Only slams matter for GOAT status: Part 2

By Bell31 / Roar Rookie

In my first article on this topic, I argued that slams won and performance in slams are the key criteria for being the modern-era tennis GOAT.

In this article, I thought I would have an initial look at performance within slams to see if it helped to separate the big three, given they are all currently stuck on 20 slams won apiece.

While most commentators tend to focus on overall head-to-head records (which is a virtual tie between Novak Djokovic and Rafael Nadal), head-to-head matches at slams give Nadal the clear lead and appear to further count, in particular, against Roger Federer’s claim to GOAT status.

(Fred Lee/Getty Images)

In matches played in slams against the other two members of the big three, Federer has won only 32 per cent of his matches, Djokovic has won 52 per cent of his matches, and Nadal has won 65 per cent of the time.

Nadal has a 10-6 record against Djokovic and a 10-4 record against Federer. Djokovic has an 11-6 record against Federer.

Some commentators argue, however, that Federer fares poorly on this measure because he is five-plus years older than Nadal and Djokovic, and reached his peak before Djokovic in particular, who started to win most of his slams when Federer was 30-plus years of age.

To debunk Nadal as GOAT, some commentators have focused on where each of the big three have won their slams, with Nadal winning 65 per cent of his slams at the French Open, whereas Djokovic (nine US Opens, six Wimbledons, three Australian Opens, two French Opens) and Federer (eight Wimbledons, six Australian Opens, five US Opens, one French Open) have more balanced records.

(Photo by Clive Mason/Getty Images)

However, it should be noted that if Nadal never won a French Open, but only won seven other slams, he would still likely be considered an all-time great such as John McEnroe.

Another criterion might be progress in slams, which further counts against Nadal, as he has the least impressive record of the big three in terms of reaching the finals, semi-finals and quarter-finals of a slam. Federer’s record is 31/46/58, Djokovic’s record is 31/42/51, and Nadal’s record is 28/35/44.

Other commentators have focused on peak value, which would probably install Federer as the GOAT. Federer had an outstanding six years from 2004 to 2009, in which he won 14 slams, was runner-up six times, and only missed making the semi-finals once in 24 slams.

Djokovic has clearly been the most dominant over the last 11 years, winning 19 of his slams during that time. Nadal has tended to win his slams steadily over time.

Despite Djokovic appearing to fall behind Nadal and Federer in the performance in slams categories described above, many commentators nonetheless view Djokovic as the GOAT.

They value Djokovic’s unique modern-era slam achievements of winning all four slams at least twice and being the only player since Rod Laver in 1969 to be the concurrent holder of all four slams. They also value that Djokovic is one of only two players (like Federer) to win three slams in three different calendar years.

(Photo by Matthias Hangst/Getty Images)

Relative to Federer and Nadal, they also value Djokovic’s non-slam performance, for instance, his record time at number one, superior ATP Finals and Masters event wins, and his slight overall head-to-head record.

Of course, as outlined in Part 1 of this series of articles, this falls outside of my personal criteria for differentiating the big three.

Lastly, and probably not unexpectedly, given their dominance of the sport, the big three’s overall winning percentage at slams is almost identical (Federer 86 per cent, Nadal 87 per cent, Djokovic 88 per cent).

To sum up, trying to differentiate the modern-era GOAT by looking at the big three’s performance in slams does not appear to be helpful. However, there may be more in-depth analyses of slam performance such as strength of opposition that might shed further light.

Sports opinion delivered daily 

   

So, if you agree, as I outlined in Part 1 of this series, that performance in slams is really what reflects a tennis player’s legacy, it seems that, at least for the big three, the number of slams won is really the only clear criterion that might differentiate between them.

So, it is a three-way GOAT tie, for now, between Federer, Nadal and Djokovic.

We can re-consider who is the modern-era GOAT based on slams won once the big three have retired.

However, it may be more fitting to just view the big three as the modern-era GOAT and leave it at that, given all their accomplishments, unless one of Djokovic or Nadal ends up with a decent lead in slams won.

Sadly, since I am not that much of a fan, it looks like Djokovic is the best bet to end up as the modern-era GOAT, given Federer’s age and Nadal’s recent absence at slams.

The Crowd Says:

AUTHOR

2021-10-22T11:00:00+00:00

Bell31

Roar Rookie


It does seem like Nadal and Joker faced stiffer competition overall and certainly sustained their peaks for longer, but wow, Fed's peak was out of this world. The reason for writing these articles is I'd been reading quite a bit about how Joker was the GOAT and a few that argue for Fed, and I thought 'it comes down to Slams' and then I was interested to see whether 'in slam' performance made any difference (this article), which it doesn't, so yes indeed, I'm happy to view them all the GOAT's.

2021-10-22T00:10:38+00:00

Peter85

Roar Rookie


This is all high level nit-picking to try and compare 3 all-timers. It is trying to find a reason to separate because the equalness of the Slam record. I don't really know how to argue a strength of competition, especially given the dominance of these three over the competition. If a prime year = 2 slam finals: Federer's prime value (2004-2009) came when his best competition was Andy Roddick, Lleyton Hewitt, Andy Murray and early Nadal/Djokovic. He had a late renaissance in 2017/18 winning 3/4 slams he participated in (missed the French Open). Nadal's prime value (2008-2020, with interruption in 2014 & 2015) coincides with Djokovic's (2011-2021). From this I take-away that Nadal/Djokovic were able to overtake the dominance of Federer when he was at the end of his peak and have been able to maintain if for longer than Federer. During this the best competition was Federer, Murray, Wawrinka.

AUTHOR

2021-10-21T12:35:31+00:00

Bell31

Roar Rookie


thanks Peter. I don't hold a strong view of GOAT vs GOATPee - as you know, I started with an emphasis on the GOATPee and then changed my mind. Better tennis player is as you indicate is difficult (probably impossible) to evaluate. I think you got confused in some of your argument above - I think it might've been matth who made the comment re quality of Laver's opponents, so I'm not sure if your comments that follow re 'adjusting for circumstances' also relate to that perceived comment of mine? I would only tend to make a comment re quality of opposition if there was some stats to back it up. As a general rule, I'm not into making comparisons of different conditions between eras as making performance in one era better or worse than another era, mainly b/c I find that these lead to circular argument. My personal favourite in this regard is people who argue that Bradman's performance should be discounted given the limited teams he played against etc. You can only 'beat who you can beat' in any given era. Thanks for commenting. I might try the UFC (MMA) GOAT next, although there's probably a GOATpee aspect to that too... You should have a look at my other GOAT article on NBA!

2021-10-21T02:25:45+00:00

PeterCtheThird

Guest


Bell31, thanks. We shall have to continue to disagree, I’m afraid, although I’m happy for The Big Three (TBT) to slug it out for the title of GOATPee. And we will continue to wait for one of them to win a proper Grand Slam. If you are going to say Well, Rocket’s opponents weren’t very good (in fact, they were), you must also discount the titles won by TBT for their opposition - plenty of Who? quality in there. Deduct half a Slam for any opponent ranked below 10? You would also need to adjust for the circumstances - flitting around in a private jet with coach, training partner, doctor, physio, sports psych, staying in 5-star accommodation OR second-class train, 4 to a bunk room in a YMCA, sharing the tinned spaghetti, the doctor only there to cut out and bandage your bleeding toenail so you can play tonight? Self-maintained nylon-strung wooden racquets or 20 carbon fibre rackets with more technology than the space station? Dunlop Volleys or hand-crafted personalised Nikes? What difference would that have made to the quality of TBT’s tennis, and therefore to a real assessment of how good they were as players, and maybe or maybe not to the number of titles they have won? So perhaps two judgements, one determined solely by the number of titles won - dead easy, really - just count and the other the perhaps impossible question of who, in all the circumstances, was/is the better tennis player. Thanks again!

AUTHOR

2021-10-20T15:10:41+00:00

Bell31

Roar Rookie


Yep, certainly entertaining, but appreciate your challenge and also @matth. You're right, I called it the 'modern era GOAT' throughout my articles, but yes, GOATPee is right. However, I've revised my opinion after thinking this through and I actually think the Big 3 are legitimate GOAT, not just modern era. I'd like to do a bit more research to refresh myself on the 1950's/60's professional era and probably the pre-1950's era as well, where my knowledge is more sketchy, but in short, the players who went professional 'ruled themselves out' of the GOAT debate, at least in terms of not counting their non-amateur performances, as the professional tournaments, to my knowledge, just don't compare to the grand slams (even if the better players were pro's at that time). It's like saying that the cricketers who went on rebel tours or the Packer's super-tests of the 1970s should be counted in the cricketers' overall career stats. So I think I've been too kind to Laver, as I rate him SO highly, but no, he'll have to sit second tier.

AUTHOR

2021-10-20T15:05:01+00:00

Bell31

Roar Rookie


I think Novak is 6-0 against Fed in the French, so by my count, he is 4-4 against Fed at other slams. I think he is 7-2 against Novak in the French, so that would make him 3-4 on that count. I'd say that's pretty special for a clay-court specialist!

AUTHOR

2021-10-20T15:01:55+00:00

Bell31

Roar Rookie


Yes indeed!

AUTHOR

2021-10-20T15:01:08+00:00

Bell31

Roar Rookie


Thanks Peter85 - I like your comments - I don't think you can count Fed's head-start as counting against him in the GOAT race - his 'peak value' period was astonishing and I don't think (from memory) anyone has ever been close --- I'd really need to see some hard-core stats to say that the standard of competitiveness in his era was less than subsequent era, even if intuitively, there might be some merit to it. I think if you look at the stats above, what I'm basically saying, is that on an objective level, if you agree performance in Slams is the main game, then you can't separate the Big 3.

2021-10-19T23:29:48+00:00

PeterCtheThird

Guest


Bell31, thank you again. Interesting, but GOAT means Greatest Of All Time. All Time. You say you can’t rate Laver because it’s too hard, so you settle for saying you’re just talking about the greatest since 1990 or thereabouts. Then you still insist on labelling this GOAT. No, it’s not. The debate becomes Greatest Of The Professional Era or GOTPE (pronounced GoatPee?). Still, it’s an entertaining discussion, isn’t it?

2021-10-19T23:12:15+00:00

matth

Roar Guru


I would be interested in the Big 3's head to head records in the other three slams if the French is excluded?

2021-10-19T22:36:13+00:00

CloudRunner

Roar Rookie


I think you got Djokovic’s US and Aus Open title wins mixed up.

2021-10-19T21:55:36+00:00

Peter85

Roar Rookie


Nadal is the king of clay - maybe the most dominant a single athlete has been in a discipline of their chosen sport of all-time, if not at least in the last 40 years. That he gets knocked for being so skewed to clay is a bit unfair as you pointed out he still has enough slams in the three events that less suit his skills that make him a star in any era. If for some reason there were 2 slams a year on clay instead of 2 on a hard court then Nadal may be on 30 and Federer/Djokovic on 15 (or with increased clay focus everyone else gets a little better and Nadal isn't quite so dominant). Federer got a head start in a time where the next best weren't as good There was a lull between Sampras/Agassi and when Federer/Nadal rivalry. His peak came before Djokovic asserted his dominance and the contenders beyond Nadal were guys that are probably not long term #1 quality in any era (Hewitt, Roddick, Murray). Djokovic is my best out of the three, and my least liked. He had to disrupt the Federer/Nadal dominance and will likely end up with more slams. He is the most rounded across all surfaces. The only thing that can discount him is that his dominance is only in the time post-peak of Federer and Nadal and that the next generation have not even risen to the challenge of late career Federer/Nadal so the competition level for Djokovic is potentially a little lower. Really just mental gymnastics to downplay how great his achievements are.

Read more at The Roar