I think we need to restart this thread with a new poll since things have changed a bunch since the other one.

Here are the arguments:

Roger Federer


Age: 30
Resume:
16 Grand Slam Titles
Australian Open: 4 Titles
French Open: 1 Title
Wimbledon: 6 Titles
US Open: 5 Titles

Pros:
Without a doubt the most impressive resume of the three, he dominated for undoubtedly a longer period than the other two. He's probably the best player ever on grass and has no real weaknesses. For him, the titles speak for themselves. He is also better at 30 than the other two probably will be so his longevity has been somewhat freakish.

Cons:
The level of competition during his dominance was inferior to the level of competition the other two have faced. His main threats during the years he won most of his majors Lleyton Hewitt, Andy Roddick, Marat Safin, and a very young Rafa Nadal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rafa Nadal


Age: 25
Resume:
10 Grand Slam titles
Australian Open: 1 Title
French Open: 6 Titles
Wimbledon: 2 Titles
US Open: 1 Title
1 Olympic Gold Medal

Pros:
The gap between Rafa on clay and anyone else is the biggest gap there is between any of these guys. Given that, it is logical to say that if you all all three players in their primes and simulated a bunch of tournaments on all three surfaces, Rafa would win the most since they're all close enough to split wins on grass and hard court, but Rafa would win a high % of the clay tournaments. His 2010 season was, at the time, arguably the best season ever. He holds a 17-8 head-to-head record vs. Federer, but they have been pretty even on clay. There primes didn't quite overlap but they have basically an even amount of matches of one in the prime and the other not since Fed played young Rafa and Rafa has played older Fed.

Cons:
Just how much weight do you put his clay domination? There is little doubt that Federer was better on grass and it certainly looks like Novak is better on hard court. Does this prohibit him from being called the best ever?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Novak Djokovic


Age: 24
Resume
4 Grand Slam Titles
Australian Open: 2 Titles
French Open: 0 Titles
Wimbledon: 1 Title
US Open: 1 Title

Pros: In 2011, Novak just put up arguably the best year in the history of tennis. Putting up a record of 64-2 (with one loss being a retirement due to injury), Novak crushed fields that many consider to be the toughest ever. He was undefeated vs a 25-year-old on Nadal and beat him in the finals of both Wimbledon and the US Open. His only legitimate loss came to Roger Federer at the French Open. He's 24 and relatively healthy, so with Nadal showing signs that he may break down physically soon, and Fed entering his 30s, Novak may go on another dominant run.

Cons: He's only done it for one year. While he might be the best ever, you have to decide if he deserves being called that yet. He might keep dominating, but he also might not. This uncertainty goes against him. He's also never won the French Open, which will hurt his resume until he does. The main issue is whether or not you think one dominant year is enough or is it too likely to be a result of variance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There's a lot to consider here and I'd ask that you really look at the many angles before just voting based on total number of Grand Slam wins. You have to decide what it means to be the best ever. Do you value career accomplishments more than peak performance? Do you value level of competition or do you not want to punish someone when all they could do is beat who was in front of them?

I like to look at it simply as, "Which of these guys have been the best player I've ever seen?" That's just my interpretation of it though and I don't want to define best ever as different people are free to value things differently.

fedrahhhh

lol at even putting Novak in a GOAT discussion yet. 4 majors total wtfisthis****.jpg

You have this conversation in seven years time, the answer will be much clearer. The fact that you are comparing a man who has passed his prime years (and may never win another Grandslam), with two men who still have another four or so years of peak remaining (and more Grandslams to come) produces far more heat than light as far as this conversation is concerned.

The assumption that Djokovic and Nadal will be as dominant in three years time is a very dangerous one to make.

By all means chase your tail itt if you are inclined to do so. I'd prefer to wait a few years and discuss their end body of work.

choking?

when me and my friend were playin tennis last weekend we kept parodying roger federer, so if someone smashed a winner we'd be like ''i work hard for my points but i guess you could just smash it and get lucky" lol. tru story

To expand a tad, peak performance can overcome an inferior amount of majors won (see Tiger), but not if its only one damn year.

haha another thread. Let's argue in circles in two threads!

I'm sure they'll lock up the other one. New poll was necessary. Anyway, we can have the same 3 arguments here or there, it doesn't matter to me really I just wanted a new poll.

instead of choking, novak just quits 'due to injury.'

Love it haha.

this "argument" got boring a long time ago

everyone who thinks that djoko is even in contention yet has a flawed definition of goat(lol @ peak being the only variable for defining goat)

It's all good.

Lloyd already bringing tons of wrongness to the thread

Anyway, Novak is the best ever is 'best' is judged by 'the best tennis player ever'. His A+ game is better than anyone I've ever seen.

If you judge purely on grand slam titles, it's obviously Roger.

If you factor GOAT by ability, slams, strength of competition, beating other GOATs, projecting future, etc. It's currently Nadal but is likely to become Djok

Federer's resume doesn't list his 2 most impressive feats?

237 straight weeks at #1 (record by a big margin)
23 straight grandslam semis (2nd place is Lendl at 10)

And he also won the year end championships, where only the top 8 players of the year play, a record 5 times.

KB,

Sampras has the longest #1 streak, I didn't look it up - but I think Fed was just short.

Fine. My post is less wrong than any post that attempts to take a conclusive position on the topic though.

Change thread title to Federer vs Nadal vs Djokovic vs AMERICAN HERO MARDY FISH

Sampras spent the most number of weeks (total) at No1, Federer holds the record for most consecutive weeks as the No1 @ 237. Sampras is @ 102 on that one, total of 286.

ahhh got it. I was going off memory - probably should have googled or something.

Well, that's like, your opinion dude.

Personally, if I had to pick which of the three has/had the best A+ game I would probably scratch my head for a bit and then flip a three sided coin. Djoko was awesome this year no doubt, but I don't think that his play was any better than peak Fed's play or Nadal's peak play.

Nadal has 0 or 1 years of peak left
Most would prob argue he's a bit past peak

IMO 18 of 19 grand slam finals is THE most impressive feat, much more impressive than the weeks at #1 streak by a wide margin.