Fans have been incredibly privileged to witness the era of the Big Three of men’s tennis, with Novak Djokovic, Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer each winning 20 slams.
This has inevitably led to multiple articles about who is the GOAT and a multitude of criteria for how the GOAT should be selected.
I should add that this discussion is only about the professional era of men’s tennis (1969 onwards). I usually do not pay a lot of attention to ‘different eras’ in evaluating GOATs in other sports, but it is warranted in tennis – the split between amateur and professionals in tennis pre-1969 makes this era incredibly difficult to evaluate from a GOAT perspective.
While number of slams won is a universally accepted criterion, a range of other criteria abound by fans trying to differentiate between the Big Three for GOAT status – time at No.1, ATP Finals and Masters events won, head-to-head performance, performance at their ‘peak’, level of opposition, etc.
However, in tennis, my view is all that really matters when evaluating GOAT status is performance in the slams, and, in particular, number of slams won.
I followed tennis very closely in the 1980s and 1990s and have continued to follow it relatively closely (although somewhat less fastidiously) over the last two decades.
Over these 40 years, I cannot recall hearing the world’s top tennis players, current or former, talk about their legacies and other players’ legacies in any other terms, other than performance at the slams (with the possible exception, to a considerably lesser extent, of time at No.1).
When past or current players talk about their career-defining performances or the losses they struggled most to get over, it almost without exception, performance at the majors. When tennis followers look back at past players, it is performance in slams that tend to dominate their conversations.
Who is the GOAT? (Photo by John Berry/Getty Images)
I suspect that most top tennis players (even among the Big Three) would define a year in which they won one slam as a successful year (I am pretty sure Pete Sampras or one of the Big Three used those exact words).
It appears to me that the top tennis players appear to try and achieve their peak performance in the slams, and even the relatively prestigious ATP Masters events are essentially tune-ups for these events.
It reminds me, somewhat, of how we evaluate performance in team events, such as the NBA or AFL – no one really remembers who won an NBA Eastern Conference semi-finals series or an AFL qualifying final or the minor premiership. They are all ‘means to an end’.
The same sort of logic applies to most of the non-slam GOAT criteria – if the world’s top tennis professionals are predominantly focused on winning slams, then their performance throughout the rest of the year is a lot less meaningful in a GOAT argument (for example, winning percentage, ATP events).
This is not to say their performance in other tournaments does not matter to them – tennis is ‘their job’ and I am sure, that like for many of us, it is important for them to still perform well on a regular, day-to-day basis.
Another factor that makes the majors so disproportionally important in evaluating greatness is the mental and physical endurance and resilience required to win those tournaments. Nothing else in tennis really compares to having to win seven rounds of best-of-5 matches in a draw of 128 players (versus, say, winning five rounds of best-of-3 matches among 32 players).
I have personally always been partial to head-to-head performance as an important secondary criterion when establishing GOAT status, but I have changed my mind on that front, as it includes consideration of performance outside of the slams.
Head-to-head performance only seems relevant, really, in the context of performance in the slams, but as will be discussed in the second article on this topic, I am now even dubious about considering that as a GOAT differentiator.
Time at No.1 may be a more important criterion than most other non-slam criteria in terms of GOAT status, but it suffers from a diluted focus in terms of my argument, since both slams and other tournaments impact on a player’s ranking points (albeit with majors having the greatest impact).
So, slams won and in addition, performance in slams, is the only way to really decide who is the modern era GOAT.
In my second article on this topic, given that the Big Three are all equal on slams won (for now), I will look at performance in slams to see if this helps to separate them in terms of GOAT status.
clipper
Roar Rookie
I don't know if they ran parallel - the pro majors were no longer majors in '68, but quite a few players were still contracted to the professional circuit.
matth
Roar Guru
I guess you get into whether to rank players on their peak or their longevity of excellence. Laver won all grand slam tournaments in a year twice. No one else has done it. He also did it in the pro ranks in one year. Therefore you'd have to say he was the most dominant in his peak years. Then you have Rafa who is the most dominant on a single surface by far, as well and long term excellence on other surfaces. Federer so had a peak almost as dominant as Laver and has then maintained the rage for 19 years. Novak is almost a combination of them all, not quite as high a peak, but that's doubtful as he did hold all four at one point. not quite as long a period of excellence, but it likely will be before the end.
matth
Roar Guru
The pro and combined circuits ran parallel one year from memory so that's 6? I said I didn't sit down and do a lot of research :stoked:
Bell31
Roar Rookie
I can't agree with above as much as I rate Laver. I'd like to do some more research on the 1950/60's professional era before commenting, but it's a hectic end to the week, so a few preliminary comments --- correct me if I'm wrong, but my recollection is that the professional tournaments were nothing like the slams in format (a very limited number of players and not same intensity of format), so Laver effectively rules himself out of the GOAT argument - I hadn't thought about this so clearly until you challenged me on it, but it feels right --- it'd be like saying that the cricket rebel tours count in a cricketer's career stats or the break-away Packer cricket super tests of the 70s - it's unfortunate as Laver may well have been the GOAT, especially with 2 grand slams to his name, but he rules himself out unfortunately. Nonetheless, I respect his achievements and rate him incredibly highly.
Bell31
Roar Rookie
Agree that Rosewell and Gonzales are both under-rated (as per @matth's comment) and agree that Laver's '62 GM might've been a lot more challenging had all players been playing amateur circuit - interesting, I read that Laver didn't win many significant games in his first year after he made the move to the pro's, which was apparently pretty typical for players making that move!
clipper
Roar Rookie
A bit hard for Laver to be the best professional player for 7 years when he was only there for 5 before coming back and Ken Rosewall was easily the best player in 1963 - he won all three major tournaments, Laver won none. As I've said before, and not taking away Laver's achievements, which were stunning, it's hard to say if Laver would've got the GS in '62 with both Rosewall and Gonzales in the mix.
matth
Roar Guru
Without spending too much time on it, Laver won the slam as an amateur, went to the professional ranks and was the greatest player there for 7 years, then returned to the combined tour and won the slam again, showing that where he had been playing was much the stronger side of tennis at the time and he was the master of it. During 7 years on the pro circuit before they came back together Laver won the US Professional Tennis Championships 5 times, including four in a row. He won the premier British tournament, the Wembley Pro four times as well as the Wimbledon pro. He won the French professional championships twice. In 1967 he won the four 'majors' on the pro circuit to complete a grand slam, remembering he has two already and no other player has done it all all in either the amateur, professional or combined ranks. If you add up his amateur, professional a combined majors he gets to 20, even with other greats such as Rosewell and Gonzales to oppose him (both criminally underrated due to the professional split). Laver reached the final of 14 consecutive 'major' titles while a professional. He won the most overall tournaments during that era. Between 1962 and 1969 he failed to make the final of whatever 'major' he was entered in (whether amateur, professional or combined) only twice. Undisputed number 1 player from 1962 to 1970, except possibly 1963 when shaded by Rosewell. Given Laver did all this between 1962 and 1969 he makes a great case as the GOAT. The one thing against him is in that era with a less scientific fitness approach, he couldn't maintain those standards for 15-19 years that the Big 3 have been able to. After 1969, Laver never played a full season again.
PeterCtheThird
Guest
Bell31, thank you for your reply. Yes, professional tennis pre-open era was a mess, unsurprisingly, and I note your comment that it is hard to “rate” Laver’s titles in comparison with those of players later in the pro era. Nevertheless, Laver is one of only two players to have won a Grand Slam, in its original meaning, not the current bastardised version, and the ONLY player to have done so twice. And I would suggest that doing this seven years apart takes care of longevity considerations. So by your own parameters your headline to your article is misleading (I recognise that it is probably not your fault). If you are unable to rate Laver then you can’t rate the current top three or call any of them Greatest Of All Time, can you? All you can debate is which of them is the best of the three. You can’t really even say “best of the professional era”, can you, until one of them wins an all four in one calendar year Grand Slam. I shall now go and read your second article! Thanks again.
Peter85
Roar Rookie
And sorry for mini-hijacking the thread with GOAT athlete conversation. These three really challenged my thought process on an overall level so I thought I would share that.
Peter85
Roar Rookie
It is a bit weird in that if there was only 1 get to 20 and the other 2 were at 12 slams each, then the one with 20 probably would have made the top tier. That you get three players at this level at the same time is truly amazing and I would say unprecedented in a sport where you can so easily compare the achievements across generations, It is also meant to be very exclusive and reserved for athletes who are GOATs in there respective sports. I also tried to lean more strongly towards accessible and popular sports over niche sports given the difficulty in rising to the top is much harder with a larger talent pool. I went back and looked at my early list and I had Williams in the second tier as she is not an undisputed GOAT in tennis. Both Bolt and Phelps achieved feats that had not been seen before in terms of number of medals and longevity of achieving these at the Olympics. Agree with matth that Kelly Slater should be pushing into this tier. I haven't the knowledge of how he compares to his peers and in an all-time sense but understand that many consider his a GOAT of surfing. A project like this would need many contributors to get a truly reflective listing that covers all sports.
Bell31
Roar Rookie
Thanks matth – make a case for me how laver’s performance is superior? Copying from a reply above, it was an utter mess really pre-1969 – you had the best players playing eg, 8-men tournaments, sometimes with less good players to make up the numbers (as I understand it), and so it’s hard to fathom how to rank victories in those tournaments even though it was probably the top pro’s of the time (I liken those tournaments a bit to the ATP Finals) – some commentators want to say Laver has the equivalent of eg 20+ slams if we count his wins in those tournaments, but they’re almost impossible to weight as a ‘like for like’. I assume btw that I’m on topic when you’re referring to ‘amateur and pro sides of his career’? Btw, I don’t like saying ‘modern era GOAT, but I make an exception for tennis, as I just can’t fathom a way to evaluate the 1950’s and 1960s (I guess if I was being a purist I might count pre-1950s in my GOAT analysis!)
Bell31
Roar Rookie
Thanks matth. Hmmm - interesting take but make a case for me how you can objectively justify that comment re Laver? - I'll cheat by copying part of a reply above - pre-1969 was an utter mess really - you had the best players playing eg, 8-men tournaments, sometimes with less good players to make up the numbers, and so it's hard to fathom how to rank victories in those tournaments even though it was probably the top pro's of the time (I liken those tournaments a bit to the ATP Finals) - some commentators want to say Laver has the equivalent of eg 20+ slams if we count his wins in those tournaments, but they're almost impossible to weight as a 'like for like'. I assume I'm 'on topic' though when you're referring to 'amateur and professional' sides of his career? Btw, I do say 'modern era GOAT' which is equivalent to 'best in modern era' - I don't like doing this, but I make an exception for tennis, which I don't feel applies in most other sports.
Bell31
Roar Rookie
Interesting - I wouldn't have omitted them from my top tier b/c they can't be undisputed best on their own, but understand your criterion. Interesting what would've happened if it was a Big 2 - I guess if it had been Fed and Rafa, I could never have got enough of it :)
Bell31
Roar Rookie
Rod Laver is a tricky one – I don’t know how much you know about the pre-1969 era. It was an utter mess really – you had the best players playing eg, 8-men tournaments, sometimes with less good players to make up the numbers (as I understand it), and so it’s hard to fathom how to rank victories in those tournaments even though it was probably the top pro’s of the time (I liken those tournaments a bit to the ATP Finals) – some commentators want to say Laver has the equivalent of eg 20+ slams if we count his wins in those tournaments, but they’re almost impossible to weight as a ‘like for like’. As a result, Rod’s between a rock and a hard place, missing 7 prime years of his career between 2 grand slams!
matth
Roar Guru
Good start. Interested to see where you end up. I heard that morning that Federer has dropped out of the top 10 for the first time in nearly 19 years. I am happy for you to say "best since 1970". If you can't compare era's then you can't call them the GOAT's. Rod Laver's performance in the Amateur and professional sides of his career are superior.
matth
Roar Guru
Kelly Slater
Peter85
Roar Rookie
I will be very interested to see what the rest of this series has to offer. This has been an amazing extended period of dominance with each of the three having their respective strengths and weaknesses. I often wonder what happens if one of them isn't at this level but rather at the Murray/Warinka level if the remaining two would be more dominant or if the desire would have subsided. I was trying to think up a list of the best athletes of the 2000's and couldn't have these three in my top tier. Reasoning was that if you can't be the undisputed best in your own sport, you can't be in my top tier. Williams, Phelps and Bolt were my standouts.
Brian
Guest
I agree. The only other one that comes close is time at No 1. However its really only Slams that everyone is trying to win. For me whoever ends up with the most is the greatest, at the moment it looks like that will most likely be Novak, with a small chance they all finish on 20 and an even smaller chance Novak never wins again and Nadal has another FO in him.
PeterCtheThird
Guest
Clever of you to set your criteria to consider “professional era” only. All you really needed to write was two words: Rod Laver.
Omnitrader
Roar Rookie
Maybe longevity too? Fed first was in 2003 and last in 2018 (15 years) nads 2005-2020 (15 years), djok 2008-2021 (13 years). They’re all pretty good though