|
|
Post by themoviesinner on Feb 1, 2022 12:49:44 GMT
I think this race for who is GOAT in the sport is pretty pointless to be honest and does a disservice to all three tennis players and the sport in general, especially when only Grand Slams are taken into account and any other achievements are deemed worthless and irrelevant. With that logic one can claim that Marion Bartoli (who has won a Grand Slam) was a better or more successful tennis player than Agnieszka Radwanska (who hasn't won a Grand Slam), even though anyone with even the slightest knowledge of the sport will think that it is a totally absurd thing to say.
So, why should Djokovic' 356 weeks as world #1 (far more than any other player and a tremendous achievement itself) not count in this discussion? Why should Federer's 103 overall titles not count in this discussion? Why should Nadal's two gold medals (in both singles and doubles, an even more important achievement than Grand Slams in my opinion) not count in this discussion? I mean Grand Slams are very important titles but not the be-all and end-all of tennis.
I, personally, won't be participating in this debate. I'm just happy to have witnessed these three tremendous tennis players, arguably the very best the sport has given us, live in action.
|
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Feb 1, 2022 13:36:49 GMT
I think this race for who is GOAT in the sport is pretty pointless to be honest and does a disservice to all three tennis players and the sport in general, especially when only Grand Slams are taken into account and any other achievements are deemed worthless and irrelevant. With that logic one can claim that Marion Bartoli (who has won a Grand Slam) was a better or more successful tennis player than Agnieszka Radwanska (who hasn't won a Grand Slam), even though anyone with even the slightest knowledge of the sport will think that it is a totally absurd thing to say. So, why should Djokovic' 356 weeks as world #1 (far more than any other player and a tremendous achievement itself) not count in this discussion? Why should Federer's 103 overall titles not count in this discussion? Why should Nadal's two gold medals (in both singles and doubles, an even more important achievement than Grand Slams in my opinion) not count in this discussion? I mean Grand Slams are very important titles but not the be-all and end-all of tennis. I, personally, won't be participating in this debate. I'm just happy to have witnessed these three tremendous tennis players, arguably the very best the sport has given us, live in action. I admire your stance, but GOAT debates in sports are never going away, and are arguably part of the fun of following sports. Whether it's about LeBron or Jordan or Messi or Ronaldo or a multitude of different sports or teams, these debates are just part of our fabric now. However, I do agree that all 3 of these players deserve the upmost respect for their achievements and talent. Grand Slams are the ultimate. agreed upon metric in GOAT status, and have been since the era of Sampras. Federer continued that obsession with the slam record (as did Djokovic). No one cared when Nadal had a far superior Slam H2H against Federer or many more Masters titles than Federer. As long as he was behind in Slams, none if that mattered and Federer was still GOAT. Also, Jimmy Connors was never in the GOAT debate because he (still) had the most ATP titles. Because they weren't Slams. Which is why you can't suddenly change the rules when Nadal is now ahead in the slam count, and start saying it's not just about Slams. It kinda is. All those other metrics are basically tiebreakers. If any of them get stuck on the same amount of Slams, you can point to their other achievements to try and separate them based on.that. But for the last 25 odd years in tennis history at least , the chase for the slam record has defined who the greatest player of all time is in the eyes of the general public and tennis media. That won't change. |
|
|
|
Post by themoviesinner on Feb 1, 2022 14:13:01 GMT
I admire your stance, but GOAT debates in sports are never going away, and are arguably part of the fun of following sports. Whether it's about LeBron or Jordan or Messi or Ronaldo or a multitude of different sports or teams, these debates are just part of our fabric now. However, I do agree that all 3 of these players deserve the upmost respect for their achievements and talent. Grand Slams are the ultimate. agreed upon metric in GOAT status, and have been since the era of Sampras. Federer continued that obsession with the slam record (as did Djokovic). No one cared when Nadal had a far superior Slam H2H against Federer or many more Masters titles than Federer. As long as he was behind in Slams, none if that mattered and Federer was still GOAT. Also, Jimmy Connors was never in the GOAT debate because he (still) had the most ATP titles. Because they weren't Slams. Which is why you can't suddenly change the rules when Nadal is now ahead in the slam count, and start saying it's not just about Slams. It kinda is. All those other metrics are basically tiebreakers. If any of them get stuck on the same amount of Slams, you can point to their other achievements to try and separate them based on.that. But for the last 25 odd years in tennis history at least , the chase for the slam record has defined who the greatest player of all time is in the eyes of the general public and tennis media. That won't change. Yeah, I understand. I just presented my own opinion on the situation. And, actually, tennis is a sport in which this kind of debate does make sense to happen, even though I never cared for it personally, mainly because it is an individual sport and all the accolades can go to a single player. But with team sports that is a different discussion. |
|
sirchuck23
Badass
Bad news dawg...you don't mind if I have some of your 300 dollar a glass shit there would ya?
Posts: 2,477
Likes: 4,482
|
Post by sirchuck23 on Feb 1, 2022 17:21:32 GMT
I think this race for who is GOAT in the sport is pretty pointless to be honest and does a disservice to all three tennis players and the sport in general, especially when only Grand Slams are taken into account and any other achievements are deemed worthless and irrelevant. With that logic one can claim that Marion Bartoli (who has won a Grand Slam) was a better or more successful tennis player than Agnieszka Radwanska (who hasn't won a Grand Slam), even though anyone with even the slightest knowledge of the sport will think that it is a totally absurd thing to say. So, why should Djokovic' 356 weeks as world #1 (far more than any other player and a tremendous achievement itself) not count in this discussion? Why should Federer's 103 overall titles not count in this discussion? Why should Nadal's two gold medals (in both singles and doubles, an even more important achievement than Grand Slams in my opinion) not count in this discussion? I mean Grand Slams are very important titles but not the be-all and end-all of tennis. I, personally, won't be participating in this debate. I'm just happy to have witnessed these three tremendous tennis players, arguably the very best the sport has given us, live in action. I admire your stance, but GOAT debates in sports are never going away, and are arguably part of the fun of following sports. Whether it's about LeBron or Jordan or Messi or Ronaldo or a multitude of different sports or teams, these debates are just part of our fabric now. However, I do agree that all 3 of these players deserve the upmost respect for their achievements and talent. Grand Slams are the ultimate. agreed upon metric in GOAT status, and have been since the era of Sampras. Federer continued that obsession with the slam record (as did Djokovic). No one cared when Nadal had a far superior Slam H2H against Federer or many more Masters titles than Federer. As long as he was behind in Slams, none if that mattered and Federer was still GOAT. Also, Jimmy Connors was never in the GOAT debate because he (still) had the most ATP titles. Because they weren't Slams. Which is why you can't suddenly change the rules when Nadal is now ahead in the slam count, and start saying it's not just about Slams. It kinda is. All those other metrics are basically tiebreakers. If any of them get stuck on the same amount of Slams, you can point to their other achievements to try and separate them based on.that. But for the last 25 odd years in tennis history at least , the chase for the slam record has defined who the greatest player of all time is in the eyes of the general public and tennis media. That won't change. Especially these days with these U.S. morning sports debate shows like ESPN's First Take of Fox Sports 1 Undisputed, the Stephen A Smith and Skip Bayless's of the world. These debate shows are all over the sports networks now. Who's the GOAT Jordan-Lebron, they've done that one to death and every few months re-introduce it like it's a new topic. Is Tom Brady the GOAT NFL Football Player? Is Serena the GOAT Women's Tennis Player? Are the 2017 Golden State Warriors the greatest NBA team of all time or is it the 1996 Chicago Bulls (again bringing Jordan into a debate)? Its everywhere, so its not a shock that Tennis is now involved in these GOAT debates, especially when you have 3 great candidates. |
|
ibbi
Based
"Batman's a scientist"
Posts: 4,882 
Likes: 4,406
|
Post by ibbi on Feb 1, 2022 22:25:45 GMT
I think this race for who is GOAT in the sport is pretty pointless to be honest and does a disservice to all three tennis players and the sport in general, especially when only Grand Slams are taken into account and any other achievements are deemed worthless and irrelevant. With that logic one can claim that Marion Bartoli (who has won a Grand Slam) was a better or more successful tennis player than Agnieszka Radwanska (who hasn't won a Grand Slam), even though anyone with even the slightest knowledge of the sport will think that it is a totally absurd thing to say. So, why should Djokovic' 356 weeks as world #1 (far more than any other player and a tremendous achievement itself) not count in this discussion? Why should Federer's 103 overall titles not count in this discussion? Why should Nadal's two gold medals (in both singles and doubles, an even more important achievement than Grand Slams in my opinion) not count in this discussion? I mean Grand Slams are very important titles but not the be-all and end-all of tennis. I, personally, won't be participating in this debate. I'm just happy to have witnessed these three tremendous tennis players, arguably the very best the sport has given us, live in action. I think the GOAT argument is stupid too, and avoid using the term like the plague (though I think for different reasons than you  ) I love this race these guys are having, but that it should be any kind of indicator of greatest of all time to me is just patently stupid. Racking up titles in tennis has never been easier with the way the game is now, and anyone who ever tried playing tennis with a wooden racket will tell you that while the game may be athletically superior to any point prior, it has been dumbed down and never easier to learn. That's good for the health of the sport, of course, has certainly deepened the field which is a thing in itself, and there is certainly no shortage of drama and excitement in the modern game, but greatest of all time? Get the fuck out of here. Most of these people are just playing Pong. |
|
ibbi
Based
"Batman's a scientist"
Posts: 4,882
Likes: 4,406
|
Post by ibbi on Feb 1, 2022 22:32:31 GMT
^ well, the argument "xy would have won if he weren't injured" is invalid IMO. It's not like these guys were hit by a truck. They got injured playing (but Federer once when he fell in his bathroom washing his children). It's a part of their physical attitude for tennis. We could even claim that if Bjørn Borg hadn't stop playing at 26, he would have become the greatest of all times.
On a side note, N adal almost hit the judge in his last set. It was an accident. I think the Djokovic one was an accident too.great is a great example. If people can argue Peyton Manning as "greater" than Tom Brady you can argue several players. Djokovic you can't give credit to for things he didn't actually do - rather his argument will be based on if he eventually catches up (or surpasses) Satan Nadal because THEN you could say "he beat him, DESPITE missing those 2 slams" - that's a potential turnaround of 3 slam results not just 2 - it can't just be ignored -it's a lot already. Djokovic is actually somewhat like Muhammad Ali - it matters a TON that he was healthy. But of course Djoko is a more dumbass version of Ali and harder to like: Ali is considered "the GOAT" Heavyweight - but Ali lost almost 4 YEARS of his his peak  25-28 not fighting for refusing to enter the draft. No one thought he was "right" for doing that then (he wouldn't have actually BEEN drafted, many people thought he was "lying") - the same way Djokovic haters/Nadal fanboys think "Well, Djokovic should have just "got the shot like everybody else!" or "He lied!" ........... but Ali like Djokovic was a stubborn guy........Ali was so stubborn that he took a beating from George Forman ON PURPOSE as a boxing style that possibly affected his long term brain function.
But it was the fact that Ali's considered the greatest anyway despite missing those almost 4 years - that makes people say "Oh and he lost 4 years where he couldn't fight".......that is where Djoko is - he's going to be down 22-20 after Mr. Claymation wins the French.........so........usually GOAT comes down to either who won the most - that's Nadal (ie Nicholson), or who was the most impressive among what he won (to me it's Djoko, ie Pacino) or who "at their best was THE best" (arguably Federer, ie De Niro)
 I've updated the first post by the way with the current updated numbers ............  I've heard this argument made a lot lately, but to me he's less Ali and more OJ  (though Novak ain't never running for 2000 yards in 14 games) a privileged fuck who revelled in his privilege and exploited it, until the flexing of it came back to bite him in the ass and then his people suddenly started playing the hero of the common man card, and he was just one of us, under the thumb of the system. |
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Feb 1, 2022 23:14:58 GMT
Borg is a great example. If people can argue Peyton Manning as "greater" than Tom Brady you can argue several players. Djokovic you can't give credit to for things he didn't actually do - rather his argument will be based on if he eventually catches up (or surpasses) Satan Nadal because THEN you could say "he beat him, DESPITE missing those 2 slams" - that's a potential turnaround of 3 slam results not just 2 - it can't just be ignored -it's a lot already. Djokovic is actually somewhat like Muhammad Ali - it matters a TON that he was healthy. But of course Djoko is a more dumbass version of Ali and harder to like: Ali is considered "the GOAT" Heavyweight - but Ali lost almost 4 YEARS of his his peak 25-28 not fighting for refusing to enter the draft. No one thought he was "right" for doing that then (he wouldn't have actually BEEN drafted, many people thought he was "lying") - the same way Djokovic haters/Nadal fanboys think "Well, Djokovic should have just "got the shot like everybody else!" or "He lied!" ........... but Ali like Djokovic was a stubborn guy........Ali was so stubborn that he took a beating from George Forman ON PURPOSE as a boxing style that possibly affected his long term brain function.
But it was the fact that Ali's considered the greatest anyway despite missing those almost 4 years - that makes people say "Oh and he lost 4 years where he couldn't fight".......that is where Djoko is - he's going to be down 22-20 after Mr. Claymation wins the French.........so........usually GOAT comes down to either who won the most - that's Nadal (ie Nicholson), or who was the most impressive among what he won (to me it's Djoko, ie Pacino) or who "at their best was THE best" (arguably Federer, ie De Niro)
I've updated the first post by the way with the current updated numbers ............ I've heard this argument made a lot lately, but to me he's less Ali and more OJ (though Novak ain't never running for 2000 yards in 14 games) a privileged fuck who revelled in his privilege and exploited it, until the flexing of it came back to bite him in the ass and then his people suddenly started playing the hero of the common man card, and he was just one of us, under the thumb of the system. Yah, and just wait if (when?) he's barred from France too and Weirdly Touching My Face Too Much wins it - because then Djoko will have been denied access in two tournaments that he would have been defending his last year's titles at. You won't really see his "the Man is sticking it to me (so to speak)!" routine until he gets to the Dear Old Blighty!.......and thus begins a horribly misguided attempt to sway the commoners   |
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Feb 2, 2022 1:51:14 GMT
These things actually even themselves out. Even if Djokovic were to miss another slam due to not adhering to countries vaccine rules in the middle of a fucking global pandemic (his fault), Nadal will still have played less slams than him and won more.
Nadal is the best 5 set Grand Slam player in history, because he has the best conversion rate by far. In 63 slams played, Nadal has won 21 slams. In 66 slams played, Djokovic has won 20. Nadal wins 1 in every 3 slams he plays. He has a winning H2H against both Federer and Djokovic in Grand Slams. Nadal is without question the best Grand Slam player of his era.
Nadal has only ever lost to Federer, Djokovic and Wawrinka in a slam final (and he was clearly injured during the loss to Wawrinka). Djokovic in slam finals has manged to lose to Wawrinka while fully fit, Medvedev, Murray (as well as Federer and Nadal). Djokovic just doesn't convert/pull the trigger as reliably as Nadal has, and over the course of his career, it's cost him.
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,409 
Likes: 1,929
|
Post by cherry68 on Feb 2, 2022 5:24:15 GMT
Bjørn Borg won 41% of the Grand Slam tournaments he played and 90% of the individual matches of those tournaments, winning the French Open and Wimbledon in the same season for three consecutive years, winning three Grand Slam tournaments without losing a set .
His career win percentage is 82.72% of the matches played and 70% against players who, at that time, were in the top ten in the world.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmalone on Feb 2, 2022 9:24:55 GMT
Borg is so underrated today it's absolutely crazy. Was the best in his era at clay and grass, which back then were very different to play. But with his style he revolutionized tennis, and such things also are of enormous worth to me.
One record he owns that wasn't mentioned before and to me is one of the most important: He won 89.81 % of all grand slam matches he played. That's the clear #1. Nadal (87.91) and Djokovic (87.53) are the only ones that are somewhere near, Federer is Fourth at 86.01.
|
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Feb 2, 2022 9:48:05 GMT
Borg is obviously a legend. But he retired at 26 when younger rivals like John McEnroe figured him out at slams. Had he kept playing as long as most of his peer group did, his numbers & % at slams would almost certainly have kept dropping. Borg's early retirement makes me give less weight to some of those stats for him. Yeah, it's amazing to win like that in your prime/peak, but it's how you also perform past your prime/peak that gives full context. We've seen that from just about all the all-time greats, except Borg . We saw past-prime Sampras, Federer etc become more beatable at slams. That will happen if you don't quit at 26.
|
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Feb 2, 2022 10:48:04 GMT
"Bjørn Borg won 41% of the Grand Slam tournaments he played and 90% of the individual matches of those tournaments"This is an amazing stat. Like mind-boggling......it makes me want to look up his career totals even more tbh..... Some of these stats are misleading relative to Nadal / Djoko - like Nadal has played in less slam finals but won more than Djoko with a higher percentage is only temporary if Djokovic surpasses him ......though again Nadal did do it, so you can't take that away from him (at all).
It's a snapshot of a much bigger picture that is still being taken......it isn't like Djoko's consecutive weeks at #1 which isn't going to be "surpassed" ....... Nadal was in Djoko's half of the draw in Australia '22 - does Nadal get to a final this year there w / Djoko? Are we punishing Djoko for even getting to "too many" men's finals - because he'll get to a lot more you would think anyway? Does it matter that at times he's been Choke-ovic ........because he clearly has .... The totals are very likely (but not definite) I think to be 22-20 - in a few months......... and if Djoko plays Wimbledon/US Open (likely but even less definite) - likely to be 22-22 by years end anyway. It's that unpleasant thing I said yesterday - Djoko has such little respect for Nadal right now (not in general) - he's willing to spot him the "lead".....he thinks he can catch him ....and he thinks he wins (or will win) the "tie-breakers" when he does ..... It's quite an act of arrogance and hubris imo......or a big mistake 
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,409
Likes: 1,929
|
Post by cherry68 on Feb 2, 2022 11:15:57 GMT
Borg is obviously a legend. But he retired at 26 when younger rivals like John McEnroe figured him out at slams. Had he kept playing as long as most of his peer group did, his numbers & % at slams would almost certainly have kept dropping. Borg's early retirement makes me give less weight to some of those stats for him. Yeah, it's amazing to win like that in your prime/peak, but it's how you also perform past your prime/peak that gives full context. We've seen that from just about all the all-time greats, except Borg . We saw past-prime Sampras, Federer etc become more beatable at slams. That will happen if you don't quit at 26. He won his first grand slam tournament at 18 yo. He won 11 times before retirement at 26. What was the score of the 3 champions we are analyzing at that age? Borg even attempted suicide and was saved by the Italian singer Loredana Bertè who became his wife later. |
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,409
Likes: 1,929
|
Post by cherry68 on Feb 2, 2022 11:39:56 GMT
Borg is so underrated today it's absolutely crazy. Was the best in his era at clay and grass, which back then were very different to play. But with his style he revolutionized tennis, and such things also are of enormous worth to me. One record he owns that wasn't mentioned before and to me is one of the most important: He won 89.81 % of all grand slam matches he played. That's the clear #1. Nadal (87.91) and Djokovic (87.53) are the only ones that are somewhere near, Federer is Fourth at 86.01. Apparently you didn't read my post just above yours... |
|
|
|
Post by jimmalone on Feb 2, 2022 11:47:50 GMT
Borg is so underrated today it's absolutely crazy. Was the best in his era at clay and grass, which back then were very different to play. But with his style he revolutionized tennis, and such things also are of enormous worth to me. One record he owns that wasn't mentioned before and to me is one of the most important: He won 89.81 % of all grand slam matches he played. That's the clear #1. Nadal (87.91) and Djokovic (87.53) are the only ones that are somewhere near, Federer is Fourth at 86.01. Apparently you didn't read my post just above yours... Oh, sorry just overread it. Only read the career percentage.
|
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Feb 3, 2022 12:12:12 GMT
Not 100% confirmed of course but the rumors seem to be that the (real) GOAT is leaning to (finally, too late!) be getting the jab now so I guess if Mr. 1 court wonder Nadal goes up 22-20 he "may" have to beat Djoko in France (which of course he could easily do anyway - I assume Djoko will be seeded #1.....but maybe not?) - we'll see.......
This show btw Cam Williams is one of the best things on Youtube about tennis and one of my favorite things from Australia these days period along with the GOAT contender Cate Blanchett and pacinoyes 2021 runner-up for album of the year Amyl and The Sniffers .......worth checking out if you don't know Cam Williams.......highly entertaining .....
|
|
|
|
Post by hugobolso on Feb 3, 2022 15:07:31 GMT
Nole
Nadal
Boring
|
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Feb 3, 2022 17:57:43 GMT
Borg is not on the level of the big 3. He quit at 26, I'm not going to give him credit for what he hypothetically might have done. Only person I want to hear that kind of argument about is Laver who lost five years right in the middle of his prime due to dumb pre Open era rules and came back and won the grand slam anyway. Even then I think he probably would have ended up in the high teens.
Nadal has to be the favorite at the French Open and Djokovic at Wimbledon, so the US Open is going to be huge this year. Djokovic missing the beginning of the year might actually help him there since he could be less out of gas than he was last year. If they end the year tied at 22 I'll still pick Djokovic to come away with the record in the end. If Nadal has the lead you've got to think he has at least one more French Open in him after this tear so it would be tough to catch him.
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,409
Likes: 1,929
|
Post by cherry68 on Feb 3, 2022 18:23:23 GMT
countjohn Keep in mind tennis players still used wood racket frames, with a smaller surface than aluminium ones.
|
|
ibbi
Based
"Batman's a scientist"
Posts: 4,882
Likes: 4,406
|
Post by ibbi on Feb 5, 2022 21:00:17 GMT
I suppose this the closest thing we have to a tennis thread, so I'll just put it here... The day long-dreaded come at last, just when there appeared to be some light on the horizon. His story is one of the ultimate what if's in tennis. The big 3 can all have sighed a huge sigh of relief he spent at least half the past decade not playing tennis, because even without a net game or a backhand he was the greatest threat to them there was, and I'd probably include Murray in that.
|
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Feb 15, 2022 12:31:30 GMT
The (real) GOAT finally speaks! AND also calls Nadal "a little pr*ck (not proveable, j/k) and a comparative 1 court wonder (true, but j/k) who nowadays only can win tournaments I'm barred from (true, but j/k)!" - um:
Novak Djokovic has said he would rather miss out on future tennis trophies than be forced to get a Covid vaccine.
Speaking exclusively to the BBC, he said he should not be associated with the anti-vax movement, but supported an individual's right to choose.
Djokovic was asked if he would sacrifice taking part in competitions such as Wimbledon and the French Open over his stance on the vaccine.
"Yes, that is the price that I'm willing to pay," he said.www.bbc.com/news/world-60354068 |
|
|
|
Post by stabcaesar on Feb 15, 2022 15:23:44 GMT
Djokovic is so vile.
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,409
Likes: 1,929
|
Post by cherry68 on Feb 15, 2022 15:34:21 GMT
The (real) GOAT finally speaks! AND also calls Nadal "a little pr*ck (not proveable, j/k) and a comparative 1 court wonder (true, but j/k) who nowadays only can win tournaments I'm barred from (true, but j/k)!" - um:
Novak Djokovic has said he would rather miss out on future tennis trophies than be forced to get a Covid vaccine.
Speaking exclusively to the BBC, he said he should not be associated with the anti-vax movement, but supported an individual's right to choose.
Djokovic was asked if he would sacrifice taking part in competitions such as Wimbledon and the French Open over his stance on the vaccine.
"Yes, that is the price that I'm willing to pay," he said.www.bbc.com/news/world-60354068Well, I can't blame him. The current Omicron variant seems to infect both vaccinated and not vaccinated people, and anyone can infect you. I don't get why a not vaccinated athlete can be more dangerous than a vaccinated one, as long as both get tested every 2 days. (I got two vaccine shots in the past months, so I'm not an anti vax to be clear.) |
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Feb 17, 2022 7:46:42 GMT
Richard Gasquet says Nadal is the GOAT of tennis tactics and understands the game better than anyone else.
|
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Feb 17, 2022 8:01:08 GMT
Djokovic had the chance to be the clear, undisputed GOAT by beating Medvedev at the 2021 US Open. No Nadal present, who has a winning record against him there and more titles. And he blew it. You play who is in front of you and if you fail to take your chances when they come, then it's your problem.
The fact that 50% of Grand Slams are played on Djokovic’s favorite surface (hardcourt)and Nadal still has more Slams than him, actually enhances Nadal's claim as the GOAT. If there were 2 Slams on Clay, neither Djokovic nor Federer would be even close to Nadal in Slams. Nadal has no such advantage and Djokovic still can't overtake him in Slams.
Djokovic went two sets down to Medvedev when he had a golden chance to win 21 slams, and started crying because he knew he had blown his shot at history/immorality. Nadal went 2 sets down to Medvedev when he had a chance to win 21 and staged arguably the most remarkable comeback in tennis history against arguably the best current hardcourt player on the tour. Djokovic couldn't handle Medvedev when it mattered most. Nadal could.
All the woulda, coulda, shouldas in the world don't matter. Nadal got the job done against the same opponent Djokovic couldn't put away when the opportunity for 21 was there.
|
|
) I love this race these guys are having, but that it should be any kind of indicator of greatest of all time to me is just patently stupid. 
25-28 not fighting for refusing to enter the draft. No one thought he was "right" for doing that then (he wouldn't have actually BEEN drafted, many people thought he was "lying") - the same way Djokovic haters/Nadal fanboys think "Well, Djokovic should have just "got the shot like everybody else!" or "He lied!" ........... 
(though Novak ain't never running for 2000 yards in 14 games) a privileged fuck who revelled in his privilege and exploited it, until the flexing of it came back to bite him in the ass and then his people suddenly started playing the hero of the common man card, and he was just one of us, under the thumb of the system.
