PDA

View Full Version : How can Nadal be a GOAT candidate if...


Pages : [1] 2

Mike Sams
10-01-2012, 09:26 PM
...he lost every match he ever played against his greatest rival Federer at every World Tour Finals meeting since 2006? They met 4 times and Nadal lost all 4, having only won 1 set.:shock:
Doesn't a GOAT candidate have to show at least SOME skill indoors as opposed to just winning all clay all the time and having never successfully defended a non-clay title in his entire 10+ years on the tour? Furthermore, only having won 5 hardcourt Masters titles and 4 non-clay Slams? And getting blasted off the court by his main rival in every indoors meeting? :-?
Obviously Nadal wants more clay tournaments. Why no demand for INDOOR tournaments? :lol: Oh yeah, I know why...
A little hard on the knees mixed with the fact that he has no game to compete with Federer indoors so why bother eh? :lol:

TahoeTennis
10-01-2012, 10:52 PM
Quite simply because Nadal leads the GOAT
in Grand Slam finals: 4-2

and Fed's never beat him at the French.

above bored
10-01-2012, 11:37 PM
Nadal isn't a GOAT candidate.

beast of mallorca
10-01-2012, 11:48 PM
Nadal made Federer cry like a baby girl.......that made him a GOAT candidate. :twisted:

A troll thread deserves a troll post :)

reversef
10-02-2012, 12:21 AM
...he lost every match he ever played against his greatest rival Federer at every World Tour Finals meeting since 2006? They met 4 times and Nadal lost all 4, having only won 1 set.:shock:
Doesn't a GOAT candidate have to show at least SOME skill indoors as opposed to just winning all clay all the time and having never successfully defended a non-clay title in his entire 10+ years on the tour? Furthermore, only having won 5 hardcourt Masters titles and 4 non-clay Slams? And getting blasted off the court by his main rival in every indoors meeting? :-?
Obviously Nadal wants more clay tournaments. Why no demand for INDOOR tournaments? :lol: Oh yeah, I know why...
A little hard on the knees mixed with the fact that he has no game to compete with Federer indoors so why bother eh? :lol:
Well, as we all know, Nadal can't play tennis. Here we are: the Goat (swiss cheese) is mentally challenged and has never found the solution to constantly beat an inapt tennis player in slams. In the process, he gave that inapt tennis player the opportunity to become one of the best of all time. Poor tennis fans, that idiot named Roger Federer made so much damage. He completely ruined the game.

The-Champ
10-02-2012, 12:30 AM
...he lost every match he ever played against his greatest rival Federer at every World Tour Finals meeting since 2006? They met 4 times and Nadal lost all 4, having only won 1 set.:shock:
Doesn't a GOAT candidate have to show at least SOME skill indoors as opposed to just winning all clay all the time and having never successfully defended a non-clay title in his entire 10+ years on the tour? Furthermore, only having won 5 hardcourt Masters titles and 4 non-clay Slams? And getting blasted off the court by his main rival in every indoors meeting?
Obviously Nadal wants more clay tournaments. Why no demand for INDOOR tournaments? :lol: Oh yeah, I know why...
A little hard on the knees mixed with the fact that he has no game to compete with Federer indoors so why bother eh? :lol:


:cry:Don't give up Mike, you'll find a job soon. Try to get more letters of recommendation from professionals and former professors etc. Strengthen your application letter and update your CV. When you go to job interviews, don't forget to take a shower beforehand, brush your teeth, get a haircut. Finally, make them want you by telling them positive aspects about yourself that set you apart from other candidates. Don't give up, your time will come!

beast of mallorca
10-02-2012, 12:41 AM
:cry:Don't give up Mike, you'll find a job soon. Try to get more letters of recommendation from professionals and former professors etc. Strengthen your application letter and update your CV. When you go to job interviews, don't forget to take a shower beforehand, brush your teeth, get a haircut. Finally, make them want you by telling them positive aspects about yourself that set you apart from other candidates. Don't give up, your time will come!

That's a big BURN you gave there. :twisted::twisted:

The Bawss
10-02-2012, 12:55 AM
:cry:Don't give up Mike, you'll find a job soon. Try to get more letters of recommendation from professionals and former professors etc. Strengthen your application letter and update your CV. When you go to job interviews, don't forget to take a shower beforehand, brush your teeth, get a haircut. Finally, make them want you by telling them positive aspects about yourself that set you apart from other candidates. Don't give up, your time will come!

Hahaha sick burn!

P.S: Moot as Nadal isn't a GOAT candidate.

ledwix
10-02-2012, 01:43 AM
More importantly Nadal needs more years at #1. He is rivaled by Djokovic and Hewitt in that category now, and in weeks as well. And having zero WTF titles looks pretty weak no matter how long he can milk a weak clay era and rack up 70% of his slams at a single event.

kragster
10-02-2012, 05:34 AM
:cry:Don't give up Mike, you'll find a job soon. Try to get more letters of recommendation from professionals and former professors etc. Strengthen your application letter and update your CV. When you go to job interviews, don't forget to take a shower beforehand, brush your teeth, get a haircut. Finally, make them want you by telling them positive aspects about yourself that set you apart from other candidates. Don't give up, your time will come!

Pure gold lol. I noticed you did not ask Mike Sam to work on his public speaking skills. Do you think he has that covered? Or is that phase 2 of recovery?

RAFA2005RG
10-02-2012, 05:45 AM
OP, does GOAT exist? I keep checking the ATP site and can't find the GOAT rankings anywhere.

Hood_Man
10-02-2012, 05:48 AM
Then Who Was Goat?

kiki
10-02-2012, 05:50 AM
Then Who Was Goat?

The GOAT debate was already close back in 1969.

Sentinel
10-02-2012, 06:06 AM
OP, does GOAT exist? I keep checking the ATP site and can't find the GOAT rankings anywhere.

I am sure TMF can help you out in that respect.

cknobman
10-02-2012, 06:27 AM
This thread should not exist because Nadal is not a GOAT candidate.

beast of mallorca
10-02-2012, 06:34 AM
This thread should not exist because Nadal is not a GOAT candidate.

It's your co Fedfans who keeps on making threads about it, dude.
Insecure much ? :-?

SoBad
10-02-2012, 06:37 AM
Oh, stoned Rafa rolled into some indoor Christmas exhibition in a wheelchair and lost a match? Ban him right away from the hall of fame, I say...:lol:

cknobman
10-02-2012, 06:37 AM
It's your co Fedfans who keeps on making threads about it, dude.
Insecure much ? :-?

LOL insecure about what, Nadal?

No I am perfectly fine with Nadal and what he has accomplished and if he achieves enough then I will be perfectly fine considering him as a GOAT candidate.

As it stands now he has not achieved enough. He is at the upper end of Tier 2 status with Borg.

RF20Lennon
10-02-2012, 06:38 AM
At OP dunno yet when is he playing his first poker match?

beast of mallorca
10-02-2012, 06:41 AM
LOL insecure about what, Nadal?

No I am perfectly fine with Nadal and what he has accomplished and if he achieves enough then I will be perfectly fine considering him as a GOAT candidate.

As it stands now he has not achieved enough. He is at the upper end of Tier 2 status with Borg.

I completely agree with you there mate. But *******s like Mike appears to be affected much by what Nadal has done, hence all these troll threads. Do you not agree ?

Cup8489
10-02-2012, 06:43 AM
OP, does GOAT exist? I keep checking the ATP site and can't find the GOAT rankings anywhere.

The website misspelled it. Here it is. (http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Roger-Federer.aspx)

Cup8489
10-02-2012, 06:44 AM
I completely agree with you there mate. But *******s like Mike appears to be affected much by what Nadal has done, hence all these troll threads. Do you not agree ?

I think mike just enjoys trolling, period.

Mike Sams
10-02-2012, 07:31 AM
:cry:Don't give up Mike, you'll find a job soon. Try to get more letters of recommendation from professionals and former professors etc. Strengthen your application letter and update your CV. When you go to job interviews, don't forget to take a shower beforehand, brush your teeth, get a haircut. Finally, make them want you by telling them positive aspects about yourself that set you apart from other candidates. Don't give up, your time will come!

Don't worry about me, Champ. :lol: We're all free to discuss the sport we enjoy. No need to get cute.:)

Mike Sams
10-02-2012, 07:34 AM
I think mike just enjoys trolling, period.

My best thread yet is the "Is Nadal a transitional champion?"
That really had the place going :lol:

Nah, I'm just having fun. I personally rate Nadal highly. Definitely the best clay courter ever. Just haven't been happy with the homogenization of surfaces not to mention all the excuses that go around with every loss with these top players. I personally think Nadal would never bring up anything about his knees if he had beaten Rosol. Only in losses do they have excuses. Most players are playing injured, that much we know.

TMF
10-02-2012, 08:24 AM
The GOAT debate was already close back in 1969.

That was in 1969, sorry but time doesn't stand still. Like Mark Spitz, Laver is not the greatest based on the overall fans perception/opinion.

Many experts from the tennis channel have analyze/study all the great player and have come up with this list:

GREATEST MALE TENNIS PLAYERS

1 Roger Federer
2 Rod Laver
3 Pete Sampras
4 Rafael Nadal
5 Bjorn Borg
6 Don Budge
7 Andre Agassi
8 John McEnroe
9 Jimmy Connors
10 Bill Tilden
11 Roy Emerson
12 Ivan Lendl
13 Ken Rosewall
14 Boris Becker
15 Fred Perry
16 Stefan Edberg
17 Arthur Ashe
18 John Newcombe
19 Lew Hoad
20 Mats Wilander
21 Jack Kramer
22 Pancho Gonzales
23 Rene Lacoste
24 Novak Djokovic
25 Guillermo Vilas
26 Jim Courier
27 Henri Cochet
28 Jean Borotha
29 Frank Sedgman
30 Ilie Nastase
31 Tony Trabert
32 Jack Crawford
33 Manuel Santana
34 Guga Kuerten
35 Stan Smith
36 Neale Fraser
37 Lleyton Hewitt
38 Ellsworth Vines
39 Pancho Segura
40 Bobby Riggs
41 Fred Stolle
42 Patrick Rafter
43 Gottfried Von Cramm
44 Jaroslave Drobny
45 Tony Roche
46 William Renshaw
47 Marat Safin
48 Vic Seixas
49 Yevgeny Kafelnikov
50 Jan Kodes
51 Norman Brookes
52 Yannick Noah
53 Tony Wilding
54 Bill Johnston
55 Nicola Pietrangeli
56 Andy Roddick
57 Thomas Muster
58 Manuel Orantes
59 Pat Cash
60 Henry Austin
61 Michael Chang[/QUOTE]

TMF
10-02-2012, 08:26 AM
I am sure TMF can help you out in that respect.OP, does GOAT exist? I keep checking the ATP site and can't find the GOAT rankings anywhere.


Gladly.

Most GS titles
1. Roger Federer 17*
2. Pete Sampras 14
3. Björn Borg 11
= Rafael Nadal 11*
5. Jimmy Connors 8
= Ivan Lendl 8
= Andre Agassi 8
8. John McEnroe 7
= Mats Wilander 7
10. Stefan Edberg 6
= Boris Becker 6

GS finals
1. Roger Federer 24*
2. Ivan Lendl 19
3. Pete Sampras 18
4. Björn Borg 16
= Rafael Nadal 16*
6. Jimmy Connors 15
= Andre Agassi 15
8. John McEnroe 11
= Mats Wilander 11
= Stefan Edberg 11

Consecutive GS finals
1. Roger Federer 10
2. Roger Federer 8
3. Rafael Nadal 5
4. Andre Agassi 4
= Rod Laver 4
= Novak Djokovic 4
7. Jimmy Connors 3
= Björn Borg 3
= Björn Borg 3
= Björn Borg 3
= Ivan Lendl 3
= John McEnroe 3
= Ivan Lendl 3
= Ivan Lendl 3
= Mats Wilander 3
= Jim Courier 3
= Jim Courier 3
= Pete Sampras 3
= Rafael Nadal 3


GS semi-finals
1. Roger Federer 32*
2. Jimmy Connors 31
3. Ivan Lendl 28
4. Andre Agassi 26
5. Pete Sampras 23
6. John McEnroe 19
= Stefan Edberg 19
8. Boris Becker 18
9. Björn Borg 17
= Rafael Nadal 16*

Consecutive GS semi-finals
1. Roger Federer 23
2. Ivan Lendl 10
3. Novak Djokovic 9*
4. Ivan Lendl 6
= Nadal 6
6. Novak Djokovic 5
= Boris Becker 5
8. Roger Federer 4*
= Rod Laver 4
= Tony Roche 4
= John McEnroe 4
= Andre Agassi 4
= Jim Courer 4
= Nadal 4
= Andy Murray 4

GS quarter-finals
1. Jimmy Connors 41
2. Roger Federer 38*
3. Agassi 36
4. Ivan Lendl 34
5. Pete Sampras 29
6. John McEnroe 26
= Stefan Edberg 26
8. Boris Becker 23
= Rafael Nadal 23*
9. Novak Djokovic 22*
10. Björn Borg 21

Consecutive GS quarter-finals
1. Roger Federer 34*
2. Ivan Lendl 14
= Novak Djokovic 14*
4. Rafael Nadal 11
5. Pete Sampras 10
6. Ivan Lendl 7
= Mats Wilander 7
= Andy Murray 7
9. Andre Agassi 6
= Rafael Nadal 6

All Four Slams Per Year
Rod Laver 1969

Three Slams Per Year
Jimmy Connors 1974
Mats Wilander 1988
Roger Federer 2004
Roger Federer 2006
Roger Federer 2007
Rafael Nadal 2010
Novak Djokovic 2011


All Four Finals Per Year
Roger Federer 2006
Roger Federer 2007
Roger Federer 2009
Rod Laver 1969

All Four Semi-finals Per Year
Rod Laver 1969
Ivan Lendl 1987
Roger Federer 2005
Roger Federer 2006
Roger Federer 2007
Roger Federer 2008
Roger Federer 2009
Rafael Nadal 2008
Novak Djokovic 2011
Andy Murray 2011

Most consecutive matches won at one Grand Slam event:
1. Björn Borg (Wimbledon), 41
2. Roger Federer (Wimbledon), 40
= Roger Federer (US Open), 40
4. Pete Sampras (Wimbledon), 31
= Rafael Nadal (French Open), 31

Most consecutive Slams played:
1. Wayne Ferreira 56
2. Stefan Edberg 54
3. Roger Federer 52*
4. Fabrice Santoro 46
5. Dominik Hrbatý 44
6. Feliciano Lopez 43*
7. Tommy Robredo 41
8. David Ferrer 40*
9. Mark Woodforde 37
=. Jonas Björkman 37

Most Grand Slam match wins
2. Roger Federer 248*
2. Jimmy Connors 233
3. Andre Agassi 224
4. Ivan Lendl 222
5. Pete Sampras 204

Other Stuff:

Year-End Championships
1. Roger Federer 6*
2. Ivan Lendl 5
= Pete Sampras 5
4. Ilie Nastase 3
= John McEnroe 3
= Boris Becker 3

Most Weeks at #1
1. Roger Federer 297+*
2. Pete Sampras 286
3. Ivan Lendl 270
4. Jimmy Connors 268
5. John McEnroe 170
6. Björn Borg 109
7. Rafael Nadal 102*
8. Andre Agassi 101
9. Lleyton Hewitt 80
10. Stefan Edberg 72

Consecutive Weeks at #1
1. Roger Federer (1) 237
2. Jimmy Connors (1) 160
3. Ivan Lendl (1) 157
4. Pete Sampras (1) 102
5. Jimmy Connors (2) 84
6. Pete Sampras (2) 82
7. Ivan Lendl (2) 80
8. Lleyton Hewitt (1) 75
9. John McEnroe (1) 58
10. Rafael Nadal (1) 56

Year End #1
1. Sampras 6
2. Federer 5*
3. Borg 4
4. Connors 3
= Lendl 3
= McEnroe 3


Highest Season Winning Percentage
1. John McEnroe (1984) .965 82–3
2. Jimmy Connors (1974) .959 93–4
3. Roger Federer (2005) .953 81–4
4. Roger Federer (2006) .948 92–5
5. Björn Borg (1979) .933 84–6
6. Ivan Lendl (1986) .925 74–6
7. Roger Federer (2004) .925 74–6
8. Ivan Lendl (1985) .923 84–7
9. Ivan Lendl (1982) .922 106–9
10. Björn Borg (1980) .921 70–6
= Novak Djokovic (2011) 0.921 70-6

Most ATP Titles
1. Jimmy Connors 109
2. Ivan Lendl 94
3. John McEnroe 77
4. Roger Federer 75*
5. Björn Borg 64
= Pete Sampras 64
7. Guillermo Vilas 62
8. Andre Agassi 60
9. Sampras 6
= Rafael Nadal 50*
10. Boris Becker 49

Consecutive Match Win Streak
1. Björn Borg 49 1978
2. Björn Borg 48 1979–80
3. Guillermo Vilas 46 1977
4. Ivan Lendl 44 1981–82
5. Novak Djokovic 43 2010–11
6. John McEnroe 42 1984
7. Roger Federer 41 2006–07
8. Thomas Muster 35 1995
= Roger Federer 35 2005
10.Jimmy Connors 33 1974

RF20Lennon
10-02-2012, 08:40 AM
Roger "GOAT" Federer

Russeljones
10-02-2012, 08:41 AM
TMF just a footnote, couple of Nadal's streaks ended this year.

NadalAgassi
10-02-2012, 08:44 AM
Nadal isnt the GOAT at this point but your reasoning is stupid. Federer is 0-5 vs Nadal at the French Open which is alot bigger event than the WTF which isnt even a slam. Federer is even 0-2 vs Nadal at the Australian Open as well. By your logic Federer could never be the GOAT either.

RF20Lennon
10-02-2012, 08:46 AM
Nadal isnt the GOAT at this point but your reasoning is stupid. Federer is 0-5 vs Nadal at the French Open which is alot bigger event than the WTF which isnt even a slam. Federer is even 0-2 vs Nadal at the Australian Open as well. By your logic Federer could never be the GOAT either.

Who's post are you arguing against?

purple-n-gold
10-02-2012, 08:47 AM
Nadal isn't a GOAT candidate.

this...10vamos'

NadalAgassi
10-02-2012, 08:47 AM
That was in 1969, sorry but time doesn't stand still. Like Mark Spitz, Laver is not the greatest based on the overall fans perception/opinion.

Many experts from the tennis channel have analyze/study all the great player and have come up with this list:

GREATEST MALE TENNIS PLAYERS

1 Roger Federer
2 Rod Laver
3 Pete Sampras
4 Rafael Nadal
5 Bjorn Borg
6 Don Budge
7 Andre Agassi
8 John McEnroe
9 Jimmy Connors
10 Bill Tilden
11 Roy Emerson
12 Ivan Lendl
13 Ken Rosewall
14 Boris Becker
15 Fred Perry
16 Stefan Edberg
17 Arthur Ashe
18 John Newcombe
19 Lew Hoad
20 Mats Wilander
21 Jack Kramer
22 Pancho Gonzales


The bolded parts already eliminate any credability the list had. Emerson 11 spots higher than Pancho Gonzales, hahahaha

Shaolin
10-02-2012, 09:02 AM
The bolded parts already eliminate any credability the list had. Emerson 11 spots higher than Pancho Gonzales, hahahaha



Not to mention they ranked Renshaw at 46...I'd put him at least at 44!

Dedans Penthouse
10-02-2012, 10:54 AM
Gladly.

1. Roger Federer 17*
GS finals

1. Roger Federer 24*

1. Roger Federer 10
2. Roger Federer 8

1. Roger Federer 32*


1. Roger Federer 23

2. Roger Federer 38*


1. Roger Federer 34*


Roger Federer 2004
Roger Federer 2006
Roger Federer 2007

YAWN......





Hey TMF, you forgot this one:

HEAD-TO-HEAD mano-a-mano:

THE BITER: 18 - 64.3%
THE Weeper: 10 - 35.7%

Ouch!....beatdown-city!



"He prances in GOLD.."
http://blog.shopittome.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/federer-lame.jpg



"He cries in WHITE.."
http://cdn.novafm.com.au/sites/default/files/styles/gallery_image/public/gallery/photo/Roger-Federer-103317.jpg



"He weeps in BLUE.."
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01250/roger_federer_1250932c.jpg



"But is never uptight.."

* sigh * ..... "ooh, I just love my fanboys!!!!"

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17qhwqcdjgl70jpg/xlarge.jpg

Dedans Penthouse
10-02-2012, 11:03 AM
"18-to-10....BITE ME!"

http://media.lehighvalleylive.com/sports_impact/photo/rafael-nadal-wins-wimbledon-b231324a68b5c241_large.jpg



:twisted:

Surfer Rosa Rack
10-02-2012, 11:11 AM
Hey TMF, you forgot this one:

HEAD-TO-HEAD mano-a-mano:

THE BITER: 18 - 64.3%
THE Weeper: 10 - 35.7%

Ouch!....beatdown-city!



Listen you idiot, cut it out!!! Roger's the GOAT and there is nothing you or any other *******s can say about it!

The greatest!!! Do you understand you stupid ****?

Hood_Man
10-02-2012, 11:16 AM
Dedans, you make me squeal :lol:

beast of mallorca
10-02-2012, 11:23 AM
Hey TMF, you forgot this one:

HEAD-TO-HEAD mano-a-mano:

THE BITER: 18 - 64.3%
THE Weeper: 10 - 35.7%

Ouch!....beatdown-city!



"He prances in GOLD.."
http://blog.shopittome.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/federer-lame.jpg



"He cries in WHITE.."
http://cdn.novafm.com.au/sites/default/files/styles/gallery_image/public/gallery/photo/Roger-Federer-103317.jpg



"He weeps in BLUE.."
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01250/roger_federer_1250932c.jpg



"But is never uptight.."

* sigh * ..... "ooh, I just love my fanboys!!!!"

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17qhwqcdjgl70jpg/xlarge.jpg

You took the fun out, from the *******s ! Epic !! But it ain't right.
Got me LOL though

Hood_Man
10-02-2012, 11:26 AM
Surely nobody prances about in gold anyway? More like lurching awkwardly under the enormous strain of all that heavy but valuable metal weighing you down.

Would certainly ruin his footwork anyway.

TheFifthSet
10-02-2012, 11:34 AM
That was in 1969, sorry but time doesn't stand still. Like Mark Spitz, Laver is not the greatest based on the overall fans perception/opinion.

Many experts from the tennis channel have analyze/study all the great player and have come up with this list:

GREATEST MALE TENNIS PLAYERS

1 Roger Federer
2 Rod Laver
3 Pete Sampras
4 Rafael Nadal
5 Bjorn Borg
6 Don Budge
7 Andre Agassi
8 John McEnroe
9 Jimmy Connors
10 Bill Tilden
11 Roy Emerson
12 Ivan Lendl
13 Ken Rosewall
14 Boris Becker
15 Fred Perry
16 Stefan Edberg
17 Arthur Ashe
18 John Newcombe
19 Lew Hoad
20 Mats Wilander
21 Jack Kramer
22 Pancho Gonzales
23 Rene Lacoste
24 Novak Djokovic
25 Guillermo Vilas
26 Jim Courier
27 Henri Cochet
28 Jean Borotha
29 Frank Sedgman
30 Ilie Nastase
31 Tony Trabert
32 Jack Crawford
33 Manuel Santana
34 Guga Kuerten
35 Stan Smith
36 Neale Fraser
37 Lleyton Hewitt
38 Ellsworth Vines
39 Pancho Segura
40 Bobby Riggs
41 Fred Stolle
42 Patrick Rafter
43 Gottfried Von Cramm
44 Jaroslave Drobny
45 Tony Roche
46 William Renshaw
47 Marat Safin
48 Vic Seixas
49 Yevgeny Kafelnikov
50 Jan Kodes
51 Norman Brookes
52 Yannick Noah
53 Tony Wilding
54 Bill Johnston
55 Nicola Pietrangeli
56 Andy Roddick
57 Thomas Muster
58 Manuel Orantes
59 Pat Cash
60 Henry Austin
61 Michael Chang[/QUOTE]


Federer might be the greatest of all time, yes, but this list is sensationalist tripe and I don't see why anybody would use it to bolster the claim that Federer is the greatest. I don't know about a serious tennis historian that would rank Gonzales below players like Emerson, or Emerson at 11 when he wasn't even in the top 5 (maybe not even top 8 ) of his own era.

There's a difference -- a huge one -- between journalist and historian. It doesn't matter how "expertly" these guys are, if they have little knowledge of half the guys they are ranking.

Dedans Penthouse
10-02-2012, 11:38 AM
Surely nobody prances about in gold anyway? More like lurching awkwardly under the enormous strain of all that heavy but valuable metal weighing you down.

Would certainly ruin his footwork anyway.^^^
LOL. Indeed my good (Hood) man, we should all 'prance' so well. ;-) regards.



Listen you idiot, cut it out!!! Roger's the GOAT and there is nothing you or any other *******s can say about it!

The greatest!!! Do you understand you stupid ****?Um,...er, ok Rosa, if that's the way you feel about it....tell you what, you hot to trot little twat, calm down and sit on my face instead.. :twisted:

NadalAgassi
10-02-2012, 11:47 AM
Federer might be the greatest of all time, yes, but this list is sensationalist tripe and I don't see why anybody would use it to bolster the claim that Federer is the greatest. I don't know about a serious tennis historian that would rank Gonzales below players like Emerson, or Emerson at 11 when he wasn't even in the top 5 (maybe not even top 8 ) of his own era.

There's a difference -- a huge one -- between journalist and historian. It doesn't matter how "expertly" these guys are, if they have little knowledge of half the guys they are ranking.

Exactly. Given such absurdities of the list as Emerson being at 11 and Gonzales being at only 22 I would love to see a list of this supposed group of experts, historians, former players, etc....It wouldnt surprise me if the list included people like Jon Wertheim, Luke Jensen, Mary Carillo, Peter Bodo, Ted Robinson, Bill Mcatee, and ex greats who have are well known to have fried their brains with excessive and dangerous high drug use since their playing days- Borg and Wilander.

kiki
10-02-2012, 11:56 AM
That was in 1969, sorry but time doesn't stand still. Like Mark Spitz, Laver is not the greatest based on the overall fans perception/opinion.

Many experts from the tennis channel have analyze/study all the great player and have come up with this list:

GREATEST MALE TENNIS PLAYERS

1 Roger Federer
2 Rod Laver
3 Pete Sampras
4 Rafael Nadal
5 Bjorn Borg
6 Don Budge
7 Andre Agassi
8 John McEnroe
9 Jimmy Connors
10 Bill Tilden
11 Roy Emerson
12 Ivan Lendl
13 Ken Rosewall
14 Boris Becker
15 Fred Perry
16 Stefan Edberg
17 Arthur Ashe
18 John Newcombe
19 Lew Hoad
20 Mats Wilander
21 Jack Kramer
22 Pancho Gonzales
23 Rene Lacoste
24 Novak Djokovic
25 Guillermo Vilas
26 Jim Courier
27 Henri Cochet
28 Jean Borotha
29 Frank Sedgman
30 Ilie Nastase
31 Tony Trabert
32 Jack Crawford
33 Manuel Santana
34 Guga Kuerten
35 Stan Smith
36 Neale Fraser
37 Lleyton Hewitt
38 Ellsworth Vines
39 Pancho Segura
40 Bobby Riggs
41 Fred Stolle
42 Patrick Rafter
43 Gottfried Von Cramm
44 Jaroslave Drobny
45 Tony Roche
46 William Renshaw
47 Marat Safin
48 Vic Seixas
49 Yevgeny Kafelnikov
50 Jan Kodes
51 Norman Brookes
52 Yannick Noah
53 Tony Wilding
54 Bill Johnston
55 Nicola Pietrangeli
56 Andy Roddick
57 Thomas Muster
58 Manuel Orantes
59 Pat Cash
60 Henry Austin
61 Michael Chang[/QUOTE]

The list is, as seasoned posters mostly claimed, very biassed.

it is not Laver´s fault if Federer never wins the Gran Slam ( not even in the pathetic fields of Fed´s best year 2006 he was able to do it...)

kiki
10-02-2012, 11:57 AM
The bolded parts already eliminate any credability the list had. Emerson 11 spots higher than Pancho Gonzales, hahahaha

Agassi at 7 is still a bigger joke than that....

Prisoner of Birth
10-02-2012, 12:00 PM
The list is, as seasoned posters mostly claimed, very biassed.

it is not Laver´s fault if Federer never wins the Gran Slam ( not even in the pathetic fields of Fed´s best year 2006 he was able to do it...)

And it's not Federer's fault Laver was banned from playing Grand Slams for the most of his prime. See, I can do it too.

And calling the 2006 field pathetic compared to Laver's year is a joke. Players now are way more athletic and professional than back then.

NadalAgassi
10-02-2012, 12:04 PM
And calling the 2006 field pathetic compared to Laver's year is a joke.

LOL you have to be kidding me. 1969 had Laver, Rosewall, Newcombe, Emerson, Smith, Ashe, aging Gonzales. It was probably the deepest field in history, just look at Laver's draws to his Grand Slam. The 2006 field is WAY weaker than that. Federer faced Nadal who was only a clay courter back then, Roddick, Ljubicic, Davydenko, and Blake. Blake was the year end #4 that year, and wasnt Davydenko year end #3.

Prisoner of Birth
10-02-2012, 12:09 PM
LOL you have to be kidding me. 1969 had Laver, Rosewall, Newcombe, Emerson, Smith, Ashe, aging Gonzales. It was probably the deepest field in history, just look at Laver's draws to his Grand Slam. The 2006 field is WAY weaker than that. Federer faced Nadal who was only a clay courter back then, Roddick, Ljubicic, Davydenko, and Blake. Blake was the year end #4 that year.

Like I said, the game is a lot more professional now. The general standard of play is now higher.

NadalAgassi
10-02-2012, 12:16 PM
Like I said, the game is a lot more professional now. The general standard of play is now higher.

You are entitled your opinion but in the context of their own times which is all we can compare the 69 field was way tougher than the 2006 field. The 2006 field was basically the midst of another brief transition era with Safin and Hewitt DONE, and I mean 110% done as any kind of contender, Roddick on decline and never consistently at his 2003-2005 level ever again and barely a slam contender anymore, Ferrero and Coria long done, Agassi retiring, and Djokovic and Murray nobodies on the scene at that point, Nadal still only a clay courter despite his at that point fluke Wimbledon final (Robby Kendrick a qualifier should have beaten him in straight sets at Wimbledon that year). The 1969 field has atleast 5 players who rate in the top 25 players of all time today. Blake and Davydenko were the 3rd and 4th best players in the World in 2006. There simply is no comaprision.

kiki
10-02-2012, 12:16 PM
And it's not Federer's fault Laver was banned from playing Grand Slams for the most of his prime. See, I can do it too.

And calling the 2006 field pathetic compared to Laver's year is a joke. Players now are way more athletic and professional than back then.

you said it, the fact that Laver was deprievd from playing the traditional slam events during his prime years (1963-1967) avoided him doubling his records at traditional majors.That is why we have to consider pro majors, with the pro fields being pretty much tougher than amateurs.

kiki
10-02-2012, 12:17 PM
LOL you have to be kidding me. 1969 had Laver, Rosewall, Newcombe, Emerson, Smith, Ashe, aging Gonzales. It was probably the deepest field in history, just look at Laver's draws to his Grand Slam. The 2006 field is WAY weaker than that. Federer faced Nadal who was only a clay courter back then, Roddick, Ljubicic, Davydenko, and Blake. Blake was the year end #4 that year, and wasnt Davydenko year end #3.

That´s it.To have Davydenko and Blake as the 3 rd and 4 th best player, just says it all.

The Bawss
10-02-2012, 12:37 PM
That´s it.To have Davydenko and Blake as the 3 rd and 4 th best player, just says it all.

Yeah I mean one guy who for a long time had a winning/even h2h with Nadal and another with a current winning h2h with Nadal. Yeah, total jokes. Not even fit to do drills with Sunday grannies.

NadalAgassi
10-02-2012, 03:23 PM
Yeah I mean one guy who for a long time had a winning/even h2h with Nadal and another with a current winning h2h with Nadal. Yeah, total jokes. Not even fit to do drills with Sunday grannies.

From 2004-2006 any decent flat ball hitter in the top 30 owned Nadal on hard courts (which is all he and Blake played on and when all of Blake's wins came). Not exactly a stamp of legend status. Davydenko is a solid player who has had a nice career, nice as in say Tom Okker like nice, a guy who was generally ranked 8-12 around then, as opposed to year end #3 and longtime top 5.

Zarfot Z
10-02-2012, 03:28 PM
From 2004-2006 any decent flat ball hitter in the top 30 owned Nadal on hard courts (which is all he and Blake played on and when all of Blake's wins came). Not exactly a stamp of legend status. Davydenko is a solid player who has had a nice career, nice as in say Tom Okker like nice, a guy who was generally ranked 8-12 around then, as opposed to year end #3 and longtime top 5.

Lol no.

10lolnos

SoBad
10-02-2012, 03:29 PM
Lol no.

10lolnos

Davydenko is a solid player.

The Bawss
10-02-2012, 03:30 PM
Lol no.

10lolnos

Nikolay Davydenko is a solid player.

SoBad
10-02-2012, 03:33 PM
I think we need to restart this discussion by establishing that Nikolay Vladimirovich Davydenko is an accomplished professional tennis player.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/36/Davydenko_Hamburg.jpg/406px-Davydenko_Hamburg.jpg

Vcore89
10-02-2012, 05:34 PM
Davydenko is a solid player.

Like Ferrer is a solid player. Hey the guy won at least one WTF as oppose to Mr. Rafael's nada (as in zit).:)

Vcore89
10-02-2012, 05:34 PM
Nadal is GOATesque for sure. No?

Zarfot Z
10-02-2012, 05:44 PM
Nikolay Davydenko is a solid player.

Rosol God mode one set, and 40+ UEs and 60MPH serves the next.

An in form Davydenko can beat anyone, but on a bad day even your grandmother could thrash him.

He is just about the least consistent and 'unsolid' player on tour.

NadalAgassi
10-02-2012, 06:18 PM
Like Ferrer is a solid player. Hey the guy won at least one WTF as oppose to Mr. Rafael's nada (as in zit).:)

I would take 10 slams over 1 WTF, but hey maybe thats just me. Back to the topic at hand I would take the careers of vritually everyone in the 1969 top 10 over Davydenko's. Anyone who actually thinks 1969 is weaker than 2006 has clearly done no research at all.

NDFM
10-03-2012, 06:44 AM
I don't believe Nadal is the GOAT, the Clay GOAT yes not the GOAT but that's just my opinion. But he is an all-time great. Doesn't surprise me to see the OP try to belittle nadal's achievements, i'm sure a lot of players would love to have 4 non-clay slams and 5 hard court masters, not many of the current atp tour have actually won a slam or many masters in terms of GS you have the top 4 dominating and then former champions hewitt, ferrero, roddick who are nearing retirement or have retired. Nadal worst surface is indoors I don't expect him to do too great there doesn't surprise me to see him lose so many times indoor to federer just like federer has lost many times to nadal on clay

Federer is the GOAT because to me I don't think he has a worst surface, he has a great record across all surfaces and perhaps if it wasn't for nadal he would sitting on at least 5/6 French Opens, some more clay masters and would proabably be a candidate for one of if not the Clay GOAT as well.

RF20Lennon
10-03-2012, 06:46 AM
I don't believe Nadal is the GOAT, the Clay GOAT yes not the GOAT but that's just my opinion. But he is an all-time great. Doesn't surprise me to see the OP try to belittle nadal's achievements, i'm sure a lot of players would love to have 4 non-clay slams and 5 hard court masters, not many of the current atp tour have actually won a slam or many masters in terms of GS you have the top 4 dominating and then former champions hewitt, ferrero, roddick who are nearing retirement or have retired. Nadal worst surface is indoors I don't expect him to do too great there doesn't surprise me to see him lose so many times indoor to federer just like federer has lost many times to nadal on clay

Federer is the GOAT because to me I don't think he has a worst surface, he has a great record across all surfaces and perhaps if it wasn't for nadal he would sitting on at least 5/6 French Opens, some more clay masters and would proabably be a candidate for one of if not the Clay GOAT as well.

Couldn't have out it better myself

TMF
10-03-2012, 07:37 AM
The list is, as seasoned posters mostly claimed, very biassed.

it is not Laver´s fault if Federer never wins the Gran Slam ( not even in the pathetic fields of Fed´s best year 2006 he was able to do it...)

That's like saying it's not Murray's fault that Laver never won the gold medal. Murray had the oppotunity to playing in the Olymic while Laver didn't. And Laver had the oppotuntiy to compete when the fields was splits for most of his career, and his 69 GS was only 2 surfaces at the slams. The game has change and became more of a global sport. Winning the GS in today's competition is incredibly harder, even if they split the fields and play on only 2 surfaces. It's like asking an NBA player trying to score a 100 points, 55 rebounds in the game like Chamberlain in the 60s.

The experts are well awared of the gap in the level of competition, talents, pool size, etc, so it's no secret that Fed is ahead. Thus, for laver is placed at #2 is remarkable considered he's in the 60s when most of the players are mainly from Aussie and USA.

TMF
10-03-2012, 07:47 AM
Federer might be the greatest of all time, yes, but this list is sensationalist tripe and I don't see why anybody would use it to bolster the claim that Federer is the greatest. I don't know about a serious tennis historian that would rank Gonzales below players like Emerson, or Emerson at 11 when he wasn't even in the top 5 (maybe not even top 8 ) of his own era.

There's a difference -- a huge one -- between journalist and historian. It doesn't matter how "expertly" these guys are, if they have little knowledge of half the guys they are ranking.

They are a combination of ex-players, historians, journalists. They know the sport and thats why they team up to come up with the top 100 list. Why would one be part of a team if he/she doesn't know about the sport? It makes no sense.

If they are not qualify to judge, then who is? Certainly not from posters at TTW.

TheFifthSet
10-03-2012, 09:14 AM
They are a combination of ex-players, historians, journalists. They know the sport and thats why they team up to come up with the top 100 list. Why would one be part of a team if he/she doesn't know about the sport? It makes no sense.

If they are not qualify to judge, then who is? Certainly not from posters at TTW.

You don't seem to fully get it. Knowing a lot about the technical aspects of tennis -- how to play, being well-versed in the finer points of the game, etc -- has virtually nothing to do with knowing the history of the sport. It doesn't, for example, matter how good Jim Courier (just an example) was as a tennis player in relation to him ranking the best tennis players to have ever lived.
That's why you need to take it with a grain of salt when he says so and so is the best to have ever lived, because he himself admits that the pre-open era players were before his time therefore he doesn't include them. And I'd bet there are a lot of people on this so-called "expert list" that are in the same boat. Bless them, nothing wrong with that, but that's why I wouldn't take a list like this too seriously. Unless they've seriously evaluated all of the top players over the course of tennis history (hint: not just since '68 ), then there's very little scope in the list. It lacks historical perspective.

Put it this way, is there any basketball list where Wilt or Oscar Robertson is outside the top 20 as Gonzales is in this list? For a basketball fan, that's how egregious it would be. If a list like that existed, no hoops fan would take it seriously. And Gonzales was like Wilt, Russel or Robertson in the mid 50's to early 60's. Only he was unanimously the best in his sport in that time period.


BTW, so who is this panel comprised of? Do you know or did you just assume they are all experts?

kiki
10-03-2012, 12:16 PM
That's like saying it's not Murray's fault that Laver never won the gold medal. Murray had the oppotunity to playing in the Olymic while Laver didn't. And Laver had the oppotuntiy to compete when the fields was splits for most of his career, and his 69 GS was only 2 surfaces at the slams. The game has change and became more of a global sport. Winning the GS in today's competition is incredibly harder, even if they split the fields and play on only 2 surfaces. It's like asking an NBA player trying to score a 100 points, 55 rebounds in the game like Chamberlain in the 60s.

The experts are well awared of the gap in the level of competition, talents, pool size, etc, so it's no secret that Fed is ahead. Thus, for laver is placed at #2 is remarkable considered he's in the 60s when most of the players are mainly from Aussie and USA.

First, you keep repeating the same story over and over and over, showing everybody how big a troll you are

Second, Nobody gave a dams for an OGM in Laver´s heydays

Prisoner of Birth
10-03-2012, 12:28 PM
I would take 10 slams over 1 WTF, but hey maybe thats just me. Back to the topic at hand I would take the careers of vritually everyone in the 1969 top 10 over Davydenko's. Anyone who actually thinks 1969 is weaker than 2006 has clearly done no research at all.

1969 was a small pond. 2006 is a big pond. Relative to the small pond, the fish in 1969 were bigger than the fish in 2006 were, relative to the big pond. But when measured one against the other, the fish in the big pond are bigger.

kiki
10-03-2012, 12:32 PM
1969 was a small pond. 2006 is a big pond. Relative to the small pond, the fish in 1969 were bigger than the fish in 2006 were, relative to the big pond. But when measured one against the other, the fish in the big pond are bigger.

I doubt tennis has been weaker than in 2005 to 2007.

Prisoner of Birth
10-03-2012, 12:41 PM
I doubt tennis has been weaker than in 2005 to 2007.

Laver doesn't.

TMF
10-03-2012, 10:24 PM
You don't seem to fully get it. Knowing a lot about the technical aspects of tennis -- how to play, being well-versed in the finer points of the game, etc -- has virtually nothing to do with knowing the history of the sport. It doesn't, for example, matter how good Jim Courier (just an example) was as a tennis player in relation to him ranking the best tennis players to have ever lived.
That's why you need to take it with a grain of salt when he says so and so is the best to have ever lived, because he himself admits that the pre-open era players were before his time therefore he doesn't include them. And I'd bet there are a lot of people on this so-called "expert list" that are in the same boat. Bless them, nothing wrong with that, but that's why I wouldn't take a list like this too seriously. Unless they've seriously evaluated all of the top players over the course of tennis history (hint: not just since '68 ), then there's very little scope in the list. It lacks historical perspective.

Put it this way, is there any basketball list where Wilt or Oscar Robertson is outside the top 20 as Gonzales is in this list? For a basketball fan, that's how egregious it would be. If a list like that existed, no hoops fan would take it seriously. And Gonzales was like Wilt, Russel or Robertson in the mid 50's to early 60's. Only he was unanimously the best in his sport in that time period.


BTW, so who is this panel comprised of? Do you know or did you just assume they are all experts?

The Tennis Channel are not saying that their top 100 list is one that everyone should agree on every aspect. To come up with top 10 already has controversy, let alone top 100. Even Collins said "I had a very difficult time making my own list". No one can come up with a list that will satisfy everyone, but that doesn't mean it's wrong or bad list. You may not agree Fed is #1 or Graf is #1 for the women, but I believe most fans would agree with TTC.

These are all international panel(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_Greatest_of_All_Time) of experts that came up with the list. If you take their knowledge with a grain of salt then what does that makes everyone one including yourself credibility on this board? It must be worthless? Throughout the 4 series, commentary were from Collins, Flink, John Barrett, Richard Evans, Scott Price, Jon Wertheim, Chris Clarey, Neil Harman, Pete Bodo, Steve Tignor, Bill Macatee, Ted Robinson and a dozens of legendary players, none of them complaint about TTC came up with this excercise, and they don't fully agree with the entire list.

Basketball top 50 greatest players are not immune to disagreement either. One expert has Elgin Baylor outside of the top 20, which I disagree. But do I doubt his knowledge? No, anyone including myself can come up with the list and there's will be some disagreement.

Prisoner of Birth
10-03-2012, 10:34 PM
Anyway, about the topic at hand, Nadal won the Career Grand Slam over 3 different surfaces and is behind only Federer and Sampras in Grand Slam count. GOAT contender right there, considering he's still just 26.

TMF
10-03-2012, 10:35 PM
On March 2012, Steve Flink came up with his own top 10 list.
1. Federer
2. Laver
3. Graf
4. Martina
5. Sampras
6. Nadal
7. Borg
8. Court
9. Chris
10. King


Separate them from the female:
1. Fed
2. Laver
3. Sampras
4. Nadal
5. Borg

That's exactly the same top 5 list by the experts from the tennis channel.

http://www.tennischannel.com/news/NewsDetails.aspx?newsid=10497

NadalAgassi
10-03-2012, 10:37 PM
I disagree Nadal is a GOAT contender at this point. IMO the only GOAT contenders at this point are Laver, Gonzales, and Federer. I still Sampras at his best could beat anyone, but he doesnt have the stats compared to the others anymore. Sampras, Nadal, Borg, Rosewall, Tilden, and Budge are all just outside the true GOAT candidates.

Nadal would have to reach atleast 15 slams to have any consideration as the possible GOAT. I still think he is top 5 or 6 all time already though.

TMF
10-03-2012, 10:47 PM
First, you keep repeating the same story over and over and over, showing everybody how big a troll you are

Second, Nobody gave a dams for an OGM in Laver´s heydays

It's not about giving a dam, but he didn't have a chance. If he did, you don't know that. The same with the players today don't have a chance to compete on only 2 surfaces to win the GS.

If someone were to say Nadal is 1 up on Laver because he has a Gold medal, I would defend Laver. Can you be open minded(at least a little)?

Prisoner of Birth
10-03-2012, 10:48 PM
I disagree Nadal is a GOAT contender at this point. IMO the only GOAT contenders at this point are Laver, Gonzales, and Federer. I still Sampras at his best could beat anyone, but he doesnt have the stats compared to the others anymore. Sampras, Nadal, Borg, Rosewall, Tilden, and Budge are all just outside the true GOAT candidates.

Nadal would have to reach atleast 15 slams to have any consideration as the possible GOAT. I still think he is top 5 or 6 all time already though.

This is something I never understood. Why do people only look at stats to judge who the GOATs are? There's so much you can learn by just watching the players play their best Tennis.

SoBad
10-04-2012, 01:18 AM
Like Ferrer is a solid player. Hey the guy won at least one WTF as oppose to Mr. Rafael's nada (as in zit).:)

I am a solid player, but I never won a Christmas indoor exhibition tournament because I never bothered to sign up for one.

Prisoner of Birth
10-04-2012, 01:28 AM
I am a solid player, but I never won a Christmas indoor exhibition tournament because I never bothered to sign up for one.

Yeah, maybe they should just hand it you then because you're too lazy to go and win it.

kiki
10-04-2012, 09:42 AM
It's not about giving a dam, but he didn't have a chance. If he did, you don't know that. The same with the players today don't have a chance to compete on only 2 surfaces to win the GS.

If someone were to say Nadal is 1 up on Laver because he has a Gold medal, I would defend Laver. Can you be open minded(at least a little)?

laver wom pro majors and doubles nadal´s record...will you ever learn that?

Mustard
10-04-2012, 10:40 AM
The bolded parts already eliminate any credability the list had. Emerson 11 spots higher than Pancho Gonzales, hahahaha

I've pointed this out to TMF so often, but it's like he never listens. Anyone who puts Emerson above Gonzales in a GOAT list doesn't understand pre-open era tennis.

LuckyR
10-04-2012, 11:29 AM
I disagree Nadal is a GOAT contender at this point. IMO the only GOAT contenders at this point are Laver, Gonzales, and Federer. I still Sampras at his best could beat anyone, but he doesnt have the stats compared to the others anymore. Sampras, Nadal, Borg, Rosewall, Tilden, and Budge are all just outside the true GOAT candidates.

Nadal would have to reach atleast 15 slams to have any consideration as the possible GOAT. I still think he is top 5 or 6 all time already though.

I totally agree that Rafa is NOT a GOAT contender.

One reason is that Fed is clearly the GOAT (not Rafa). Of course Rafa is better than Fed, but that is a different measure...

TMF
10-04-2012, 12:14 PM
laver wom pro majors and doubles nadal´s record...will you ever learn that?

What are you talking about?

If we are talking about slam, then Laver has 11 slams(6 are from amateur) and Nadal has 11 slams. Nadal is ahead because all his slams are from the open era.

Pro majors are NOT slam, and doesn't have equal weight. I would say the weight is between a modern slam and a Master Series. Since Laver has 8 pro majors, Nadal has 21 Master shields. You do the math.

Now try to be reasonable.

Mustard
10-04-2012, 01:40 PM
What are you talking about?

If we are talking about slam, then Laver has 11 slams(6 are from amateur) and Nadal has 11 slams. Nadal is ahead because all his slams are from the open era.

Pro majors are NOT slam, and doesn't have equal weight. I would say the weight is between a modern slam and a Master Series. Since Laver has 8 pro majors, Nadal has 21 Master shields. You do the math.

Now try to be reasonable.

It's funny how you count the amateur majors as majors but not the professional majors. The pro majors had all the best players, especially in the 1950s and 1960s. You still refuse to understand that there were no open majors before 1968.

kiki
10-04-2012, 01:43 PM
What are you talking about?

If we are talking about slam, then Laver has 11 slams(6 are from amateur) and Nadal has 11 slams. Nadal is ahead because all his slams are from the open era.

Pro majors are NOT slam, and doesn't have equal weight. I would say the weight is between a modern slam and a Master Series. Since Laver has 8 pro majors, Nadal has 21 Master shields. You do the math.

Now try to be reasonable.

Troll Master Freaky has written another master piece of his own

kiki
10-04-2012, 01:45 PM
I totally agree that Rafa is NOT a GOAT contender.

One reason is that Fed is clearly the GOAT (not Rafa). Of course Rafa is better than Fed, but that is a different measure...

Nadal is one of the two reasons Federer cannot be considered GOAT candidate, not because Nadal is a candidate but because of their H2H while sharing generation.

The other reason is Fed´s peak happened during an extremely weak era.

forzamilan90
10-04-2012, 02:14 PM
Kiki, say what you want about TMF but pro majors are definitely not equivalent to today's slams...if pro majors were so important, then Rosewall>Laver

kiki
10-04-2012, 02:29 PM
Kiki, say what you want about TMF but pro majors are definitely not equivalent to today's slams...if pro majors were so important, then Rosewall>Laver

So, Laver doesn´t have a chance because he was forbidden agaisnt his will ( and the rest of the pros)....now, I see your agenda fitting perfectly

forzamilan90
10-04-2012, 02:36 PM
So, Laver doesn´t have a chance because he was forbidden agaisnt his will ( and the rest of the pros)....now, I see your agenda fitting perfectly

My agenda? I was referring to the fact that you said Laver has won many pro majors and his total doubles that of Nadal's record several posts above and dissing TMF as a troll simply cause he says that pro majors are not equivalent/don't have enough weight compared to modern majors. My point is you cannot simply include the pro majors on top on their record and say oh he's got way more combined majors (counting pros) than Nadal's modern majors for example. If pro majors (and combined total) are so important then Rosewall is king, cause his combined total of "majors" is best, and definitely beats Laver's.
You're the one with the agenda, spitting anti Fed hate and anti modern-tennis hate every chance you get and you know it! For a supposed tennis historian, you're rather immature and one of the worst offenders of blasphemy on this forum.

kiki
10-04-2012, 02:41 PM
My agenda? I was referring to the fact that you said Laver has won many pro majors and his total doubles that of Nadal's record several posts above and dissing TMF as a troll simply cause he says that pro majors are not equivalent/don't have enough weight compared to modern majors. My point is you cannot simply include the pro majors on top on their record and say oh he's got way more combined majors (counting pros) than Nadal's modern majors for example. If pro majors (and combined total) are so important then Rosewall is king, cause his combined total of "majors" is best, and definitely beats Laver's.
You're the one with the agenda, spitting anti Fed hate and anti modern-tennis hate every chance you get and you know it! For a supposed tennis historian, you're completely immature.

ROFLMAO¡¡¡ Milanesi you are living in the past, dude, not me.

In the 70´s and 80´s WCT and Masters were considered majors and in the late 50´s and 60´s pro majors were majors just because the best players played there.And it is a matter of where the best players play, otherwise, the guy who wins 100 times events like Scottsdale, Valencia or Chennai should be entitled to GOATdom

kiki
10-04-2012, 02:42 PM
My agenda? I was referring to the fact that you said Laver has won many pro majors and his total doubles that of Nadal's record several posts above and dissing TMF as a troll simply cause he says that pro majors are not equivalent/don't have enough weight compared to modern majors. My point is you cannot simply include the pro majors on top on their record and say oh he's got way more combined majors (counting pros) than Nadal's modern majors for example. If pro majors (and combined total) are so important then Rosewall is king, cause his combined total of "majors" is best, and definitely beats Laver's.
You're the one with the agenda, spitting anti Fed hate and anti modern-tennis hate every chance you get and you know it! For a supposed tennis historian, you're rather immature and one of the worst offenders of blasphemy on this forum.

I don´t hate Federer.Why should I?

I just hate completely biassed opinions with no respect for the true history of the game and no knowledge other than " mediatic".

LuckyR
10-04-2012, 03:14 PM
So, Laver doesn´t have a chance because he was forbidden agaisnt his will ( and the rest of the pros)....now, I see your agenda fitting perfectly

No, Laver doesn't have a chance because his competition didn't use modern cross training techniques, used outmoded technology and were a couple of rich dudes from a few country clubs.

Mustard
10-04-2012, 03:20 PM
My agenda? I was referring to the fact that you said Laver has won many pro majors and his total doubles that of Nadal's record several posts above and dissing TMF as a troll simply cause he says that pro majors are not equivalent/don't have enough weight compared to modern majors. My point is you cannot simply include the pro majors on top on their record and say oh he's got way more combined majors (counting pros) than Nadal's modern majors for example. If pro majors (and combined total) are so important then Rosewall is king, cause his combined total of "majors" is best, and definitely beats Laver's.

Rosewall beats Laver for longevity and overall major count, but no Wimbledon title for Rosewall. Laver won all 4 amateur majors in 1962, all 4 professional majors in 1967 and all 4 open majors in 1969, and he was best player in the world from 1964-1970. Laver also won 200 career singles titles, the most in the history of tennis.

TheFifthSet
10-04-2012, 06:13 PM
The Tennis Channel are not saying that their top 100 list is one that everyone should agree on every aspect. To come up with top 10 already has controversy, let alone top 100. Even Collins said "I had a very difficult time making my own list". No one can come up with a list that will satisfy everyone, but that doesn't mean it's wrong or bad list. You may not agree Fed is #1 or Graf is #1 for the women, but I believe most fans would agree with TTC.

These are all international panel(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_Greatest_of_All_Time) of experts that came up with the list. If you take their knowledge with a grain of salt then what does that makes everyone one including yourself credibility on this board? It must be worthless? Throughout the 4 series, commentary were from Collins, Flink, John Barrett, Richard Evans, Scott Price, Jon Wertheim, Chris Clarey, Neil Harman, Pete Bodo, Steve Tignor, Bill Macatee, Ted Robinson and a dozens of legendary players, none of them complaint about TTC came up with this excercise, and they don't fully agree with the entire list.

Basketball top 50 greatest players are not immune to disagreement either. One expert has Elgin Baylor outside of the top 20, which I disagree. But do I doubt his knowledge? No, anyone including myself can come up with the list and there's will be some disagreement.

Do you even know what that means? Because I don't think it means what you think it does, lol.

Many of the guys you mentioned -- Ted Robinson, Bill Macatee etc, are merely play-by-play guys and not historians or authorities on tennis. Also, I wasn't talking about Elgin Baylor, who isn't a top 10 player. I was talking about Wilt and Robertson, who are universally known as top 10 players, particularly Chamberlain. Imagine a list where M.J or Wilt are ranked number 22 -- I can guarantee you it wouldn't be taken very seriously. Pancho was the top player in the world for 7 years. To rank him below Emerson isn't "disagreeable" -- it's unthinkable. Ridiculous. Renders the list bunk. Emerson, a guy who played in the same era as Gorgo (well, almost), and who was never the top player in the world, is ranked 11 spots higher than a guy who was the best 7-8 seperate years!! That's like if somebody ranked Drexler ahead of Jordan or Magic -- BAM, the list would be disregarded just on the basis of that, dropped, ridiculed, laughed at. Really, the gap between Gonzales and Emerson is as big as the gap between Clyde and Michael. NOBODY would mistake Emerson as a better tennis player if they took FIVE minutes out of their day to research their respective careers. Nobody. And that's just one example of where this list fails, in a huge, HUGE way. To say it's "disagreeable" is putting it mildly. No serious list -- ever -- would rank Emerson ahead of Gonzales. Ever.

Saying "well, they're experts blah blah" is simply an appeal to authority. The list should be judged on its merit, not on the (shady) credentials of the people who made it. If Charles Barkley said Andrew Bynum was a better center than Shaq, would you make the same appeal? That Barkleys knowledge of the game makes him immune to criticism and we shouldn't question his comparison?

I mean come on. I'm gonna repeat myself once more: Roy Emerson, a man who was half the player that Gonzales was, is ranked 11 freaking spots higher. I don't think there was ever even one year that they both played that Emerson was comparatively better. Again, since you seem to have an affinity with basketball, I'll give one more example: imagine if you have two point guards. One is all NBA 1st team every year, has three rings, averages 20/6/10 every year and shoots 50/40/90. He makes the all-star game every year. The other has made one all-star game, has made all-nba second team only one year, has never won a championship and averages 15/4/7. He's also just a far inferior shooter. The first player has had the better career, BY FAR. He's a first-tier legend, a phenom. He's also been better EVERY SINGLE INDIVIDUAL YEAR. Yet many years later, the latter point guard is ranked much higher. How INSANE would that be? Would you really be quite as reserved if that was the case?

TheFifthSet
10-04-2012, 06:28 PM
I've pointed this out to TMF so often, but it's like he never listens. Anyone who puts Emerson above Gonzales in a GOAT list doesn't understand pre-open era tennis.

^^This post.

kiki
10-05-2012, 08:47 AM
No, Laver doesn't have a chance because his competition didn't use modern cross training techniques, used outmoded technology and were a couple of rich dudes from a few country clubs.

...and a bunch of beer drinkers, too:)

TMF
10-05-2012, 12:09 PM
I've pointed this out to TMF so often, but it's like he never listens. Anyone who puts Emerson above Gonzales in a GOAT list doesn't understand pre-open era tennis.

You see Pancho/Emmo are not ranked appropriately deosn't mean the entire list 100 players is bad. I've already told TheFifthSet, you can't appreciate everyone when trying to detemine the top list, there's too difficult(Collins himself said it). And it's not just about sports. Try to list the top 20 best US presidents, I can assure you there will be many controversies.

Would Collins be a bad/ignorant historian if you see something is wrong with his own top list? Come on, you and TheFifthSet are getting all worked up.

Evan77
10-05-2012, 12:18 PM
Kiki has some very good points and that list from Wiki is full of flaws, but too lazy to type. maybe later.

TheFifthSet
10-05-2012, 12:26 PM
You see Pancho/Emmo are not ranked appropriately deosn't mean the entire list 100 players is bad. I've already told TheFifthSet, you can't appreciate everyone when trying to detemine the top list, there's too difficult(Collins himself said it). And it's not just about sports. Try to list the top 20 best US presidents, I can assure you there will be many controversies.

Would Collins be a bad/ignorant historian if you see something is wrong with his own top list? Come on, you and TheFifthSet are getting all worked up.

It means the list is rendered useless. It does. It really does. The gap between Gonzales and Emerson is so massive, that there's just no way anybody could mistake Emerson as the better player unless they had absolutely no knowledge of either player. And how can you not laugh at a list where most of the panel has no knowledge of one of the greatest players of all time? Ranking Gonzales 22 isn't a mere oversight, it's incompetence at work. He's absolutely one of the top 5 players of all time.

I'm gonna ask you a question. Don't run around it, just give me a straight answer, if you can. If Clyde Drexler was ranked 11 spots higher than Michael Jordan on any given list ranking their place in history, would you take it seriously? Or what if John Newcombe was ranked 11 spots higher than Federer? Would you place any value in that list?

NadalAgassi
10-05-2012, 12:43 PM
You see Pancho/Emmo are not ranked appropriately deosn't mean the entire list 100 players is bad.

That was not just a bad choice though, that was a blatant and glaring oversight. It would be like ranking Serena lower than Davenport or Graf lower than Sharapova. Actually not just lower but 11 female spots lower in both those cases too, LOL! It was glaringly ridiculous enough to already render the rest of the list irrelevant.

Also I noticed you listed Ted Robinson, Bill McAtee, and Peter freaking Bodo as some of the main people in selecting the list. That too renders it irrelevant.


Would Collins be a bad/ignorant historian if you see something is wrong with his own top list?

The great Collins would rank Roy Emerson nowhere near Pancho Gonzales. That would be worth betting your house on. Nobody with remote knowledge on the game would.

TMF
10-05-2012, 12:47 PM
It means the list is rendered useless. It does. It really does. The gap between Gonzales and Emerson is so massive, that there's just no way anybody could mistake Emerson as the better player unless they had absolutely no knowledge of either player. And how can you not laugh at a list where most of the panel has no knowledge of one of the greatest players of all time? Ranking Gonzales 22 isn't a mere oversight, it's incompetence at work. He's absolutely one of the top 5 players of all time.

I'm gonna ask you a question. Don't run around it, just give me a straight answer, if you can. If Clyde Drexler was ranked 11 spots higher than Michael Jordan on any given list ranking their place in history, would you take it seriously? Or what if John Newcombe was ranked 11 spots higher than Federer? Would you place any value in that list?

I don't know why you referenced MJ in basketball to Gonzales in tennis. The consensus MJ is the greatest player, but Gonzales is NOT. In fact, every poll out there you will see MJ is ranked #1, but for tennis, Pancho may not even in the top 10. Go check out in the former pro talk forum, some members don't have him in the top 10. It sounds like you implying Pancho is the Jordan of basketball. No way. Look, I know you don't see much in Emerson, because he played in a weak amateur(which I've arguing with the old-timers), but it's not that he did nothing. He won 11 slams. Sure, no way is comparable to the modern slam, but he did dominate the circuit. But then again, Pancho's field wasn't any stronger.

Of course it's bad to put Drexler above MJ. But MJ is always expected to be #1, but Pancho, he's not.

Mustard
10-05-2012, 12:48 PM
but for tennis, Pancho may not even in the top 10. Go check out in the former pro talk forum, some members don't have him in the top 10.

LOL. Gonzales is certainly top 5, let alone top 10. He was the best player in the world for 8 years, for goodness sake.

Mustard
10-05-2012, 12:57 PM
I don't know why you referenced MJ in basketball to Gonzales in tennis. The consensus MJ is the greatest player, but Gonzales is NOT. In fact, every poll out there you will see MJ is ranked #1, but for tennis, Pancho may not even in the top 10. Go check out in the former pro talk forum, some members don't have him in the top 10. It sounds like you implying Pancho is the Jordan of basketball. No way. Look, I know you don't see much in Emerson, because he played in a weak amateur(which I've arguing with the old-timers), but it's not that he did nothing. He won 11 slams. Sure, no way is comparable to the modern slam, but he did dominate the circuit. But then again, Pancho's field wasn't any stronger.

Emerson won 12 majors in the amateurs (6 Australian, 2 French, 2 Wimbledon, 2 US). Emerson was an excellent player and the best amateur player in the world for several years, but the best players in the world in the 1960s were professionals, not amateurs. Gonzales dominated the professional game from 1954-1961, beating the best players in the world in the professional ranks, players like Kramer, Budge, Segura, Sedgman, Trabert, Rosewall, Hoad, Cooper, Anderson, Olmedo, Gimeno etc. and some of these opponents were serious opposition for Gonzales, yet he was never toppled as the best player in the world before he went into an 18 month retirement at the end of 1961.

Gonzales didn't play against Laver for the first time until 1964, and even against a prime Laver, a post-prime Gonzales managed to win 21 out of 60 matches.

TheFifthSet
10-05-2012, 01:07 PM
I don't know why you referenced MJ in basketball to Gonzales in tennis. The consensus MJ is the greatest player, but Gonzales is NOT. In fact, every poll out there you will see MJ is ranked #1, but for tennis, Pancho may not even in the top 10. Go check out in the former pro talk forum, some members don't have him in the top 10. It sounds like you implying Pancho is the Jordan of basketball. No way. Look, I know you don't see much in Emerson, because he played in a weak amateur(which I've arguing with the old-timers), but it's not that he did nothing. He won 11 slams. Sure, no way is comparable to the modern slam, but he did dominate the circuit. But then again, Pancho's field wasn't any stronger.

Of course it's bad to put Drexler above MJ. But MJ is always expected to be #1, but Pancho, he's not.

LOL. Somebody who is more articulate than I am should try to explain the circular logic of this post. It's just too mind-numbing for me to even attempt. No seriously, somebody legitimately should.

Anyways, I didn't say Emerson "did nothing." You don't need to reel off his achievements. I know them. But that in no way puts him in even the same league as Pancho. ANYBODY who has access to a computer, can take five minutes out of their day and come to the resounding, no-questions-asked conclusion that Pancho Gonzales is one of the greatest tennis players of all time, and in every way superior to Emerson. There's just no way to not scoff at a list that doesn't acknowledge such obvious superiority.

TheFifthSet
10-05-2012, 01:10 PM
And Gonzales is clearly in the top 10. You yourself rank Laver as the number 3 player of all time, yet Gonzales's career was arguably just as good, and their eras overlapped. To rank Laver number 3 but not rank Pancho somewhere near there just doesn't make sense.

LuckyR
10-05-2012, 01:40 PM
...and a bunch of beer drinkers, too:)

Good point, not the world's greatest training regimen (for tennis).

I wonder if Pro Football Warehouse Forum has silly topics like players from yesteryear being "better" than Modern players? Or if the Pro Basketball Forum has threads that maybe someone from the NBA before the color barrier was broken is maybe their GOAT? I don't think so.

Example: Clarke Hinkle was a Hall of Fame Linebacker for the Packers... in the 30's, he was 5'11" and weighed 202, he is at least 2 standard deviations out of even making the NFL by today's standards.

TheFifthSet
10-05-2012, 01:43 PM
Good point, not the world's greatest training regimen (for tennis).

I wonder if Pro Football Warehouse Forum has silly topics like players from yesteryear being "better" than Modern players? Or if the Pro Basketball Forum has threads that maybe someone from the NBA before the color barrier was broken is maybe their GOAT? I don't think so.

Example: Clarke Hinkle was a Hall of Fame Linebacker for the Packers... in the 30's, he was 5'11" and weighed 202, he is at least 2 standard deviations out of even making the NFL by today's standards.

A little different though, since in football there's a premium on physiciality, strength and sheer size. It's not the same in tennis, where technique and coordination are the most important qualities.

kiki
10-05-2012, 01:55 PM
You see Pancho/Emmo are not ranked appropriately deosn't mean the entire list 100 players is bad. I've already told TheFifthSet, you can't appreciate everyone when trying to detemine the top list, there's too difficult(Collins himself said it). And it's not just about sports. Try to list the top 20 best US presidents, I can assure you there will be many controversies.

Would Collins be a bad/ignorant historian if you see something is wrong with his own top list? Come on, you and TheFifthSet are getting all worked up.

IMO, Richard Nixon and George Bush daddy are very underrated guys.

kiki
10-05-2012, 01:56 PM
Kiki has some very good points and that list from Wiki is full of flaws, but too lazy to type. maybe later.

Thanks, I´d be glad to share opinions with you.

NadalAgassi
10-05-2012, 02:47 PM
Sure, no way is comparable to the modern slam, but he did dominate the circuit. But then again, Pancho's field wasn't any stronger.


Yes Kramer, Sedgeman, Segura, Trabert, Hoad, Rosewall, and Laver wasnt any tougher a field to face than Ashe, Stolle, Ralston, Roche, no difference at all. :lol:

kiki
10-05-2012, 03:49 PM
Yes Kramer, Sedgeman, Segura, Trabert, Hoad, Rosewall, and Laver wasnt any tougher a field to face than Ashe, Stolle, Ralston, Roche, no difference at all. :lol:

according to TMF standarts, none of them had the height to even deserve consideration:(

The-Champ
10-05-2012, 03:53 PM
according to TMF standarts, none of them had the height to even deserve consideration:(

Height is one of TMF's criteria for GOATness, so bye bye Laver and anyone shorter or taller than Federer :D

TheFifthSet
10-05-2012, 05:22 PM
Yes Kramer, Sedgeman, Segura, Trabert, Hoad, Rosewall, and Laver wasnt any tougher a field to face than Ashe, Stolle, Ralston, Roche, no difference at all. :lol:

Mhm. Emerson might not have even been top 6-7 in his own era (if so then barely), much less 11th all time. Great great player...but not a historically great player.

Mustard
10-05-2012, 05:26 PM
I'd say that Emerson was the fifth best player of 1964, behind Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales and Gimeno. If Hoad had been in better physical shape, he would have been better too. This is a year where Emerson won 3 of the 4 majors in the amateur game.

kiki
10-05-2012, 05:28 PM
Height is one of TMF's criteria for GOATness, so bye bye Laver and anyone shorter or taller than Federer :D

But he enhances a lot Henin over Serena Williams, so the conclusion is that he uses height just as an excuse for his agenda ( anti Laver, anti Rosewall, anti Williams)

kiki
10-05-2012, 05:32 PM
I'd say that Emerson was the fifth best player of 1964, behind Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales and Gimeno. This is a year where Emerson won 3 of the 4 majors in the amateur game.

I fully agree.While he was clearly below Gonzales ( even if he was just as competitive and hard to beat), that does not mean he was not one of the best players of his generation, and possibly better than Gimeno, or at least as good.He is in any top ten list of the 60´s, along Hoad,Rosewall,Gonzales,Laver,Gimeno,Fraser,Newcomb e,Roche and Santana ( the other great amateur of his era).Maybe Ashe and Stolle could be at Santana´s or Gimeno´s level and be co-tenth.

TheFifthSet
10-05-2012, 05:32 PM
Nadal is one of the two reasons Federer cannot be considered GOAT candidate, not because Nadal is a candidate but because of their H2H while sharing generation.

The other reason is Fed´s peak happened during an extremely weak era.

Disagree, Federer's era isn't weak and even at 31 he was able to best Nole, Murray and others at majors, who are in their prime and extremely formidable. The head-to-head is a blemish, yes, but a slight majority of their meetings have been on clay. Imagine if Gonzales played Rosewall half the time on clay, their head to head probably would have looked different yet (by most accounts) Gonzales was a clearly superior player. It's unfair to penalize Fed for being good enough on clay to meet Nadal in finals. I think each great player has some kind of blemish. No one is perfect.

And, while the net play the past few years has been disappointing in mens tennis, the baseline play is absolutely astounding. Having watched tennis all my life almost, I've never seen such a wealth of players who could dominate from the back of the court. Less variety, yes, but not lower quality. The slowing of the surfaces have definitely contributed to the lack of all-court play.

kiki
10-05-2012, 05:34 PM
Disagree, Federer's era isn't weak and even at 31 he was able to best Nole, Murray and others at majors, who are in their prime and extremely formidable. The head-to-head is a blemish, yes, but a slight majority of their meetings have been on clay. Imagine if Gonzales played Rosewall half the time on clay, their head to head probably would have looked different yet (by most accounts) Gonzales was a clearly superior player. It's unfair to penalize Fed for being good enough on clay to meet Nadal in finals. I think each great player has some kind of blemish. No one is perfect.

Maybe.And Gonzales was not clearly better than Rosewall, but just a little bit better or at the same ( enormous) level.

The Dark Knight
10-05-2012, 05:36 PM
Disagree, Federer's era isn't weak and even at 31 he was able to best Nole, Murray and others at majors, who are in their prime and extremely formidable. The head-to-head is a blemish, yes, but a slight majority of their meetings have been on clay. Imagine if Gonzales played Rosewall half the time on clay, their head to head probably would have looked different yet (by most accounts) Gonzales was a clearly superior player. It's unfair to penalize Fed for being good enough on clay to meet Nadal in finals. I think each great player has some kind of blemish. No one is perfect.

And, while the net play the past few years has been a low in mens tennis, the baseline play is absolutely astounding. Having watched tennis since the mid-80s, I've never seen such a wealth of players who could dominate from the back of the court. Less variety, yes, but not lower quality.

Federers era was weak.

There's no question he is a great player....that's not the point .

The point is that there's no way in hell he would have won 17 slams with today's competition.....no way in hell.

TheFifthSet
10-05-2012, 05:39 PM
I'd say that Emerson was the fifth best player of 1964, behind Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales and Gimeno. If Hoad had been in better physical shape, he would have been better too. This is a year where Emerson won 3 of the 4 majors in the amateur game.

Yeah, it speaks volumes. I think Emerson in '68-'69, after having dominated the amateur game, went on an epic losing streak to Laver, something like 12 or 13 matches if I'm not mistaken. Imagine that. A guy who was a powerhouse couldn't challenge Laver to save his life!

Mustard
10-05-2012, 05:40 PM
I fully agree.While he was clearly below Gonzales ( even if he was just as competitive and hard to beat), that does not mean he was not one of the best players of his generation, and possibly better than Gimeno, or at least as good.He is in any top ten list of the 60´s, along Hoad,Rosewall,Gonzales,Laver,Gimeno,Fraser,Newcomb e,Roche and Santana ( the other great amateur of his era).Maybe Ashe and Stolle could be at Santana´s or Gimeno´s level and be co-tenth.

I think we need to careful that we don't overrate nor underrate Emerson. He was an excellent player and although he was below the top professionals, he was the dominant amateur player for several years in the 1960s and would have been more than capable of holding his own in the professional game had he decided to turn professional instead of staying as an amateur due to his loyalty to Harry Hopman and Davis Cup. When Emerson did finally turn pro in early 1968 by joining the NTL group of players, the open era was just about imminent. As a pro in the open era, Emerson didn't have the longevity of other top players of his era. His peak had been the mid-1960s.

As for Gimeno, I think he occupied the position in the mid-1960s of being better than than the top amateurs (Emerson, Stolle, Santana, Roche, Drysdale), yet wasn't as good as Laver and Rosewall, or even an old Gonzales if Gorgo played regularly.

TheFifthSet
10-05-2012, 05:41 PM
Maybe.And Gonzales was not clearly better than Rosewall, but just a little bit better or at the same ( enormous) level.

I was a bit over-zealous there, yes of course there wasn't a huge difference between them although I would favour Pancho because of his unbelievable peak.

Mustard
10-05-2012, 05:49 PM
Yeah, it speaks volumes. I think Emerson in '68-'69, after having dominated the amateur game, went on an epic losing streak to Laver, something like 12 or 13 matches if I'm not mistaken. Imagine that. A guy who was a powerhouse couldn't challenge Laver to save his life!

Emerson did very well against Laver in 1968. In 1968, the first year of the open era, Laver and Emerson met 10 times and each player won 5 matches. In 1969, Laver won 6 and Emerson won 1, while Laver won all 6 of their matches in 1970, and all 6 of their matches in 1971.

TheFifthSet
10-05-2012, 06:09 PM
Emerson did very well against Laver in 1968. In 1968, the first year of the open era, Laver and Emerson met 10 times and each player won 5 matches. In 1969, Laver won 6 and Emerson won 1, while Laver won all 6 of their matches in 1970, and all 6 of their matches in 1971.

Ah, was thinking of that my mistake.

TMF
10-05-2012, 06:28 PM
But he enhances a lot Henin over Serena Williams, so the conclusion is that he uses height just as an excuse for his agenda ( anti Laver, anti Rosewall, anti Williams)

I think you totally misunderstood or intentionally trying to misrepresented me.

I've said that Laver's height(5'8") is fine when he played in his heyday, but tennis has changed, and he would be at a disadvantage playing in the current era. Could he compete? Sure, but he's not going to be one of the elite player. In today's game, you need big serve, which Laver limited because of his size and reach. Power on both wings. The conditions today is suit for baseliner, not s/v, so power from the baseline is essential. Laver will still have good footwork, but missing the 2 key components will hinder his game, despite he's a very talented player. Player's today have big game, you don't see any player at 5'8" dominated the game. In fact, I've pointed out many times before that in the last 2 decades there isn't any player undersize that dominated the game. You can't dispute that. An ideal height for a player is at around 6'0~6'3", not 5'8" or 6'6".

When a player combined a very gifted talent, the right height and work ethnic, that player has a chance to reach the top. Hence, Fed/Nadal/Nole/Murray have those attributes. Could you imagine if these 4 players were at 5'8"? haha, they wouldn't be where they are right now.

TheFifthSet
10-05-2012, 06:34 PM
I think you totally misunderstood or intentionally trying to misrepresented me.

I've said that Laver's height(5'8") is fine when he played in his heyday, but tennis has changed, and he would be at a disadvantage playing in the current era. Could he compete? Sure, but he's not going to be one of the elite player. In today's game, you need big serve, which Laver limited because of his size and reach. Power on both wings. The conditions today is suit for baseliner, not s/v, so power from the baseline is essential. Laver will still have good footwork, but missing the 2 key components will hinder his game, despite he's a very talented player. Player's today have big game, you don't see any player at 5'8" dominated the game. In fact, I've pointed out many times before that in the last 2 decades there isn't any player undersize that dominated the game. You can't dispute that. An ideal height for a player is at around 6'0~6'3", not 5'8" or 6'6".

When a player combined a very gifted talent, the right height and work ethnic, that player has a chance to reach the top. Hence, Fed/Nadal/Nole/Murray have those attributes. Could you imagine if these 4 players were at 5'8"? haha, they wouldn't be where they are right now.

What???? YOU ranked Laver as the #3 player of ALL TIME, and now you say he wouldn't even be an elite player?

David Ferrer is #5 in the world and he's only an inch taller, and not even a fraction of the tennis player Laver was.

TMF
10-05-2012, 06:42 PM
What???? YOU ranked Laver as the #3 player of ALL TIME, and now you say he wouldn't even be an elite player?

David Ferrer is #5 in the world and he's only an inch taller, and not even a fraction of the tennis player Laver was.

I'm talking about Laver competing against the current era. It has nothing to do with what he achieved in the 60s and early 70s.

Look, Court gets ranked high because the reason for her 11 AO titles. Do you really think she could win 11 AO in this era? If anyone does that makes Serena is just an average player, to put it mildly.

And I'm suppose to believe laver would win 200 titles in this era too.:rolleyes:

TheFifthSet
10-05-2012, 07:06 PM
I'm talking about Laver competing against the current era. It has nothing to do with what he achieved in the 60s and early 70s.

Look, Court gets ranked high because the reason for her 11 AO titles. Do you really think she could win 11 AO in this era? If anyone does that makes Serena is just an average player, to put it mildly.

And I'm suppose to believe laver would win 200 titles in this era too.:rolleyes:

You ranked him as better than many modern players, including Sampras I believe, Nadal etc.....

David Ferrer is number five in the world. That's an elite player. He's one inch taller than Laver. One inch. One inch and -1000 less talent.

Your arguments really aren't making much sense here.

timnz
10-05-2012, 08:02 PM
Emerson did very well against Laver in 1968. In 1968, the first year of the open era, Laver and Emerson met 10 times and each player won 5 matches. In 1969, Laver won 6 and Emerson won 1, while Laver won all 6 of their matches in 1970, and all 6 of their matches in 1971.

In 1968, those 5 matches Emerson beat Laver in, he won them all in straight sets. Think about it, beating an absolute peak laver 5 times in straight sets! What that tells me that Emerson was up there in ability. if he had gone pro in 1963, like Laver, I think he would have held his own. Emerson faded after that mainly due to age.

Povl Carstensen
10-05-2012, 11:38 PM
Nadal is one of the two reasons Federer cannot be considered GOAT candidate, not because Nadal is a candidate but because of their H2H while sharing generation.

The other reason is Fed´s peak happened during an extremely weak era.It is not disqualifying for a goat to have a negative h2h against a surface goat. The era stuff is hypothetical (and beaten to death) and contradicted by 31 year old post peak Federer being nr 1.

billnepill
10-06-2012, 12:11 AM
Federers era was weak.

There's no question he is a great player....that's not the point .

The point is that there's no way in hell he would have won 17 slams with today's competition.....no way in hell.

Why, what's different? Federer is beating Murray and Djokovic most of the time and Nadal is winning only on clay for about 2 years now. Peak Federer could have been going for a GS in today's field lol

Povl Carstensen
10-06-2012, 01:06 AM
Federers era was weak.

There's no question he is a great player....that's not the point .

The point is that there's no way in hell he would have won 17 slams with today's competition.....no way in hell.Of course if you put all greats at peak in the same time, they would have less GS, all of them. Federer would perhaps have a some fewer, but so would the others, so he would still be in the lead. On the other hand, he would be raking in more now because of his amazing longeivity, so it all evens out. I explained this to you once, and your answer was "ok".

PSNELKE
10-06-2012, 01:12 AM
The GOAT debate was already close back in 1969.

I agree back then when tennis was so competitive that old farts were able to challenge the Top guys.

/end thread.

NadalDramaQueen
10-06-2012, 01:30 AM
You ranked him as better than many modern players, including Sampras I believe, Nadal etc.....

David Ferrer is number five in the world. That's an elite player. He's one inch taller than Laver. One inch. One inch and -1000 less talent.

Your arguments really aren't making much sense here.

Hello TheFifthSet, I am getting tired of defending TMF, but I again fail to see all of the contradictions you mention. The problem is in the definition of the GOAT in "GOAT lists." Do you really think that the number one player in that list wouldn't have at least one player throughout all of time who couldn't beat him more often than not? What I'm trying to say is, I don't think it would be possible to make a list in that manner (with the idea that the number one would defeat every player from any time period at least 6/10 times) due to contrasting styles, match up issues, etc.. Therefore, everyone has additional criteria in order to make a list that doesn't contain loops that defy logic.

Back to the point, what exactly is your issue with giving Laver a high ranking due to his record but still being of the opinion that many players today would eat him alive? History is history, but comparing across eras is speculation, which is why you would give him his due in your rankings.

As for the Ferrer comparison, I really wouldn't even go there.

The Dark Knight
10-06-2012, 03:20 AM
Of course if you put all greats at peak in the same time, they would have less GS, all of them. Federer would perhaps have a some fewer, but so would the others, so he would still be in the lead. On the other hand, he would be raking in more now because of his amazing longeivity, so it all evens out. I explained this to you once, and your answer was "ok".

No.

I shouldn't just say today's competition only but evenjust Nadal.

Nadal is Feds Kryptonite.


Nadal missed four grand slams and an Olympics not to mention who knows what else.

Out of those four grand slams that he missed I believe 3 of them Federer was the beneficiary . Wimbledon (against Roddick ) and the US open and AO I believe. Even Fed FO win was because Nadal fell out early due to personal problems am injury ( remember he skipped wimby).

Prior to that say 2003- 2007 Nadal was merely a developing player.....a clay court specialist as he was labeled.

It is during this period that Federer has won the majority of his slams.

Never before in history has a goat been dominated by hos main rival . It os completely logical that if Nadal had been around as a fill player from day one Fed would no way have even near 17 slams.


The argument is a logical one:

Once Nadal became an all court player he dominated Federer. Therefore it is logical to assume that had Nadal been an all court player at the age of 18 he would have dominated Federer starting from 2003.

The Dark Knight
10-06-2012, 03:28 AM
Why, what's different? Federer is beating Murray and Djokovic most of the time and Nadal is winning only on clay for about 2 years now. Peak Federer could have been going for a GS in today's field lol

What's different? Fed has not won a slam in two years. The only slam he won is when it went indoors.....which by the way he lost to Murray in during the Olympics just a short time afterwards.

Can Fed win slams: yes .....can he win 17 with today's crop? No way In hell.....

And if you take away some of his 17 .....he is not the goat even on paper.

The Dark Knight
10-06-2012, 03:30 AM
I agree back then when tennis was so competitive that old farts were able to challenge the Top guys.

/end thread.

Sort of the way 35 year old Agassi on one leg challenged Federer? Good point.

prosealster
10-06-2012, 04:00 AM
What's different? Fed has not won a slam in two years. The only slam he won is when it went indoors.....which by the way he lost to Murray in during the Olympics just a short time afterwards.

Can Fed win slams: yes .....can he win 17 with today's crop? No way In hell.....

And if you take away some of his 17 .....he is not the goat even on paper.

this has been beaten to death.....fed's era only looked weak because he made them look weak. roddick who is such a joke of a player till recently was still beating the supposedly much superior djoker.....davydenko who's a headcase with no weapons has a positive head-to-head against the much superior nadal... ferrer who is over the hill interms of tennis age is just about playing the best tennis ever interms of result wise...grandpa fed who thrived on weak era who wouldnt have a chance in current era is still number one ahead of the other 3 who r in their tennis prime...etcetc....

we can all speculate how many fed would win in this era...but at the end of the day it's all speculation....what we know is that with fed's longevity and dominance..he will bag a **** load of gs regardless of which era he played in

The Dark Knight
10-06-2012, 04:53 AM
Actually I'm wrong about Nadal.

I think he missed 2 us opens 2 AO's ( going on three) and I think 1 FO and 1 wimby and 1 Olympic .

Anyone have the numbers?

kiki
10-06-2012, 05:16 AM
I think you totally misunderstood or intentionally trying to misrepresented me.

I've said that Laver's height(5'8") is fine when he played in his heyday, but tennis has changed, and he would be at a disadvantage playing in the current era. Could he compete? Sure, but he's not going to be one of the elite player. In today's game, you need big serve, which Laver limited because of his size and reach. Power on both wings. The conditions today is suit for baseliner, not s/v, so power from the baseline is essential. Laver will still have good footwork, but missing the 2 key components will hinder his game, despite he's a very talented player. Player's today have big game, you don't see any player at 5'8" dominated the game. In fact, I've pointed out many times before that in the last 2 decades there isn't any player undersize that dominated the game. You can't dispute that. An ideal height for a player is at around 6'0~6'3", not 5'8" or 6'6".

When a player combined a very gifted talent, the right height and work ethnic, that player has a chance to reach the top. Hence, Fed/Nadal/Nole/Murray have those attributes. Could you imagine if these 4 players were at 5'8"? haha, they wouldn't be where they are right now.

if Laver was powerful at something, it was in his groundies.His left arm was monstruous.

kiki
10-06-2012, 05:19 AM
What???? YOU ranked Laver as the #3 player of ALL TIME, and now you say he wouldn't even be an elite player?

David Ferrer is #5 in the world and he's only an inch taller, and not even a fraction of the tennis player Laver was.

Right, and we don´t need to go back too long ago.In the 90´s, the power and athleticism of Sampras,Becker,Lendl,Edberg,Bruguera,Courier,Agass i,Kafelnikov,Stich,Martin,Rafter, Ivanisevic or Krajicek was equal or better than current´s elite players...well, in that group, a midget like Chang ( shoter and less powerful than Laver) survived pretty well and reached a few major finals...

RF20Lennon
10-06-2012, 05:22 AM
Actually I'm wrong about Nadal.

I think he missed 2 us opens 2 AO's ( going on three) and I think 1 FO and 1 wimby and 1 Olympic .

Anyone have the numbers?

So basically federer's wins don't count because nadal is a quitter ok.

kiki
10-06-2012, 05:22 AM
In 1968, those 5 matches Emerson beat Laver in, he won them all in straight sets. Think about it, beating an absolute peak laver 5 times in straight sets! What that tells me that Emerson was up there in ability. if he had gone pro in 1963, like Laver, I think he would have held his own. Emerson faded after that mainly due to age.

Don´t forget that Laver and Emerson knew each other game by memory and were so close friends.That has an effect on a particular H2H that equalizes things ( unless you are Borg and Gerulaitis, of course), specially when there is not such a big difference of level of play.

kiki
10-06-2012, 05:26 AM
It is not disqualifying for a goat to have a negative h2h against a surface goat. The era stuff is hypothetical (and beaten to death) and contradicted by 31 year old post peak Federer being nr 1.

Age means nothing.Tilden won majors past 35, so did Rosewall and, in the pros, Gonzales, against one of the fiercest cast of competitors ever gathered.Laver won the second GS in one of the most difficult eras ever, where such a gifted player as Tony Roche could not win a big title.Connors, in the middle of the Golden Era, recovered the nº 1 position and he was well over his 30´s.And Sampras and Agassi were past their 30´s when they won their last slam titles.it means nothing if you are in shape, and it certainly helps against less experienced players.

kiki
10-06-2012, 05:29 AM
Hello TheFifthSet, I am getting tired of defending TMF, but I again fail to see all of the contradictions you mention. The problem is in the definition of the GOAT in "GOAT lists." Do you really think that the number one player in that list wouldn't have at least one player throughout all of time who couldn't beat him more often than not? What I'm trying to say is, I don't think it would be possible to make a list in that manner (with the idea that the number one would defeat every player from any time period at least 6/10 times) due to contrasting styles, match up issues, etc.. Therefore, everyone has additional criteria in order to make a list that doesn't contain loops that defy logic.

Back to the point, what exactly is your issue with giving Laver a high ranking due to his record but still being of the opinion that many players today would eat him alive? History is history, but comparing across eras is speculation, which is why you would give him his due in your rankings.

As for the Ferrer comparison, I really wouldn't even go there.

Is there a nº 1 that has had such a lousy record against his main opponent in the history of the game? I really would be curious.Certainly, not Borg,Laver and Sampras, and I don´t think so about Kramer,Wilding and Tilden.maybe Budge or Perry?

Povl Carstensen
10-06-2012, 06:05 AM
Age means nothing.I dont quite agree. But it does not detract from Federers status.

Povl Carstensen
10-06-2012, 06:07 AM
Is there a nº 1 that has had such a lousy record against his main opponent in the history of the game? I really would be curious.Certainly, not Borg,Laver and Sampras, and I don´t think so about Kramer,Wilding and Tilden.maybe Budge or Perry?Its a surface goat we are talking about. It is ok.

TMF
10-06-2012, 07:56 AM
You ranked him as better than many modern players, including Sampras I believe, Nadal etc.....

David Ferrer is number five in the world. That's an elite player. He's one inch taller than Laver. One inch. One inch and -1000 less talent.

Your arguments really aren't making much sense here.

(sigh) I'm talking about apple and you're talking about oranges.

The height issues playing in modern tennis that I've explained has nothing to do with the goat debate. It's not about career achievements, not about how much a player dominated his generation. Do you understand?

And Ferrer is not an elite player. In that case Del Potro must one of all time great then.:roll: Even if a player managed to win 1 slam, I wouldn't call that an elite player. You got to do a whole lot better than be an elite player.

The Dark Knight
10-06-2012, 08:09 AM
So basically federer's wins don't count because nadal is a quitter ok.

No it's just some of his wins are not that great.

Nadal in less time and in less slams has actually done more than Federer . He has also beaten Federer In his own house and on every surface .

Federer is considered the greatest by some because he has 17 slams.

But some of those slams were really not that big of a deal.

The slams Nadal won were mainly against Federer himself . So I don't see how logically you can possibly say that Federer is the greatest player that ever lived when there is a player who is alive and dominates him.

Feds slams came mainly before Nadal or as Nadal was developing.

No way he can possibly win 17 slams with today's competition .....no way in hell.

Prisoner of Birth
10-06-2012, 08:21 AM
Age means nothing.Tilden won majors past 35, so did Rosewall and, in the pros, Gonzales, against one of the fiercest cast of competitors ever gathered.Laver won the second GS in one of the most difficult eras ever, where such a gifted player as Tony Roche could not win a big title.Connors, in the middle of the Golden Era, recovered the nº 1 position and he was well over his 30´s.And Sampras and Agassi were past their 30´s when they won their last slam titles.it means nothing if you are in shape, and it certainly helps against less experienced players.

Ignorant post is ignorant. Your basic premise that Tennis today works the same way as Tennis in the 60s is absolutely absurd.

beast of mallorca
10-06-2012, 08:28 AM
No it's just some of his wins are not that great.

Nadal in less time and in less slams has actually done more than Federer . He has also beaten Federer In his own house and on every surface .

Federer is considered the greatest by some because he has 17 slams.

But some of those slams were really not that big of a deal.

The slams Nadal won were mainly against Federer himself . So I don't see how logically you can possibly say that Federer is the greatest player that ever lived when there is a player who is alive and dominates him.

Feds slams came mainly before Nadal or as Nadal was developing.

No way he can possibly win 17 slams with today's competition .....no way in hell.

You make a very sound argument there buddy. And I agree.
But if Nadal is to contend for the GOAT status #1, he has to win more
GS/ Majors (for those who want to always be 'politically' correct) out of Clay and get to number 1 ranking longer, maybe 200+ more. Just my 2¢

Prisoner of Birth
10-06-2012, 08:31 AM
No it's just some of his wins are not that great.

Nadal in less time and in less slams has actually done more than Federer . He has also beaten Federer In his own house and on every surface .

Federer is considered the greatest by some because he has 17 slams.

But some of those slams were really not that big of a deal.

The slams Nadal won were mainly against Federer himself . So I don't see how logically you can possibly say that Federer is the greatest player that ever lived when there is a player who is alive and dominates him.

Feds slams came mainly before Nadal or as Nadal was developing.

No way he can possibly win 17 slams with today's competition .....no way in hell.

31 year-old Federer is world #1 "with today's competition." :lol:

RF20Lennon
10-06-2012, 08:33 AM
No it's just some of his wins are not that great.

Nadal in less time and in less slams has actually done more than Federer . He has also beaten Federer In his own house and on every surface .

Federer is considered the greatest by some because he has 17 slams.

But some of those slams were really not that big of a deal.

The slams Nadal won were mainly against Federer himself . So I don't see how logically you can possibly say that Federer is the greatest player that ever lived when there is a player who is alive and dominates him.

Feds slams came mainly before Nadal or as Nadal was developing.

No way he can possibly win 17 slams with today's competition .....no way in hell.

You do realize he's 31 years old now right. And as I said before GOAT does not mean you own everyone it means your more successful than everyone and fed has the best resume. So even if he cant win 17 with todays competition it doesnt matter cause he has 17 no matter what. And Nadal never met him in the hardcourt slams when federer was in HIS prime. Imagine if nadal met fed in 2007 final on rebound ace. He wouldve gotten beaten SO BADLY!!! but no it never happened. So basically he beats someone who is 5 years older to him on plexicushion on a surface that suits him more so federer cannot be GOAT :rolleyes:

merlinpinpin
10-06-2012, 08:38 AM
31 year-old Federer is world #1 "with today's competition." :lol:

Yeah, it would almost be ugly if he was in his prime now. At least, the Safins, Roddicks, Hewitts, and Nalbandians put up some fight at the time. I don't even want to imagine what a circa 2006-Federer would have done with "today's competition". Win a couple of calendar grand slams in a row, maybe... :roll:

Evan77
10-06-2012, 08:59 AM
Yeah, it would almost be ugly if he was in his prime now. At least, the Safins, Roddicks, Hewitts, and Nalbandians put up some fight at the time. I don't even want to imagine what a circa 2006-Federer would have done with "today's competition". Win a couple of calendar grand slams in a row, maybe... :roll:
hmm, Roddick is Fed's turkey, lost like what 20 matches, won 2 if I remember correctly. doesn't belong in that 'list'. and no, no Calendar GS. He would still need to deal with Nadal etc.

The Dark Knight
10-06-2012, 09:17 AM
You do realize he's 31 years old now right. And as I said before GOAT does not mean you own everyone it means your more successful than everyone and fed has the best resume. So even if he cant win 17 with todays competition it doesnt matter cause he has 17 no matter what. And Nadal never met him in the hardcourt slams when federer was in HIS prime. Imagine if nadal met fed in 2007 final on rebound ace. He wouldve gotten beaten SO BADLY!!! but no it never happened. So basically he beats someone who is 5 years older to him on plexicushion on a surface that suits him more so federer cannot be GOAT :rolleyes:

That's what goat may mean to you and I respect it.

However that's not at all what it means to me and I ask you to respect that as well.

To me the greatest player that ever lived means that no one else could beat them. It's really simple.

Yes Federer is 31 today and its incredible . The man has not lost a step. He is as great as he ever was . In fact he says he is playing the best tennis of his life.

Furthermore , Federer at 31 is I'm far better shape than Nadal is at 26.

Nadal has in my opinion done far more in reality than Federer. Nadal has won more with less opportunies. He has won 11 slams but skipped I think 6 plus the Olympics.

By coincidence the number of slams Federer has is also 6 more than Nadal but at 31 he has never missed a slam an has had way more opportunities . Fed has even had more opportunities at the Olympics but never could win .

Add to that Nadal has beaten Fed in slams on grass and hard while Federer has not even come close to touching Nadal at the FO.

Yeah Fed has his 17 on paper but that's all he has over Nadal.....nothing else. Feds 17 slams mainly happened becaise he avoided Nadal.

This is the first time in history that the number one is dominated by his main rival......so you really can't use generalities like most slams becaise this situation is an exception to the general rule.

And it's a pretty glaring exception. Federer has been very fortunate in his career to avoid Nadal......very fortunate indeed.

The Dark Knight
10-06-2012, 09:22 AM
Yeah, it would almost be ugly if he was in his prime now. At least, the Safins, Roddicks, Hewitts, and Nalbandians put up some fight at the time. I don't even want to imagine what a circa 2006-Federer would have done with "today's competition". Win a couple of calendar grand slams in a row, maybe... :roll:

He has always lost to Nadal....even when Nadal was a young developing player at 18 years old.

Prisoner of Birth
10-06-2012, 09:27 AM
That's what goat may mean to you and I respect it.

However that's not at all what it means to me and I ask you to respect that as well.

To me the greatest player that ever lived means that no one else could beat them. It's really simple.

Yes Federer is 31 today and its incredible . The man has not lost a step. He is as great as he ever was . In fact he says he is playing the best tennis of his life.

Furthermore , Federer at 31 is I'm far better shape than Nadal is at 26.

Nadal has in my opinion done far more in reality than Federer. Nadal has won more with less opportunies. He has won 11 slams but skipped I think 6 plus the Olympics.

By coincidence the number of slams Federer has is also 6 more than Nadal but at 31 he has never missed a slam an has had way more opportunities . Fed has even had more opportunities at the Olympics but never could win .

Add to that Nadal has beaten Fed in slams on grass and hard while Federer has not even come close to touching Nadal at the FO.

Yeah Fed has his 17 on paper but that's all he has over Nadal.....nothing else. Feds 17 slams mainly happened becaise he avoided Nadal.

This is the first time in history that the number one is dominated by his main rival......so you really can't use generalities like most slams becaise this situation is an exception to the general rule.

And it's a pretty glaring exception. Federer has been very fortunate in his career to avoid Nadal......very fortunate indeed.

1. The Olympics mean NOTHING compared to the Grand Slams as far as achievement in Tennis goes.

2. Federer is NOT playing his best Tennis? Have you, like, started watching Tennis in late 2010?

3. Davydenko and Rosol have winning head-to-heads against Nadal. So he can't be the GOAT by your logic.

4. Federer's got 17 Slams. 17. Seventeen. Seven... teen... That is all.

The Dark Knight
10-06-2012, 09:55 AM
1. The Olympics mean NOTHING compared to the Grand Slams as far as achievement in Tennis goes.

2. Federer is NOT playing his best Tennis? Have you, like, started watching Tennis in late 2010?

3. Davydenko and Rosol have winning head-to-heads against Nadal. So he can't be the GOAT by your logic.

4. Federer's got 17 Slams. 17. Seventeen. Seven... teen... That is all.

1- maybe to you the Olympics mean nothing . But they mean a lot to a lot of other people.

2- Federer says he is playing the best tennis of his life . Your argument is with him not me.

3- davydenko and Rosol are on paper head to head . Again you take the simplistic view . For example Davydenko has never played Nadal on anything but a hardcourt . Furthermore all the matches are a best of the three. And there's a difference of a ba match up like Rosol. Thy happens once in a blue moon .....but Nadal was beating everyone including Federer. It's not some weird thing that happens once in a blue moon.

4- 17 slams....yup that's all you got. An on paper and a robotic view your right. But a deeper more intellectual approach show that he got a majority of those slams by avoiding Nadal in some way.

RF20Lennon
10-06-2012, 09:57 AM
That's what goat may mean to you and I respect it.

However that's not at all what it means to me and I ask you to respect that as well.

To me the greatest player that ever lived means that no one else could beat them. It's really simple.


Agreed!! ok I see your point!

Povl Carstensen
10-06-2012, 10:15 AM
Yeah Fed has his 17 on paper but that's all he has over Nadal.....nothing else.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_career_achievements_by_Roger_Federer#Other _selected_achievements
Apart from that your arguing is just a lot of ifs. Quite robotical with your fixation with h2h.

Prisoner of Birth
10-06-2012, 10:31 AM
1- maybe to you the Olympics mean nothing . But they mean a lot to a lot of other people.

2- Federer says he is playing the best tennis of his life . Your argument is with him not me.

3- davydenko and Rosol are on paper head to head . Again you take the simplistic view . For example Davydenko has never played Nadal on anything but a hardcourt . Furthermore all the matches are a best of the three. And there's a difference of a ba match up like Rosol. Thy happens once in a blue moon .....but Nadal was beating everyone including Federer. It's not some weird thing that happens once in a blue moon.

4- 17 slams....yup that's all you got. An on paper and a robotic view your right. But a deeper more intellectual approach show that he got a majority of those slams by avoiding Nadal in some way.

1. You agree it isn't worth the same as a Slam, right?

2. Federer said he was playing "some" of his best Tennis, which means just that. Some. In bursts. Not consistently.

3. Nadal still lost to Rosol. And bringing up the HC argument is ironic coming from you, when you keep bringing up the Nadal-Federer head-to-head who've played half their matches on Clay.

4. And 24 Slam finals (including 5 at every Slam). And 6 YE championships, 2 of them in Djokovic's and Nadal's primes. And 23 consecutive SFs. And over 300 weeks at #1 :lol: Since Nadal's first Slam, Federer has won 13 Slams. And a 4-0 record against Nadal on indoor Hards. A triple-surface Bagel on Nadal. A 2-1 lead at Wimbledon. And he never lost to the Rosol. Seriously, what are you on about?

VPhuc tennis fan
10-06-2012, 10:32 AM
That's what goat may mean to you and I respect it.

However that's not at all what it means to me and I ask you to respect that as well.

To me the greatest player that ever lived means that no one else could beat them. It's really simple.

Yes Federer is 31 today and its incredible . The man has not lost a step. He is as great as he ever was . In fact he says he is playing the best tennis of his life.

Furthermore , Federer at 31 is I'm far better shape than Nadal is at 26.

Nadal has in my opinion done far more in reality than Federer. Nadal has won more with less opportunies. He has won 11 slams but skipped I think 6 plus the Olympics.

By coincidence the number of slams Federer has is also 6 more than Nadal but at 31 he has never missed a slam an has had way more opportunities . Fed has even had more opportunities at the Olympics but never could win .

Add to that Nadal has beaten Fed in slams on grass and hard while Federer has not even come close to touching Nadal at the FO.

Yeah Fed has his 17 on paper but that's all he has over Nadal.....nothing else. Feds 17 slams mainly happened becaise he avoided Nadal.

This is the first time in history that the number one is dominated by his main rival......so you really can't use generalities like most slams becaise this situation is an exception to the general rule.

And it's a pretty glaring exception. Federer has been very fortunate in his career to avoid Nadal......very fortunate indeed.

Fed...avoid Nadal. Really? Back to the comparo that I asked. Where was Rafa when Fed won against Hewitt, Safin, and other supposedly weak players? Oh, I remember. Rafa skipped here, skipped there, injured here, injured there, still wore development diapers. Who was avoiding who?

merlinpinpin
10-06-2012, 10:37 AM
He has always lost to Nadal....even when Nadal was a young developing player at 18 years old.

You should tray and learn:
- what "always" means
- what the results of tennis matches are

So, to recap, Nadal *has* always lost to Rosol, but Federer is far from having always lost to Nadal.

The Dark Knight
10-06-2012, 10:39 AM
Fed...avoid Nadal. Really? Back to the comparo that I asked. Where was Rafa when Fed won against Hewitt, Safin, and other supposedly weak players? Oh, I remember. Rafa skipped here, skipped there, injured here, injured there, still wore development diapers. Who was avoiding who?

He avoided having to play Rafa for one reason or another through no fault of his own.

But the facts are the facts . He simply has been dominated by Rafa and his 17 slams came mainly by not having to deal with Rafa for one reason or another.

If you just want to add up the slams and declare that Fed is the goat then you are absolutely right.

However for me it's a far more complicated issue than simply adding up the numbers in a robotic fashion.

I just cannot logically call someone the greatest player that ever lived when he keeps losing to someone . It just defys logic .

The Dark Knight
10-06-2012, 10:42 AM
You should tray and learn:
- what "always" means
- what the results of tennis matches are

So, to recap, Nadal *has* always lost to Rosol, but Federer is far from having always lost to Nadal.

Nadal beat Federer in their very first meeting on a hardcourt . So yes Nadal has been beating Federer since their very first meeting ....for Nadals entire career he has always Dominated Federer. Yet somehow Federer is better than Nadal? How does that make sense?

Prisoner of Birth
10-06-2012, 10:42 AM
He avoided having to play Rafa for one reason or another through no fault of his own.

But the facts are the facts . He simply has been dominated by Rafa and his 17 slams came mainly by not having to deal with Rafa for one reason or another.

If you just want to add up the slams and declare that Fed is the goat then you are absolutely right.

However for me it's a far more complicated issue than simply adding up the numbers in a robotic fashion.

I just cannot logically call someone the greatest player that ever lived when he keeps losing to someone . It just defys(sic) logic .

Yeah, I'm sure you do :)

Prisoner of Birth
10-06-2012, 10:43 AM
Nadal beat Federer in their very first meeting on a hardcourt . So yes Nadal has been beating Nadal since their very first meeting ....for Nadals entire career he has always Dominated Federer. Yet somehow Federer is better than Nadal? How does that make sense?

Ohhhh, right. When that "first meeting" happens, let me know.

VPhuc tennis fan
10-06-2012, 10:43 AM
You should tray and learn:
- what "always" means
- what the results of tennis matches are

So, to recap, Nadal *has* always lost to Rosol, but Federer is far from having always lost to Nadal.

Nah. Always = clay, clay clay clay ... to the infinity. Results= RG preferably. In no case, WTF or HC or grass. Too biaised,no?

Povl Carstensen
10-06-2012, 10:46 AM
that's all he has over Nadal.....nothing else.All Nadal has over Federer is more or less clay and his record 241 weeks at nr. 2.

merlinpinpin
10-06-2012, 10:46 AM
Nadal beat Federer in their very first meeting on a hardcourt . So yes Nadal has been beating Federer since their very first meeting ....for Nadals entire career he has always Dominated Federer. Yet somehow Federer is better than Nadal? How does that make sense?

It does when you understand how professional tennis works.

The Dark Knight
10-06-2012, 10:47 AM
Nah. Always = clay, clay clay clay ... to the infinity. Results= RG preferably. In no case, WTF or HC or grass. Too biaised,no?

Except that's not true . Nadal beat him in the greatest match of all time on Feds best surface .....grass. Then at the AO which is hard court.

The Dark Knight
10-06-2012, 10:47 AM
It does when you understand how professional tennis works.

I guess I'm pretty simple . Someone beats me continually in finals then I think he is better than me.

The Dark Knight
10-06-2012, 10:49 AM
All Nadal has over Federer is mnore or less clay and his record 241 weeks at nr. 2.

Nadal beat Fed on Nadals worst surfaces hardcourt and grass....by contrast Fed never even came close to beating Nadal on clay 6-1,-6-0 , 6-3.....

So Nadal is better all around.

VPhuc tennis fan
10-06-2012, 10:50 AM
He avoided having to play Rafa for one reason or another through no fault of his own.

But the facts are the facts . He simply has been dominated by Rafa and his 17 slams came mainly by not having to deal with Rafa for one reason or another.

If you just want to add up the slams and declare that Fed is the goat then you are absolutely right.

However for me it's a far more complicated issue than simply adding up the numbers in a robotic fashion.

I just cannot logically call someone the greatest player that ever lived when he keeps losing to someone . It just defys logic .

He ( Fed) avoided... No, he didn't. He was in these GS finals.Where was Rafa? Funny how you understand the meaning of "avoid". FYI, it was RAfa. DO NOT twist things around to sui your purposes.

Prisoner of Birth
10-06-2012, 10:50 AM
Nadal beat Fed on Nadals worst surfaces hardcourt and grass....by contrast Fed never even came close to beating Nadal on clay 6-1,-6-0 , 6-3.....

So Nadal is better all around.

Federer bageled Nadal on Clay.

VPhuc tennis fan
10-06-2012, 10:54 AM
I guess I'm pretty simple . Someone beats me continually in finals then I think he is better than me.

So Djoker must SO FAR AHEAD of Rafa based on his results in GS finals last year, right? What was it again, 3-0?

VPhuc tennis fan
10-06-2012, 10:56 AM
Nadal beat Fed on Nadals worst surfaces hardcourt and grass....by contrast Fed never even came close to beating Nadal on clay 6-1,-6-0 , 6-3.....

So Nadal is better all around.

Keep spinning. You'll understand one day.

VPhuc tennis fan
10-06-2012, 10:57 AM
Yeah, I'm sure you do :)

He does. Logic=TDK

Povl Carstensen
10-06-2012, 11:03 AM
Federer bageled Nadal on Clay.No but GS is all that counts. Oops Federer has more of them. Well it does not count, because Nadal did not show up in the finals.

VPhuc tennis fan
10-06-2012, 11:07 AM
No but GS is all that counts. Oops Federer has more of them. Well it does not count, because Nadal did not show up in the finals.

Nah, Fed just avoided him, such a loser!:)

Prisoner of Birth
10-06-2012, 11:10 AM
Nah, Fed just avoided him, such a loser!:)

Yep, Federer has made 24 Grand Slam finals and he's so talented that he planned his finals so he wouldn't have to face Nadal there :)

kiki
10-06-2012, 11:15 AM
Federer bageled Nadal on Clay.

You mean at Hamburg? Nadal was so tired he could not hold his racket in that third set.

90's Clay
10-06-2012, 11:34 AM
Nadal is rapidly approaching GOAT candidacy. (If hes not considered that already)

11 slams
Career Grand Slam
#1 in the world
Has owned another GOAT candidate his whole career
positive h2h with his main rivals
Already hands down GOAT on clay


Hes just missing a YEC and perhaps a bit of a longer stint at #1

But hes accomplished everything there is just about and did so before he was 26-27 years old.. Thats enough for GOAT consideration. Anyone who says otherwise is clueless. The guy has a GOAT-like Resume

If people consider someone like Borg a GOAT candidate for instance, how the hell can't you consider Nadal? Nadal has already surprised Borg IMO. He's just trailing behind a few other guys like Laver, Pancho, Tilden, Rosewall, Fed, and Sampras. All GOAT candidates themselves. But one of those (Federer) he has owned his whole career

If Nadal can just get maybe 2 more slams (preferably off of clay) his GOAT candidacy should be universal

The Dark Knight
10-06-2012, 12:21 PM
Yep, Federer has made 24 Grand Slam finals and he's so talented that he planned his finals so he wouldn't have to face Nadal there :)

Of course not. It's through no fault of his own.

He is clearly a goat and would win slams in any era and will continue to do so. In fact he was my pick to win Wimbledon.

But the only thing you guys hang your hat on is Feds 17 slams......like that should automatically make him the goat.

It's never been about the number of slams. If it were them Emerson would be considered greater than Laver if it were then Borg would be considered greater than Mcenroe .

The answers has never been so cut and dry . Certainly 17 slams adds to Federers argument . It's a gigantic feat.......but I don't think that automatically means he is the goat.

The fact that Nadal dominates him is a huge problem for Federer. I'm sorry but you can't say he is the greatest player that has ever lived when in front of our eyes he is just utterly dominated .

We have never had a situation like this before. Laver , Mcenroe, Lendl, Sampras all dominated their opponents.

But when the alleged greatest player that ever lived gets beaten on his favorite surface , gets beaten on his equally greatest surface ( hard) and loses 6-3,6-1,6-0 at the French and dominated like I believe four other times at the FO......it gets really difficult to say he is the greatest player that ever lived .

There is Nadal who beats the crap out of Federer in front of your eyes. How can you just ignore that???

Does Federer have the greatest record of all time : YES......but does that mean he is the greatest player that ever lived ? I say no.....and so do a heck of a lot of other people.

The Dark Knight
10-06-2012, 12:35 PM
Just by analogy ..,,

Jankovic ,Azerenka ,Safina all ranked as the best players earth....#1 in the world . Their records were better than Serena.....but were they really better? No way Serena beat them an was the better player even though her record was worse.

I'll even go a step further.....I don't know the numbers but I think Grafs numbers were better than Serena's..... I personally think Serena is a better player. In fact ill go as far as saying that Serena Williams is the greatest female tennis player that ever lived

Cup8489
10-06-2012, 12:42 PM
Of course not. It's through no fault of his own.

He is clearly a goat and would win slams in any era and will continue to do so. In fact he was my pick to win Wimbledon.

But the only thing you guys hang your hat on is Feds 17 slams......like that should automatically make him the goat.

It's never been about the number of slams. If it were them Emerson would be considered greater than Laver if it were then Borg would be considered greater than Mcenroe .

The answers has never been so cut and dry . Certainly 17 slams adds to Federers argument . It's a gigantic feat.......but I don't think that automatically means he is the goat.

The fact that Nadal dominates him is a huge problem for Federer. I'm sorry but you can't say he is the greatest player that has ever lived when in front of our eyes he is just utterly dominated .

We have never had a situation like this before. Laver , Mcenroe, Lendl, Sampras all dominated their opponents.

But when the alleged greatest player that ever lived gets beaten on his favorite surface , gets beaten on his equally greatest surface ( hard) and loses 6-3,6-1,6-0 at the French and dominated like I believe four other times at the FO......it gets really difficult to say he is the greatest player that ever lived .

There is Nadal who beats the crap out of Federer in front of your eyes. How can you just ignore that???

Does Federer have the greatest record of all time : YES......but does that mean he is the greatest player that ever lived ? I say no.....and so do a heck of a lot of other people.

Utterly dominated... must you continue to engage in hyperbole? Federer has won 10 matches of 28. That's not being utterly dominated. You're just exaggerating the effect it's had.. and it's not a correct way to make an argument. Federer has denied Nadal majors. That's not being dominated.. end of story.

jokinla
10-06-2012, 12:42 PM
Nadal is rapidly approaching GOAT candidacy. (If hes not considered that already)

11 slams
Career Grand Slam
#1 in the world
Has owned another GOAT candidate his whole career
positive h2h with his main rivals
Already hands down GOAT on clay


Hes just missing a YEC and perhaps a bit of a longer stint at #1

But hes accomplished everything there is just about and did so before he was 26-27 years old.. Thats enough for GOAT consideration. Anyone who says otherwise is clueless. The guy has a GOAT-like Resume

If people consider someone like Borg a GOAT candidate for instance, how the hell can't you consider Nadal? Nadal has already surprised Borg IMO. He's just trailing behind a few other guys like Laver, Pancho, Tilden, Rosewall, Fed, and Sampras. All GOAT candidates themselves. But one of those (Federer) he has owned his whole career

If Nadal can just get maybe 2 more slams (preferably off of clay) his GOAT candidacy should be universal

Radiohead has a great song, you'd probably like it, it's called "Nice Dream"

The Dark Knight
10-06-2012, 12:47 PM
Utterly dominated... must you continue to engage in hyperbole? Federer has won 10 matches of 28. That's not being utterly dominated. You're just exaggerating the effect it's had.. and it's not a correct way to make an argument. Federer has denied Nadal majors. That's not being dominated.. end of story.

History only looks at slams.

How many tournaments did Noah win? All you remember is that he won the FO. No one remembers all history remembers is the slams. How many games during the season did the Yankees win? Who cares all that matters is the World Series .

Any matches during the regular season are just that matches to determine your ranking for the slams. It's no different that being in 1st place in the Anerican league and making the World Series.

Baseball has its World Series which consists of 7 games. Tennis has te slams which consists of four tournaments . The rest are all merely "regular season" matches to determine your ranking .

The only slams Fed was able to beat Nadal on were grass....and that's when he was still labeled a clay court specialist . You can't call him a clay court specialist and then be surprised he lost on grass.

In any event Nadal beat him on grass on hard and on clay.....that's domination in my book.

ledwix
10-06-2012, 01:03 PM
History only looks at slams.

How many tournaments did Noah win? No one remembers all history remembers is the slams. How many games during the season did the Yankees win? Who cares all that matters is the World Series .


It's never been about the number of slams. If it were them Emerson would be considered greater than Laver if it were then Borg would be considered greater than Mcenroe.

Um, you just blatantly contradicted yourself. How could slam H2H, a smaller scope of the big picture, ever mean more than total accomplishment and performance in slams? That's like saying it doesn't matter how many WS the Yankees won, but it is all about who won the WS when the Yanks played the D'backs. Because the WS is all that matters and where all the glory is. So I guess the D'backs are a better team than the Yanks. Since they showed up in 1997 they "dominated" the Yanks in the World Series in '01.

The Dark Knight
10-06-2012, 01:14 PM
Um, you just blatantly contradicted yourself. How could slam H2H, a smaller scope of the big picture, ever mean more than total accomplishment and performance in slams? That's like saying it doesn't matter how many WS the Yankees won, but it is all about who won the WS when the Yanks played the D'backs. Because the WS is all that matters and where all the glory is. So I guess the D'backs are a better team than the Yanks. Since they showed up in 1997 they "dominated" the Yanks in the World Series in '01.

Not a good example.

A better example would be is that before the diamondbacks the Yankees won 5 WS in a row. Then the diamond backs a brand new team entered the major leagues and lost to the yankess in the regular season.

The diamond backs a rookie team actually make it to the World Series and barely lose.

The very next year after their rookie season they beats the yanks in the WS and continue to beat the Yanks for the next 5 years.

But then the diamond backs star pitcher gets injured and they don't make it to the series. The yanks end up beating the dodgers in the World Series that year.

So the yanks have more World Series .....but who is really the better team?

Povl Carstensen
10-06-2012, 01:15 PM
I say no.....and so do a heck of a lot of other people.No you just say it a heck of a lot of times.

Povl Carstensen
10-06-2012, 01:21 PM
And it doesn't make you more right.
"Unlucky, unlucky, oh yes," uncle Toni said. "If there wasn't Federer, perhaps Rafael would have been No. 1 for four years. But with Federer, that was impossible."

The Dark Knight
10-06-2012, 01:23 PM
Not a good example.

A better example would be is that before the diamondbacks the Yankees won 5 WS in a row. Then the diamond backs a brand new team entered the major leagues and lost to the yankess in the regular season.

The diamond backs a rookie team actually make it to the World Series and barely lose.

The very next year after their rookie season they beats the yanks in the WS and continue to beat the Yanks for the next 5 years.

But then the diamond backs star pitcher gets injured and they don't make it to the series. The yanks end up beating the dodgers in the World Series that year.

So the yanks have more World Series .....but who is really the better team?

By analogy that's what happened in tennis...

Young Nadal beats Fed at wimby , then defends his title the next year and ten skips Wimbledon .

Federer then wins wimby beat Roddick yet again for the same old story.
Fed adds yet another slam in the records.

Sort of a hollow win if you ask me.

The Dark Knight
10-06-2012, 01:25 PM
And it doesn't make you more right.
"Unlucky, unlucky, oh yes," uncle Toni said. "If there wasn't Federer, perhaps Rafael would have been No. 1 for four years. But with Federer, that was impossible."

Toni and Rafa are so respectful of Federer it's amazing .

Povl Carstensen
10-06-2012, 01:30 PM
With good reason. It was Federer who was (and is) nr one for almost 6 years. A far bigger blemish on Nadals record than a loosing head to head on clay on Federers.

ledwix
10-06-2012, 01:31 PM
Not a good example.

A better example would be is that before the diamondbacks the Yankees won 5 WS in a row. Then the diamond backs a brand new team entered the major leagues and lost to the yankess in the regular season.

The diamond backs a rookie team actually make it to the World Series and barely lose.

The very next year after their rookie season they beats the yanks in the WS and continue to beat the Yanks for the next 5 years.

But then the diamond backs star pitcher gets injured and they don't make it to the series. The yanks end up beating the dodgers in the World Series that year.

So the yanks have more World Series .....but who is really the better team?

Federer was world #1 five times, Nadal twice, and Djokovic soon to be twice as well. Slams between the two best players aren't the only criteria. That ignores consistency, something Nadal doesn't have at the top of the game. A slam final is not the WS. There are four of them plus other points to be had, including a neat summary of all data, called the ranking, which shows who was the best player overall for that season. Nadal has dominated two tennis seasons, Federer five.

Povl Carstensen
10-06-2012, 01:33 PM
But a deeper more intellectual approach Hillarious comming from a man who uses misrepresenting, Federers wifes weight and big fonts as arguments...

The Dark Knight
10-06-2012, 01:35 PM
Hillarious comming from a man who uses misrepresenting, Federers wifes weight and big fonts as arguments...

Awwww come on that was a joke. I thought it was funny.

The Dark Knight
10-06-2012, 01:41 PM
Federer was world #1 five times, Nadal twice, and Djokovic soon to be twice as well. Slams between the two best players aren't the only criteria. That ignores consistency, something Nadal doesn't have at the top of the game. A slam final is not the WS. There are four of them plus other points to be had, including a neat summary of all data, called the ranking, which shows who was the best player overall for that season. Nadal has dominated two tennis seasons, Federer five.

It all depends on who is the Judge doesn't it?

But history has already proven that slams are the only thing it remembers .

Boris Becker is my favorite example. He is a goat by every ones standards. Yet he was never the year end #1 player in the world .

It's actually sort of a trivia statistic because no one really cares. All they remember is that he is a multiple slam winner .

But let's take the analogy further . Becke beat Lendl at Wimbledon and then beat him right after that at the US Open . And yet somehow Lendl was the #1 player in the world .

No one agreed with it . There were tons of articles about it......why?? Because even though on paper Lendl was the better player everyone knew in reality Becker was the best player that year.

He beat Lendl Mano a Mano in two consecutive slams.
It's paper vs reality argument.

Povl Carstensen
10-06-2012, 01:43 PM
Awwww come on that was a joke. I thought it was funny.Oh, perhaps I am too deep and intellectual. And the misrepresenting and big fonts?

Numenor
10-06-2012, 01:45 PM
:lol: No GOAT candidate can be dominated 7 straight times across 3 different surfaces by his main rival. Too bad nadal had to wait until Novak's level decreased, was emotionally distraught, and on clay to finally end his losing streak.

Povl Carstensen
10-06-2012, 01:47 PM
All they remember is that he is a multiple slam winner .Yes because he was not nr 1, logical isn't it?

6-1 6-3 6-0
10-06-2012, 02:08 PM
:lol: No GOAT candidate can be dominated 7 straight times across 3 different surfaces by his main rival.

But, at the same time, a GOAT candidate can be 2-8 in slams against his main 'rival', and be 10-18 overall?

Numenor
10-06-2012, 02:15 PM
But, at the same time, a GOAT candidate can be 2-8 in slams against his main 'rival', and be 10-18 overall?

Sorry, I have no idea who you're talking about. Can you elaborate?

The Dark Knight
10-06-2012, 02:19 PM
Oh, perhaps I am too deep and intellectual. And the misrepresenting and big fonts?

Well they say the size of a mans font is equal to the size of his ......

And there was no misreping

VPhuc tennis fan
10-06-2012, 02:29 PM
Well they say the size of a mans font is equal to the size of his ......

And there was no misreping
Here we go. Go ahead and spill out the rest of your argument, intellectual!

Prisoner of Birth
10-06-2012, 02:32 PM
It all depends on who is the Judge doesn't it?

But history has already proven that slams are the only thing it remembers .

Boris Becker is my favorite example. He is a goat by every ones standards. Yet he was never the year end #1 player in the world .

It's actually sort of a trivia statistic because no one really cares. All they remember is that he is a multiple slam winner .

But let's take the analogy further . Becke beat Lendl at Wimbledon and then beat him right after that at the US Open . And yet somehow Lendl was the #1 player in the world .

No one agreed with it . There were tons of articles about it......why?? Because even though on paper Lendl was the better player everyone knew in reality Becker was the best player that year.

He beat Lendl Mano a Mano in two consecutive slams.
It's paper vs reality argument.

Becker is only ONE of the GOATs if you have 40 people you call "one of the GOATs." He is nowhere near the vicinity of being in even the off-thought discussions of being THE GOAT.

VPhuc tennis fan
10-06-2012, 02:32 PM
But, at the same time, a GOAT candidate can be 2-8 in slams against his main 'rival', and be 10-18 overall?
How about 0-3 in GS finals last year? and 0-1 at AO this year? so by that standard, should we also elevate Djoker above your invicible GOAT?

Prisoner of Birth
10-06-2012, 02:33 PM
You mean at Hamburg? Nadal was so tired he could not hold his racket in that third set.

And Nadal beat Federer on Grass when Federer was suffering from a Heart-Attack. Now prove me wrong.

Prisoner of Birth
10-06-2012, 02:38 PM
Of course not. It's through no fault of his own.

He is clearly a goat and would win slams in any era and will continue to do so. In fact he was my pick to win Wimbledon.

But the only thing you guys hang your hat on is Feds 17 slams......like that should automatically make him the goat.

It's never been about the number of slams. If it were them Emerson would be considered greater than Laver if it were then Borg would be considered greater than Mcenroe .

The answers has never been so cut and dry . Certainly 17 slams adds to Federers argument . It's a gigantic feat.......but I don't think that automatically means he is the goat.

The fact that Nadal dominates him is a huge problem for Federer. I'm sorry but you can't say he is the greatest player that has ever lived when in front of our eyes he is just utterly dominated .

We have never had a situation like this before. Laver , Mcenroe, Lendl, Sampras all dominated their opponents.

But when the alleged greatest player that ever lived gets beaten on his favorite surface , gets beaten on his equally greatest surface ( hard) and loses 6-3,6-1,6-0 at the French and dominated like I believe four other times at the FO......it gets really difficult to say he is the greatest player that ever lived .

There is Nadal who beats the crap out of Federer in front of your eyes. How can you just ignore that???

Does Federer have the greatest record of all time : YES......but does that mean he is the greatest player that ever lived ? I say no.....and so do a heck of a lot of other people.

:lol: I'm not arguing with you anymore. You're like a parrot, the same old "head-to-head" argument ad nauseum, which doesn't really mean anymore than Nadal's record against Davydenko. Federer is the GOAT and, deep down, you know it. Which is why you spend so much time with the same (worn off) argument. See ya!

VPhuc tennis fan
10-06-2012, 03:51 PM
Nadal is rapidly approaching GOAT candidacy. (If hes not considered that already)

11 slams
Career Grand Slam
#1 in the world
Has owned another GOAT candidate his whole career
positive h2h with his main rivals
Already hands down GOAT on clay

Hes just missing a YEC and perhaps a bit of a longer stint at #1

Thats enough for GOAT consideration. Anyone who says otherwise is clueless. The guy has a GOAT-like resume "

I
11 slams. How about 17?
Career Grand Slam? Fed doesn't have it? LOL
#1 in the world? So does Fed. Now how long for Rafa? And how long for Fed?
Owned Fed his whole career? A H2H of 18-10 hardly qualifies as OWNING. Come back and tell me when it's like 100-10. That's OWNING. That's DOMINATION. 18-10. HARDLY!
"Thats enough for GOAT consideration." And not Fed? Humm...
"GOAT-like resume". "LIKE" is the keyword. How about simply a GOAT resume. Hardly there yet. Let's talk over in a few years when he racks up to 17.

VPhuc tennis fan
10-06-2012, 03:52 PM
:lol: I'm not arguing with you anymore. See ya!
Wise decision! Second that.

90's Clay
10-06-2012, 04:59 PM
11 slams. How about 17?
Career Grand Slam? Fed doesn't have it? LOL
#1 in the world? So does Fed. Now how long for Rafa? And how long for Fed?
Owned Fed his whole career? A H2H of 18-10 hardly qualifies as OWNING. Come back and tell me when it's like 100-10. That's OWNING. That's DOMINATION. 18-10. HARDLY!
"Thats enough for GOAT consideration." And not Fed? Humm...
"GOAT-like resume". "LIKE" is the keyword. How about simply a GOAT resume. Hardly there yet. Let's talk over in a few years when he racks up to 17.

Hence why I said it was GOAT-like.. And hes also crapped on the guy with 17 slams for his entire career:) Fed is in GOAT consideration or course. But Nadal definitely should be.. Afterall, half of his slam count (or a little over) he has beaten Roger.

However, the majority of Fed's slam hes had to AVOID Nadal to win them. ROFL

PSNELKE
10-06-2012, 05:00 PM
Is there a nº 1 that has had such a lousy record against his main opponent in the history of the game? I really would be curious.Certainly, not Borg,Laver and Sampras, and I don´t think so about Kramer,Wilding and Tilden.maybe Budge or Perry?

Another great point by kiki.
And we certainly shouldn't forget about all the champs during mediaeval times when tennis was known as Jeu de Paume.
I highly doubt these N°1's had a losing record against their main rivals.
What's your take on that kiki? You got some insider facts on that?

kishnabe
10-06-2012, 05:04 PM
Hence why I said it was GOAT-like.. And hes also crapped on the guy with 17 slams for his entire career:) Fed is in GOAT consideration or course. But Nadal definitely should be.. Afterall, half of his slam count (or a little over) he has beaten Roger.

However, the majority of Fed's slam hes had to AVOID Nadal to win them. ROFL

More like Nadal FAILING to reach Federer. ROFL....XD :lol:

90's Clay
10-06-2012, 05:06 PM
Well I think the point is if someone is hands down GOAT supposedly to so many people... Why does he have to avoid his main rival in the hope to win slams? Shouldn't the hands down GOAT be so great he shouldn't have to "avoid" anyone?

Prisoner of Birth
10-06-2012, 05:30 PM
Well I think the point is if someone is hands down GOAT supposedly to so many people... Why does he have to avoid his main rival in the hope to win slams? Shouldn't the hands down GOAT be so great he shouldn't have to "avoid" anyone?

Avoiding is falling in the 2nd round or the Quarterfinals. Not making it to the finals like a boss.

Cup8489
10-06-2012, 05:46 PM
History only looks at slams.

How many tournaments did Noah win? All you remember is that he won the FO. No one remembers all history remembers is the slams. How many games during the season did the Yankees win? Who cares all that matters is the World Series .

Any matches during the regular season are just that matches to determine your ranking for the slams. It's no different that being in 1st place in the Anerican league and making the World Series.

Baseball has its World Series which consists of 7 games. Tennis has te slams which consists of four tournaments . The rest are all merely "regular season" matches to determine your ranking .

The only slams Fed was able to beat Nadal on were grass....and that's when he was still labeled a clay court specialist . You can't call him a clay court specialist and then be surprised he lost on grass.

In any event Nadal beat him on grass on hard and on clay.....that's domination in my book.

Ok so it's slams only.

17>11. Yep.

Your circular argument holds no grounds. Either the majors are NOT the only thing that count, and the h2h is much close and far moer competitive, or the majors are the only thing that matters, at which point Federer has a sizeable advantage compared to Nadal..

Which will you go with?

VPhuc tennis fan
10-06-2012, 07:20 PM
he shouldn't have to "avoid" anyone?
What kind of English are we using here? Perhaps TDK and you should explain this to us: When Fed won all these GS titles against these supposedly very lousy, weak, lucky players such as Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Philippoussis, Fed was there in these finals. Now in these EXACT SAME tournaments, where was Rafa? By your definition, that's how Fed avoided Rafa? WT**** is that? Fed was in these finals, Rafa was nowhere to be found, and you claimed FED AVOIDED RAFA!!! Again, let me emphasize this point: Fed was there in these finals. Where was Rafa? If the other lousy players made it to the finals, and not Rafa. Then should Rafa be above or below them? Who avoided who here?
Wow! Welcome up to the bandwagon.

Prisoner of Birth
10-06-2012, 09:56 PM
Ok so it's slams only.

17>11. Yep.

Your circular argument holds no grounds. Either the majors are NOT the only thing that count, and the h2h is much close and far moer competitive, or the majors are the only thing that matters, at which point Federer has a sizeable advantage compared to Nadal..

Which will you go with?

He goes with both and doesn't go with both at the same time :twisted:

kiki
10-07-2012, 01:57 AM
Another great point by kiki.
And we certainly shouldn't forget about all the champs during mediaeval times when tennis was known as Jeu de Paume.
I highly doubt these N°1's had a losing record against their main rivals.
What's your take on that kiki? You got some insider facts on that?

Oh, I would love to know the results of the main events held during the Jeu de Pomme years.A Davis Cup jeu de Pomme contest must have been the most exciting and probably bleeding event ever held...thanks for bringing it up.

The Dark Knight
10-07-2012, 02:58 AM
:lol: No GOAT candidate can be dominated 7 straight times across 3 different surfaces by his main rival. Too bad nadal had to wait until Novak's level decreased, was emotionally distraught, and on clay to finally end his losing streak.

Joker did have one good year. Nadal on the other hand has been beating Federer since he was 18 or was it 17 ......a teenager beating the veteran supposed greatest player that ever lived ? Over and over and over again ?

Sorry ....bit different than Joker one great year......

The Dark Knight
10-07-2012, 03:04 AM
:lol: I'm not arguing with you anymore. You're like a parrot, the same old "head-to-head" argument ad nauseum, which doesn't really mean anymore than Nadal's record against Davydenko. Federer is the GOAT and, deep down, you know it. Which is why you spend so much time with the same (worn off) argument. See ya!

No....you don't listen. That's why I have to repeat it again.

Nadal vs Fed is not merely a head to head. It's utter domination on every surface in the World Series of tennis the Super Bowl a.k.a. THE GRAND SLAMS.

Davydenko on the other hand is merely a regular season head to head on one surface (hard) in a best of three.

Hopefully I won't have to repeat that again.

The Dark Knight
10-07-2012, 03:11 AM
More like Nadal FAILING to reach Federer. ROFL....XD :lol:

Fortunate for Federer.

Nadal at 26 has missed 6 slams and am Olympics by the way.


Who has ever done more than that with such little time ?

That's why Nadal is the goat.

By the way those 6 slams Nadal missed ( correct me if I'm wrong please ).....

If I'm right about Nadal missing 6 slams then watch this:

17-6 = 11 or 11 +6= 17

Federer has never missed a slam and is 31 .....quite a bit more chances . Nadal has done more with far less chances....and beaten Federer.

To me Nadal is therefore greater.

tennis_pro
10-07-2012, 03:15 AM
Fortunate for Federer.

Nadal at 26 has missed 6 slams and am Olympics by the way.


Who has ever done more than that with such little time ?

That's why Nadal is the goat.

By the way those 6 slams Nadal missed ( correct me if I'm wrong please ).....

If I'm right about Nadal missing 6 slams then watch this:

17-6 = 11 or 11 +6= 17

Federer has never missed a slam and is 31 .....quite a bit more chances . Nadal has done more with far less chances....and beaten Federer.

To me Nadal is therefore greater.

So you assume Nadal would've won all 6 if he played them?

VPhuc tennis fan
10-07-2012, 03:33 AM
Fortunate for Federer.

Nadal at 26 has missed 6 slams and am Olympics by the way.


Who has ever done more than that with such little time ?

That's why Nadal is the goat.

By the way those 6 slams Nadal missed ( correct me if I'm wrong please ).....

If I'm right about Nadal missing 6 slams then watch this:

17-6 = 11 or 11 +6= 17

Federer has never missed a slam and is 31 .....quite a bit more chances . Nadal has done more with far less chances....and beaten Federer.

To me Nadal is therefore greater.
Ahh, the game of assumption. How about this: if not for Rafa, Fed would have had 6 more FO, 1 more AO, 1 more Wimby. Add on top of it: if not for Djoker, at least 2 more USO, all 3 GS titles of last year where Rafa got owned by Djoker. Where are we already in the count for Fed in this game of assumption:
17+6+1+1+1+2+3 = 31 GS
Repeat after THIRTY-ONE. We're not talking about GOAT anymore. We're talking about GOD, pure and simple.
"That's why Nadal is the goat." Excuses are the loser. Let's talk it over when your Rafa reaches 17 GS. At the rate he's going, he'll lucky to get the next FO before Djoker and Murray started to own him for good there too.
And how about this: the spanking at Indian Wells 2012 by a VERY OLD 31-yr Fed? What's the excuse there? Skip, nah. Injury, nah. Still too young, really? HC, didn't you say he also owned Fed there too? We're all listening...

Zarfot Z
10-07-2012, 04:14 AM
Fortunate for Federer.

Nadal at 26 has missed 6 slams and am Olympics by the way.


Who has ever done more than that with such little time ?

That's why Nadal is the goat.

By the way those 6 slams Nadal missed ( correct me if I'm wrong please ).....

If I'm right about Nadal missing 6 slams then watch this:

17-6 = 11 or 11 +6= 17

Federer has never missed a slam and is 31 .....quite a bit more chances . Nadal has done more with far less chances....and beaten Federer.

To me Nadal is therefore greater.

My god, even worse logic than ***. Even he acknowledges Nadal can't win the tournaments he skips.

Povl Carstensen
10-07-2012, 05:05 AM
Well they say the size of a mans font is equal to the size of his ......

And there was no misrepingDeep joke. I guess I just had to get in tune with your definition of deep and intellectual.
About misrep, I wont go there too much. Theres the "Nadal always wins", the insinuation that somebody has accused you of thinking Federer is garbage, the "all you have is 17 GS" allthough the list goes on and on, the manipulative quoting of for instance Rod Laver, the listing of facts you "believe" that are wrong, and so on and so on....

PrinceMoron
10-07-2012, 05:08 AM
I am a solid player, but I never won a Christmas indoor exhibition tournament because I never bothered to sign up for one.

Last time I went, it was November. maybe Christmas is just getting earlier every year.

The Dark Knight
10-07-2012, 05:13 AM
Deep joke. I guess I just had to get in tune with your definition of deep and intellectual.
About misrep, I wont go there too much. Theres the "Nadal always wins", the insinuation that somebody has accused you of thinking Federer is garbage, the "all you have is 17 GS" allthough the list goes on and on, the manipulative quoting of for instance Rod Laver, the listing of facts you "believe" that are wrong, and so on and so on....

Well I realize what I'm saying is offensive as you want to believe in your hero and cannot really defend your position. This is why you have to resort to attacking me personally or trying to pick apart picayune points .

When I say "always" I didn't mean that Nadal wins every single time....but you already knew that.

What I meant was that Nadal has "always" been beating Federer throughout Nadals entire career. From the very first moment they met.

The domination has "always" existed. Fed has never been in the lead ,pre peak post peak ,mid peak ,kinda peak ,mediocre peak, high peak , double jig peak, mid afternoon peak........always.

No misrep there.....it is a fact.

The Dark Knight
10-07-2012, 05:17 AM
So you assume Nadal would've won all 6 if he played them?

No.....but some yes. For example he won two wimbys in a row. He was then to injured and/or personal issues with his parents and couldn't play the third year to defend his title .

Federer was the direct beneficiary and faced Roddick I'm the final for the fourth time.

Yes Roger won that wimby and that's another wimby for the record books......but the defending champion was not in that tournament.

I think on paper it looks beautiful for Fed but on paper it was a hollow win because the defending champion wasn't even in the tournament .

Povl Carstensen
10-07-2012, 05:57 AM
Well I realize what I'm saying is offensive as you want to believe in your hero and cannot really defend your position. This is why you have to resort to attacking me personally or trying to pick apart picayune points .

When I say "always" I didn't mean that Nadal wins every single time....but you already knew that.

What I meant was that Nadal has "always" been beating Federer throughout Nadals entire career. From the very first moment they met.

The domination has "always" existed. Fed has never been in the lead ,pre peak post peak ,mid peak ,kinda peak ,mediocre peak, high peak , double jig peak, mid afternoon peak........always.

No misrep there.....it is a fact.Oh I have no problem defending my point, while you just roboticly keep repeating yours. And it is a fact that you have expressed yourself misleadingly on many counts, which points to the problem you have. But as you say it depends on who is the judge. None of us here are judges really, but I am happy not to agree with someone as untrustworthy as you.

abmk
10-07-2012, 06:02 AM
No.....but some yes. For example he won two wimbys in a row. He was then to injured and/or personal issues with his parents and couldn't play the third year to defend his title .

Federer was the direct beneficiary and faced Roddick I'm the final for the fourth time.

Yes Roger won that wimby and that's another wimby for the record books......but the defending champion was not in that tournament.

I think on paper it looks beautiful for Fed but on paper it was a hollow win because the defending champion wasn't even in the tournament .

hey, atleast federer had taken nadal to 9-7 in the 5th ...

and nadal hadn't won two wimbys in a row ... he had won just one, wimby 2008, that too narrowly ...

What had nadal done vs del potro in USO 2009 .....oh wait, he had lost 2,2 and 2 .....

now see that is an unworthy/totally hollow win - USO 2010 ...... :)

The Dark Knight
10-07-2012, 06:03 AM
Oh I have no problem defending my point, while you just roboticly keep repeating yours. And it is a fact that you have expressed yourself misleadingly on many counts, which points to the problem you have. But as you say it depends on who is the judge. None of us here are judges really, but I am happy not to agree with someone as untrustworthy as you.

Ahhhhh.....ok.

You choose not to debate.

That's fine. Again debate is something to be enjoyed by two consenting participants.

Cup8489
10-07-2012, 07:00 AM
No.....but some yes. For example he won two wimbys in a row. He was then to injured and/or personal issues with his parents and couldn't play the third year to defend his title .

No he didn't. He won 2008 Wimbledon 9-7 in the fifth, did not play 2009, won 2010. Get your facts straight. And that's a huge excuse for him to not defend his title.. Why do you make so many excuses for Nadal? You make more excuses than he does.. and in fact undermine his legendary determination by suggesting that something like personal issues with his parents would force him to SKIP a MAJOR.

Federer was the direct beneficiary and faced Roddick I'm the final for the fourth time.

And Roddick was a worthy opponent. Don't act like the guy can't play tennis. I guess Rafa was lucky that he didn't have to play peak Djokovic for his whole career... he'd be a few majors short of what he is now.

Yes Roger won that wimby and that's another wimby for the record books......but the defending champion was not in that tournament.

Ok so you're suggesting that everytime that someone DOESN'T beat the defending champion it shouldn't count? That would strip Nadal of nearly all his majors, bub. All his FO's, his AO, his USO, one Wimbledon. So he'd be sitting with one major.

LOL.

I think on paper it looks beautiful for Fed but on paper it was a hollow win because the defending champion wasn't even in the tournament .


See above. You're really awful at making arguments.. they have no connection to reality LOL.

The Dark Knight
10-07-2012, 07:47 AM
No he didn't. He won 2008 Wimbledon 9-7 in the fifth, did not play 2009, won 2010. Get your facts straight. And that's a huge excuse for him to not defend his title.. Why do you make so many excuses for Nadal? You make more excuses than he does.. and in fact undermine his legendary determination by suggesting that something like personal issues with his parents would force him to SKIP a MAJOR.

Not being in a slam is not an excuse. He didn't play. That's a fact.



And Roddick was a worthy opponent. Don't act like the guy can't play tennis. I guess Rafa was lucky that he didn't have to play peak Djokovic for his whole career... he'd be a few majors short of what he is now.

Roddick is the weak era #1 and #2. He is not weak but he is no Nadal. I think everyone would agree.

Federer was the direct beneficiary of Nadal not being able to play in that Wimbledon .



Ok so you're suggesting that everytime that someone DOESN'T beat the defending champion it shouldn't count? That would strip Nadal of nearly all his majors, bub. All his FO's, his AO, his USO, one Wimbledon. So he'd be sitting with one major.

LOL.

No not every time. But in the Nadal Federer rivalry it's a glaring fault In Feds career . Fed seems to win slams by basically not having to play Nadal.

Numenor
10-07-2012, 08:45 AM
Joker did have one good year. Nadal on the other hand has been beating Federer since he was 18 or was it 17 ......a teenager beating the veteran supposed greatest player that ever lived ? Over and over and over again ?

Sorry ....bit different than Joker one great year......

Sorry, but being defeated 7 straight times across 3 different surfaces, and 3 of them in slams, especially Wimbledon, in conditions that heavily favored nadal, does not bode well for a supposed GOAT candidate.

90's Clay
10-07-2012, 08:46 AM
Djoker couldn't keep that streak up however. And Nadal got some big wins back on DJoker at a slam and at a masters. SOmething Fed hasn't been able to do to Nadal at a slam since 2007

Cup8489
10-07-2012, 08:47 AM
No.....but some yes. For example he won two wimbys in a row. He was then to injured and/or personal issues with his parents and couldn't play the third year to defend his title .

looks like you've just made an excuse here..

Not being in a slam is not an excuse. He didn't play. That's a fact.





Roddick is the weak era #1 and #2. He is not weak but he is no Nadal. I think everyone would agree.

Federer was the direct beneficiary of Nadal not being able to play in that Wimbledon .





No not every time. But in the Nadal Federer rivalry it's a glaring fault In Feds career . Fed seems to win slams by basically not having to play Nadal.

And that's Federer's fault that Nadal didnt reach him every time? You can only beat who is in front of you; Nadal didn't make it that far, so he didn't play Federer. Who's to say that he'd have won all of those matches?

You're just making crap up, tryign to make your hero sound like GOAT. He's not. he only has 11 majors, and less than 150 weeks at number one. Zero WTF's. Not GOAT material, not yet.

Don't punish Federer because your guy isn't good enough to make it to him during his prime.

Numenor
10-07-2012, 08:48 AM
Djoker couldn't keep that streak up however. And Nadal got some big wins back on DJoker at a slam and at a masters. SOmething Fed hasn't been able to do to Nadal at a slam since 2007

Like I said earlier, he had to wait until clay season, and that too when Djoker was under serious emotional stress. After all, *******s regularly cite his parents' divorce as significantly affecting his game; shouldn't the passing of a loved one consequently affect Djoker's game as well?

NadalDramaQueen
10-07-2012, 09:18 AM
Like I said earlier, he had to wait until clay season, and that too when Djoker was under serious emotional stress. After all, *******s regularly cite his parents' divorce as significantly affecting his game; shouldn't the passing of a loved one consequently affect Djoker's game as well?

Of course divorce is worse than death. Well, it may be the other way around. :) The problem is that Djoker doesn't have a PR team devoted to making up excuses for all of his losses like Nadal does. He should look into that.

http://i48.tinypic.com/2qkqu7s.png

SoBad
10-07-2012, 09:28 AM
Last time I went, it was November. maybe Christmas is just getting earlier every year.

They already have Christmas lights and "Season's Greetings" signs in Jackson Heights - I saw it when I was there last night.

Numenor
10-07-2012, 10:08 AM
Of course divorce is worse than death. Well, it may be the other way around. :) The problem is that Djoker doesn't have a PR team devoted to making up excuses for all of his losses like Nadal does. He should look into that.

http://i48.tinypic.com/2qkqu7s.png

Haha, brilliant :)

PS: Your previous signature....was that a reference to the introduction of the Stig in Top Gear?

Hood_Man
10-07-2012, 10:17 AM
Of course divorce is worse than death. Well, it may be the other way around. :) The problem is that Djoker doesn't have a PR team devoted to making up excuses for all of his losses like Nadal does. He should look into that.

http://i48.tinypic.com/2qkqu7s.png

Let the political smearing commence :twisted:

90's Clay
10-07-2012, 10:27 AM
Why are people against Rafa being a GOAT candidate exactly?:

He has 11 slams. (Borg and Laver have 11 slams and they are GOAT candidates aren't they?)

Has destroyed another GOAT candidate at slams for his entire career. Check

Career Grand Slams (check)

Was Number 1 in the world (check)

Has close to record number of masters event (Check)

Positive h2h vs. his main rivals (Murray, Fed, Djoker) Check


What more does the guy need exactly? There is no hands down GOAT anyways.. So you can make a case for Rafa as least being a candidate since thats all we have anyways.. Candidates. There is no hands down for sure GOAT.

Hasn't he beaten Federer enough? Does he need to beat him more? Hasn't he beaten his other main rivals enough? Does he need to beat Murray and Djokovic more? He could use maybe a few more slams sure.. But does he need more masters events? Hasn't he won enough of those?

NadalDramaQueen
10-07-2012, 10:29 AM
Haha, brilliant :)

PS: Your previous signature....was that a reference to the introduction of the Stig in Top Gear?

Yep, it was one of the introductions for the Stig.

Why are people against Rafa being a GOAT candidate exactly?:

He has 11 slams. (Borg and Laver have 11 slams and they are GOAT candidates aren't they?)

Has destroyed another GOAT candidate at slams for his entire career. Check

Career Grand Slams (check)

Was Number 1 in the world (check)

Has close to record number of masters event (Check)

Positive h2h vs. his main rivals (Murray, Fed, Djoker) Check


What more does the guy need exactly? There is no hands down GOAT anyways.. So you can make a case for Rafa as least being a candidate since thats all we have anyways.. Candidates. There is no hands down for sure GOAT.

I'm not saying that he isn't a candidate, only that he isn't going to get elected, and it is going to be a landslide.

Povl Carstensen
10-07-2012, 11:13 AM
He could use maybe a few more slams sure.. Well the list of Federers records over Nadal is a bit more than that.

The Dark Knight
10-07-2012, 11:24 AM
Well the list of Federers records over Nadal is a bit more than that.

Except that he can only win when Nadal ain't around.

Serious issue.

The Dark Knight
10-07-2012, 11:28 AM
looks like you've just made an excuse here..

The man skipped Wimbledon . He was not in the tournament ! That's not an excuse like mono......the man didn't play at all.



And that's Federer's fault that Nadal didnt reach him every time? You can only beat who is in front of you; Nadal didn't make it that far, so he didn't play Federer. Who's to say that he'd have won all of those matches?

You're just making crap up, tryign to make your hero sound like GOAT. He's not. he only has 11 majors, and less than 150 weeks at number one. Zero WTF's. Not GOAT material, not yet.

Don't punish Federer because your guy isn't good enough to make it to him during his prime.

They met plenty .....more so than anyone else in history. They have met 8 times in slams and Fed has come up short on all surfaces . Come on.

dangalak
10-07-2012, 11:30 AM
Why are people against Rafa being a GOAT candidate exactly?:

He has 11 slams. (Borg and Laver have 11 slams and they are GOAT candidates aren't they?)

Has destroyed another GOAT candidate at slams for his entire career. Check

Career Grand Slams (check)

Was Number 1 in the world (check)

Has close to record number of masters event (Check)

Positive h2h vs. his main rivals (Murray, Fed, Djoker) Check


What more does the guy need exactly? There is no hands down GOAT anyways.. So you can make a case for Rafa as least being a candidate since thats all we have anyways.. Candidates. There is no hands down for sure GOAT.

Hasn't he beaten Federer enough? Does he need to beat him more? Hasn't he beaten his other main rivals enough? Does he need to beat Murray and Djokovic more? He could use maybe a few more slams sure.. But does he need more masters events? Hasn't he won enough of those?

No he didn't you dupe account. Gb2 MTF.

The Dark Knight
10-07-2012, 11:38 AM
Why are people against Rafa being a GOAT candidate exactly?:

He has 11 slams. (Borg and Laver have 11 slams and they are GOAT candidates aren't they?)

Has destroyed another GOAT candidate at slams for his entire career. Check

Career Grand Slams (check)

Was Number 1 in the world (check)

Has close to record number of masters event (Check)

Positive h2h vs. his main rivals (Murray, Fed, Djoker) Check


What more does the guy need exactly? There is no hands down GOAT anyways.. So you can make a case for Rafa as least being a candidate since thats all we have anyways.. Candidates. There is no hands down for sure GOAT.

Hasn't he beaten Federer enough? Does he need to beat him more? Hasn't he beaten his other main rivals enough? Does he need to beat Murray and Djokovic more? He could use maybe a few more slams sure.. But does he need more masters events? Hasn't he won enough of those?

Pure poetry. Let's go a step further....

How many other Goats have as many slams as Nadal?

Becker ...nope

mcenroe....nope

Agassi....nope ( I think?)

Edberg....nope

Nastase....nope

Wilander....nope

Connors....nope