If you are good at anything - so far and above everybody else - it shouldn't matter where, on what, why, how, when..........you play. What's that famous saying of mine? "Wood will always rise up in water before anything else?" And if anything else does, you should be it - to be truly called a GOAT. Of course, this has to be done and proven over long haul - maybe even beyond the traditional prime years to effectively validate the separation. Who comes to your mind - first - with that as a benchmark for GOATness - in ANY discipline? Ali, Don Bradman (cricket), Pele, Greg Louganis.......
In tennis, wouldn't you say Federer came as close to it as of today? But can Djokovic make that look mundane? How? If Nadal, the greatest clay court player in the history of the game wasn't on the scene and wasn't five years younger, who knows Federer could have broken through - indisputably. But what if Djokovic under similar if not a far improved Nadal is able to consistently win FO titles along with other Slams - routinely and with greater authority?
So far surface for Djokovic hasn't been an issue. Granted the surface disparity is not as intense as it was say in the days of Borg and Sampras but even with that insertion Djokovic's streak has been far more impressive than ANY in the past - even if some of them went beyond his number of 48 before snapping - altogether (Djokovic has picked up where he left off after 41). Why? Because the run includes two Slams AND two giants of the game (two HUGE ingredients missing from any previous streaks) who have been made to look like novices - in their own living rooms.
It's hard to imagine Djokovic sustaining this high a level for five years - through all surfaces but wouldn't that be the ultimate GOAT run? If you are the GOAT of tennis players, you should be able play the game consistently - throughout your career and beyond - with a massive margin from the rest of the field. Period.
Whether Djokovic does that or not, at least in the short run, he may have already surpassed Federer as holding the most dominant run a tennis player has EVER had highlighted by transforming the greatest clay court player in the history of the sport into a circus clown and mundane - on clay - something Federer failed at - beyond miserably - without even factoring in other surfaces - in his prime and when Nadal wasn't as complete a player as he is today - without doubt.
Djokovic is in possession of something unique given the conditions. Question is can he can sustain it over long haul? With outside factors appearing just in the form of Delpo and Murray (IF Nadal truly has been passed), task doesn't seem as difficult as it would have been with Federer AND Nadal in their prime. And If he has really mastered the 'inside' factors, watch out.
Or as Lobbo said, should we just base it on who eats the most grass @ Wimbledon moving forward?
RE: "If you are the GOAT of tennis players, you should be able play the game consistently - throughout your career and beyond - with a massive margin from the rest of the field. Period." I'm going to assume TP went brain dead for a sentence and move on... The Joker has about 12 slams to win before he enters the GOAT discussion, methinks. A fun question (as long as we all agree that it is not REALLY answer-able) might be: Novak playing as he is now vs. Fed as his best (on, say, a hard court): who wins? Try to forget that Fed's game is more elegant. Most of us would agree on that. Try to forget who is your favorite (fat chance). Who would win? Would Novak's power and accuracy be enough? Would Fed's mastery of freaking near every shot ever seen prevent Novak from even USING his power and accuracy? Dunno. I'd lean toward Novak, but I bet a few of you could talk me out of it.
Posted by: sperry | 07/07/2011 at 03:36 PM
Maybe Djokovic was staking his claim as the GOAT who actually ate grass. As story lines go, Fed's a tad smarter. He had his cow Bessy do the grass thing.
Posted by: mircea | 07/07/2011 at 06:33 PM
My defintion of the GOAT is: GOAT = The Most Successful Player. So number of titles, weeks (YEARS!) as #1 etc. You cannot sum up "Dominance"! It's a psychological (irrational and biased) dimension! H2H is in the same department. It means nothing. I'm with Sperry that TP "went brain dead" in this post. LOL. Now let's get ready for DC! :-)
Posted by: RafaFan | 07/07/2011 at 11:19 PM
I think it has to be a ratio of- how many grand slams have been played:wins
-regardless surface
-regardless age
-regardless any time frames-(how quickly or how slow)
-regardless how good other fellow players at the time
-regardless equipment available at the time
Posted by: Dee | 07/08/2011 at 01:31 AM
Sperry asked: "A fun question (as long as we all agree that it is not REALLY answer-able) might be: Novak playing as he is now vs. Fed as his best (on, say, a hard court): who wins?"
Hmmm, what can we say on this really except to point to the French Open semi? An absolute classic match - by far the best quality tennis we've seen this year in my view (I'd say perhaps better than any match in 2010 as well), with Fed coming through. I simply won't accept as credible any excuses on Nole's behalf (e.g., the "slow start due to 4-day off" argument that is circulating is complete bs for anyone who saw the first set, including Nole's start which put him up 4-2). The only sensible qualifications are:
(a) Clay is not Nole's best surface, esp. against Fed, b/c his movement - the key to his game against Fed - is not as good as on hardcourt. But then again clay is not Fed's best surface either and arguably overall tilts more in favor of Nole than Fed. The most "neutral" surface b/t them is fast hardcourt ala USO. Slow hardcourt ala AO is clearly Nole's best surface and neutralizes Fed's game a lot.
(b) It is arguable that, as utterly brilliant as Fed was a month ago, it is still less than what he could've done a few years ago.
Posted by: Nelson Goodman | 07/08/2011 at 01:33 AM
"Wood will always rise up in water before anything else?"
As opposed to wood rising down?
Posted by: David Locke | 07/08/2011 at 05:07 AM
It's not just about titles. There have been truly great players who have missed out on the titles they deserved for various reasons, including luck, injury, politics, etc. That's why the argument about "greatest of all time" will always be based on subjective reasoning and the problem will never be solved.
Posted by: Lobbo | 07/08/2011 at 09:31 AM
#1 - GS titles
#2 - Number of weeks as No.1
#3 - Number of ATP titles.
Give points for above categories that most tennis fans would agree on and add them up. ( eg.,GS=10 per title, Weeks = 1 per week as #1 and ATP titles =5 per masters title and 1 per each other ATP title.
Since I am lazy, can someone else figure out how these criteria stack up for current guys?
Posted by: vr | 07/11/2011 at 05:20 PM