Translation: calling all jock-sniffing Fedfanboys!It seems that many are STILL arguing who GOAT is, so let's have a poll and see what others think!
Why end? Here's another opportunity for yet another emo-fanboy circle jerk.DropShotArtist said:Federer
/end thread
Greatest ALL-ROUND Player Of All Time (GARPOAT) - Federer
Greatest HEAD-HEAD Player Of All Time (GHHPOAT) - Nadal
Now it's settled. Nobody else matters.
Just because they are both current era players doesn't mean they are the greatest. There are other great players in the past as well you know.
Indeed there are great players in the past and i was a fan of those legends too.
But tell me who do you consider to be a greater all round player than Federer and a greater head-head player than Nadal?
He doesn't exist. There is no one player that is better than all the others. It's a myth that's gotten boring.
Translation: calling all jock-sniffing Fedfanboys!
Why end? Here's another opportunity for yet another emo-fanboy circle jerk.
thread fail
__________________
Sorry man, but Sampras was a loser both on and off the court.
Laver by quite a margin IMO. Then Pancho then Rosewall.
Laver has the titles (200), he has the Calendar Slam (2) he has domination over his rivals, he has longevity. He has it all. No holes. Or at least, the least amount of holes in his resume out of everyone in history
Nadal's 3 consecutive slams on 3 different surfaces in one calendar year trumps Laver's calendar slams imo.
Laver by quite a margin IMO. Then Pancho then Rosewall.
Laver has the titles (200), he has the Calendar Slam (2) he has domination over his rivals, he has longevity. He has it all. No holes. Or at least, the least amount of holes in his resume out of everyone in history
The accomplishment is diluted due to the homogenized surfaces. Laver won the GS pre-homogenization, and while he didn't win one on hard, he did on clay and grass which have the largest margin of difference.
As far as achievements in tennis go, Borg's three consecutive pre-homogenized channel slams is pretty much the bossest imo.
Even though the surfaces are played at a similar speed, people sometimes fail to acknowledge the difference in movement required to be successful on all 3 surfaces.
Why do you think Djokovic sucks on grass as opposed to hard - too slippery to slide.
Why do you think Sampras sucks on clay as opposed to grass - can't slide
Speed of court will only influence your style of play, but mastery of movement will dictate your success on a particular surface.
Laver never won slam on Hard, nor did Borg. This is their biggest blemish.
laver never played a major on hard courts .... however he did win many other tournaments on hard courts ...
Indeed there are great players in the past and i was a fan of those legends too.
But tell me who do you consider to be a greater all round player than Federer and a greater head-head player than Nadal?
Rosewall and Laver have the most 'complete' resumes. Rosewall for longevity, and Laver for peak level play.
.
Paolo Maldini
Haha.....Federer has a more complete resume than Rosewall
19 majors > 17 majors
Roberto Carlos > Maldini.
14 Grand Slams, 7 of them Wimbledon and you claim he's a loser?Sorry man, but Sampras was a loser both on and off the court.
Michael Jordan (another winner) had his tongue out even more than Sampras. As for the tipping swipe, who was that who after saying it said it was "out of line?" Ah yes, the phony 'image-is-everything' wig-wearing meth addict.IDK Dedan's. I wouldn't call a player who had his tongue out all the time and a bad tipper a winner...Just sayin.. :lol:
Good for fans to debate. That's all.
In the end, all a player can do is try to beat what is in front of him. In the Open Era, Federer has done that the most.
The problem with Laver's grand slams as I understand it was - it was mostly on grass. Unlike today there are 3 different surfaces.
No you don't Lew. And it's pretty obvious you don't even know how to play tennis, Lew Zhur.I know more about tennis than you.