Rafael Nadal, Roger Federer or Novak Djokovic: who is the GOAT?

Your resident sport-nuts Nick McGrath and Riley Krause have taken it upon themselves to try and settle the debate once and for all.

First up we've got McGrath's take on why the Spanish Bull is the GOAT.

Rafael Nadal, the greatest tennis player in history.

If not before Sunday's epic Australian Open final victory over Daniil Medvedev, it's a title the legendary Spaniard can now comfortably claim as his after securing an historic 21st grand slam title.

At 35 years of age, coming off injury, down two sets, without answers with the Russian wall down the other end able to hit everything back ... how Rafa managed to muster up enough fight, over a five-and-a-half hour epic, to come back and win was immense.

The fact he did it with that record 21st slam title on the line gives the win even more gravitas, and certainly adds plenty of weight to Nadal's claim on that GOAT crown.

Not convinced? You should be. But just in case you need a little bit more arm-twisting, sink your teeth into this. The win edged him ahead of fellow greats Roger Federer (20) and Novak Djokovic (20) on the list of career majors.

It's a big box ticked in this debate. But that alone doesn't mean he takes the GOAT title - let's face it, Novak will likely sit on top of that list by the end of his career, and are we really going to think Djokovic is the best ever because of it?

A pony-tailed Federer first won a slam in 2003, the first of his eight Wimbledon crowns. He basically had a clear run for two years before Nadal landed on the scene - and Fed made the most of it. By the time Nadal won his first major title, Federer had four and it was mid-2005. By the end of that year, Federer had six major trophies and Nadal still had that lone French crown. It's a fair head start.

Then Djokovic emerged. He won his first grand slam in 2008. Didn't win another until 2011, and has since been pretty prolific. But as the youngest of the big three it's likely the Djoker will enjoy a couple of years without both Nadal and Federer in the draw, that same clean air the Swiss maestro enjoyed at the start of his career.

It's clean air Nadal has never had. He's won 21 grand slam titles and invariably either Fed, or Novak, or both, have been on the other side of the net.

He's made 29 grand slam finals. Winning 21 times. It's a better winning rate than any of the players in this argument.

On his preferred surface of clay, he's the undisputed king. He's win-loss record at Roland Garros stands at 105-3 over 17 years. It's surely the most impressive record in sport?

There's 13 French Open crowns. It'll never be topped. And when you think about it, Novak's success has been largely on hard courts (winning 12 titles), where there's two major titles on the offering. Federer, too, has enjoyed strong success at both the Australian Open and US Open (winning 11 titles). What would Nadal's record be like if there were two grand slams on clay?

The GOAT claim wouldn't even be a discussion. All hail, the King of Clay.

But Krause isn't so certain, as he explains ...

When you think of the Rafael Nadal, your mind immediately goes to "The King of Clay". But a GOAT on one surface does not make you the best of all time across the board.

Instead that honour goes to the Swiss Maestro himself, Roger Federer.

The Fed-Express has won a record eight Wimbledon titles, without a doubt the most prestigious tennis title in the world (and if you feel like arguing with that, take a look back to the flowing tributes Ash Barty received when she won last year's event).

But Federer is far from a one-hit wonder like his Spanish counterpart. He has found success at the the US Open (five titles to Rafa's four), the Australian Open (six titles to two) and even has a win at Roland Garros for good measure.

Now you might want to say that Djokovic enjoys a similar spread of titles, but I believe he was bolstered by a slightly ageing Federer and a lack of other stars in gaining a few of his majors, so he sits third in this debate for me.

But if we truly want to assess someone's greatness, we should look at their peak and not their longevity (aka the Michael Jordan over LeBron James argument).

Federer has spent 310 weeks as the number one ranked men's tennis player in the world, despite not having won a grand slam since all the way back in 2018. This puts him second behind only Djokovic who as I have previously said, has benefited more from a weaker crop of players than anything else.

What makes Federer stand out in this specific argument is that he spent 237 week in a row atop the leader board. That is nearly five full years of being the best of the best without disruption.

To put that into perspective, Djokovic's best run was 122 weeks, while Nadal is 12^th on the all time list at 56...that's 19 weeks behind Lleyton Hewitt and nobody is bringing up his name in these debates.

Nadal is getting a lot of love right now (and with good reason) because of last week's Aussie Open title. But I think people like my colleague McGrath are too caught up in the moment.

Had we had this discussion a month ago, I think you'd be much harder pressed to make the argument for Rafa. He may have the most titles, but Roger's peak was better than anyone's I've ever seen and will likely ever see again. The Fed-Express delivers.

Our journalists work hard to provide local, up-to-date news to the community. This is how you can continue to access our trusted content: