Novak Djokovic has just won his 17th grand slam title, with a record eighth triumph at Melbourne Park.
That’s as many Wimbledons as Roger Federer has won. This takes the grand slam tally to Federer on 20, Rafael Nadal on 19, and Djokovic on 17. This is where the tennis GOAT debate starts, but for those in denial, not where it ends.
The grand slam tally is clearly the most important factor. This is because they are the four most coveted prizes in the sport, and therefore the most difficult to win. The reality of the debate, however, is that the average tennis fan does not live in reality, and the average tennis fan is a Federer fan.
The most frustrating aspect of this debate is the propensity for argument favouring the intangible. These range from the likes of “but Roger is 38” or “the French Open is played on a specialist surface” to “but Novak ripped his shirt off those times”.
I’d like to ground the debate in reality, so bias does not take over here. I’ll preface this by saying Nadal is my favourite of the three, but I suspect Djokovic is the greatest.
So Federer currently holds the most slams – a record that has to be beaten before he can truly be dethroned. But you can already hear the collective nonsense of the more illogical of his supporter base, echoing in the breeze, just like the memory of when he was capable of beating Djokovic in a tight contest, or heaven forbid, a tie-break.
“Fed is classier”, you can hear them say, or “how can Fed beat him, he’s 38 now”. These are valid arguments, but only if you’re having a different debate. There was a time, of course, when Federer was younger, and dominating the tour, before Djokovic and Nadal joined him. Federer fans are only too happy to dismiss the “but he won all those slams before he had any competition” debate without a second thought.
Well, you can’t have your cake and eat it too. If age matters now, it mattered when Djokovic was yet to register on the collective consciousness of the tennis public.
(Photo by Mark Kolbe/Getty Images)
As for the class thing, what absolute nonsense. How about his reaction to beating Dominic Thiem despite being down after three sets, and playing in front of a crowd who refuses to like him no matter how many times he’s won there? A little smile, then another little smile and a yell towards his coaches. No matter, I’m sure his shorts were too white, or perhaps his shirt was too green.
Federer fans also love to talk about the times Djokovic didn’t deal with the heat as proof he lacks class, as if winning the Australian Open eight times suggests he can’t dig deep in heat.
They never seem to bring up last year’s Wimbledon final though, when Djokovic was on the back foot for the entire contest, and had to face the Federer-adoring crowd as he always does when the two meet, and a vintage Federer at full flight. After somehow winning the almost impossible against Federer, like only Djokovic can, he smiled and nodded at the crowd, then said how much Federer inspires him in his post-match interview. Not exactly the actions of an arrogant, classless inferior.
But I understand this will not convince anyone. Because anyone who uses those as arguments does so because of the impending reality they don’t wish to face: that when Fed’s two great rivals go past him on the actual achievement side of things, they’ll have to make up something else.
(Photo by Matthias Hangst/Getty Images)
As of this moment in history, Federer is the greatest. He has the most slams, and the most overall titles, for whatever that’s worth.
But I pose a question to all you deniers. If when all is said and done in this golden era of men’s tennis, and Federer has fewer grand slam titles than both Djokovic and Nadal, and an inferior head-to-head record against both of them both overall and in grand slam matches, which is looking almost certain, how can you logically mount a case that he is the greatest of the three?
If your answer is along the lines of “he’s just the best” or “he’s the classiest” then you haven’t answered the question. All you’ve done is stated that he’s your favourite, which we already knew.
So I suspect last year’s costly Wimbledon final will ultimately prove to be the beginning of the end for Federer’s chances of retaining GOAT status, and Thursday’s comfortable semi-final defeat will begin the final stage of Djokovic’s campaign to chase him down.
None of this will ultimately make Fed any less great than he is, but it will mean the Serbian shirt-ripper is even greater, should he overtake Federer’s record. No amount of pretending he lacks class will make that any less true, nor will it make you any less infuriated when it happens.
dex
Roar Rookie
You're such a hypocrite! How can you pretend to be a fool about tennis results from 30-100 years ago? You mention someone named Rod Laver and the other players in the same generation who played tennis. When in Serbia and other Eastern European countries there were only 10-20 racket and maybe 40-50 old balls, and hardly any professional players. Those old players are on the record list from 30-100 years ago when the only people playing were from 3-4 countries. After the only real English player Andy Murray, you will never see an English, American or Australian win more than 2-3 Grand slam. They are no longer three countries tennis playing tennis, but many others. ????
dex
Guest
You're such a hypocrite! How can you pretend to be a fool about tennis results from 40,50,60,70 years ago? You mention someone named Rod Laver and the other players in the same generation who played tennis. When in Serbia and other Eastern European countries there were only 10-20 racket and maybe 40-50 old balls, and hardly any professional players. Those old players are on the record list from 40-100 years ago when the only people playing were from three countries. After the only real English player Andy Murray, you will never see an English, American or Australian win more than 2-3 Grand slam. They are no longer three countries tennis playing tennis, but many others. ????
leewee
Roar Rookie
This is the GOAT argument in the GOAT debate!!! It's as convincing as Nole's victories over, as eloquent as Roger's presentation, and as raw as Rafa's will!!! You go, Nole!!!
Bell31
Guest
So many interesting angles in this — success is about number of grand slams and everything else is a tie breaker —- without stats revealing strength in different eras (and they are usually controversial anyway) so difficult to contrast eras. With overlapping careers, head to head is key in separating these great players especially in slams —- I much prefer fed but i can’t put him in front of Nadal and as soon as Nadal draws level, there’s no contest. Similar for Novak. As for fed compared to Connors - that’s has to be trolling! (And Connors was my favourite growing up)... As for laver, it’s a what if discussion - like for borg - they just don’t have enough runs on the board to be genuinely in the goat discussion (even if I too believe they should be especially laver)
Rory
Guest
Yeah 2002 was a year later with Sampras on the decline and was against someone else so why bother with that? In 2001 when Federer beat him Sampras was #1 seed and defending champ. So it was one match that is 100% relevant to what you said.
anon
Roar Pro
People underrate Federer's serve, but that doesn't mean it's better than Sampras's. Federer has won most of his majors against player no better than Ivanisevic or Rafter. Against the big 2 of Djokovic and Nadal he's been dominated in majors (and elsewhere for that matter).
anon
Roar Pro
It's one match champ. Sampras was knocked out in the 2nd round of Wimbledon in 2002.
anon
Roar Pro
Nadal already had half a dozen majors and was dominating Federer when he couldn't defend his title at Wimbledon in 2009. Cummins had played one Test.
HR
Roar Rookie
Nah, he was just foxing when he dropped his serve speed by 20km/h :silly:
Rory
Guest
Foolish? Appreciate the civil engagement. Not sure how to characterise your apparent presumption that they would just become...different players.
HR
Roar Rookie
That's a bit like saying Pat Cummins was at his physical peak when he could hurl down 150 km/h thunderbolts but only play one test before breaking down. But it's even more of an issue in tennis because to win a major you have to back up for seven matches in a row - durability is an absolutely key component of that physical peak.
Nick
Roar Guru
Yes, but you are making a foolish presumption that other players wouldn't be able to adapt their technique and style.
Rory
Guest
Yes and prior to that it was smaller than theirs but that’s a different issue to shot technique and repertoire which is the point I was making
clipper
Roar Rookie
Safin had a wrist injury - it wasn't poor form - he quickly came back to the top 10 on his return. Soderling was unlucky and had to retire. On his day a very good player, especially beating Nadal in the FO - would definitely be top 10 today, as would Roddick who was a top 10 player for almost a decade. Baghdatis and Gozalez not such much, Phillipoussis could beat anyone on his day, but that didn't happen often.
Nick
Roar Guru
No... Federer changed his racquet to a much larger one about 6 years ago. His racquet his larger than Nadal and Djokovic. The sweet spot on Federer's is larger
Rory
Guest
Well they did play and Federer won. Ended Sampras' reign at wimbledon.
Rory
Guest
Posted a reply re wooden racquets below by mistake.
Rory
Guest
The wooden racquet theory is not nonsense and holds water for me. Everyone gets hung up on GS titles (obv major importance) and head to head (important but not so cut and dried). But lets say the top 3 can't be clearly separated here. Then maybe its valid to look at things that are less empirical. There is a massive, massive diff between wood and current racquets in power, reach, sweet spot and ability to impart spin. Federer plays with close to a "traditional" style, which originally evolved around wooden racquets and got the best out of them. Modern racquets changed the way the game is played technically in terms of stroke production, strategy etc. Most obviously western grip forehands and less attacking the net. Nadal's forehand and Novak's backcourt defensive reach, perhaps their major differentiating strengths, wouldn't really work with a wooden racquet. They would also need effective net games. Rafa's is not bad but Novak's is lacking. Whereas Federer's entire game would work pretty seamlessly with timber. So it's a hypothetical area but also I think a valid part of the debate. Otherwise your just arguing about numbers.
Trev
Roar Rookie
I will always argue Rod Laver is the GOAT, all others can fight for 2nd.
Steele
Guest
Great article, totally agree. Rafa’s my fave as well, just never gives up and truly humble. But Novak is the best, the Fed admirers just can’t accept the facts. If they all played at their peak I suspect Novak would win more often than not, his best is the best for mine. Easy slam wins for early Fed yrs and Rafa injuries have kept the debate going, but only a matter of time before Novak surpasses them. I think Sampras would of won more if he felt more challenged. He didn’t really have a true rivalry like these guys do. I put him up there despite a much lower slam count. Came out of retirement and beat Fed on carpet in a best of three series from memory.