2026 ATP General News

[Fiero425]

Well, even though I love stats and charts, I still struggle to settle on a specific ranking - mostly because I can never decide how to balance peak and overall career accomplishments.

There's also the problem of Rod Laver and the Open Era. I think he's got about as good a claim to GOAT status and Djokovic, if we consider tennis history as a whole. But then we also have to include Pancho Gonzales, Rosewall, and Tilden, at least - if not Budge, Kramer, Vines, etc...at least in a top 20-30.

"Open Era Only" is easier, and pushes Laver down the list. Still top 20, maybe top 10, but not top 5.

But peak vs. career remains an issue, and no player is more impacted by this than Borg, who is the hardest to rank of any Open Era great. However...you're not going to like this, but even when emphasizing peak, Borg tends to be a bit over-rated, imo. He was great, but were his best two years (1979-80) greater than, say, Lendl's (1986-87)? Or McEnroe's (1981, 84)? Just as Borg tends to be a tad overrated due to the mystique from his early retirement, Lendl tends to be underrated, because of that 8-11 record in Slam finals, but that is largely due to him playing along side more all-time greats in their primes than any other player. Lendl faced late prime Connors and Borg, full prime McEnroe, Edberg, Wilander and Becker; and early prime Agassi and Sampras.

Anyhow, I'd also rank Novak #1 -- for the Open Era, at least. He is, at worst, the first among near equals. Roger and Rafa would be 2a and 2b. I think, all things tolled, they are too close to rank one over the other. Both have their arguments, and both sort of equalize each other. EDIT: After doing my ranking below, I give Roger a tiny edge, because his two or three best years are better than Rafa's best. But again, I see them as close enough to make any edge meaningless.

I'd then rank Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, and Sampras in some order. It isn't as clear as the conventional "Sampras, Borg, Mac, Lendl" ranking that most lists employ. Sampras' weakness on clay and playing much of his peak during a relatively softer era weakens his edge over the others. I know, 14 Slams, but I think Borg and Mac were both better at their best, and Lendl arguably so as well. I'll still give Sampras the slight edge below, but it is closer than mere Slam count implies.

Connors is both clearly behind that group, and clearly ahead of everyone else - at least among Open Era only guys. I'd then insert Laver, for being the best player of the first four years of the Open Era, which included one of the two best season (1969) of the Open Era; but being the best player for four straight years is rather impressive, even if his Open Era career was pretty short.

I'd rank Agassi, Becker, Edberg, and Wilander, in that order, in a group. Agassi gets the edge due to longevity, but I think you could argue that the other three were slightly better during their peaks. To be honest, I think Agassi tends to be a bit overrated. He was a legitimately great player, but his name career more weight than his record. And really, he only had two truly great years: 1995 and 1999. The rest of his career was rather erratic, and he didn't put together a clear strong peak of a few years like those other guys did. Murray is the best of the rest, as befit his career compared to the Big Three.

OK, now Alcaraz and Sinner. Obviously it is too soon to assess them historically, but as of this moment, I'd probably rank them both between Laver and Agassi. Their peaks--especially Sinner's--are closer to the Sampras group than Agassi and the rest, and really to clearly surpass Agassi, they only need another year or two at a similar level. But I'd already them above him. Connors just had to too long of a career not to give him an edge over them, but I have little doubt that they'll eventually surpass him and--at least--join the "purple tier" below.


Here's how I'd sort it all out.

OPEN ERA (only) TOP 20 (color coded by tiers)

1. Djokovic
2. Federer
3. Nadal
4. Sampras
5. Lendl
6. Borg
7. McEnroe
8. Connors
9. Laver
10. Sinner
11. Alcaraz
12. Agassi
13. Becker
14. Edberg
15. Wilander
16. Murray
17. Vilas
18. Newcombe
19. Nastase
20. Ashe

Things get fuzzy after Vilas, who I think follows Murray. I think you could make an argument for Rosewall or Courier to edge out one of those next three, but I think the next guys--Roddick, Hewitt, Zverev (yes, Zverev), Chang, etc--belong in the 21-30 range.

If we were considering all of tennis history, I'd probably rank Laver #1, then add Tilden, Rosewall, and Gonzales to the top 10, and Budge, Kramer, Vines and maybe Perry to the top 20. I'd consider Kozeluh, Drobny, and Riggs, too. I'd probably avoid players before Tilden and the pro/amateur split in the 1920s, because it is just too hard to compare. But the sport was relatively stable from the mid-20s through 1967, that we have enough continuity to compare Tilden's dominance to say, the dominance of the Big Three.

And to me, that's how such lists should be considered: relative dominance to the era a player played in - not specific statistical metrics, because those change over time.

We're on the same wave-length! I didn't mean to dismiss the Am. Era b/c players like Tilden dominated like no other in history from what I read! He was the 1st athlete that tried to trade in his athletic skills t/b an actor! I give all due credit for their achievement in pre-Open Era; Budge, Perry, Kramer, Gonzalas, Rosewall, but give the edge to Laver w/ his 2 Grand Slams ('62 & '69)! I, like everyone give Borg greater status due to his mystique & early retirement, but who else at the time won 5 Str. Wimbledons & 6 of 8 French Opens! He brought Paris into the elite mix of things as most top players early in the Pro Era either skipped the clay season or were playing WTT! If you're from that era, I hope you can recall how entertaining those All-Star WTT events were! At any given time players like Betty Stove & Diane Fromholtz c/b replaced by Evonne Goolagong & BJK coming into the end of a doubles match when it got tight!

As much as I liked players like Edberg, Becker, Wilander, & Agassi, IDK why they're even mentioned in the coversation b/c so many other players pre-OE & thereafter w/ much greater records! I also believe Lendl's been terribly underrated as he had to deal w/ so many greats B4, during, & after their prime! Reminds me of Djokovic as my blog promotes! He was relegated to 2nd rate status behind Fedal, but overtook them w/ ease in his 30's believe it or not! Who's ever going to achieve what he did in his later yrs.? He picked up 2 YEC's, 2 YE #1's, an OGM, & not just several Majors, but 3 of 4 twice ('21 & '23)! I might add to this later!

 

[the AntiPusher]

My initial response: That's about right! You've been paying attn.! I'm not only impressed, I'm flattered!

I'll fill in the blanks OTOH here:

1. Djokovic - Obvious GOAT w/ all the #'s in his favor (24 Majors, 40 Masters, 8 YE #1's, 7 YEC's, 428 Wks. @#1, & OGM
2. Borg - The man owned the early Pro Era taking lead w/ 11 Majors
3. Federer; when he was young & not wussing out against Nadal
4. Sampras deserves respect for his time! He initially took the overall lead w/14 in Majors held by Emerson's 12 (mostly Am. Majors)

5. Nadal can't be overlooked; even w/ his limitations (22 Majors)
6. Agassi gets a nod even though quite a few seasons of waste over 20 yrs! The 1st "Career GS" w/ OGM
7.Connors w/ his body of work over 20 yrs on the tour (109 Titles)
8. McEnroe w/ a few magnificents yrs. of excellence
9. Lendl S/B ahead of McEnroe & Connors w/ 8 Majors, but never pulled off that Wimbledon he treasured so much
10. A few players have the potential to make the list, but haven't done enuf yet: Alcaraz, Sinner. etc.

- - (Feel free to make changes or give opinions)

I wished the younger players especially the ladies would sit down and binge watch Borg/Sampras/Nadal/Graf and the GOAT Venus Williams matches. Learn how they kept their cool and not let their emotions determine their narrative. Way too much whinning in both the WTA and ATP in todays game IMO

 

[Fiero425]

I wished the younger players especially the ladies would sit down and binge watch Borg/Sampras/Nadal/Graf and the GOAT Venus Williams matches. Learn how they kept their cool and not let their emotions determine their narrative. Way too much whinning in both the WTA and ATP in todays game IMO

I just watched a You-Tube vid highlites of Navratilova/Evert in '88 Wimbledon Semi-Final! On Match pt. a call went against Chris! She just gave a dirty look to the linesman & umpire; it was enuf! She tossed her racket down on the sideline, and it was over! I +ed to that last post BTW!

 

[El Dude]

Peak. Once I realized that, I lost interest in the GOAT debate. Then, Djokovic rèsumè became undebatable, while on the other hand for me is strikingly obvious he is not the GOAT.

Career is about longevity. Of course this matters, and it says a lot, if you are still a top dog close to your forties you are pretty damn good, but still...

I think there's a good argument that peak is MORE important than career, but two questions arise:

1. How to weigh them properly? This is the same question, again, and remains unresolved by just saying "peak." To what degree? Peak only, or mostly, and how much is "mostly?"
2. What are the parameters for peak?

Let's just look at the second one. Peak can mean many things: It could be...

- A player at their very best level, and presumably in their best context. If this is the case, Nadal is the GOAT. Nadal on clay is better than any player on any surface. I dare you to defy me! But seriously, is this even a question? Nadal on clay > any player in tennis history on their best surface. But of course tennis isn't just played on clay or any single surface, so while this is meaningful, it can't be the only factor for "peak," let alone GOATness.

- A player's best year. This would make things easier, because in the Open Era, there are really only a few choices: Laver in 1969, McEnroe in 1984, Federer in 2006, and Djokovic in 2015. I actually have a big chart of the 250 or so best seasons of the Open Era, but am still tweaking the formula. But I have Laver in '69 and Djokovic in '15 as the two best seasons; the next two best are Mac in '84 and Federer in '06, but I've gone back and forth as to which is 3rd and 4th. Djokovic's 2011 comes in an easy 5th. But the point being, it is really either Laver or Djokovic, with Mac or Roger a bit behind. But does a single season define greatness, let alone GOATness? I'd say not.

- A player's best few years. What is a "few"? Where to draw the line? Again, this is a subjective call and yields different results, depending. One year and you can go with Novak or Laver; two years and it is easily Novak (11, 15); three years, and I'd go with Roger (04, 06, 07) or Novak (11, 15, 23); four years, I'll go with Roger (add 05), etc. If we extend beyond the Open Era, Laver's run from 1961 to about 1970 is probably the best decade span of any player. During that span he won 138 titles, averaging almost 14 per season (!!!).

There are other ways to define a player's peak...which may yield a variety of different results. It could just be a general vibe, or feeling about a player - a purely subjective determination based upon our impressions.

I have occasionally said, and heard other more knowledgeable people say, that Roger is the most talented tennis player ever, but Rafa and Novak were better competitors. But GOATness isn't just talent - it is where talent meets results, and Novak's results are unsurpassed, and Rafa's equal to Roger's (if slightly different). So what defines GOATness? If it is mostly their "peak," what do we mean by that?

 

[PhiEaglesfan712]

I've covered this before. 2011 Rafa = 2010 Rafa, except for his results against Novak. His performance against everyone else is almost exactly the same.

2010 Rafa: 71-10 (87.7%); vs. Novak 2-0; vs everyone else 69-10
2011 Rafa: 69-15 (82.1%) vs. Novak 0-6; vs everyone else 69-9

Meaning, same number of wins, and actually one loss better in 2011 if you ignore Novak matches. Novak utterly owned him in 2011 -- that's the only difference, otherwise Rafa was the same guy against every other player (overall).

But...

Rafa re-balanced for most of the rest of their career. He adjusted, and it was more of a seesaw after. Novak owned him in 2011 and into 2012, but then Rafa adjusted and won 6 of 7. Then Novak owned him again, but only when Rafa was struggling in 2015-16. Rafa came back. They were essentially equals, in peak years.

Another way to look at it is that Rafa dominated early on vs. Novak 1.0 (2007-10), but then Novak 2.0 dominated in 2011, but then Rafa re-adjusted and they were basically equals. Rafa still had the edge on clay, Novak on hards (but won their last nine matches on hards), and about equal on grass (vs. each other):

Rafa vs. Novak
Grass: 2-2
Clay: 20-9
Hards: 7-20

But as with Rafa's match-up vs. Roger, the H2H Is skewed by a high percentage of matches played on clay. For Djokodal, it was 29 of 61, or 47.5%. Fedal saw 16 of 40 matches on clay, or 40%. Clay generally accounts for 30-35% of all tournaments, so you could say that the surfaces they played on gave Rafa a big advantage over Novak, and a moderate advantage over Roger.

This is mostly because Rafa was so dominant on clay that he was always in the finals, but it also gave him a bit of a "home court advantage" in an outsized percentage of their matches, especially vs. Novak.

If not for the first round match at RG in 2011, I might have agreed with you, but the fact that Rafa was taken to 5 by a serve bot makes me believe that his level in 2011 was a tad bit worse and that 2010 was clearly his best level. He was virtually unplayable on all 3 surfaces that year.

Regardless, 2011 was clearly the last year of Rafa's absolute peak. The following year was when he lost to Rosol at Wimbledon, and he wasn't really the same player on grass again.

 

[the AntiPusher]

If not for the first round match at RG in 2011, I might have agreed with you, but the fact that Rafa was taken to 5 by a serve bot makes me believe that his level in 2011 was a tad bit worse and that 2010 was clearly his best level. He was virtually unplayable on all 3 surfaces that year.

Regardless, 2011 was clearly the last year of Rafa's absolute peak. The following year was when he lost to Rosol at Wimbledon, and he wasn't really the same player on grass again.

Did Rafa eventually handle his business and win the championship that year? Yes!! as for playing 5 sets vs Isner aka the giant serve bot .. the sun shines on a dog's ass once in a while

 

[El Dude]

If not for the first round match at RG in 2011, I might have agreed with you, but the fact that Rafa was taken to 5 by a serve bot makes me believe that his level in 2011 was a tad bit worse and that 2010 was clearly his best level. He was virtually unplayable on all 3 surfaces that year.

Regardless, 2011 was clearly the last year of Rafa's absolute peak. The following year was when he lost to Rosol at Wimbledon, and he wasn't really the same player on grass again.

I can't really agree on either account. As AP pointed out, even the best players in top form will occasional wobble (or be upset) vs a serve-bot. I know some Rafa fans favor 2008, and 2010 was his lone three-Slam year, but 2013 was arguably his best year -- or at least in his "big three seasons." He missed the AO and was upset in the 1R of Wimbledon, but the guy won two Slams and five Masters, and three other titles. So I think his absolute peak is really 2008-13, with some injuries and upsets here and there. That accounts for the span of his three best years (08, 10, 13).

And don't forget, it wasn't like he was unbeatable in 2010. Consider whom he lost to in 2010 and '11:

2010: Federer, Melzer, Garcia Lopez, Baghdatis, Murray x2, Lopez, Roddick, Ljubicic, Davydenko.
2011: Tsonga x2, Federer, Mayer, Murray, Djokovic x6, Fish, Dodig, Ferrer, Davydenko

Its a similar level of players he lost to, but with six Novak losses - two Slam finals and four Masters finals. Anyone else in those finals and he wins at least one of those Slams, and a couple of those Masters. Meaning, if Novak 2.0 hadn't emerged, I think 2011 would have have at least been his fourth best year after 08, 10, and 13.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Due to a slight right knee problem Jannik Sinner has been advised by his medical team to withdraw from Cincinnati, and will be working hard to be healthy for the USO.

 

[the AntiPusher]

While I respect the data presented, the argument for Novak Djokovic as the singular "Greatest of All Time" often relies heavily on total volume and head-to-head records while overlooking the broader context of tennis dominance. When we adjust for longevity, surface bias, and physical attrition, the case for Rafael Nadal becomes arguably more impressive.

1. The 20-Year Consistency Test (The Top 10 Metric)​

The most overlooked stat in this debate is Nadal’s historic 20-year streak of never falling outside the ATP Top 10. To be a target for every generation of players—from the era of Hewitt and Roddick to the peak of Federer and Djokovic, and finally the rise of Alcaraz and Sinner—is a feat of consistency that is mathematically and physically staggering.

Djokovic’s numbers are fantastic, but Nadal’s ability to remain in the Top 10 for two full decades means he was consistently beating the best players on tour, week in and week out, regardless of his physical condition. Maintaining that level of elite status while dealing with chronic, injury-plagued seasons (which forced him to miss dozens of Grand Slams) makes his longevity the true gold standard of the sport.

2. Efficiency Over Volume (The Injury-Adjusted Reality)​

The argument that Novak has more Slams ignores the "participation tax." Nadal has missed more Grand Slams due to injury than almost any other legend in the open era. If you look at his Grand Slam winning percentage and his "conversion rate" (titles won relative to tournaments played), Nadal is arguably the most efficient player in history.

When we talk about the "GOAT," we shouldn't reward players who stayed healthy enough to accumulate volume at the expense of those who played fewer events but dominated them with a higher win percentage. If Rafa had played at the same volume as his peers, the total Slam tally would look significantly different.

3. Contextualizing the H2H (The Surface Bias)​

You noted the "seesaw" nature of the Djokovic-Nadal rivalry, which is the most accurate way to view it. The H2H is heavily skewed by surface distribution. As you pointed out, the percentage of matches played on clay (roughly 47.5% in their H2H) vs. hard courts creates an outsized narrative of lopsidedness.

When you strip away the surface bias, you see two players who were essentially equals at their peak. The 2010 vs. 2011 comparison you made is the perfect example: Rafa’s performance against the rest of the tour remained elite in 2011; his only "deficit" was the specific, specialized rise of Djokovic 2.0. The fact that Rafa re-adjusted and turned the rivalry into a seesaw for the rest of their careers proves that his "drop-off" wasn't a decline in skill, but a brief tactical adjustment period in the face of an evolving opponent.

4. Quality of the Field​

Nadal didn't just beat the field; he conquered the greatest era in tennis history. He denied the greatest grass-court player ever (Federer) and the greatest hard-court player ever (Djokovic) multiple times on their best surfaces.

If we are defining GOAT status by who has the most impressive "peak performance" against the best players of the time, Nadal’s wins over the Top 10 across 20 years of continuous service—often while playing through significant injury—prove that his floor was higher, and his competitive resilience was greater, than anyone else's in the game.

 

[mrzz]

I think there's a good argument that peak is MORE important than career, but two questions arise:

1. How to weigh them properly? This is the same question, again, and remains unresolved by just saying "peak." To what degree? Peak only, or mostly, and how much is "mostly?"
2. What are the parameters for peak?

Let's just look at the second one. Peak can mean many things: It could be...

- A player at their very best level, and presumably in their best context. If this is the case, Nadal is the GOAT. Nadal on clay is better than any player on any surface. I dare you to defy me! But seriously, is this even a question? Nadal on clay > any player in tennis history on their best surface. But of course tennis isn't just played on clay or any single surface, so while this is meaningful, it can't be the only factor for "peak," let alone GOATness.

- A player's best year. This would make things easier, because in the Open Era, there are really only a few choices: Laver in 1969, McEnroe in 1984, Federer in 2006, and Djokovic in 2015. I actually have a big chart of the 250 or so best seasons of the Open Era, but am still tweaking the formula. But I have Laver in '69 and Djokovic in '15 as the two best seasons; the next two best are Mac in '84 and Federer in '06, but I've gone back and forth as to which is 3rd and 4th. Djokovic's 2011 comes in an easy 5th. But the point being, it is really either Laver or Djokovic, with Mac or Roger a bit behind. But does a single season define greatness, let alone GOATness? I'd say not.

- A player's best few years. What is a "few"? Where to draw the line? Again, this is a subjective call and yields different results, depending. One year and you can go with Novak or Laver; two years and it is easily Novak (11, 15); three years, and I'd go with Roger (04, 06, 07) or Novak (11, 15, 23); four years, I'll go with Roger (add 05), etc. If we extend beyond the Open Era, Laver's run from 1961 to about 1970 is probably the best decade span of any player. During that span he won 138 titles, averaging almost 14 per season (!!!).

There are other ways to define a player's peak...which may yield a variety of different results. It could just be a general vibe, or feeling about a player - a purely subjective determination based upon our impressions.

I have occasionally said, and heard other more knowledgeable people say, that Roger is the most talented tennis player ever, but Rafa and Novak were better competitors. But GOATness isn't just talent - it is where talent meets results, and Novak's results are unsurpassed, and Rafa's equal to Roger's (if slightly different). So what defines GOATness? If it is mostly their "peak," what do we mean by that?

Those are fair questions (but still, if I had to resort to an answer in a binary world, answer would be peak. But reality is more nuanced, I know).

Side comment: I know you mentioned it already, but to narrow it down to one surface is not only arbitrary, but against the logic of it: tennis is played on different surfaces, so the ability to win on them all is extremely important. I know we talk a lot about the homogenization of surfaces, and it is a real thing, but they are still very different. I would dare anyone that says otherwise to play a set at Chartrier, grab a plane and play another at Wimbledon. Ok, decades ago it was crazy different, but it is still a challenge, and it is still quite a feat to win on all surfaces. Again, a smaller feat than decades ago, but still faaaaaaaaaar from easy. If this wasn't a thing, winning percentages of players across would not vary as much as they still do.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Due to a slight right knee problem Jannik Sinner has been advised by his medical team to withdraw from Cincinnati, and will be working hard to be healthy for the USO.

I am glad I am not attending Cincy this year.. There is not a lot of star power on the men's side attending. I wouldnt be surprised in Eala withdraws and others. The only thing is maybe an early round cameo appearance by Serena with a gimpy knee..

 

[Fiero425]

I can't really agree on either account. As AP pointed out, even the best players in top form will occasional wobble (or be upset) vs a serve-bot. I know some Rafa fans favor 2008, and 2010 was his lone three-Slam year, but 2013 was arguably his best year -- or at least in his "big three seasons." He missed the AO and was upset in the 1R of Wimbledon, but the guy won two Slams and five Masters, and three other titles. So I think his absolute peak is really 2008-13, with some injuries and upsets here and there. That accounts for the span of his three best years (08, 10, 13).

And don't forget, it wasn't like he was unbeatable in 2010. Consider whom he lost to in 2010 and '11:

2010: Federer, Melzer, Garcia Lopez, Baghdatis, Murray x2, Lopez, Roddick, Ljubicic, Davydenko.
2011: Tsonga x2, Federer, Mayer, Murray, Djokovic x6, Fish, Dodig, Ferrer, Davydenko

Its a similar level of players he lost to, but with six Novak losses - two Slam finals and four Masters finals. Anyone else in those finals and he wins at least one of those Slams, and a couple of those Masters. Meaning, if Novak 2.0 hadn't emerged, I think 2011 would have have at least been his fourth best year after 08, 10, and 13.

It was w/i this period I jumped on the Novak "bandwagon!" It wasn't like he had become my fave player, but it was his elevated play of 2011 after winning that 2010 Davis Cup for Serbia! He went on a "tear" meeting Rafa in final after final in 2011! It proved I wasn't paying attn. b/c I had no idea Rafa lost all those other matches! I thought it was Novak & no one else that was thwarting him! I watched & taped each w/ so much satisfaction! I never could stand Rafa; even as a kid! Making Roger look bad only heightened the sensation! I saw Nadal's tennis as ugly & didn't like watching him take advantage of the new tech in tennis; the rackets & ribbed strings! IMO it was little more than the historically described "spaghetti racket" Nastase used to stop Vilas' clay streak! It's totally been blown off how much the ball was being manipulated by Nadal! IMO, it was a "big cheat!" Novak saved the record/history books knocking Rafa down a peg or 2!

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

I am glad I am not attending Cincy this year.. There is not a lot of star power on the men's side attending. I wouldnt be surprised in Eala withdraws and others. The only thing is maybe an early round cameo appearance by Serena with a gimpy knee..

I wish the ATP would read the room AP, players Do Not Like These 2 week Masters 1000, if there is a hint of pain etc they will withdraw and keep themselves fresh for the Majors
Jannik has been practicing with high intensity at MC but he felt a nagging slight pain in his right knee, went to his medical staff who advised him to withdraw and prepare for the USO

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

A player to me is one who can win and dominate on all surfaces for starters,
I know it is hard to accomplish that is why I find it hard to get involved with a Goat talk period
If Rafa had not dominate clay like he did, I could reconsider, too many variables for me over the years.
A reason I cannot say Djokovic is a Goat of tennis and I totally agree with Mrzz's post on this subject

 

[El Dude]

It was w/i this period I jumped on the Novak "bandwagon!" It wasn't like he had become my fave player, but it was his elevated play of 2011 after winning that 2010 Davis Cup for Serbia! He went on a "tear" meeting Rafa in final after final in 2011! It proved I wasn't paying attn. b/c I had no idea Rafa lost all those other matches! I thought it was Novak & no one else that was thwarting him! I watched & taped each w/ so much satisfaction! I never could stand Rafa; even as a kid! Making Roger look bad only heightened the sensation! I saw Nadal's tennis as ugly & didn't like watching him take advantage of the new tech in tennis; the rackets & ribbed strings! IMO it was little more than the historically described "spaghetti racket" Nastase used to stop Vilas' clay streak! It's totally been blown off how much the ball was being manipulated by Nadal! IMO, it was a "big cheat!" Novak saved the record/history books knocking Rafa down a peg or 2!

It is a bit extreme, but Rafa vs. Roger was a bit like the Mountain vs. Oberyn in Game of Thrones. Oberyn was more skilled, but he was arrogant, and the (lamed) Mountain capitalized on it and, well, stuck his thumbs into eyes and pulled apart his skull.

Now Rafa is (was) very skilled, but I agree with those who have said, in essence, that if tennis had no mental aspect, Roger would have been the easy GOAT. But Rafa was a stronger tactician and more able to dig deep, and the skill gap was much smaller than with other players; plus, Roger was stubborn, largely due to his utter dominance against everyone else. While I don't think their whole careers would have panned out like 2017, I think it gave us a sense of how a smarter and more humble Roger might have fared against Rafa if he had his head on straight earlier on. At the very least, the H2H would be much closer. Rafa would have dominated Roger on clay no matter what, but if Roger had his special sauce from 2017 throughout their career, I think the gap on grass and hards would have been larger in his favor.

As for Novak, I do agree with some of what Kieran has said, that his later career involved some degree of padding due to weak competition. But the same could be said of Rafa in 17-22, and we can't ignore Roger's early career when the competition wasn't as good as in 2008-19, the heart of the Big Four Era. In the end, though, Novak capitalized on the opportunity that was presented to him. His 2021 and '23 seasons are particularly impressive, winning three Slams when he was in his mid-30s. Novak was 35-36 in 2023, which is probably the best season by not only a guy 35+, but maybe second best from a guy in his 30s (after Laver's 1969 at age 30-31).

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

El Dude,
Speaking of the great man Rod Laver whose birthday is the 9th of August turning 88 years young
I will always remember this quote from Laver,
"The time your game is most vunerable is when your're ahead never let up"

A book I love to read and re-read at times is Rod Lavers,
"The Educations of a Tennis Player, (1971) co written with sports tennis journalist Bud Collins, the book covers his historic 1969 Grand Slam win, and includes tennis tips and lessons in each chapter. It was updated in 2009.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Revised time for the ATP1000 Cincinnati draw is now 3pm local time Wednesday 12th August

 

[PhiEaglesfan712]

As for Novak, I do agree with some of what Kieran has said, that his later career involved some degree of padding due to weak competition. But the same could be said of Rafa in 17-22, and we can't ignore Roger's early career when the competition wasn't as good as in 2008-19, the heart of the Big Four Era. In the end, though, Novak capitalized on the opportunity that was presented to him. His 2021 and '23 seasons are particularly impressive, winning three Slams when he was in his mid-30s. Novak was 35-36 in 2023, which is probably the best season by not only a guy 35+, but maybe second best from a guy in his 30s (after Laver's 1969 at age 30-31).

imho, Roger's 2017-19 (at ages 35-38) was better, especially considering he was playing a prime Novak/Nadal 5-6 years younger.

If there was one match that sums up why Roger is the GOAT, it's his 2019 Wimbledon win over Rafa. He turned the clock back that day. If only Roger closed out the Final against Djokovic, then there would be no debate.