This sums it up

Depends on how you define GOAT.

Peak matters way more to me than career (but I understand why this isn't the case for most)

In a peak argument, he's certainly entered the conversation.

Listen, here's the thing.
There's a lot of fans in this thread who scoff at the "modern fan" and all the "recency bias". There are also a lot of guys out there who think Magic/Bird was the golden era of the NBA and won't be convinced otherwise. A lot of people just hate change.

What's worse than someone who claims Djokovic might be the best player ever (at his peak) is a Federer homer who completely dismisses it because he hasn't won enough majors.

Different people value GOAT in different ways. Is Novak's career more worthy of GOAT than Fed or Nadal? Of course not, not close. Did the year he just had put him in GOAT peak form territory? Of course it did. It'd be silly to deny it. He just dominated tennis in a year that two of the best of all time are in good form. (Roger never had a year in his peak with competition close to this good)

I watched plenty of peak Federer and peak Nadal. I'm of the opinion that 2011 Novak is better than either.

But this is never countered with anything relevant or applicable, just scoffs and condescending remarks like "Don't listen to these kids"

this is why Johnny Mac is so great, he's one of the few guys who appreciate how good the current guys are. he's like "I thought Connors was the best ever until I saw Agassi, who I thought was amazing until I saw Nadal, and wtf this guy is unreal"

78-19
61-18

the last 2yrs

peak is more than 1season ffs, at least when you are talking about alltime greats, using Federer's 4th best year as proof isn't really helping your case

Mcenroe is way ahead of his time, the billy beane in a world full of old scouts who go on feel

c-viggity crushing the discussion. And I don't give a **** about all the 3 loltennis players, but listen to him, he's just RIGHT

Another credit to Novak, he overcame a situation (3rd set vs Nadal) that would have completely broken Federer

Probably because Roger has never been in that position. He doesn't get treatment after a set then play one game and take a medical timeout. It was such a bitch move from Novak. If Andy Murray does that then everyone is all over him.

Dude needed to pop some OCs

Murray doesn't get allowances cause he's not a winner. That's just how it goes.

Novak played two of the poorest sets I've seen him play in a long time vs Roger and still won the match, the dude is unreal. I know NOVAK makes you mad, but you better jump on board, he's gonna be dominating for a while

In Novak's last 12 Grandslams he has;

W = 3
F = 1
SF = 3
QF = 4
3R = 1

GTFO of the thread title & poll.

really, the fact the Djoker was able to obliterate the field (excluding Federer) to an extent that not even Federer was ever able to in his career, and the guy who gave him easily the most trouble this year was Federer, is evidence that Federer's A Game hasn't fallen THAT much.

Next year at this time I will make a post that says (at worst)

In Novak's last 8 Grandslams he has;

W=6
F=1
SF=1

and might jus be W=7 SF=1

Also, worth noting that some argue Novak hasn't even peaked yet

And after he does so he will be the unqualified GOAT. That way we can be sure it isn't just the top players having run bad and Djok having run good.

Or it's evidence that you don't realize how great Fed's A Game was?

Does anyone have issues with Novak taking high-grade pain meds in the middle of a match?

Yes, that's fine. He's had ONE stunning year, it does not get you into a discussion of the greatest tennis player of all time. If it does in your mind then I just can't take you seriously.

Jesus Christ, imagine if Murray turned up in 2012 and went on the same kind of run, would you be hailing him as the best ever?

You'd have to. I mean, he would have been dominating the best players EVAR.

one great year doesnt make you the goat
what kind of ****ed up logic are you guys using? jesus christ
djoko isnt in contention yet and probably never will be, consistency over multiple years is the hardest part

Can we change our vote in 3 or 4 years when Djokovic is past his peak?

Fed isn't close to peak, he is staring past his peak in the rear view.

Nadal is or should be peak.

It is like some of you are brain dead. 30 year old Federer is like nearly 40 year old Greg Maddux on the mound. Still exceptional but lost a step and has figured out ways to mold his game to help this out (such as his better serve now).

Going from 7-8 (peak) wins a year to 4-5 (near peak) wins a year to what is he now, I think he won once this year - but I didn't look anything up...he isn't at peak. The difference is that Roger is so good that he didn't fall of a cliff like most do.


Novak still struggles against an aged Fed, hasn't won at the French and what I see is great timing. Federer plays well against Novak, Novak plays well against Rafa and Rafa plays well against Fed. Well, we have seen Novak beat up on Rafa all year - Rafa's style hasn't allowed him to control points. Fed has been able to but Fed is aged, luckily the player that gives him trouble is in the downslope and the player he matches up with well is at his peak. Federer just beat the **** out of everybody during his peak and Roddick at his peak wasn't as bad as everyone thinks, everyone thinks he is so crappy because Fed gave everyone that impression of him. Fed made his thorough ass kicking of Roddick every time effortless and smooth but Roddick was actually really good. Fed crushed many hopefuls, why is that a knock on Fed?

One year doesn't make a player an all-time great. Other than this year he beat Jo-Willie in the Open in 08'. That is it. What if Novak died today? He wouldn't crack the top 10, not close. At an even younger age as Novak, Fed had somewhat similar success - at 22 he won Wimbledon (2003) then in 2004 he won the Australian, Wimbledon, and US Open. 4 titles at 23. Novak, 4 titles at 24. If Fed had been done then he wouldn't have cracked the top 10 all time, that is laughable of course. Novak shouldn't be mentioned, he is years away. Novak is most likely not a bust (he looks like he will sustain barring injury) but the tour has been filled with guys that went away. Jim Courier went to 7 grand slams in two years from age 21-23 winning 4 of them - he was a dominate player during a tough era. Why aren't you talking about Courier? His peak was masterful. The reason I don't is because it is only nice that Courier won some French Opens and stuff but it was greatness what Samprass did (though I hated his game, loved Agassi's).

Novak is the best player this year no question, there is a good argument that this year is one of the best ever - but, even though this is my favorite era of Tennis I think there needs to be a little more thought into how good this era actually is compared to previous.

I don't have a problem with him taking the meds, I have an issue with him getting treatment at the end of the 3rd set, then playing 1 game and then taking the medical timeout. I really don't think it's something either Nadal or Fed would have done.

Btw, Im not saying that it cost Nadal the match. It just took a bit of the gloss of the win for me and left a bad taste in my mouth.

Anyway the GOAT is a woman: Suzanne Lenglen
On a series of 17 GS:
12 W
1 SF

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzanne_Lenglen

*C-Viggity unceremoniously scurries away from thread*

Tdarko, how many wins would Federer have had this year if Nadal and Djoker weren't playing?