PDA

View Full Version : Newcombe on Fed./Sampras - baseless comments?


vkartikv
07-16-2006, 02:43 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/5167450.stm

Ok, I agree its too early to put Fed. there but his argument is that if Fed. should be there, so should Nadal!!!! What the hell!! Just coz. Fed. has lost to Nadal 6 times doesn't mean his other achievements can be undervalued or Nadal, who only has 2 FOs to his credit be talked about in the same breath as Fed.

And what's this **** about Sampras not being the top 3 or 4 of all time? Nuke, just think about how many weeks he spent at # 1, the opposition he had and the fact that he won on three different surfaces and not just grass like it was back in the day...

Nuke must have been drunk when they interviewed him..

tennisprofl
07-16-2006, 02:50 PM
yeah his comments didnt make sense

superman1
07-16-2006, 03:02 PM
His comment about Federer is true, you can't call him one of the greatest ever just yet, but his comment about Sampras just leads me to believe that Newcombe has become an old toothless codger. At least he's not as crazy as Jack Kramer who called Laver and Borg "second tier" compared to guys like Ellsworth Vines.

Tennis_Goodness
07-16-2006, 03:04 PM
Federer is not the greatest yet but the consensus among everybody is he will be eventually.

I don't think his comments about Sampras or Federer are accurate at all though!

Alexandros
07-16-2006, 03:06 PM
His comment about Federer is true, you can't call him one of the greatest ever just yet, but his comment about Sampras just leads me to believe that Newcombe has become an old toothless codger. At least he's not as crazy as Jack Kramer who called Laver and Borg "second tier" compared to guys like Ellsworth Vines.


You have it exactly right - he has become a toothless codger. Us Aussies have to listen to his inane crap every Wimbledon and US Open, since he's one of the primary commentators for channel Nine. He had a gem this Wimbledon: "He was forced into an unforced error" said verbatim, not once but TWICE on separate occassions.

whistleway
07-16-2006, 03:11 PM
"He was forced into an unforced error" said verbatim, not once but TWICE on separate occassions.

haha.. the best thing i read all day. bravo!!

fastdunn
07-16-2006, 03:26 PM
He is exaggerating way too much about things about Sampras and Federer.

But yes, Sampras not winning FO is a big hole and it means someone
will better him someday.

Also yes, it would be awkward to call Federer all time great while
continuously losing to 1 particular guy. However, it's way too early
to conclude on Fed-Nadal rivarly. To me, their true head-to-head
is only 1-2(2 FO, 1 Wimbledon) and we do not really know how they
would fare on hard courts. On paper, Federer got upper hand
so far on hard courts...

sureshs
07-16-2006, 04:04 PM
His comments were unwarranted and likely the egoistic ramblings of a has-been, but unfortunately they are true. Sampras/Federer/Nadal cannot be included in the same circle as Budge/Laver/Emerson/Perry/Agassi unless they win all 4 Slams. Federer has come closer to winning the French than Sampras ever came, so he is on the threshold. You can debate about competition in the 1930s, new surfaces, domination by a few countries, etc., but as long as there were 4 Slams every year from Budge till Nadal (except duting the war maybe), that is what they have to be judged against. The Slams are the most prestigious tournaments.

In golf, only 5 players have won the Slam (Masters, US Open, British Open, PGA championship): Gene Sarazen, Ben Hogan, Gary Player, Jack Nicklaus, and Tiger Woods. Arnold Palmer did not.

arosen
07-16-2006, 06:13 PM
Newcombe is yet another sad example of what Alzheimers can do to a human brain. Sad.

uxnaitoahz
07-16-2006, 06:16 PM
You guys didn't know? He was on crunk juice when he said that.

FiveO
07-16-2006, 06:42 PM
His comments were unwarranted and likely the egoistic ramblings of a has-been, but unfortunately they are true. Sampras/Federer/Nadal cannot be included in the same circle as Budge/Laver/Emerson/Perry/Agassi unless they win all 4 Slams. Federer has come closer to winning the French than Sampras ever came, so he is on the threshold. ...

Well, in the article the term "All Time Greats" and Budge/Laver/Emerson/Perry/Agassi to be the author's conclusion regarding who Newk "must" have been referring to. The author seems to use the term "All Time Great" to refer only to the guys we debate here as the "G.O.A.T.". To my way of thinking the guys who qualify for consideration as the "G.O.A.T." come from a larger list of multi-slam "All Time Greats". So I think the author has framed Newk's comments within his own flawed premise.

I would have prefered to see Newk actually say who he felt were the "top three or four" of all time to gain some context.

Of what Newk is quoted as saying about:

Sampras lacking an RG title is true. As great as Sampras was, with the number of GS titles and #1 finishes, lack of an RG is an enormous one. I do feel that Sampras does qualify for consideration in the G.O.A.T. debate, but I admit his case has to be made using the sheer weight of his other accomplishments and one must navigate around the fact he never won a French.

Regarding Federer Newk saying "not yet" is also true. As great as Fed has been in the last 3 years his numbers don't put him in that category yet. In fact Fed winning 8 of the last 13 majors competed in is actually behind Laver's even more incredible 10 of 13 majors Rod could play in from Wimbledon '61 through the '62 US Open and then from the '68 RG through '69 US Open.

But even Laver's first Grand Slam and 5 majors won in pre-Open era can be viewed with a grain of salt, in that some of the greatest other players, Gonzalez, Hoad, Trabert et al, were barred from competing as they had turned professional.

According to Jack Kramer as quoted in Wikipedia:

"Kramer ranks Laver only in the "second echelon" of great players, just behind the six best.[1] He writes that although Laver was "absolutely unbeatable for a year or two late in the 1960s", a "careful comparison" could be made between Laver and the somewhat older Pancho Gonzales and that Kramer is "positive that Gonzales could have beaten Laver regularly. Hoad owned Laver before Hoad was hurt, and Rosewall beat Laver in those two World Championship of Tennis finals—and that was a title Laver really wanted." In a famous meeting, a US$10,000 winner-take-all match before 15,000 in Madison Square Garden in February, 1970, the 41-year-old Gonzales beat Laver, still the No. 3 player in the world, in five sets."

HEAD-TO-HEAD: Laver 75 Rosewall 66 as per tennis historian/researcher, Robert Geist, including their days on the pro tour. For perspective, one of the greatest rivalries in tennis, Navratilova v. Evert ended a "paltry" 43 and 37 in Martina's favor.

Rod Laver has been quoted as describing Lew Hoad as the greatest player he ever played.

To put Pancho Gonzales in further persective, again quoting from Wikipedia:

"Gonzales was badly beaten in his first year on the professional tour, 96 matches to 27, by the reigning king of professional tennis, Jack Kramer...From 1951 to 1953 Gonzales was in semi-retirement....With Kramer playing very little in 1952, and being beaten at least twice by Gonzales, a strong case can be made that Gonzales was actually the World No. 1 player for the year...Gonzales was now the dominant player in the men's game for about the next eight years, beating such tennis greats as Sedgman, Tony Trabert, Ken Rosewall, Lew Hoad, Mal Anderson, and Ashley Cooper...plus beating, in head-to-head tours, all of the best amateurs who turned pro, which included every Wimbledon champion for 10 years in a row....In late 1955 and early 1956 Gonzales beat the athletic Tony Trabert by 74 matches to 27....Gonzales went on to beat Rosewall by a final score of 50 matches to 26....Gonzales and Hoad played head-to-head 87 times. Hoad won 18 of the first 27 matches...Gonzales, however, revamped and improved his backhand during the course of these first matches...and then won 42 of the next 60 matches to maintain his superiority by a margin of 51 to 36."

The only criteria Newk is quoted as using that is questionable to me is the head to head v. Nadal which seems to be in conflict with the absence of winning majors on other surfaces. If Nadal "has to be" ranked as one of the all-time greats due to a h2h edge over Fed, what happens to having to have won on all surfaces to even qualify for consideration?

The author concludes that Newk at least intimates that the three or four greatest players of all time must come from this list Budge/Laver/Emerson/Perry/Agassi. I would omit Emerson and Agassi from the list for consideration in that Emerson amassed his GS numbers entirely as an amateur when those ranks had been depleted by defections of the greatest players to the fledgling pro tour. Agassi because the second best player of an era can't qualify for all-time status.

So who are we left to conclude Newk is referring to? Budge, Laver and Perry? All three competed when three majors were on grass and one on clay. Budge and Perry did play with all the best players available but not everyone was available simply because not everyone travelled to all the majors in those years.

Laver benefitted from the amateur/pro split prior to Open tennis arriving in '68 though he repeated his GS feat after that year, he had only 5 slams during Open tennis. He also was played to a near push by Rosewall, by his own admission was dominated by Lew Hoad prior to Hoad being severely limited by injury. But Hoad won only four slams and like Borg never won a US Open. Beyond that, while he may have owned Laver, by Laver and Kramer's description, he in turn was owned by Gonzales. Gonzales doesn't even make the author's list of possibles.

While I question just a couple of Newks statements on the topic, I would be more interested as to who is on his short list of the three or four greatest players of all-time worthy of G.O.A.T. consideration.

uxnaitoahz
07-16-2006, 06:46 PM
Like I said, he was on crunk juice...

KBalla08
07-16-2006, 07:02 PM
senial old man on crunk juice..

emcee
07-16-2006, 07:11 PM
I can't get anyone who says Agassi > Sampras.

They say Sampras was just a fast court master, but if he was so one dimensional, how could he stay so many weeks at #1?

Agassi may have won all 4 Slams, but how many weeks was he #1? He didn't dominate like Sampras did.

vkartikv
07-16-2006, 07:25 PM
I don't mind that he said Fed. can't be put up there yet. But what about the stupid comment that if Fed. is there, so is Nadal. There is no comparison!! If having 8 GS titles does not qualify him, winning two, that too on the same surface hardly does...

armand
07-16-2006, 08:23 PM
"He was forced into an unforced error"That actually makes sense to me! let me explain: During some points, inevitably, someone will take control of the exchange and have the upper hand. So, what are you gonna do about it if you're the one who's lost control of the point? You just gotta break out of that and do something before your opponent takes an even firmer hold of the point. So you go for something big, or tricky and it goes out, or into the net. So it was an unforced error that woulda been a forced error had the point continued for any longer. True?

superman1
07-16-2006, 08:53 PM
In case anyone didn't know, Newcombe is the guy that was drinking with George W. Bush the night Bush was arrested for DUI.

I respect the guy's game, though. I actually have a book on tennis technique that he wrote.

urban
07-16-2006, 11:42 PM
Its right, that Newk was drinking with W., when he was stopped by the police. I think, Newk is ranking along traditional lines, and he disqualifies himself, having not won RG (athough having a solid clay record with wins at Rome and Hamburg). There were until 1970/80 3 players at the top: Tilden, Budge and Laver with Kramer often fourth, and Perry, Cochet, Gonzales and Hoad, Rosewall behind them. Tilden never won RG, which was installed in 1926, but he won the World Hard (clay) court at St. Cloud, Paris in 1921 and 8 times the US clay. He, Budge and Laver have a deep and balanced record, as well as Borg. You can make a case for Sampras, but his RG failure is a failure, which is noted even by Pete Fischer, his long time mentor.

Alexandros
07-17-2006, 04:51 AM
That actually makes sense to me! let me explain: During some points, inevitably, someone will take control of the exchange and have the upper hand. So, what are you gonna do about it if you're the one who's lost control of the point? You just gotta break out of that and do something before your opponent takes an even firmer hold of the point. So you go for something big, or tricky and it goes out, or into the net. So it was an unforced error that woulda been a forced error had the point continued for any longer. True?


Interesting logic, but I disagree. In your example, you make the choice to be aggressive and thus you make an error. A forced error on the other hand, gives you little to no choice when you make that error. If someone is is at the net and you attempt the pass/lob and miss or when your opponent hits such a good shot that its all you can do to get your racquet on it (the ball then goes out), these are forced errors.

armand
07-17-2006, 08:25 PM
Interesting logic, but I disagree. In your example, you make the choice to be aggressive and thus you make an error. A forced error on the other hand, gives you little to no choice when you make that error. If someone is is at the net and you attempt the pass/lob and miss or when your opponent hits such a good shot that its all you can do to get your racquet on it (the ball then goes out), these are forced errors.No, what I'm talking about is before your opponent has come into net, if we are to use your example. You know he's coming into net in the next exchange or 2 so before he does that and hits a volley winner/forcing your error, you can do something to prevent it. You can go for a low percentile risky shot that'll prevent him from coming in. And if your low % risky shot goes out or into the net, you were forced into an unforced error. Get me?

superman1
07-17-2006, 11:10 PM
That makes sense. Your opponent is on the ad side of the court and slices to your backhand and you can see that he is charging the net, so you smack the down-the-line backhand as hard and as quick as you can before he can get up to net, but it clips the high part of the net. That would count as an unforced error since you were on the offense and had the ball in front of you, but you were only on the offense because your opponent forced you to go for too much.

Alexandros
07-17-2006, 11:43 PM
Okay then, extending that logic, when Roddick stepped out onto the court against Federer in the 2004 Wimbledon final and he was sure that he'd be outplayed if he attempted to rally with him from the baseline. So all those shots where he went for it for fear of what Roger would do if he approached and came to the net, those times when Roddick tried to hit an outright winner but missed, are those forced unforced errors because he was feeling pressured by Federer?

armand
07-18-2006, 05:33 AM
Okay then, extending that logic, when Roddick stepped out onto the court against Federer in the 2004 Wimbledon final and he was sure that he'd be outplayed if he attempted to rally with him from the baseline. So all those shots where he went for it for fear of what Roger would do if he approached and came to the net, those times when Roddick tried to hit an outright winner but missed, are those forced unforced errors because he was feeling pressured by Federer?Yeah, I think you're right. If he didn't go for those shots, Federer woulda just racked up a virtual cornucopia of winners(more so).

chiru
07-18-2006, 05:59 AM
for all the talk of the GOAT, i think sampras is the one who put it in best perspective for me. essentially saying, its really very diffficult to establish one GOAT, becasue to be a GOAT you had to have thoroughly dominated your generation, and then the problem becomes comparing genrations which makes things really pretty unfair. the only thing you can ask of a GOAT is to consistently be the best player. So sampras says top five is him, laver, borg, fed, lendl, which if you think about it i agree with. I maybe would want mcenroe instead of lendl personally, but the craphead never worked, had he worked he def wouldda been on that list. Now Sampras is saying, maybe fed will dominate better than the rest have, maybe hell hold every major recrd, including the GS record, but as it stands in that list, the only guy to have won all 4 majors is laver, and really the only full GS in my mind is Agassi having done it on 4 (argued 3 by stupid ppl) completely different surfaces. i think we aren't giving sampras as much credit on clay as is due, its not like he was a terrible clay courter like a perennial 1st 2nd rounder like americans are today, he made teh qf's a buncha times and the semis once, so he was still amongst the top 4 or 8 clay courters in the world, but that alwyas seemed like underachievement considering he was the no.1 at everything else for so long. I think federer said it best before french that he feels sampras' career is undeservedly knocked because he never wont he french, whereas fed believes sampras had the most complete career in history. im gonna have to agree.

buder
07-18-2006, 06:13 AM
Newcombe's comments on Sampras are completely reasonable.

"Pete Sampras cannot go down in that category because the best he ever did at the French Open in 11 tries was one semi-final," said Newcombe.

The Greatest player of all time needs to win the French. If Federer wins the French, I don't think Sampras should even make the discussion of GOAT. Sampras was the best server of all time.

Sampras' game was not complete enough to win the French. Sampras simply did not have the ground-game. His game was too serve-dependent and therefore lacked some important dimensions. When Sampras didn't get most of his points FROM service winners and general service mojo, the rest of his game was EXPOSED.

When discussing the greatest player of all time, you cannot ignore Clay -- you cannot ignore what it takes to win on clay. Sampras didn't have the game to win the French.

Whoever the GOAT is, HE MUST BE GOOD ENOUGH TO WIN THE FRENCH.

[are you people crazy? you can't ignore the French; you can't ignore the skill it takes to win the French. Sampras didn't have that skill. He, categorically, can't be the GOAT.]

chiru
07-18-2006, 06:15 AM
i think thats a little ridiculous, if the GOAT needs to win on all surfaces, then Agassi is the clearcut GOAT no questions asked and then maybe federer, with laver sampras borg and everyone miles behind them.

sureshs
07-18-2006, 08:44 AM
i think thats a little ridiculous, if the GOAT needs to win on all surfaces, then Agassi is the clearcut GOAT no questions asked and then maybe federer, with laver sampras borg and everyone miles behind them.

No, Laver would be the GOAT. It is not his fault that 3 of the 4 majors were on grass. In fact, he won many clay court championships. His record is simply too great. So, it is Laver, then Agassi. But since times have changed so much, you might as well just say Agassi for the modern game.

FiveO
07-18-2006, 10:57 AM
No, Laver would be the GOAT. It is not his fault that 3 of the 4 majors were on grass. In fact, he won many clay court championships. His record is simply too great. So, it is Laver, then Agassi. But since times have changed so much, you might as well just say Agassi for the modern game.

Unfortunately, this reasoning doesn't work in that Agassi's career completely overlapped that of Sampras and these are the numbers:

Majors Agassi 8 to Sampras 14

Year End #1 Agassi 1 to Sampras 6

Head to Head: 20-14 for Sampras.

Head to Head in majors: 6-3 for Sampras.

If you're not the best in your own era you can't qualify for consideration for the best of any era. Because Sampras beats him in every quantitative measure, Agassi doesn't get out of the "best in era" bracket so wouldn't qualify for the G.O.A.T..

sureshs
07-18-2006, 12:13 PM
Unfortunately, this reasoning doesn't work in that Agassi's career completely overlapped that of Sampras and these are the numbers:

Majors Agassi 8 to Sampras 14

Year End #1 Agassi 1 to Sampras 6

Head to Head: 20-14 for Sampras.

Head to Head in majors: 6-3 for Sampras.

If you're not the best in your own era you can't qualify for consideration for the best of any era. Because Sampras beats him in every quantitative measure, Agassi doesn't get out of the "best in era" bracket so wouldn't qualify for the G.O.A.T..

Nadal 5 Federer 2

Why is Federer talked about as a GOAT then if he has such a bad record against Nadal?

Pete was not the best in his era or any era because he never own the French. Period. Doesn't really matter how many times he beat Agassi or anyone else. He had an incomplete game relying mostly on his serve. As someone said, if you haven't won all Slams, you are just not to be considered.

fastdunn
07-18-2006, 12:28 PM
Yep. But it's only the beginning. 2-1 Nadal so far at Majors.
But it was only two FO and 1 Wimbledon. Nadal's resume
on other majors are big uncertainties yet.

By the way, despite the big defieciency, Sampras is the guy
in open era. But because of the big dificiency, his position
will be likely to be taken over by someone else in the future,
I'm pretty sure.

People are very excited becasue Federer might be the guy.

My guess is that he will win FO someday. Other than that
no idea how well Federer will do in next few years....

nadalgirl26
07-18-2006, 12:39 PM
He is right. My Nadal has porven he is great then Roger Federer so if Roger is one of the the best all time, Nadal is the best all time.

MaxT
07-18-2006, 12:42 PM
Did you know...

when George Bush was caught driving drunk, he was with Newcombe. Now I believe it.

sureshs
07-18-2006, 12:43 PM
Did you know...

when George Bush was caught driving drunk, he was with Newcombe. Now I believe it.

Newcombe was notorious for his wild parties.

mileslong
07-18-2006, 12:53 PM
In golf, only 5 players have won the Slam (Masters, US Open, British Open, PGA championship): Gene Sarazen, Ben Hogan, Gary Player, Jack Nicklaus, and Tiger Woods. Arnold Palmer did not.
so are you saying that palmer shouldnt be considered one of the greatest? just because he came in 2nd at the PGA several times and didnt win it?

by that logic you could win wimbly say 7 times, us open 5 times, aussie open 6 times but no french so youre not one of the greatest of all time? but a guy who wins each open once is? doesnt compute sorry...

agassi won 8 grand slam titles in 20 years, federer has won 8 grand slams in 2.5 years.

sureshs
07-18-2006, 01:10 PM
so are you saying that palmer shouldnt be considered one of the greatest? just because he came in 2nd at the PGA several times and didnt win it?


But would he be considered the greatest?

sureshs
07-18-2006, 01:11 PM
[QUOTE=mileslongby that logic you could win wimbly say 7 times, us open 5 times, aussie open 6 times but no french so youre not one of the greatest of all time? but a guy who wins each open once is? doesnt compute sorry...
[/QUOTE]

By that logic someone could win the French 20 times and no others - would he be considered the best of all time?

35ft6
07-18-2006, 01:40 PM
What if somebody lost only 4 times a year, at the Grand Slams, but for 10 consecutive years he NEVER lost at any other tournament?

I agree with Newcombe. I'm not talking so much about "relatively speaking" when I think of GOAT. Tradition aside, performance on clay is much more significant as to where you stand in the modern sport of tennis than performance on grass IMO. The GOAT by definition has to win the biggest tournament on clay, a surface that a huge portion of overall ATP tournaments are contested on.

Hal
07-18-2006, 01:54 PM
What if somebody lost only 4 times a year, at the Grand Slams, but for 10 consecutive years he NEVER lost at any other tournament?

I agree with Newcombe. I'm not talking so much about "relatively speaking" when I think of GOAT. Tradition aside, performance on clay is much more significant as to where you stand in the modern sport of tennis than performance on grass IMO. The GOAT by definition has to win the biggest tournament on clay, a surface that a huge portion of overall ATP tournaments are contested on.

I must diagree with your definition. IMO, noone would come close to being discussed as the GOAT without winning Wimbledon. However, as we can see, people like Samprass are being discussed as theGOAT without ever winning the FO. If one were to use your logic, since two of the GS are now on a hardcourt type surface, then the GOAT must be someone who does well on those surfaces. That said, I still say a person must win Wimbledon to be considered the GOAT. Call me a traditionalist...;-)

VolklVenom
07-18-2006, 01:55 PM
It's a shame what old age can do to a man!

A GOAT doesn't have to be based wholely on statistics. A GOAT is so great that, purely by watching them play it is obvious that this person is destined for greatness.
Tiger Woods is a case in point. Greatness is visable in an instant, in its pure form. When its there its there.

Moose Malloy
07-18-2006, 03:02 PM
Pete was not the best in his era or any era because he never own the French. Period.

So who was the best player of Sampras' era(90s)? Agassi? That's pretty funny.

FiveO
07-18-2006, 03:54 PM
Nadal 5 Federer 2

Why is Federer talked about as a GOAT then if he has such a bad record against Nadal?

Pete was not the best in his era or any era because he never own the French. Period. Doesn't really matter how many times he beat Agassi or anyone else. He had an incomplete game relying mostly on his serve. As someone said, if you haven't won all Slams, you are just not to be considered.

I, for one, don't think that Federer has qualified for consideration as the G.O.A.T.. Not yet. Should he continue his domination of the tour as a whole for the next few years and pass the guys still ahead of him on the career major lists he will qualify. I think he will surpass all of them and probably with an RG or two in his pocket. As he nears, ties and perhaps surpasses Pete's number of career Slams he will be considered. If he ties Pete's mark WITH an RG, he will be ahead of Pete in most people's minds. Just not yet.

Regarding, Sampras, I'm sorry to inform you that he DID dominate the era in which he played, so much so, that he established the records for year end #1 rankings at 6, consecutive years and number of slams at 14. When he broke Emerson's career major record of 12 in 2000 he broke a record which had stood for 33 years. No one in the history of the game has ever done as much. Exclamation point. Singular achievements.

Whether he qualifies for G.O.A.T. consideration can be debated for one piece of the puzzle, the RG, which is missing from his resume. Just like Borg has missing from his a US Open title. But like Borg's accomplishment of 5 Wimbledon's and 6 RG's, 3 years winning both, is an historically singular achievement, so are Sampras's. In many people's minds what each did accomplish in their careers does qualify them for consideration. However whether Sampras dominated his era is not even a question when his name is atop those two records in the Open era.

So even without an RG, no one, except maybe for you, would conclude that someone setting the ALL-TIME marks in those two categories didn't dominate the era in which he played. If all those numbers were reversed in Agassi's favor, he would have dominated. He didn't. He is clearly the #2 of that era. A win at the French doesn't make up his 6 major shortfall, or trump Sampras finishing number 1, 5 more times than Agassi did.

35ft6
07-18-2006, 04:12 PM
If one were to use your logic, since two of the GS are now on a hardcourt type surface, then the GOAT must be someone who does well on those surfaces. That said, I still say a person must win Wimbledon to be considered the GOAT. Call me a traditionalist...;-) I never said the GOAT doesn't have to win Wimbledon. He has to win all 4 of the tennis' biggest crowns. If I were to leave one out, at gunpoint, it would be the Australian.

sarpmas
07-18-2006, 07:51 PM
Based on the best singular achievements to date, the reference point should be close to 14 Slams, close to 6 consecutive year end #1 and Slams on every surface. So, ideally, a clear GOAT should achieve at least 3 Slams on each surface, preferably with back to back titles, and at least 3 consecutive year end #1. This will cover Slams on all surfaces, total # of Slams won and domination of an Era.

If your criteria is not as stringent, getting a minimum of 2 Slams each can also be considered. The reason for at least 2 Slams each is to rule out potential debate on fluke win on single Slam.

IMO, the only thing left debatable is the depth of competitive field in each respective Era. Having said that, if you really have a person who is dominating his Era, the field will always look weak, relatively.

So, who has the best potential to achieve the GOAT status now? :)

Until someone really do accomplish all these, the top GOAT candidates right now is still Laver, Borg and Sampras.