After winning FO this year Djokovic would be the GOAT

Agree?

you can do better than this jersey.......

He would do something Borg, Sampras, Federer and Nadal failed to do. GOAT in my book.

jersey wrote:He would do something Borg, Sampras, Federer and Nadal failed to do. GOAT in my book.

Win 4 straight slams aided by an egg chamber?

why? the grand slam is winning all four in a calendar year. that's not the case....

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:why? the grand slam is winning all four in a calendar year. that's not the case....

But no man has won 4 in a row since Laver did it, still I think Djokovic would only be 3rd or 4th fav for the RG.

Jersey, you are not Simple Analyst, are you?

ok ok so what? Borg didn't even bother to travel to Australia

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

jersey wrote:He would do something Borg, Sampras, Federer and Nadal failed to do. GOAT in my book.

Win 4 straight slams aided by an egg chamber?

Win 4 straight slams. Period. Something Borg, Sampras, Federer and Nadal could only dream of.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:ok ok so what? Borg didn't even bother to travel to Australia

Would he have won it anyway? He never won USO after 9 years attempting.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:why? the grand slam is winning all four in a calendar year. that's not the case....

But no man has won 4 in a row since Laver did it, still I think Djokovic would only be 3rd or 4th fav for the RG.

LOL. Djokovic has won the last 3 slams. He IS the favorite to win the next slam which is RG.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:ok ok so what? Borg didn't even bother to travel to Australia

Would he have won it anyway? He never won USO after 9 years attempting.

AO was played on grass. Borg would have won it if he had played there during his prime.

jersey wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

jersey wrote:He would do something Borg, Sampras, Federer and Nadal failed to do. GOAT in my book.

Win 4 straight slams aided by an egg chamber?

Win 4 straight slams. Period. Something Borg, Sampras, Federer and Nadal could only dream of.

Yes but it's still not the grand slam. Check your wikipedia! Why should winning four in a row be bigger than say winning 16? Any thougths?

jersey wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:ok ok so what? Borg didn't even bother to travel to Australia

Would he have won it anyway? He never won USO after 9 years attempting.

AO was played on grass. Borg would have won it if he had played there during his prime.

How would he have handled the heat? Wimbledon and RG he didn't have to really fight against the humidity.

jersey wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:ok ok so what? Borg didn't even bother to travel to Australia

Would he have won it anyway? He never won USO after 9 years attempting.

AO was played on grass. Borg would have won it if he had played there during his prime.

yes, also they moved USO from clay to HC to favour Mac/Connors!

Win 4 straight slams. Period. Something Borg, Sampras, Federer and Nadal could only dream of.

Federer's record from Wimbledon 2005 onwards:

Wimbledon 05: won
US Open 05: won
Australian Open 06: won
French Open 06: losing finalist
Wimbledon 06: won
US Open 06: won
Australian Open 07: won

I think by winning 6 slams out of 7 and losing in the final of the other one during that period, Federer probably could have dreamed about winning 4 slams in a row.

I will say this it is the same accomplishment of calendar year slam. Does it make that much of a real qualitative difference lets say if a player dominates July to July of the following year or January to January? He will still hold all the 4 slams at once and none of the other big modern goat candidates can claim that. It would put him into the conversation of the very best lets just say that for the moment. Either way if he wins RG its a massive accomplishment, a massive plus in the resume. Now if by some crazy chance he does win all 4 this year to add to the 2 he won last year in a row then we are talking about Goat debates. That would make it 6 straight slams, highly unlikely for sure. Lets just hope he wins one more at RG and then everything else this year would just be gravy for me as a Djoko fan.

socal1976 wrote:I will say this it is the same accomplishment of calendar year slam. .

LOL

It is Jeremy, you win 4 slams in a row and hold all 4 at the same time. It is qualitatively the same thing. I said it lacks the same mystique of doing it all in a calendar year. But only Laver and Budge in umpteen years of tennis have managed the feat, pretty nice record if you ask me.

yeah Soc I know, but there is a game with its traditional rules, and rules state that the grand slam is made in a calendar year.

If you want to talk instead of real substance, I still can't get you, why should it be so important to make 4 in a row, rather than, say, 6 over a two year period??

If you want to talk instead of real substance, I still can't get you, why should it be so important to make 4 in a row, rather than, say, 6 over a two year period??

Consistency, I guess, and the fact that you've won on 4 separate surfaces. Winning 6 over 2 years could mean that you haven't won one on clay.

let's say you have.......

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:yeah Soc I know, but there is a game with its traditional rules, and rules state that the grand slam is made in a calendar year.

If you want to talk instead of real substance, I still can't get you, why should it be so important to make 4 in a row, rather than, say, 6 over a two year period??

Simple because in the world of sports we are enamoured with win streaks. People who put together long unbeaten runs or streaks of championships. Maybe winning 6 out of 8 is more impressive to you. Well most people would say 4 in a row is more impressive because you don't get 2 misses. Lets just see what happens I don't want to count my chickens. But in my mind it is clear that 4 in a row is way superior in terms of streaks as 6 out of 8. Plus lets remember Novak has already won 4 out of the last 5. Already tops the best period of fed's dominance if he can pull off the trick at RG.

Each to their own - if you want him to be GOAT - then fine he will be the GOAT in your book. Others have Federer as their personal GOAT, others have Laver others have others.

If Djokovic wins the French Open then it would be good for him, and the sport will celebrate the achievement - the first man since Mr Laver to hold all four slam titles at the same time - which the ITF now define as a Grand Slam. If Nadal wins the sport will celebrate Nadal breaking Borgs record of most number of wins in the French Open by a man. If Federer wins the sport will celebrate the breaking of the most number of slam titles (singles, male), if Murray wins the sport will celebrate etc. This years French Open will be celebrated no matter who wins.

Each to their own - if you want him to be GOAT - then fine he will be the GOAT in your book. Others have Federer as their personal GOAT, others have Laver as their personal GOAT, others have Sampras, others have others, and others have no-body.

If Djokovic wins the French Open then it would be good for him, and the sport will celebrate the achievement - the first man since Mr Laver to hold all four slam titles at the same time - which the ITF now define as a Grand Slam.

If Nadal wins, the sport will celebrate Nadal breaking Borgs record of most number of wins in the French Open by a man.

If Federer wins, the sport will celebrate the breaking of the most number of slam titles (singles, male), if Murray wins the sport will celebrate etc. This years French Open will be celebrated no matter who wins.

What Djokovic has accomplished since the beginning 2011 is unprecedented and historical.

Holding 4 slams is an incredible achievement, we can distinguish between a CYGS and a GS, if there is a desire to be specific.

Federer's 06/07 as Chazfazzer points out is also an incredible achievement, so is Nadal's 2010.

All such are indeed worth celebrating for our sport, Tennis.

The GOAT debates will continue, till the sport of Tennis is dead.

PS: Don Budge had six-slams-in-a-row, a wonderful feat.

Win four in a row is great stuff, but no way is a guy with 6 Slams getting annointed GOAT. That's just seriously premature.

I don't think anyone is annointing him goat if he wins the french. But he would shoot up the ranks that is for sure.

bogbrush wrote:Win four in a row is great stuff, but no way is a guy with 6 Slams getting annointed GOAT. That's just seriously premature.

I disagree. Not only should he be anointed, he should be basted.

Would you be open to French Fries with that?

Nore Staat wrote:
If Djokovic wins the French Open then it would be good for him, and the sport will celebrate the achievement - the first man since Mr Laver to hold all four slam titles at the same time - which the ITF now define as a Grand Slam.

Please check your sources. The definition hasn't changed.

Everybody is, to an extent, right about this. Yes, a Djoko win at the French would give him all four trophies on his mantlepiece at once (as Tiger Woods described his non-calendar year slam) or a Serbia Slam (a la the "Serena Slam).
But no, it will NOT necessarily make him the GOAT - great achievement though it is. It will certainly not be unprecedented or historic - as it's been done before.
Djoko is carving a great name for himself. But come on guys, he's only about half-way through his career. OK, if he keeps this up he's gonna get an absolute fistful of GS. WHEN, or IF he does, then that will be the time to place him in the pantheon of greats.

There are so many achievements that are unprecedented and holding the 4 at once is only one of them. It's great but it's not GOAT. It can in essence bit a strike of luck. Imagine Djoko the very dominant player being injured, the number 2 can achieve just that as it can be done with 12 months. Winning 5 times the same tournament over 5 years leaves nothing to luck.

Besides, nowadays with all surfaces playing the same, winning on the 4 surfaces and holding the 4 means a little bit less than it woudl have meant since Borg time. As one can win with the very same game on the 4 surfaces, is it really a special achievement?

Federer has had 3 seasons of winning 3/4 slams, Djokovic just the 1.

To be honest Tenez when Federer was winning 3 slams in a season in 04/05/06 the speed of the game was much higher and less easier to defend astutely. Djokovic has been pretty lucky that even the so called "quick" hard courts are now really easy to defend and win on the backfoot. USO finals were getting much longer rallies than even the FO final, you can't really accept that as a true tennis fan, that what Nole is doing is not comparable to Federer, he hasn't been able to win the big tournaments on quick conditions.

You are preaching a converted JM.

Tenez. But weren't ALL the slams, save RG, on grass in days gone by? Gosh, reckon Henman would have fancied that and probably Pete and Rog might have won even more GS.
Take the point about the surfaces, though. Borg in particular performed wonders in winning the French and then so successfully switching to - then -fast grass at Wimbledon.

Socal will have a different view point to the ones made of course.

As to OP my view is that "After winning the FO this year Djokovic would be...... the French Open Champion and current holder of 4 slams".

An extraordinary achievement it would be, not as good as a Calendar Year slam because that only gives you one slug at each slam whilst Djoko would have had two chances at RG, but that's to state a factual truth and not to denigrate the extraordinary level of such an achievement.

GOAT - simply miles off at the moment, 6 slams and less than 52 weeks at No. 1 would mean that he is moving towards the upper echelons of greats but more longevity, more slams, and more perspective is needed before Djoko is even mentioned in the GOAT debate.

As far as I am concerned he could win every match left for him this year and he's still not yet the GOAT, that takes more than 2 great years, even if one is the best Open Era year ever.

Nole will be the GOAT if he wins all slams this year.

In the meantime, he'll remain only being the best

He's certainly the goat when playing against Spanish players, NITB, I enjoy watching the armada crumble to their knees when playing the Serbinator.

noleisthebest wrote:Nole will be the GOAT if he wins all slams this year.

Not so - that would still be hopelessly premature. How can someone who would have been No. 1 for 75 odd weeks, have won 8 slams and probably less than 40 tournaments and have defended 3 slams motor past the likes of Borg, Nadal, Federer, Laver and Sampras?

Interestingly enough he'd be level pegging on slams with Agassi and Lendl if he won all the remaining slams this year and when you look at the totality of each of those guy's careers, particularly the amazing consistency of Lendl and the effect he had on the way tennis is played, my view is that you'd struggle to say that Djoko had nudged past them (although you'd expect him to by the end of his career of course). Two great years a GOAT does not make, even if they are the greatest period of dominance in Open Era tennis - even so that's not the same thing as GOAT.

sirfredperry wrote:Tenez. But weren't ALL the slams, save RG, on grass in days gone by? Gosh, reckon Henman would have fancied that and probably Pete and Rog might have won even more GS.
Take the point about the surfaces, though. Borg in particular performed wonders in winning the French and then so successfully switching to - then -fast grass at Wimbledon.

Yes..and I have always said that before the arrival of the larger graphite frame around 1982, winning on grass or clay did not require such different skills. The FO/Wimby double was achieved many times before. It;s the new racquets allowing 2 very distinct types of games that made that feat (FO/Wimby double)nso special...and winning the 4 much more difficult than at Laver's time.

But nowadays...if you are fitter than the opposition, you are almost guaranteed to go far in all tournaments. That's what is very wrong in my view. It's probably the star system forcing it upon us as Barry says.

Given that Djoko's career is comparatively "young", it might be better to consider just how well he's done given the standard of the other top players.
I've alluded to this elsewhere, but few have had to battle thru so many tough matches gainst the top players to win their slams.
It could be that I've overlooked the slam match ups of the 80s when you had a succession of very fine players forming a particuarly strong top three or four. But Djoko has really "earned" his Slams.

barrystar wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Nole will be the GOAT if he wins all slams this year.

Not so - that would still be hopelessly premature. How can someone who would have been No. 1 for 75 odd weeks, have won 8 slams and probably less than 40 tournaments and have defended 3 slams motor past the likes of Borg, Nadal, Federer, Laver and Sampras?

Interestingly enough he'd be level pegging on slams with Agassi and Lendl if he won all the remaining slams this year and when you look at the totality of each of those guy's careers, particularly the amazing consistency of Lendl and the effect he had on the way tennis is played, my view is that you'd struggle to say that Djoko had nudged past them (although you'd expect him to by the end of his career of course). Two great years a GOAT does not make, even if they are the greatest period of dominance in Open Era tennis - even so that's not the same thing as GOAT.

Barry, I think we are about to establish two schools of GOATism: the Quality and Quantity one

Josiah Maiestas wrote:He's certainly the goat when playing against Spanish players, NITB, I enjoy watching the armada crumble to their knees when playing the Serbinator.

I know he's got almost an immaculate H2H against Italian players...no wonder poor, old Fognini couldn't face him at RG

noleisthebest wrote:

barrystar wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Nole will be the GOAT if he wins all slams this year.

Not so - that would still be hopelessly premature. How can someone who would have been No. 1 for 75 odd weeks, have won 8 slams and probably less than 40 tournaments and have defended 3 slams motor past the likes of Borg, Nadal, Federer, Laver and Sampras?

Interestingly enough he'd be level pegging on slams with Agassi and Lendl if he won all the remaining slams this year and when you look at the totality of each of those guy's careers, particularly the amazing consistency of Lendl and the effect he had on the way tennis is played, my view is that you'd struggle to say that Djoko had nudged past them (although you'd expect him to by the end of his career of course). Two great years a GOAT does not make, even if they are the greatest period of dominance in Open Era tennis - even so that's not the same thing as GOAT.

Barry, I think we are about to establish two schools of GOATism: the Quality and Quantity one

Don't think so - GOAT requires quality allied with quantity. Djoko's got the former, and would have it in spades if he ended the year holding all 4 slams, but quantity and longevity would still elude him. You are talking about GSPOD (greatest shorter period of dominance)

barrystar wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

barrystar wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Nole will be the GOAT if he wins all slams this year.

Not so - that would still be hopelessly premature. How can someone who would have been No. 1 for 75 odd weeks, have won 8 slams and probably less than 40 tournaments and have defended 3 slams motor past the likes of Borg, Nadal, Federer, Laver and Sampras?

Interestingly enough he'd be level pegging on slams with Agassi and Lendl if he won all the remaining slams this year and when you look at the totality of each of those guy's careers, particularly the amazing consistency of Lendl and the effect he had on the way tennis is played, my view is that you'd struggle to say that Djoko had nudged past them (although you'd expect him to by the end of his career of course). Two great years a GOAT does not make, even if they are the greatest period of dominance in Open Era tennis - even so that's not the same thing as GOAT.

Barry, I think we are about to establish two schools of GOATism: the Quality and Quantity one

Don't think so - GOAT requires quality allied with quantity. Djoko's got the former, and would have it in spades if he ended the year holding all 4 slams, but quantity and longevity would still elude him. You are talking about GSPOD (greatest shorter period of dominance)

Yes, but that's your own interpretation of something that actually hasn't been set in stone...

I actually asked this question:

"Who and when started/introduced GOAT debate?"

a while ago and never got an answer. My guess was that it was introduced after Federer got close to breaking Pete's record. Still don't know who coined the acronym, but would be interesting to find out.

Honestly, if Nole wins the FO he will officially join my list of "tennis greats' which should at least make socal happy

However he'll be some distance off being the GOAT, in fact much like Barry I'd still rank him below quite a few players even if he were to win all four slams this year. Two more years like last year and we can start talking GOATness.

@nitb

The "GOAT" debate is as old as the hills except it was either

(a) regarded as settled for most of the Open Era with Rod Laver being the man that pretty much all the top players saw as being at the top of the pile as memories of players like Vines, Budge, and Gonzalez faded, or

(b) entirely arid because comparisons were almost impossible without acknowledging total subjectivity looking over the changing eras of Amateur, Shamateur, Amater vs. Pro, and Early Open when there were no common benchmarks.

Slams could not be the measure of greatness for several reasons:

(a) Roy Emerson had the slam record and all his slams were Amateur Slams won in an era when he would have been handsomely beaten by several of the players concurrently on the pro-circuit.

(b) the Australian Open was a true ugly sister until the mid 1980's with reduced fields missing the top players

(c) there were several very big pro tournaments which were seen as hugely prestigious - slams have gained in cache over the last 30-40 years

When Sampras equalled and then passed Emerson's record, including with a 'clean' pair of Australian Open wins the debate re-opened somewhat as (a) Pete was a genuine challenger to the position of Laver and others and (b) slam counts started to be looked at more seriously again because they were a benchmark that had begun to be established over a longish period.

Then, quite extraordinarily, Fed's progress made it clear that Pete's record was going to be challenged within less than 10 years of it being set.

So, in the space of 10 years a debate which was largely settled or not entered into because of its acknowledged subjectivity had new life breathed into it and took on the vitality (boredom?) that it has today.

Barry,

"Slams could not be the measure of greatness for several reasons:"

Agreed, although, you start walking on very thin ice if you abandon slam count as the GOAT entitlement.

How you decide the GOATship status then leads to all these debates without the real answer.
Personally, due to tennis being a game that has evolved a lot during the years due to a lot of different factors (money, strings, court speed, medicine etc, etc), I'm much happier with the term TENNIS GREAT , unless you have a player who achieves something that is clearly head and shoulders above everyone before him.
Now what that achievement could be is the $64K question...

Nole is a SAWIP (Still a work in progress). Rafa is a OOBOAT (no, not that destructive WW2 thing but "one of the best of all time") Murray is a BBIOE (Best Briton in Open era).