Following Novak Djokovic’s Wimbledon triumph over Roger Federer, there are renewed calls (mainly from the Novak fans) to consider Djokovic as the greatest tennis player of all time.
For the casual tennis observer, Roger Federer remains the number one on the GOAT list, with Rafael Nadal a close second. But if we dig a little deeper, do the Serbian fans have a solid argument to place their man above all others?
Roger and Rafa fans you might want to look away now!
We know that in simple Grand Slam numbers, Roger still holds the lead with 20. Nadal is only two behind, and at 16, Djokovic is four back from Federer, but is five years his junior.
If Federer plays for another year or two, he may sneak one more Slam taking him to 21. If Novak plays for another five years, it is highly probable he will overtake Federer and Nadal to become the greatest major winner of all time.
Only Djokovic has held all four majors at the same time, and although not considered ‘The Grand Slam’ in which a player must win all four in the calendar year, ‘The Novak Slam’ is essentially just as impressive, and a feat that Rafa and Roger haven’t been able to achieve.
But let’s open it up a bit more, because just holding the most Grand Slams is quite simplistic.
I want to have a look at all the ‘Big Tournaments’, such as Grand Slams, Masters 1000 events, ATP Tour Finals, and even Olympic Games. For the sake of this, I am only comparing the stats of ‘The Big Three’.
This is where it gets interesting.
Number of ‘Big Tournaments’ won
This statistic right here puts into perspective just how amazing this trio of players have been, and still are.
To add further weight, Ivan Lendl is next on the list with 37. Taking into account Djokovic’s age, and the way he is playing, it’s highly unlikely he won’t be the outright leader at the end of his career.
Djokovic – 54
Federer – 54
Nadal – 53
Here we are looking at the overall percentage of matches won in the ‘Big Tournaments’ and then, digging deeper, the percentage of matches won against top ten players:
Nadal: 83.5/65.16
Djokovic: 83.15/68.99
Federer: 81.4/66.20
As you can see, Nadal is marginally ahead of Novak overall, but against top ten players, it’s Novak who clearly comes out on top. This shows his ability to beat the best of the best, more often.
Novak Djokovic lifts the 2019 Wimbledon trophy after an extraordinary final against Roger Federer. (Photo by Matthias Hangst/Getty Images)
The number of Masters 1000 titles won
While they may not be as revered as Grand Slams, most of these tournaments will have almost the exact same field of players competing, and although Nadal is shading Djokovic at the moment, it seems inevitable that by the end of their respective careers, Djokovic will hold this record too.
Unfortunately for Federer fans, it doesn’t seem like he has any chance of catching the other two.
On top of this, Novak Djokovic is the only player to have won all nine Masters tournaments, which is a phenomenal achievement in itself. Federer has never won Monte Carlo or Rome, while Nadal is yet to hold the trophy at Miami or Paris.
Nadal – 34
Djokovic – 33
Federer – 28
Weeks Ranked Number 1
At the moment, Roger has a pretty good lead, but all Novak would have to do is hold on to the number one position for another 12 months (he has a massive lead at the moment), and he may just take this record too.
Federer – 310
Djokovic – 261
Nadal – 196
Head to Head
Finally, looking simply at Head to head statistics, it’s here we can see that Djokovic has a winning record against both of his major rivals, clearly staking his claim as the GOAT.
Djokovic v Nadal – 28-26
Djokovic v Federer – 26–22
Nadal v Federer – 24–16
Statistics can be manipulated in many ways, and there’s no doubt both Roger and Rafa fans could quite easily find records and facts to support their man.
However, Novak Djokovic is making it harder and harder for anyone to dispute his place at the top of the tennis tree, and I think, by the time all three have retired, it will be the Serbian who has the GOAT title.
Bell31
Guest
?I'm just looking at the total career data set of the 3 players in question and I'm choosing the criteria that I feel best helps to distinguish GOAT amongst these truly great players, which is the thrust of this article. The author mounts an argument for master series events and I countered that - both are logical discussions. However, selecting limited datasets (e.g. assessing fed for only a portion of his career, discounting periods when players may not have been at full strength) is a slippery slope --- and leads to potential confirmatory bias. In truth, we need novak's full career data set to mount the real GOAT argument and sadly, I fear that fed will be surpassed As for Borg, why would playing circa 12 matches in 2 years (I believe that's accurate), 10 years after his retirement, be relevant to this discussion? It's such a small set of data for borgs career that no, it doesn't affect how I rate him. However, rating Borg and say laver against current big 3, now that's an interesting exercise!!
Brian
Guest
Except is not logical. If Federer had retired after the 2010 Australian Open with 16 slams and a much better H2H against Novak are you saying he is a better player then otherwise. Take Bjorn Borg what you are saying is that the period he came back and lost continuously it somehow means he was a lesser player.
bell31
Guest
I think I'm a tennis purist ;) - I've been closely following tennis for 40 years, and in all that time, I've rarely ever heard commentators or players talk about their success or legacy in terms of anything other than wins in Slams and possibly no.1 ranking. Other than potentially end of year championship, my perception has always been that all other tournaments are basically viewed as lead-in's to the Slams. I get that like my head to head argument, you could say that it helps to split the relative strength of the Big 3, but I'd prioritise it after their head to head record. Also, I'm amazed that more isn't made of Novak's record in 5 set matches - it's astonishing (although the only stat that might influence how amazing that is it how often he gets dragged into 5 set matches vs Fed/Nadal - I suspect the difference isn't too great as too detract from a 30-10 5th set win stat)
bell31
Guest
When players play each other are much as these 3, head-to-head is very meaningful in separating who is a better player - its a simple stat and I think people try to over-complicate it by trying to analyse various primes, who they had to play against in various parts of their career etc - there are some ways of quantitatively looking at 'strength of opposition' to compare challenges at different times periods, but fundamentally, head-to-head over a fairly large sample of matches is one of the more compelling ways of assessing relative strengths between players. I'm not even a fan of people who try to discount Nadal's head-to-head wins against Fed b/c so many were on clay - I find it counter-intuitive to do so (eg would we discount Fed's wins against Nadal before he learnt to play on grass?). To address your specific point, all 3 have had decent periods a few years ago when not fully fit - if you play, you play.
Todd S
Roar Pro
Have to agree to disagree on that one Brian. Head to Heads are definitely not meaningless, especially when we're trying to split hairs on who is the best. As far as I'm concerned, if you step on court, you're fit. Roger took time off, and has taken the whole clay court season off in recent years. If he played that, his percentage would be lower. Nadal has taken a lot of time off in his career to recover from injuries, so I don't think your point is valid. There's no asterisk on the record book next to players who aren't 100% fit.
Brian
Guest
Except heads to heads and career % are meaningless because you can't discount players who play when not 100%. Nadal often played when not fully fit whilst Roger has a one handed backhand which naturally leads to less elbow issues. If Novak had played instead of taking time out in 2017 and his head to head and career % against top 100 would be worse. It's really not a good measure
Brian
Guest
Where is the evidence that the quality Novak is beating now is better then when Federer was winning Slams. the guys Federer was beating weren't 37 y.o. Thiem is the only player in the top 15 aged 24-29 which is when you would expect a player to peak, and he's a clay court specialist who poses a greater threat to Nadal at the French.
Todd S
Roar Pro
The longer this thread continues, the more interesting it gets! To play devils advocate, could we also say that when Roger peaked (04-07), he didn’t have to contend with Novak at his peak? It just goes to show, that comparing players in the same era is hard enough, let alone throwing players like Laver and Borg into the mix. However, the stats that lean me towards Novak, are his percentage of wins in career. While we’re talking slim margins, Novak leads Roger in total win percentage at 82.79 to 82.13. Breaking it down further, he leads Roger at beating top 100 players, top 50, top 20, top 10, and top 5. So even if they never quite played each other at their absolute prime, Novak has proven himself to beat the best of the best more often. Splitting hairs again though....
Pierro
Roar Rookie
Thanks Todd. As it stands I would say Roger by a distance. Remember Roger was 31/32 by the time Djokovic began to get anywhere near his peak. Technically speaking when Djokovic reached his empahatic peak in 15/16 , Roger was was past his prime per tennis age so an argument to say Djokovic never really played Federer at his peak when he peaked. Rogers ability to come back and re model his game from Aus 17 open was nothing short of extraordinary and in the modern professional age its never been done in the mens game. We need to see what djokovic can do post 33 years of age for him to be on level footing for me. Also remember Roger had to deal with a Nadal in his prime who took slams away from him. Djokovic in his prime actually really only faced Murray in his prime in 15/16. The practical points certainly lean me to Federer by a distance. Of course on clay it undisputable
Todd S
Roar Pro
Great comment Pierro, and a really valid point about the grass speed. You’re completely right that there’s not much between them, and that’s what makes the debate so interesting. Everyone has different metrics on how to rank the players. Nearly all have some validity, so unless Novak completely dominates the next four or five years, the debate will probably carry on for a long time.
Todd S
Roar Pro
Agree with your sentiments on the Grand Slam count. But I feel as though if it’s only one or two slams the difference, we have to take into account the Masters 1000 wins. If Novak carries on for a few more years, he’ll likely be quite a distance ahead in that stat.
Pierro
Roar Rookie
One thing Ill say is Roger has played through three eras of tennis. He had to adjust his entire game on grass when in 04/05 they radically changed the court speed which totally suited nadal at his peak . No longer the serve and volley court federer was used to in the sampras/hewitt era . It was a huge shift. Nadal would never have won it on the previous grass surface speed . Federers loss recently which he really had on serve and was a tad unlucky to say the least may cost him against joker. Theres not much in it if a 37 year old going on 38 can push a 32 year old in his prime 12 all and tie brake close in the fifth. Also nadal has had the age advantage in the last five years where players don’t win slams over 32. Lots to consider, theres not too much in it considering the age diff between Joker and Fed which is huge in tennis terms and Nadals record slights Federers because a lot of it is on clay , take it the grass and hard court and the ratios change
Pierro
Roar Rookie
It may be this simple by the end. Djokovic Hard court, Roger Grass, Rafa Clay.
tsuru
Roar Rookie
Perhaps "Djoknaderer"?? Seriously though, as others have said before, this judgement of the greatest of all time is subjective. If you want to go just by the numbers, then see above. But then there is the enjoyment and entertainment factor to be considered. And that is where Federer has the edge. Probably 80% of my keen tennis playing friends (and I have a lot) would watch Federer play a big match on TV rather than play themselves. And even casual tennis fans usually agree that Federer's game is more fluent and even beautiful than the other 2. Some commentator during Wimbledon described it like this: "Federer moves on the court like a ballet dancer and his feet never actually touch the ground; Nadal is the little engine that could, does and always will; and Djokovic is a mixture of the above with ridiculous flexibility."
SdoubleU
Roar Rookie
Fed turned 30 during the 2011 season he was not 28. 30 is typically associated with a descent from peak performance for athletes in many sports.
Bell31
Guest
I'm late to this party and Im a Fed fan first, and not a fan of Novak, but I agree with other comments that Novak is likely to end up the GOAT. I honestly don't think anything really counts in tennis other than slams - if you listen to the players, that's what they play for fundamentally. On that basis, Novak needs a few more slams to be on par with fed, but one he gets closer, his head to head record will give him the edge (and over Nadal as well). I'm also astonished by Novak's fifth set record - 30 wins / 10 losses (fed 30-22) - that will add sauce to novak's stats if he levels slams with fed (I don't know nadal's stats for this)
Todd S
Roar Pro
Possibly not Bilbo, but as good as Murray was, he still found it difficult to beat the Big 3 on regular occasions. Too often he came up just short, so I’m not sure it would’ve made too much difference.
Todd S
Roar Pro
That will be the deciding factor JamesH. If Novak can stay fit... A professional tennis player will rarely win a Slam if not close to full health and fitness. Will be interesting to see.
JamesH
Roar Guru
I do wonder if Novak can match Federer's longevity, though. His predominantly baseline game puts far more stress through his legs. We've seen Rapha's body start to let him down in recent years and I suspect Novak's will too. Most tennis players start to decline by around Novak's current age. Roger's longevity is an absolute marvel. I'd guess it has a lot to do with his style of game, which (to a point) goes against the modern, dogged baseliner trend.
Bilbo
Guest
It is a valid point. Del Potro was able to make last years US open final even though he wasn't 100%. If fully fit he may have snapped a couple more US Opens. We also shouldn't forget the form Murray was in before his injury. I doubt Fed would have won titles 18, 19 and 20 if Murray and Djoko were fit during that period.