I wouldn't say its all that matters, but you are correct that it matters a ton. However, I think part of the reason you're coming to a somewhat weird conclusion is that you're comparing a player who is currently in his prime to one who is past his prime. Novak has the potential to be the GOAT or at least be in the discussion, but he certainly isn't currently the GOAT. 30 is really f'ing old in tennis, and basically every great men's tennis player falls off a ton at that age. The peak years in men's tennis tend to be the players age 22-26 years. In those years we see:

Sampras - 9 slams
Federer - 12 slams
Nadal - 7 possibly 8 tomorrow with 1 year of "peak" left
Djokovic - 2 possibly 3 tomorrow with 2 years of "peak" left

So yes, if Djokovic wins tomorrow and tears up the next couple years he might belong in the GOAT discussion, but while he has played great this year, all he's done is play 1 year at close to the level that Federer was at every year from 2004-2007.

I hadn't realized Fed had 12 slams in that short a period of time. That comparison is a pretty strong indicator that Fed is the GOAT. But I am waiting to see how Nadal does in the next two years. I am rooting for Nadal.

Fed also had a run where out of 19 grand slams he made 18 finals, winning 12. Of his 7 losses in those slams, 5 came against Nadal and 1 against "GOAT" Djokovic. The other was the '09 US Open Finals loss to Juan Martin Del Potro, which really was a bit of a signal that his decline had begun.

meh you could make a good argument that Federer never had a year as good as Djoker this year, assuming he wins tomorrow. 1 healthy loss, 1 retirement, only 2 blemishes is silly given the current depth of the fields. he's also been able to do what Federer wasn't able to consistenly do, beat peak Rafa on clay. 11 Djoker is basically peak Federer without the * of Rafa on clay

did u see french open????? Isn't djoker's "*" on clay federer?

that was his 1 complete match loss of the year, every player loses matches.

that's a good bit different than Federer losing 2 or 3 every year (to Rafa on clay) for multiple years in a row, it was his kryptonite

Federer is 2-12 career against Nadal on clay and Djokovic is 2-10 career against Nadal on clay. Neither has ever beaten him at the French Open.

but I'm just referencing this year, when Djoker was 2-0 vs Rafa on clay...arguing that 2011 Djoker is better than any year Federer (or Nadal) ever had

this is assuming of course he wins tomorrow, which is far from a slam dunk

Federer is the best talent that has ever picked up a racket. Also clearly a headcase when someone steps up to him.


What was Federer's biggest choke?
USO 11 SF against Djokovic (2 sets up, 2 MPs blown)
W 11 QF against Tsonga (2 sets up and chokes)
RG 11 F against Nadal (chokes 1st set after being up 5-2)
USO 10 SF against Djokovic (2 MPs wasted)
USO 09 F against Del Potro (losing 2nd set like a clown)
AO 09 F against Nadal (choking 250 times)
W 08 F against Nadal (blowing 2nd set and then BP in the 5th)
RG F 07 against Nadal (blowing like 20 BPs)
Rome 06 F against Nadal (choking 2 MPs)

2009, in Montreal, in the quarter-finals, he lost to Tsonga 6–7, 6–1, 6–7, despite leading 5–1 in the final set.

lol 22-26 is all that matters now which just so happens to be the period that federer started winning majors

couldnt even be 21-26? hasnt federer been handed enough of an advantage already

If you don't believe that is the correct age range that most great tennis players have peaked at, what do you believe is the correct age range?

idk i think people peak at different times i think its insane to just assign a random overall age range that conveniently makes federer the best

also im of the belief that while federer cant put together years like he did in 05 (due to being older and competition being tougher) he is capable of playing as well as he did back then in grand slams

I mean you can change it to best 4-5 year stretch regardless of age and the results look basically identical. I'm a believer in that peak is very important, but that peak is at least 3 years barring injury, not a single year. And maintaining an all-time great level peak for a long period of time should be taken into account when we're talking GOAT.

why does it have to be 4-5 years though? i mean i know standard tennis players peak at an age range that is pretty consistent, but like in other sports, super super elite players (fed/nadal) are unprecedented for a reason

despite what fed nuthuggers on here think, i dont think its completely ridiculous to think its possible federer was just as good at 27 as he was at 24 just competition got much much tougher

i mean just look what he did in 09 (he turned 28 that year) the 1 year he didnt have to deal with nadal. he lost to nadal in a close 5 setter in the first grand slam, and then nadal is gone and he absolutely dominates tennis

The best year in male tennis is probably McEnroe in 1984:
Note how Federer in 2005 had a 81-3 record. He lost to Safin in the semifinal of the Aussie, to Nadal in the semifinal of the French and then lost to Nalbandian in the end of the year tournament. If Djokovic loses tomorrow, he would already have three losses.

I think people have already forgotten the dominance of Federer in the mid 2000s. Djokovic this year has been impressive, but not as impressive as Federer was.

Djokovic does not deserve to be in the GOAT discussion yet, he wouldn't crack the top 5 (Borg, Sampras, Federer, Nadal, Laver, McEnroe are clearly above). He might if he continues playing great, but not as of now.

Fed actually lost 4 matches in 2005....Djoker to this point has 1 loss to Fed. + the retirement to Murray...but w/e its obviously close

I was going to mention McEnroe when someone brought up the importance of peak. He was my favorite player of all time but I wouldn't even mention him when talking about who is the GOAT. Glad to see him mentioned though.

Below is a bit from a four year old article that makes a case for tennis players declining after age 26. I found this while trying to find the average of grand slam winners (unable to find so far). Link to the full article also below:


While I think it is true that Federer played at a very high level at age 27, this is a rare occurence and if anything is an argument in favor of him being the GOAT. One more year, and he's 28. One more, and he's 29 etc. I think it's pretty clear that age is a very big factor. On one hand, the way Federer lost to Djoko was pretty sick and it's easy to see why people are so quick to hang the choker label on him. On the other hand, Djoko is playing out of his mind this year, some are even saying that no tennis player has ever had a better year. How the f..k is it possible that a 30 year old almost beat him at the US Open. Perhaps some people will see Federers "choke" as an argument against him being the GOAT but IMO that's just not seeing the forest from the trees.


In my mind, Fereder and Rafa have the best arguments for being the GOAT. For those pointing to Federers record on clay, there is the obvious counter argument that Federer was clearly the best clay player in the world except for Rafa and that's why he has all those final losses against him. On other surfaces, Federer was clearly best and Rafa was not clearly second best. If he had been than their head to head record would likely be more in Federers favor. You can hardly blame Federer for the fact that Nadal simply didn't show up for all those finals.

Maybe Federer would get more credit from his critics if he didn't dominate so much. Maybe if there had been more close matches, more losses of sets and more close games on the way to all his titles he would get more credit for being clutch or whatever.

As it is, for now I give Federer the nod for being the GOAT but it's close, somewhat subjective and far from clear. And obv neither's career is over so much could still change.


http://betting.betfair.com/tennis/tr...-1-041007.html

"Despite winning three of the four Grand Slams this year (and making the final in the other) people have begun to question the dominance of Roger Federer in the men's game. Strange perhaps, given his record in 2007, and more so given the fact that he has actually made the final of the last 10 Grand Slams - no mean achievement!

No, the problem for Roger is that he can beat all his rivals on court but he can't beat one off it ... Old Father Time.

Federer is now 26 and that, for a tennis player, is moving rapidly towards his sell-by date. The advice to the world No.1 would be that if he is going to break the Pete Sampras record of 14 career Slams, he better do it quickly!!

Take a look at the record of several leading players over the last thirty years, it creates a striking pattern as far as their career paths are concerned :-

Connors - born 1952 - turned pro 1972 - won mid career title* (52/105) 1977
Borg - born 1956 - turned pro 1972 - won mid career title (30/61) 1978
McEnroe - born 1959 - turned pro 1978 - won mid career title (38/77) 1982
Lendl - born 1960 - turned pro 1978 - won mid career title (47/94) 1985
Sampras - born 1971 - turned pro 1988 - won mid career title (32/64) 1995

* mid career title is numerically the halfway point of the total number of titles won during a player's career - e.g. Borg won 61 titles so the mid-point is 30/31.

These players won their 'mid career title' aged 25, 22, 23, 25 and 24 respectively - an average of just under 24.

Then take a look at this season's ATP tour results. From all the events played, including those won by 'veteran' Federer, the average date of birth of the winners falls in 1982 making their average age around 24.

Sure, we've had the odd win for the real old stagers - Santoro (34) in Newport, Moya (31) in Umag - but the dividing line is 24-25 years old, thereafter it's very much the inevitable decline towards the 'pipe and slippers'.

Federer, as we said before, is now 26. Look at the new kids on the block - Nadal (21), Djokovic (20), Murray (20) and Gasquet (21) - and it becomes even more evident that despite only being five or six years older than these young protagonists, Federer is in a different generation.

Maybe it's a telling sign that Federer won 11 titles during 2005 and 12 titles in 2006 (when he was 23 through to 25) but he's won just 6 tournaments this year as he moved past 25 and became 26 in August."

from Nate Silver today

http://straightsets.blogs.nytimes.co...le/#more-24629

peak years vs peak years, this isn't true, Federer was certainly better than a very young Rafa...but remember that even now Rafa is 25, so some of those early Wimbledon finals were played when we was clearly prepeak. he was 20 for the 2006 final

Indeed, when it comes to grass, I think it is pretty clear that the top two were Roger and Rafa.

Also, on matches outside of clay, the win-loss record is even. Although, if Rafa had made mor finals, maybe it wouldn't be even.

Comparing athletes of different eras is always fun so here is a case for Sampras...

We usually accept that people of later generations, if they actually played players of older generations (in all sports really) would kick their ass, for all of the obvious reasons including equipment, fitness training etc...

Borg, playing his best game, would clearly beat Don Budge or whoever....Likewise, Sampras playing his best game, would clearly beat Borg etc..Just too much power etc. lol@ what would happen to Tracy Austin if she played anyone of the todays top 100 women players etc...

However, I am not so sure that either Fererer or Nadal's best game would beat Sampras when he was playing his best as well, except Nadal on clay.

...and its getting thin for fed obv nice to see such a graphic. ty!

its gonna be pretty close in the end for sure but i hope federer will stay on top forever.

I saw Tracy Austin play last year, and I'm 100% sure my 30 YO wife is better than she is. (though my wife is pretty good)