They are hard courts in Melbourne

[Gangster Octopus]

Why will it seem fitting?

'Cos they're all shits, I assume.

[Satchmo Distel]

When Rafa got to 20 Federer fans were thinking of whatever excuse they could to claim, ludicrously, that their man was still better.

Whether Rafa or Djokivic ends up as the GOAT will be settled after their careers. I certainly hope it will be the former, though like you I fear it will be the latter.

It could happen before then if Novak overtakes Rafa and still has a couple of years of winning Slams after that. I think 30 was becoming a realistic target for Djokovic before he started shooting himself in the foot (disqualification from one probable winning tournament, deportation from another, after an inexplicable failure to perform at his usual level in the final of yet another, although I think this 2022 one was a higher standard of last 8 and won by a GOAT so would have been much harder).

[Tony C]

That pretence ended a while ago. Djokovic is the GOAT, much as it pains me to say.

I don’t quite get this. In terms of Grand Slam performance (which is presumably the yardstick here) Nadal is now statistically currently ahead which surely is enough to put him up top. If we factor in other considerations, for example a player whose range of sublime skills has essentially elevated the status of tennis as a sport then it can only be Federer. It seems to be broadly accepted that he was the best of the ‘big three’ when at his best.

Of course if your benchmark is stats then Djokovic can exceed Nadal in the future. But right now he’s not.

[anton pulisov]

Only one of the majors are on clay.

Imagine if either the US or Australian was also clay instead of hardcourt. There would be no GOAT discussion.

[Seven Saxon Kings]

If we factor in other considerations, for example a player whose range of sublime skills has essentially elevated the status of tennis as a sport then it can only be Federer. It seems to be broadly accepted that he was the best of the ‘big three’ when at his best.

I don't agree that this is broadly accepted at all. Personally I think the incredible returning skills and fitness of Nadal and Djokovic have done much more to elevate the game, with countless five hour classics and much less dominance of serve in men's tennis.

And I don't see at all how Federer was the best at his best. He won most of his slams while Djokovic and Nadal were still teenagers then as soon as they broke through, more often than not he lost to them.

[San Bernardhinault]

I think they could have an asterisk, if you're inclined to give asterisks.

Federer*

* won many of his tournaments in the early part of the GOAT era, and lots on grass which is a surface rarely played on

Nadal*

* won 60% of his slams on clay, which is rarely played on and on which the other two were weak so he basically got a free run at it.

Djokovic* **

* won most of his slams after 2014, by which time Federer was a spent force and Nadal was mostly focusing on Paris.
** also, an antivax fool

[Evariste Euler Gauss]

Only one of the majors are on clay.

Imagine if either the US or Australian was also clay instead of hardcourt. There would be no GOAT discussion.

So what? Why the hell should clay get two majors? It's a surface that many countries barely use for tennis. If the Australian Open were still on grass like it was before 1988, maybe Federer would have won more.

As has been said above, statistically on major wins Djokovic or Nadal will end up as the GOAT, we just don't know yet which one. I agree with Tony C about there being a decent case for it being Federer if you look at it in more qualitative terms.

Above, all, I find the whole debate, especially the contributions of strongly partisan participants from any side, really tedious. They're all unbelievably great players. And Djokovic is a wanker. That's about it.

[San Bernardhinault]

The astonishing thing about Rafa - to me - is his longevity. Federer plays a very elegant, smooth game that looks like the kind of tennis you could play until you're 40. Nadal plays a hyperactive, hyper-physical, high muscle, power and running game with all that torque and torsion and rotation. I always assumed that he'd trash his back and stop playing at the age of about 26, or go through repeated surgeries and recovering and be unable to play the way he expected to (a version of the Tiger Woods game). It's incredible that he's still doing it at 35.

[Seven Saxon Kings]

Where on earth do people get the idea that clay is barely played on? Without counting it must have something like a third of the ATP and WTA's events and it's the dominant surface in pretty much the whole of Europe, other than the British Isles, as well as South America. Probably accounting for the home countries of well over half the top 100, particularly on the men's side. There's no particular reason for hard to have the extra slam, and indeed the US Open has been on both clay and grass in the past.

[Seven Saxon Kings]

The astonishing thing about Rafa - to me - is his longevity. Federer plays a very elegant, smooth game that looks like the kind of tennis you could play until you're 40. Nadal plays a hyperactive, hyper-physical, high muscle, power and running game with all that torque and torsion and rotation. I always assumed that he'd trash his back and stop playing at the age of about 26, or go through repeated surgeries and recovering and be unable to play the way he expected to (a version of the Tiger Woods game). It's incredible that he's still doing it at 35.

Very true and a similarly physical style did for Murray by 30. Also worth noting he was playing at a really high level (ie getting to finals and therefore playing tons of matches) from his teens, whereas Federer didn't reach that level until he was two or three years older

[multipleman78]

Djokovic is the GOAT for many reasons. He is the only man to win all Masters events and end of season event. 20 Grand Slams and counting. Held all 4 at once. Most weeks at number 1. Head to head leads over his rivals.

He is behind in the Slam race due to his own behaviour. Vaccine in this one, hits a line judge in another, won 4 slams in a row then appointed a spiritual guru and left Becker. Of course, no guarantee his wins all of the matches after those events but I think it's fair to say he wins a few.

[Seven Saxon Kings]

We'll see after their careers, Rafa has won Olympic gold which Djokovic hasn't. The World Tour Finals is clearly a gap though, he obviously doesn't have a good indoor record.

Nadal and Federer have both missed or early exited a lot more tournaments due to injury, which seems a much more legitimate reason than bad/stupid behaviour.

[Tony C]

I was hugely impressed by Medvedev’s post final interview. Humble and gracious throughout what must have been a tough time for him. He made some reference to the hostility of the Melbourne crowd towards him wrapped up in a broad anecdote about the love of the game but didn’t come across as self pitying. It can’t have been easy playing in a cauldron of a stadium where all but a couple of voices were baying for you to lose.

[anton pulisov]

So what? Why the hell should clay get two majors? It's a surface that many countries barely use for tennis. If the Australian Open were still on grass like it was before 1988, maybe Federer would have won more.

I've just always found it odd that there are three different surfaces for four majors. A hardcourt specialist is always gonna benefit in the current setup.

If two were grass then Federer would have the edge. If two were clay then Nadal would have what, 32 majors?

For what it's worth. Federer is my favourite because he seems to be the least athletic of the three, and therefore relies more on skill and reading the game. And he also seems to choke more often in finals than the other two, which makes him seem more human. Kind of like how Zizou headbutting somebody in the World Cup final in his final game actually sealed his legend status.