individual sports are the easiest to name a GOAT, teams sports are where it gets subjective af

I'm not big into tennis and dgaf about style of play, if you are consistently dominating you're the GOAT here

when it comes to public image Federer is the ideal stepson (is that even a saying in English lol) while Djoker is more divisive so a poll is skewed either way

Nadal shouldn't even be in the discussion tbh, GOAT clay player ab-so-lutely but not GOAT overall

just my 2 cents, as I said not the biggest tennis enthousiast but Djokovic is the GOAT

Bruh we can't even get a consensus on the best of this century, Djoko or Federer, some even say Nadal. How are you gonna compare him to the likes of Bjorn Borg or Rod Laver? You can't, this whole GOAT circus is all just people jerking off their favourite current day player to hype them up.

I get where you're coming from. How do you compare different eras? Sampras dominating at Wimbledon in the 90s with serve & volley in super quick conditions has very little to do with Djokovic, Alcaraz, etc. today.

If people want to argue Djokovic and Federer in the GOAT discussion that's one thing but I can't see how Nadal qualifies. 0 wins off clay vs. his main rival Djokovic in 10 years — not even a single set on hard courts in 10 years. He couldn't beat Federer off clay for 6 years after 2014 either. 2015-2019 H2H is 1-6. No ATP Finals wins. Only had a couple of years where he dominated. Out of his 24 wins over Federer only 3 cameafterthe French Open every year. 6 years in his prime not making the 2nd week at Wimbledon.

How about only facing Novak twice at the Aus Open but 10 times at the French Open?The guy is the undisputed king of carefully choosing his battles.

When Djokovic was unable to play due to jab status and the media was crowning Nadal GOAT it was cringeworthy. His two biggest nuthuggers in this thread couldn't get enough. Funny how they stopped posting. They don't follow tennis. They got wood over one dude.

Yeah eras is impossible to argue. Borg didn't even bother playing the Australian Open, retired when he was 26 and still won 11 slams. How are you gonna compare that with today's guys? People like to forget that the OAT part of GOAT stands for "of all time" and not "of today's era".

I do agree for this era that Nadal isn't really in the discussion. Although for a supposed "clay only specialist" it's very impressive that he's won every slam at least twice, not sure why people tend to forget that. Federer and Djokovic are just clearly a bit ahead imo. The only thing that really bothers me is people pretending their opinion is a fact and people ****ting on other players to try and argue their point. Should be pretty clear that all 3 guys, including Nadal, are absolute legends of the sports. If you focus on what he has done, instead of what he hasn't, it's still amazing legendary stuff.

When comparing across eras, I never include people from before I was paying attention who I never saw live (and add a disclaimer if those people are in the conversation). So, while Rod Laver may have a claim to GOAT status due to 2 slams, I limit my discussion to the Connors/McEnroe/Borg era forward because that's what I know. Borg would likely be in the conversation if he kept playing and was closer to 20 instead of 11, but he didn't, so...

What did I say about how easy it is to spot the triggered ones?

In nearly every single significant measurable metric Novak leads, in some by a long way. There's nothing subjective about it, it's fact. If you don't want to believe numbers than why bother with sport at all? It's all make believe at that point then.

Also it's funny how when Federer was top dog no one was talking about subjective arguments and different eras. It was, this guy is the GOAT and that's it. Then when Nadal got up there all people would say is these are the 2 best ever, we're so lucky to be watching this, to have the 2 best ever in their prime at the same time etc.

Then Novak breaks up the party and suddenly stats don't tell the whole story and a million other excuses come up just because the media/fanbase has never loved Novak like the other 2.

Strong lack of logic and critical thinking. Just because I ridicule you for pretending your that your opinion is a fact doesn't make me triggered at all. Sorry if pointing out your retardation triggered you.

Also, according to your own logic Rod Laver is the GOAT. He's won 28 majors. Now off you go, little cuck.

Medvedev has to be the biggest choker in the history of tennis. Even worse than federer

Nowhere near Federer's 2019 choke. He choked against Nadal but not this time. He made Sinner look like a club player for 2 sets until Sinner raised his level and Medvedev's dropped as he ran out of gas.

5 setters against Hurkacz and Zverev while Sinner only dropped a set to Novak.

I think everyone is just happy Sinner put an end to Joke's vulturing. The Joke (aka the fake goat) has vultured so many slams in the last several years because it's the weakest era of all time.

The guy won the MAJORITY of his slams after the age of 30. That tells you all you need to know. Federer will remain the forever GOAT imo. Fed just got unlucky he was born 6 years after Djokodal

Are we going to ignore what he did during 2011-2016 in his 20s against prime Nadal who is only a year older?

Multiple 7-0 streaks on Nadal 2011-2012 and 2015-2016. Give the man his due.

Conditions were slowed down to lengthen rallies which suited more defensive players however Federer still beat those two on faster courts well into his 30s. Nadal only has 3 wins on him after the French Open — Wimbledon 2008 + a couple of wins in 2013 when he was in pretty bad shape before he switched rackets.

Federer's attacking style was great to watch on fast courts where he could take time away from them and make them look pretty ordinary at times. It's a shame there wasn't more contrast. Wimbledon and US Open should have remained medium-fast instead of making them a pusher's paradise for a decade. Courts like Shanghai showed us what we were missing and he hadn't declined as sharply as it seemed. He was just being ground down on slower courts.



Anyway Djokovic got into Federer's head after the 2011 US Open semis and did the same to Nadal in 2011 and Nadal couldn't beat him off clay after 2013. Younger players like Sinner don't have those mental scars plus I don't think Djokovic has the same motivation to beat them like Federer and Nadal.

I'd argue the 12 slams Fed won pre-2008 was an easier/just as easy era of Tennis than the current one.

the slowing down of the courts is the reason why nobody plays a one handed backhand anymore. shot just isn't reliable enough during long rallies and has too many drawbacks

Good point.

Peak Wawrinka is probably the best exponent of that stroke and obviously had success in slams against Djokovic but Nadal used the same strategy he used against Federer for 19 wins from 22. Federer's record against him was even more brutal — 23-3 (all losses on clay).

Who do you think has the best two hander? Underachieved and didn't take fitness seriously but Nalbandian had the best I've seen. Could do anything with it and it was a huge weapon on quick courts. Federer must have thought he was looking in the mirror at times — that BH was being whipped around to create angles like his forehand.

Idk if it was the best (he has my vote though) but Nalbandians was the most aesthetic. Imagine a player with Fed’s forehand and Nalby’s backhand.

The aesthetic side of it matters to us because we loved watching Federer. It took me years to appreciate Novak's ruthlessly efficient style of grinding opponents down.

So maybe Novak's BH is the highest % stroke you'd choose to build the most successful player but no question in my mind Nalbandian's BH + Fed's FH would create the most exciting player to watch.

I enjoyed their early-mid 2000s rivalry more than Federer vs. Nadal and it had nothing to do with the result or H2H. Nadal directed nearly every ball to Roger's BH to extract the error while Nalbandian went at Federer with attacking tennis and was up to the task of going shot for shot. Had no fear.

You can’t argue against the efficiency but the aesthetics played a large part in me becoming a tennis fan in the first place. Certain players were just more fun to watch due to their styles. It’s just a massive part of the sport itself imo. Ive missed guys like Michael Llodra so much over the last decade. Serve and volley is pretty much extinct. 1hbhs will be eventually. Tennis will be worse for it.

Exactly. Safin massively underachieved but that didn't stop me from appreciating his ridiculous talent. He's another contender for the best double handed BH.



Never seen anyone move better at that height. In his mid 40s now and still keeps himself in peak condition.

As much as I hate to say it, I'd take Novak's backhand, just too consistent. Agassi would be my #2, too bad the guy couldn't play any defense

Nothing wrong with those choices but I could see younger players emulating those two but I can't see Nalbandian's being replicated.



For me no one has filled the void left by Federer and I'm sure it's the same for you with Nadal but who are you following these days?

Great highlight reel.

Top notch power and angles but to me the most impressive thing that hasn't been replicated was his ability to take the ball from almost any position/stance and direct it anywhere on the court.

Good chance Nadal retires at the French this year. 90% chance he retires by the end of the year.

Mostly follow Alcaraz and now been following Sinner. Alcaraz is a great young player. Main weakness is his serve and being to prone to lapses on concentration during a match. Sinner is a pretty interesting case as dude didn't really commit to tennis until like 12 years old and his improvement has been exponential. I wouldn't be surprised if he overtakes Alcaraz as the guy to beat for this generation. Those two have the potential for a great rivalry.

Other than those two, not sure if anyone else has the potential to fill the void the big 3 will leave behind.

Exciting rivalry. H2H 4-4

looks like one last hurrah at RG for Nadal. Hoping he doesn't get injured before that and plays. He deserves to retire at RG

He should withdraw from all of the rest of the clay season and just play RG then retire. As the all time greatest clay court specialist, he deserves to get on the court at RG just one more time before he retires.

Straight setted with a breadstick to De Minaur. A player he would have mercilessly flogged only a couple of years ago.

After Hurkacz bageled Roger on grass I was relieved he decided to hang up his racket. No doubt Nadal can still put it all together and play some great matches but he's going to have a lot more bad days and those lead to embarrassing results like that. Some fans will meekly declare "I just want to see him play" but he's entering Murray/Wawrinka territory only with a legacy that he risks taking some of the shine off by hanging around too long and letting one dimensional scrubs pick him off. It's one thing losing to Sinner and Alcaraz but De Minaur? Exit gracefully so these bums can't pad their stats.

As we've seen with Federer the end comes quickly.

His legacy won't change. He's not going to unwin the tournaments he's won. He's clearly the greatest clay court specialist of any era, and that won't change just with a couple losses after he's clearly lost it.

I don't think he plans on sticking around after Paris. It will be his last tournament

Of course but I don't like seeing great players giving away cheap wins to the likes of De Minaur. Better to get out a year early than a year too late. I get it, he wants to say farewell.

Djokovic has pulled out of Madrid.