The Official Tennis Thread

[Angelo]

You can move goal posts all day long, 20 slams each is the only stat that really matters!

I can't change your preferences nor do I want to, until the dusts settled on their collective careers then you can show me the data.

65% of his slams are on one court, one tournament. That stat is impressive

And despite all the barriers for Nadal, he has still come out on top. True greatness.

[Milltown Row2]

You can move goal posts all day long, 20 slams each is the only stat that really matters!

I can't change your preferences nor do I want to, until the dusts settled on their collective careers then you can show me the data.

65% of his slams are on one court, one tournament. That stat is impressive

And despite all the barriers for Nadal, he has still come out on top. True greatness.

Injuries are a fact of sport, he obviously had the wrong people around him to control his physically.

Could have won more only for a poor team around him

[Angelo]

You can move goal posts all day long, 20 slams each is the only stat that really matters!

I can't change your preferences nor do I want to, until the dusts settled on their collective careers then you can show me the data.

65% of his slams are on one court, one tournament. That stat is impressive

And despite all the barriers for Nadal, he has still come out on top. True greatness.

Injuries are a fact of sport, he obviously had the wrong people around him to control his physically.

Could have won more only for a poor team around him

And the stacking of the tennis calendar to suit big serving giraffes and the one dimensional aspect of the faster courts.

An additional clay court slam should be on the horizon

[Milltown Row2]

You can move goal posts all day long, 20 slams each is the only stat that really matters!

I can't change your preferences nor do I want to, until the dusts settled on their collective careers then you can show me the data.

65% of his slams are on one court, one tournament. That stat is impressive

And despite all the barriers for Nadal, he has still come out on top. True greatness.

Injuries are a fact of sport, he obviously had the wrong people around him to control his physically.

Could have won more only for a poor team around him

And the stacking of the tennis calendar to suit big serving giraffes and the one dimensional aspect of the faster courts.

An additional clay court slam should be on the horizon

What size was that up and coming tennis player you said would beat Novak?

[Angelo]

You can move goal posts all day long, 20 slams each is the only stat that really matters!

I can't change your preferences nor do I want to, until the dusts settled on their collective careers then you can show me the data.

65% of his slams are on one court, one tournament. That stat is impressive

And despite all the barriers for Nadal, he has still come out on top. True greatness.

Injuries are a fact of sport, he obviously had the wrong people around him to control his physically.

Could have won more only for a poor team around him

And the stacking of the tennis calendar to suit big serving giraffes and the one dimensional aspect of the faster courts.

An additional clay court slam should be on the horizon

What size was that up and coming tennis player you said would beat Novak?

6ft6

Ironically he has never won a game at Roland Garros but has been in two slam finals on hard courts.

Giraffes don't fare well on clay.

[nrico2006]

The surfaces argument is invalid, as mentioned here that is the way the game has been structured from before he started playing so that can't be used as an excuse.

The slams are recognised as the unit of measurement with regards to the greatest, therefore as it stands its tied between two.  If Djokovic exceeds their total then he is the best.  Additionally, he has a winning record against both Nadal and Federer.

It's entirely valid.

25% of the season is for clay courters and 75% is for hard/grass courters. It discriminates against clay courters.

Djokovic has a losing record against Nadal in slams. Nadal leads 10-6 overall. Nadal lead 7-1 at RG and 2-1 at the US Open. Djokovic leads 2-1 at Wimbledon and 2-0 at Australia.

But Djokovic has a winning record against Nadal overall.  They have played a lot more than 16 times and the overall head to head cant be discounted - its as you say, a fact.

But as you said "The slams are recognised as the unit of measurement with regards to the greatest"

So why would you then ignore slams when it comes to head to head record?

Nadal clearly has a very commanding lead over Djokovic in their H2H meetings in slams at 10-6. It's 10-4 v Federer. 7-2 v Murray.

He leads all his contemporaries in slam stats. He is the GOAT, the data says so.

I didn't ignore the slams in the head to heads, the slam figures are included. 

[Angelo]

The surfaces argument is invalid, as mentioned here that is the way the game has been structured from before he started playing so that can't be used as an excuse.

The slams are recognised as the unit of measurement with regards to the greatest, therefore as it stands its tied between two.  If Djokovic exceeds their total then he is the best.  Additionally, he has a winning record against both Nadal and Federer.

It's entirely valid.

25% of the season is for clay courters and 75% is for hard/grass courters. It discriminates against clay courters.

Djokovic has a losing record against Nadal in slams. Nadal leads 10-6 overall. Nadal lead 7-1 at RG and 2-1 at the US Open. Djokovic leads 2-1 at Wimbledon and 2-0 at Australia.

But Djokovic has a winning record against Nadal overall.  They have played a lot more than 16 times and the overall head to head cant be discounted - its as you say, a fact.

But as you said "The slams are recognised as the unit of measurement with regards to the greatest"

So why would you then ignore slams when it comes to head to head record?

Nadal clearly has a very commanding lead over Djokovic in their H2H meetings in slams at 10-6. It's 10-4 v Federer. 7-2 v Murray.

He leads all his contemporaries in slam stats. He is the GOAT, the data says so.

I didn't ignore the slams in the head to heads, the slam figures are included.

You did, you didn't want to look at slam head to heads. You wanted to look at overall h2h, slams are what matter though as you said.

[Milltown Row2]

Selecting a GOAT is not based on head to heads 🤦‍♀️

If you want to do head to head competition, knock yourself out

[nrico2006]

The surfaces argument is invalid, as mentioned here that is the way the game has been structured from before he started playing so that can't be used as an excuse.

The slams are recognised as the unit of measurement with regards to the greatest, therefore as it stands its tied between two.  If Djokovic exceeds their total then he is the best.  Additionally, he has a winning record against both Nadal and Federer.

It's entirely valid.

25% of the season is for clay courters and 75% is for hard/grass courters. It discriminates against clay courters.

Djokovic has a losing record against Nadal in slams. Nadal leads 10-6 overall. Nadal lead 7-1 at RG and 2-1 at the US Open. Djokovic leads 2-1 at Wimbledon and 2-0 at Australia.

But Djokovic has a winning record against Nadal overall.  They have played a lot more than 16 times and the overall head to head cant be discounted - its as you say, a fact.

But as you said "The slams are recognised as the unit of measurement with regards to the greatest"

So why would you then ignore slams when it comes to head to head record?

Nadal clearly has a very commanding lead over Djokovic in their H2H meetings in slams at 10-6. It's 10-4 v Federer. 7-2 v Murray.

He leads all his contemporaries in slam stats. He is the GOAT, the data says so.

I didn't ignore the slams in the head to heads, the slam figures are included.

You did, you didn't want to look at slam head to heads. You wanted to look at overall h2h, slams are what matter though as you said.

I said that slams are seen as the unit of currency when categorising the greatest player of all time, which seems to be generally accepted.  The only reason I got into head to head talk was due to you referencing Nadal leading Djokovic on head to heads in slams - I have never really heard anybody focus on head to heads in that perspective before, usually its just on the overall record.

[Angelo]

The surfaces argument is invalid, as mentioned here that is the way the game has been structured from before he started playing so that can't be used as an excuse.

The slams are recognised as the unit of measurement with regards to the greatest, therefore as it stands its tied between two.  If Djokovic exceeds their total then he is the best.  Additionally, he has a winning record against both Nadal and Federer.

It's entirely valid.

25% of the season is for clay courters and 75% is for hard/grass courters. It discriminates against clay courters.

Djokovic has a losing record against Nadal in slams. Nadal leads 10-6 overall. Nadal lead 7-1 at RG and 2-1 at the US Open. Djokovic leads 2-1 at Wimbledon and 2-0 at Australia.

But Djokovic has a winning record against Nadal overall.  They have played a lot more than 16 times and the overall head to head cant be discounted - its as you say, a fact.

But as you said "The slams are recognised as the unit of measurement with regards to the greatest"

So why would you then ignore slams when it comes to head to head record?

Nadal clearly has a very commanding lead over Djokovic in their H2H meetings in slams at 10-6. It's 10-4 v Federer. 7-2 v Murray.

He leads all his contemporaries in slam stats. He is the GOAT, the data says so.

I didn't ignore the slams in the head to heads, the slam figures are included.

You did, you didn't want to look at slam head to heads. You wanted to look at overall h2h, slams are what matter though as you said.

I said that slams are seen as the unit of currency when categorising the greatest player of all time, which seems to be generally accepted.  The only reason I got into head to head talk was due to you referencing Nadal leading Djokovic on head to heads in slams - I have never really heard anybody focus on head to heads in that perspective before, usually its just on the overall record.

Well surely if slams are the only currency in greatest of all time debate then their head to head records should only be considered on the basis of their slam encounters. It's contradictory otherwise.

For the record:

Nadal leads Djokovic 10-6 in slam head to head
Nadal leads Federer 10-4 in slam head to head
Djokovic leads Federer 11-6 in slam head to head

[Milltown Row2]

Head to heads,  is that your measure?  On those head to heads how many has Nadal won on clay? How many has he won on grass and hard court?

[Estimator]

Head to heads,  is that your measure?  On those head to heads how many has Nadal won on clay? How many has he won on grass and hard court?

Nadal - Federer
A total of 14 matches have been in Grand Slams with Nadal leading 10–4. Nadal leads 6–0 at the French Open and 3–1 at the Australian Open, while Federer leads 3–1 at Wimbledon. The two have yet to meet in the US Open.

Nadal - Novak
The two have faced each other 56 times with Djokovic leading 29–27. Djokovic leads 15–12 in finals. Of these matches, 16 have been in Grand Slams with Nadal leading 10–6. Nadal leads 7–1 at the French Open and 2–1 at the US Open, while Djokovic leads 2–0 at the Australian Open and 2–1 at Wimbledon.

Nadal is clearly the GOAT.. on Clay!

[Milltown Row2]

Head to heads,  is that your measure?  On those head to heads how many has Nadal won on clay? How many has he won on grass and hard court?

Nadal - Federer
A total of 14 matches have been in Grand Slams with Nadal leading 10–4. Nadal leads 6–0 at the French Open and 3–1 at the Australian Open, while Federer leads 3–1 at Wimbledon. The two have yet to meet in the US Open.

Nadal - Novak
The two have faced each other 56 times with Djokovic leading 29–27. Djokovic leads 15–12 in finals. Of these matches, 16 have been in Grand Slams with Nadal leading 10–6. Nadal leads 7–1 at the French Open and 2–1 at the US Open, while Djokovic leads 2–0 at the Australian Open and 2–1 at Wimbledon.

Nadal is clearly the GOAT.. on Clay!

I wanted Angelo to get that info, I already have it in front of me. the timing suggest that he knows this!

[Angelo]

Head to heads,  is that your measure?  On those head to heads how many has Nadal won on clay? How many has he won on grass and hard court?

Nadal - Federer
A total of 14 matches have been in Grand Slams with Nadal leading 10–4. Nadal leads 6–0 at the French Open and 3–1 at the Australian Open, while Federer leads 3–1 at Wimbledon. The two have yet to meet in the US Open.

Nadal - Novak
The two have faced each other 56 times with Djokovic leading 29–27. Djokovic leads 15–12 in finals. Of these matches, 16 have been in Grand Slams with Nadal leading 10–6. Nadal leads 7–1 at the French Open and 2–1 at the US Open, while Djokovic leads 2–0 at the Australian Open and 2–1 at Wimbledon.

Nadal is clearly the GOAT.. on Clay!

It's funny though.

Djokovic is the greatest hard court player we have ever seen yet Nadal has more US Open titles than him and a better head to head record at the event too.

[Milltown Row2]

Head to heads,  is that your measure?  On those head to heads how many has Nadal won on clay? How many has he won on grass and hard court?

Nadal - Federer
A total of 14 matches have been in Grand Slams with Nadal leading 10–4. Nadal leads 6–0 at the French Open and 3–1 at the Australian Open, while Federer leads 3–1 at Wimbledon. The two have yet to meet in the US Open.

Nadal - Novak
The two have faced each other 56 times with Djokovic leading 29–27. Djokovic leads 15–12 in finals. Of these matches, 16 have been in Grand Slams with Nadal leading 10–6. Nadal leads 7–1 at the French Open and 2–1 at the US Open, while Djokovic leads 2–0 at the Australian Open and 2–1 at Wimbledon.

Nadal is clearly the GOAT.. on Clay!

It's funny though.

Djokovic is the greatest hard court player we have ever seen yet Nadal has more US Open titles than him and a better head to head record at the event too.

Who said he was the greatest? Is it his record on that surface? Or opinions?

What's Nadal's record v Novak at the Aussie Open?

Just accept that at the minute, while these lads are still playing and winning, that there won't be a GOAT until someone gets to the top of their tree and retires