[Kilban]

Here I would like to start maybe the most crucial debate when it comes to the GOAT status (except for playstyle which IMO makes the GOAT debate relative):

Nadal absolutely dominating RG, more than Djokovic and Federer dominate hard court and grass: does it make Nadal better or is the sign that clay is such a peculiar surface it should not be considered as important as the other ones together?

I know Nadal fans will gently (or not) tell me to f*** off and I understand that risk but I genuinely want everybody to adress this debate rationnally.

To me, it has always been pretty obvious that once a player is so ahead in a surface, there is less competition for this player, so in a way once he made all the efforts to acquire this invincible status, Nadal can "rely" on it - even though he works hard too, that's not the point.

Whereas Federer and Djokovic even if they wanted to specialize in grass or HC (they did), they couldn't dominate as much on these surface because a lot of players are actually comfortable on them, it's not as peculiar as clay hence competition is every round, everywhere.

Think about the amount of players automatically disqualified when talking about RG contenders. This amount is way bigger than the equivalent for HC and grass.

 

[BodyServe]

Here I would like to start maybe the most crucial debate when it comes to the GOAT status (except for playstyle which IMO makes the GOAT debate relative):

Nadal absolutely dominating RG, more than Djokovic and Federer dominate hard court and grass: does it make Nadal better or is the sign that clay is such a peculiar surface it should not be considered as important as the other ones together?

I know Nadal fans will gently (or not) tell me to f*** off and I understand that risk but I genuinely want everybody to adress this debate rationnally.

To me, it has always been pretty obvious that once a player is so ahead in a surface, there is less competition for this player, so in a way once he made all the efforts to acquire this invincible status, Nadal can "rely" on it - even though he works hard too, that's not the point.

Whereas Federer and Djokovic even if they wanted to specialize in grass or HC (they did), they couldn't dominate as much on these surface because a lot of players are actually comfortable on them, it's not as peculiar as clay hence competition is every round, everywhere.

Think about the amount of players automatically disqualified when talking about RG contenders. This amount is way bigger than the equivalent for HC and grass.

I somewhat disagree with grass, there are many players automatically disqualified from it. Actually i would say more so than clay. Chances of upset are lower on clay as rallies are longer and there is far less importance on the serve. In the end i do think grass is hardest to master but it has been easier in last decades with slower conditions and sometimes even higher bounces. I believe in last few season during hot editions the bounce was even higher than at this year FO (who would believe that?)

I will repeat once more, the medium paced hard court used at the AO (plexicushion) when they didn't make it overly fast like in 2017 was the most neutral surface that exist with all playing styles on equal footing. It is in some way where you can tell the true level of a player.

 

[Hamdam]

it's all about age. RG is known as 'youth slam'. winning it after 30 is deserves some respect.

 

[BodyServe]

it's all about age. RG is known as 'youth slam'. winning it after 30 is deserves some respect.

Haven't people realise that for some obscure reasons, age has been close to irrelevant with some players... Rafael Nadal looked like a 20 years old picking up these drop shots yesterday. It goes on..