Djokovic, Nadal or Federer: Who is the GOAT?

As in all sports, tennis fans get obsessive about determining the GOAT — the Greatest of All Time.

I most enjoy watching Roger Federer for the same reasons many other tennis fans do. His fluid and graceful style made his game look effortless. And as someone too prone to silly outbursts over minor things, I also admired his (mostly) calm demeanor on the court.

He won 20 Grand Slam titles and had an impressive stretch of dominance from 2004 to 2007, and his 2017 comeback from knee surgery is the stuff of fairly tales.

But is Roger Federer the GOAT? Was he the best player ever?

Rafael Nadal won more Grand Slams and dominated the French Open in a way no one ever has or likely ever will again.

And then there's Novak Djokovic. With 24 Grand Slams — the most ever for any male player, 10 Australian Opens (and almost an 11th in 2026) and nearly all other important records that get tracked, he certainly earns the moniker of "most accomplished" player of all time.

But again, does that make him the best?

What about Rod Laver?

In the Open Era (since 1968), Laver is the only one man to pull off the Calendar Slam, winning all four majors in the same calendar year. And he's the only man to do it twice, although the first was in 1962, prior to the Open Era.

Yet, at least partially due to recency bias, today, few would argue for Rod Laver as the GOAT.

And that's just the men. What about Serena Williams and many other legendary female tennis players? Serena won more Grand Slams than Nadal and Federer. Is she a contender for the GOAT?

What's the Standard for the 'Best'?

In terms of tennis, fans and sports analysts could make their arguments for who is the best based on a wide array of criteria, some objectively measurable, others more subjective.

Who won the most Slams? Who spent the most weeks as World No. 1? Who had the most year-end World No. 1 finishes? Who most dominated their own era during their peak? Who had the biggest impact on the sport? Who had the biggest impact on culture beyond just sports?

Determining what standard to use is critical to determining who is "the best."

There's a great discussion on this topic on the Pints With Jack podcast in the All Values are Subjective...Except Mine! episode. (If you're wondering about the name of the podcast, C.S. Lewis was called Jack by his friends.)

While it has nothing to do with tennis players like Djokovic, Nadal, Federer or Williams, this talk focuses on distinguishing between objective and subjective standards.

In the episode, the host and guests dig into concepts addressed in the works of C.S. Lewis, particularly The Abolition of Man, Mere Christianity and Till We Have Faces.

As the discussion delves into multiple times, it's deceptively difficult to distinguish between objective and subjective statements.

Is Everything Subjective?

We often make statements that we think are objective, but they're actually completely subjective.

Here's one example, as pointed out in the podcast: "Everything is subjective."

Andrew, the guest on the show, noted that anyone making that statement is actually saying, "I'm asking you to accept that statement as being objectively true."

He also mentioned a psychologist who once said, "every person's truth is equally valid." Andrew replied by asking, "what if my truth is that your truth is wrong?" He pointed out that what the psychologist was really saying was, "please accept my truth as more valid than everybody else's."

In other words, it all boils down to this: "All values are subjective — except mine!"

As the C.S. Lewis quote above states, it is exceptionally difficult to "avoid having a special standard" for yourself.

So just as with trying to decide the best movie or the funniest comedian, good luck trying to determine if Djokovic, Nadal, Federer or Williams is objectively and definitively the greatest of all time.

"How difficult it is to avoid having a special standard for oneself."

— C.S. Lewis