmt]

Did you forget what you preached in years past?

https://i.gyazo.com/d6547417f16ba209f8afb6a60f4a7524.png



pure facts

Please make note of when Da_Realist post was - 2014 (Fed wins 7 of the last 8 matches after switching racquets).

[rmt]

lol at rmt always going on about how long he has been watching for


https://i.gyazo.com/f411005147e9aba0da25c9bb2b6f8901.png

Don't assume - I'm female - not male. Just because I'm on a basketball forum doesn't mean I'm male.

And I stand by what I said in that post (I notice you cut off the post - why not show the entire reasoning) - especially about the game to succeed in all eras, on all surfaces with any type of equipment. I'd like to see Nadal play with a wooden racquet on a grass court - you know, the way tennis was played for decades and decades and decades.

[Da_Realist]

Please make note of when Da_Realist post was - 2014 (Fed wins 7 of the last 8 matches after switching racquets).

Exactly. Roger changed his tennis racket then all of a sudden wins 7 of 8 against Nadal. Also added a coach. If he had not been so stubborn beforehand he would have had more Slams.

[Carbine]

How do people feel about Federer winning almost half of his titles in a relatively weak era, before Nadal and Joker emerged and were consistent?

[nineiron]

There is absolutely zero correlation, but nice try in attempting.

The best players win the slams.

#1 has to do with health and availability.


Yea sure, winning slams could be like winning rings but not being the MVP aka the best.


How delusional are you?

Tennis is about slams, not weeks at #1.

aren't you a bran stan?

if so, congratulations. you just played yourself.

[dankok8]

Federer is the grass GOAT, Nadal is the clay GOAT and Novak is the hard GOAT. But the surfaces aren't made equal. Grass has 1/4 slams and 0/9 masters so 2000 ATP points. Clay has 1/4 slams and 3/9 masters so 5000 ATP points. Hard has 2/4 slams, 6/9 masters and tour finals so 11500 ATP points. In terms of ATP point share, grass is 10.8%, clay is 27.0% and hard is 62.2%.

Overall GOAT?

I'd go 1. Novak 2. Federer 3. Nadal. I think Novak in his peak form is the most well-rounded. He's beaten Fed at Wimbledon multiple times and Nadal at the FO multiple times as well. Basically I'm convinced that peak Novak can give Fed a battle on grass and Nadal a battle on clay. Fed can give Novak a battle on hard but not give a battle to Nadal on clay so he's less well-rounded. Nadal is the least well-rounded and his H2H with both Fed and Novak are skewed because a disproportionate number of meetings were on clay. Nadal can probably give Fed a battle on hard courts but can't touch him on grass and can't touch Novak on either. He hasn't beaten Novak outside of clay since the 2013 US Open and on hard courts hasn't even gotten a set off of him since then. It's nice that Nadal is so dominant on clay but clay is only 27.0% of the tour. Fed and Novak are both clearly better in the other 73.0%. Nadal has never even won the Tour Finals even though it's a tournament played every year. And hard courts overall comprise the majority of the tour so that is edge Novak.

At the end all of the Big 3 have strong GOAT arguments. I don't think it's ever going to be clear-cut between the three of them.

[Im Still Ballin]

Rodge Fed was the man back in the day. Was his 2000s competition really that bad? He had some adversaries: Nadal, Hewitt, Sampras, Roddick, Safin, Nalbandian, etc. How did that competitive slate compare to the Djokovic/Nadal/Murray era?

Tennis experts, please respond.

[Da_Realist]

Nadal is the least well-rounded and his H2H with both Fed and Novak are skewed because a disproportionate number of meetings were on clay. Nadal can probably give Fed a battle on hard courts but can't touch him on grass and can't touch Novak on either. He hasn't beaten Novak outside of clay since the 2013 US Open and on hard courts hasn't even gotten a set off of him since then. It's nice that Nadal is so dominant on clay but clay is only 27.0% of the tour. Fed and Novak are both clearly better in the other 73.0%. Nadal has never even won the Tour Finals even though it's a tournament played every year. And hard courts overall comprise the majority of the tour so that is edge Novak.

The problem for Federer is Nadal beat him at Wimbledon. In his prime. After getting thumped at the French by Nadal just a month earlier. As the grass court king, you can't let a clay courter beat you at Wimbledon. Not only is that a stain that needs to be brought up every time their rivalry is discussed but it also invalidates the notion that Nadal is just a clay court player. Nadal dominates Roland Garros in a way never seen before and the vast majority of his majors come from there but he also accomplished maybe the greatest feat in all of tennis -- defeating a prime Roger Federer in his backyard.

Federer won the French once but never beat Nadal there. Not even close. Nadal not only won two Wimbledons but he beat Federer there when Federer was a five time defending champion.

[Da_Realist]

There is an elephant in the room for those counting Slams. I don't believe anyone would have beaten Djokovic in the Aussie Open this year if he had been allowed to play. I would have bet money on Djokovic beating Nadal and everyone else there. That would have given him 21 slams which Nadal would have tied with this year's French Open. Nadal took the gift and now leads 22-20 instead of being tied 21-21 going into the grass and hardcourt seasons.

That one Slam could be the difference when all is said and done for those that only look at Slam totals.

[dankok8]

The problem for Federer is Nadal beat him at Wimbledon. In his prime. After getting thumped at the French by Nadal just a month earlier. As the grass court king, you can't let a clay courter beat you at Wimbledon. Not only is that a stain that needs to be brought up every time their rivalry is discussed but it also invalidates the notion that Nadal is just a clay court player. Nadal dominates Roland Garros in a way never seen before and the vast majority of his majors come from there but he also accomplished maybe the greatest feat in all of tennis -- defeating a prime Roger Federer in his backyard.

Federer won the French once but never beat Nadal there. Not even close. Nadal not only won two Wimbledons but he beat Federer there when Federer was a five time defending champion.

Fed was clearly not at his best at 2008 WB though. Had mono early that year and just struggled mightily also losing to the likes of Roddick, Fish, and Stepanek in the first half of 2008. I don't think that version of Federer can be considered to be prime version. Late 2008 to early 2010 can be considered prime Fed again. 2009 AO was by far Nadal's most impressive win over Fed IMO.

Anyways until recently until 2021 I had Fed as the GOAT but now it's Novak. I'm convinced that he's the greatest ever. Novak has the achievements, the all-court dominance, weeks at #1, non-calendar grand slam, positive H2H against both Fed and Nadal especially when correcting for surface etc.

[dankok8]

Rodge Fed was the man back in the day. Was his 2000s competition really that bad? He had some adversaries: Nadal, Hewitt, Sampras, Roddick, Safin, Nalbandian, etc. How did that competitive slate compare to the Djokovic/Nadal/Murray era?

Tennis experts, please respond.

That's always hard to answer. The competition appears much worse but it's hard to say if it was those guys being bad or Fed just being too dominant. It's subjective but I'd still say the 2010's were a stronger era for sure.

[Da_Realist]

Fed was clearly not at his best at 2008 WB though. Had mono early that year and just struggled mightily also losing to the likes of Roddick, Fish, and Stepanek in the first half of 2008. I don't think that version of Federer can be considered to be prime version. Late 2008 to early 2010 can be considered prime Fed again. 2009 AO was by far Nadal's most impressive win over Fed IMO.

I remember that. But still... Fed can't let that happen. Not after getting bageled in the last set of the French just a month earlier.


Anyways until recently until 2021 I had Fed as the GOAT but now it's Novak. I'm convinced that he's the greatest ever. Novak has the achievements, the all-court dominance, weeks at #1, non-calendar grand slam, positive H2H against both Fed and Nadal especially when correcting for surface etc.

Admittedly, Djokovic has the best resume. He doesn't seem to have any glaring weaknesses. He's got the heart of a lion and nerves of steel. He beat Federer at Wimbledon after facing two championship points and he's the only man to beat Nadal at the French twice. And truth be told, Nadal winning this year was considered a mild upset.

[ShawkFactory]

I remember that. But still... Fed can't let that happen. Not after getting bageled in the last set of the French just a month earlier.



Admittedly, Djokovic has the best resume. He doesn't seem to have any glaring weaknesses. He's got the heart of a lion and nerves of steel. He beat Federer at Wimbledon after facing two championship points and he's the only man to beat Nadal at the French twice. And truth be told, Nadal winning this year was considered a mild upset.

I think that was swimming in his head a little bit going into that final. Fed had never gotten dominated in a match like that before and seemed mentally off still.

[plowking]

What are you talking about?

They are 4 completely different things.

Titles
Match wins
Match win %
Slam win rate

Where am I repeating myself??



Match wins? Over what - their entire career? They've both won over 1000... No one cares if Nadal has won more matches - especially when he has played more to this point. Same with match win % lol... You're splitting hairs at 83.1% to 83.3% lol... Its like calling someone a better free throw shooter over two careers spanning 15 years lol... Negligible nonsense.

Slam win rate? The f*ck are you on about lol... Again you're splitting hairs with less than 1% difference for a stat that no one cares about or looks at.

The only thing Nadal has is more titles.


What the **** are you talking about dude? :oldlol:

Nice of you to talk without substance so none of this stuff can be rebutted.

You can literally google search and see there were articles from late 2015, mid 2016 calling Djokovic the greatest of all time by that point already. Pretty telling for a player with the least amount of public support to get that praise. Not sure which bit is lacking in tangible stuff that can be produced, because its as easy as a google search.



That's a lie. Djokovic does not reach finals more consistently. He has 31/67 and Nadal has 30/64.

There is literally a 6 year block where Djokovic did no worse than a SF at the big 4 competitions... Nadal has never been that consistent with deep tournament runs.


something as logical as slam win rate is now shitty backwards logic, and Djokovic reaching the final more consistantly apparently matters...
winning 2 more slams doesn't, but having 1 more final in 3 more slams played, does.

Tennis has to be the topic where you by far make the least sense.

I said Nadal has won 2 more titles. Which bit did you miss? Djokovic consistently had deeper runs and reached more finals. Also true.




The fact you try to argue he has more titles because of that one tournament, when the volume is at nearly 100 and Nadal has missed more tournaments and big tournaments than Djokovic, having to retire deep into tournaments more often, is so absurd dude... like that should just tell you you have no respect for any honesty here.

Retiring due to not being able to keep up and being barred from a tournament is completely different. Especially when the country that barred a player is now backtracking on the measures they put in...


How am I going to argue someone who spent more time at number 1 with a better h2h is worse?

It's very simple, that player trails by 2 slams, 1 olympics, and the h2h is at a difference of 1.

There you go.


Exactly. 2 more slams doesn't erase all the other areas that Djokovic has been substantially better at. He was better than Nadal as a player when he trailed by 6 or 7 titles. He still is now.


who is this "most" ?

Cause I ain't seen em.

Its definitely not the public, and its definitely not the journalists.


Of course it wouldn't be the public. Djokovic was always seen as a major threat early to the wonder boys of tennis; Nadal and Federer. Fans have shown a disdain for Djokovic on every deep slam run - blatantly cheering unforced errors and for just about any player that plays against Novak. To the point that even McEnroe recently said its extremely disappointing and amazing how much shit Novak puts up with.

I mean Sampras, McEnroe, Becker, etc all have him as the best. Even before Djokovic had the most. That speaks volumes - because unlike a lot of legends who say "lets wait and see who has the most" - it isn't a cop out excuse. They can see what is happening on the court and make an assessment based on level of play.


So you've vehemently argued Djokovic to be better than Nadal because of H2H and weeks at #1, and I think we can agree slams might just play a role too, right?

Slams do play a part. But peak Djokovic is a better player than Nadal. He is more consistent than Nadal based on his time at number 1. He is better head to head despite a lot of the games being played on Nadal's favoured surface.
Djokovic was a better player than Nadal even at 10-12 titles. Nothing has changed. Kinda like how Bird is better than Magic but the narrative got changed well after their careers were over because titles became a big thing post Michael Jordan and during the LeBron era as a way to discredit Bron.


And now you declare Federer to be better than Nadal.

Federer at his best was a better player than Nadal, and they have a comparable number of titles. The Nadal vs Fed conversation is a lot closer than either of those two vs Djokovic.


Clearly you can't be taken seriously.

Unlike you, I'm not emotionally invested in this at all. I could give two shits. Just like basketball, assess the numbers and level of play, and move on. You're on here getting emotional about Curry being a great player and the likes just because you're a Bron fan. I'm not the one on this forum known for hardcore biases and needing validation through starting threads to really hammer my point home.

[dankok8]

I remember that. But still... Fed can't let that happen. Not after getting bageled in the last set of the French just a month earlier.


Like I said Fed didn't just lose to Nadal the first half of 2008. He lost to a very young Djokovic in straight sets at the Aussie Open. He then lost at Indian Wells to Mardy Fish by a very lopsided score then at Miami to Andy Roddick (who he always crushed) then in Rome to Radek Stepanek. It's hard to say he was himself in the first half of 2008. His general results were quite poor against all opponents not just Nadal.

[Overdrive]

something as logical as slam win rate is now shitty backwards logic, and Djokovic reaching the final more consistantly apparently matters...
winning 2 more slams doesn't, but having 1 more final in 3 more slams played, does.


You're using his logic to argue the NBA GOAT. Pretty ironic.

[Cleverness]

lol...

I don't particularly care at all.

Might be the case as most tennis fans have booed Djokovic ever since he became a threat and overtook both Fed and Nadal. Every tournament he plays in and whoops on Fed and Nadal, and even other no names who give him a game, he is playing away from home. Yet he keeps winning.

Nadal winning a couple at the end here doesn't make him better than Djokovic. In reality, at their best, Djokovic was the best player, and Nadal was more than likely 3rd behind Fed.

:applause:

tbh I didn't even know Nadal was #1 in total grand slams. I think most casual tennis fans have him ranked behind djokovic and fed.. always seemed to be runner-up to those guys in matches not on clay

[AlternativeAcc.]

You're using his logic to argue the NBA GOAT. Pretty ironic.

Team sports and individual sports are apples to oranges when it comes to GOAT ranking.

[Lakers Legend#32]

Tennis? Seriously?

[ShawkFactory]

Tennis? Seriously?

What’s the issue?

[Da_Realist]

Federer is my favorite tennis player. In my opinion, his game is the most aesthetically pleasing, he's the most versatile and in his prime he played with so much skill it didn't look like he was trying that hard. Like MJ in the 91 Playoffs. In a perfect world where all the greats are playing at the top of their games on various surfaces, I believe Federer would have the greatest chance to win the most.

However, this isn't a perfect world. Primes are staggered. Surfaces have changed drastically over the years. In addition to the normal variations of surfaces, the US Open courts are now blue allowing even better visibility and depth perception than before the change. The French Open now has night games which changes the dynamics of play. (It's weird seeing the French wearing COATS in the stands)

In the real world, I'd rank the top 3 as
Djokovic
Nadal
Federer

as of now. I can't go by what-ifs and woulda-shoulda-couldas. Of course, this could change.

[dankok8]

Since 2011 when Novak entered his prime he's laid waste to the tour beating Fed and Nadal consistently. And don't forget Murray for whom there is little doubt that from 2011-2016 was one of the top 10-12 players in the Open Era.

vs. Nadal

23-13
13-2 on hard (2-0 at AO, 1-1 at USO)
2-0 on grass (2-0 at WB)
8-11 on clay (2-5 at FO)

Notice that prime Novak has been quite good against Rafa on clay as well. He beat him twice at the FO (2015, 2021) and lost another epic 5-setter (2013).

On hard courts and grass Novak is a brutal 15-2 against Rafa including 5-1 at slams.

vs. Federer

21-10
16-7 on hard (3-0 at AO, 2-0 at USO)
3-1 on grass (3-1 at WB)
3-2 on clay (1-1 at FO)

Prime Novak is a combined 9-2 against Federer at slams.

vs. Murray

21-8
17-5 on hard (5-0 at AO, 1-1 at USO)
0-2 on grass (0-1 at WB)
4-1 on clay (2-0 at FO)

Novak is a combined 8-2 against Murray at slams.

The era from 2011-2015 is probably the strongest era in the history of men's tennis. Prime Novak, prime Rafa, prime Murray and a past his prime but still really good Federer. The depth of field with Stan, Cilic, Del Po, Berdych was also quite crazy. Wawrinka was very strong from 2013 to 2017 probably a top 20 all timer.

[SouBeachTalents]

Since 2011 when Novak entered his prime he's laid waste to the tour beating Fed and Nadal consistently. And don't forget Murray for whom there is little doubt that from 2011-2016 was one of the top 10 players in the Open Era.

vs. Nadal

23-13
13-2 on hard (2-0 at AO, 1-1 at USO)
2-0 on grass (2-0 at WB)
8-11 on clay (2-5 at FO)

Notice that prime Novak has been quite good against Rafa on clay as well. He beat him twice at the FO (2015, 2021) and lost another epic 5-setter (2013).

On hard courts and grass Novak is a brutal 15-2 against Rafa including 5-1 at slams.

vs. Federer

21-10
16-7 on hard (3-0 at AO, 2-0 at USO)
3-1 on grass (3-1 at WB)
3-2 on clay (1-1 at FO)

Novak is a combined 9-2 against Federer at slams.

vs. Murray

21-8
17-5 on hard (5-0 at AO, 1-1 at USO)
0-2 on grass (0-1 at WB)
4-1 on clay (2-0 at FO)

Novak is a combined 8-2 against Murray at slams.

The era from 2011-2015 is probably the strongest era in the history of men's tennis. Prime Novak, prime Rafa, prime Murray and a past his prime but still really good Federer. The depth of field with Stan, Cilic, Del Po, Berdych was also quite crazy. Wawrinka was very strong from 2013 to 2017 probably a top 20 all timer.
Murray will probably be the most difficult player in history to analyze due to the unbelievable misfortune of coming along in an era where the 3 greatest players of all time were playing. However, I don't know if the bolded is true. You'd have to rank him top 10 almost purely on what if scenarios, and to claim there's "little doubt" he's top 10 is definitely hyperbole imo. More often than not, I feel like Murray was usually losing his h2h matchups against the Big 3 pretty decisively. I'd like to imagine the other ATG's would probably do just as well, if not better than he did against them.

[dankok8]

Murray will probably be the most difficult player in history to analyze due to the unbelievable misfortune of coming along in an era where the 3 greatest players of all time were playing. However, I don't know if the bolded is true. You'd have to rank him top 10 almost purely on what if scenarios, and to claim there's "little doubt" he's top 10 is definitely hyperbole imo. More often than not, I feel like Murray was usually losing his h2h matchups against the Big 3 pretty decisively. I'd like to imagine the other ATG's would probably do just as well, if not better than he did against them.

I realized top 10 is pushing it a bit so I changed it to top 10-12. :lol

Murray is 9th in peak Elo. I don't think there are more than ten tennis players in history better than prime Murray or just barely and I'm saying that based on the eye test.

Djokovic
Federer
Nadal
Sampras
Borg
Laver

Murray has no case over those guys. After that though it becomes debatable. I feel like he's somewhere in that McEnroe, Connors, Lendl, Agassi, Edberg group.

[dankok8]

And just to clarify, I was talking about Murray's peak, not career, being top 10-12 worthy. His overall career achievements lag behind someone like Connors or Agassi who played for 20 years. But would I take those guys over prime Murray in a single match in their primes? That's very debatable. Murray was not only unfortunate to face the Big 3 so many times losing 8 slam finals (5 to Novak and 3 to Fed) and 10 semifinals (5 to Nadal, 2 to Novak, 1 to Fed). He was also unfortunate to basically suffer a career-ending injury at age 29. Without that he probably ends up with 5-6 slams and 20-25 masters.

By the way career-wise Murray is still solidly a top 15 all-time player. UTS ranks him #13 on the GOAT list.

https://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/goatList