Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by The Dark Knight, Sep 23, 2013.
Seriuosly? Again? Doesn't this ever get boring?
I can't vote, because I don't agree with the voting choices, and it really seems trollish to post, "A can't we agree on ... Goat post?" Since when has there been agreement? And Nadal is still a few slams short.
Realistically NO ONE will ever be universally acknowledged as the GOAT, it will always be a never ending dispute on different views and opinions. Case Closed
GOAT advocates need a god to worship.
proponents of this illusionary GOAT concept usually tend to be federereeeeeesian missionaries.
they are just out doing their missionary work.
I have no problem with that. let them spin their wheels.
Yes well this OP is trolling for Nadal.
YES WHY NOT HAVE ANOTHER GOAT THREAD..:?
If there is any room left on the general forums that is,
due to all the other nine million goat threads that have been poasted recently..:neutral:
Just by his name should have set alarm bells at his agenda, DO NOT FEED THE TROLL
maybe he is just toying with the federereeesian missionaries.
he is giving them a sense of imaginary purpose for their tormented existence.
this way everybody is happy.
If your a bull fan then the pope is Jewish....
You should call yourself bullsheet fan.....do you really think that you are fooling anyone ?
Death master the bullfan is a fed fan....trust me on this one .
Lendl....never won Wimbledon ....not a candidate...
Sampras ....I'm sorry guys ....but no FO....he is out. Certainly Nadal has surpassed Pete .
I don't know.. Most anyone who followed tennis in the 80s and 90s know how DIFFICULT it truly was to win a career grand slam. Surely wayyyy more difficult then it is today.
I don't think we should drop the stock of guys like Borg, Sampras, Lendl, Connors, etc. just because they haven't won all 4 slams.
They all played on severely contrasting surfaces. Something guys today don't have to deal with.
Laver is the greatest IMO, but I wouldn't even stack his calendar up vs. Agassi's career grand slam mainly because I know how DIFFICULT it truly was to win all 4 slams during that time. Of course, winning 4 slams in one calendar years is extremely difficult, but I still find doing what Agassi did MORE difficult.
Laver obviously was good enough to do what Agassi did, but 3 grass courts of varying surface speeds, isn't like winning the career grand slam of various clay, grass and hard courts of the 90s
I think it would be easier to adapt to 3 different grass surfaces and a clay surface, than adapt to what Agassi for instance adapted to. Its surely easier to adapt from hard to clay to grass now than it was to adapt to those in the 90s
Most people what Laver did was the ultimate. That may be true of course.. I personally think what Agassi did was the ultimate. Achieving the career slam on two distinctly different hard courts, SLOW Monte-Carlo like clay, lightning fast grass and YEC carpet.. And the olympics of course.
If Borg won the USO I may say what he did was the ultimate (of course he didn't) considering the channel slams
At least Borg and Lendl were serious CONTENDERS at the slams they didn't win (US Open and Wimbledon respectively, both going very deep in the tournament multiple times). It was definitely possible to do well on all surfaces at that time, the two aforementioned players as well as Connors and even Wilander proved that. Hell, even Edberg and McEnroe had some great results on clay. It is just Sampras who was a Wawrinka level player at the French Open. Don't act like NO ONE before the 2000's was having good results on all surfaces, even in the 90's themselves you had Courier and Agassi who could play on anything. Sampras was just abnormally poor on a surface that comprises 1/3 of the tennis calendar.
Wrong. I can be a Nadal fan and cry bs where I see it.
You act like you know how I post outside your sometimes puerile threads.
You can't be bothered to find out anything, you're lazy, hence the moronic thread regarding Feds winning of any tournaments this year. My knowing that Fed has won tournaments only makes me informed. Rather than someone who streams their thoughts as if posters are their thoughts are any more relevant than the Novak or Fed ad nauseum posters. Just because I support Nadal, doesn't mean I have to support the Nadal trolls.
All trolls say something worthwhile in the pile of garbage spewed, but most can't be bothered to try to wade through the crap.
Wrong. I may be a Nadal fan, but, I don't believe in feeding the OP.
You give the OP more credit than he deserves.
Do you consider asking folks in a main thread "whether Fed won anything this year" a troll thread? Anybody watching tennis would know the answer. TDK could have googled atp site, which would have taken less time, than it did to make a main thread. It's offensive either way.
All the goat threads are futile.
Tennis players are not carbon copies of each other, which is what makes the players interesting and more so, the game of tennis.
Yes can always argue
As long as the argument is done in a civil manner - then of course, argument is fine.
I do think though that achievements should only be talked about as actual achievement not as potential achievements. There has a lot of entries about Nadal being a dead cert to win 4 or 5 more slams. My feeling is that he shouldn't be given credit for it until/if he actually does it. Real achievement must always trump over potential achievement. The former is certain, the other is maybe.
he is just chatting up the sport of tennis mate.
lets all enjoy ourselves.
being passionate about players and the sport is invariably better and more fun than being indifferent to it all.
That's what I think. Nadal is on a journey, and he's not done, well hopefully, he's not done. I'm not understanding why folks can't just wait and watch things unfold. I'm hopeful, but, as Nadal has said, GS get harder as you age. Granted, I would also think that based on his comments, he would relish that pressure. He once said of Murray and Wimbledon pressure on him, "wouldn't it be better to have pressure, where folks support you, no?" I believe he said that the year of the play station debates at Wimbledon between Nadal and Murray.
All that said, I'm hopeful Nadals body and passion for the game gets him there.
NO. An illogical, meaningless construct is by definition not arguable.
Nadal has one weapon that gets better with age : his brain !
His skill at problem solving is just amazing and it's scary to think he will get even better . He is going to make the world greatest coach.
Federer and Nadal will make crappy coaches. You can't ask Eric Clapton to teach you to play guitar like him. You can't ask Da Vinci to teach you to paint like him. Geniuses are terrible teachers.
This question of who is the "greatest tennis player" has always been arguable and always will be arguable. With Nadal and Federer, it will be debatable as to who is the greater of the two players as Nadal continues to add to his totals. They are both all time greats. In tennis, there are all time great players like Laver, Borg, Sampras, Federer, and now Nadal. It's great for the game to have great rivalries between all time great players. That's what we've had with Federer and Nadal. For the next few years, I do expect Nadal to be the top player in the world. See Rod Laver "Rushing the Immortals" . They were even having this same debate back then, so don't expect it to end anytime soon. It's an interesting debate. It comes down to what you prioritize.
I'm on the same page as you.
that is because you are cool like me.
great minds think together and work well together.
Now it's arguable?
Are you openly admitting your previous threads were troll threads?
There's no such thing as an undisputed goat, but for sure each top tier players has a certain amount of percentage supported by the fans, experts and ex-players combined. Today, Federer and Graf have the highest number of votes for being the greatest of all time. Laver, Martina would also have a big chunk of votes. Players like Seles, Henin, Venus, Edberg, Becker, Agassi could have some votes too, but the numbers are very small.
As long as it is known that Federer is NOT the GOAT.
Please, for heaven's sake share that data with us. I'd love to know in what universe Laver, Tilden, Rosewall, Gonzales have better resumes and GOAT credentials than Federer.
Not that I really care about that whole GOAT discussion, but when someone mentiones Bill freaking Tilden in the GOAT debate....
Above all else, his not being a GOAT was settled long ago. One accepts the criteria necessary for the distinction, or they pad trivia lists, and spin themselves silly trying to mount a losing campaign--the "Fed is GOAT" campaign.
I maintain my opinion that Nadal is the goat.....however I have always respected other people's candidates for goat.
Except that your a liar. You didn't vote because it's a public vote and you would be exposed. You can't even bring yourself to vote that Nadal as goat is arguable?
There has not been a single pro Nadal post by you .
But please prove me wrong bullsheeter......show us in tangible proof how exactly you are a Rafa fan.
You are transparent ....but even more it's pathetic that you would go throught these lengths .....are you 13 ?
It always was arguable.
I think that Edberg and McEnroe (and even Becker, who at least made the semi-finals of Roland Garros three times, even though he never won a title on clay) doing well on clay are better examples than Borg, Lendl, Courier, and Agassi doing well on hard/grass as evidence of Sampras's weakness on clay being serious and not due to how different the courts were. The reason for that is that there were always more baseliners than serve and volley players among the tour as a whole, and so it was easier for a player to get through a few rounds at Wimbledon despite being poor on grass than for a player to get through a few rounds at Roland Garros despite being poor on clay.
Take Courier, for example. True, he did beat Ferreira, Todd Martin and Edberg to make the Wimbledon final in 1993. But in his dominant year, 1992, he lost to Andrei Olhovsky in round 3. In 1991, he made the quarter-finals, but his opponents en route were R. Gilbert, Grabb, Boetsch, and Novacek. Boetsch and Novacek (the latter in particular) were slow-court players. Had Sampras played been up against players of that overall quality but with a preference for fast courts at Roland Garros, he'd probably have got through more often. (True, he lost to Philippoussis in 2000).
So, the fact that Edberg and McEnroe could get to the Roland Garros final seems to me more significant.
When was it ever not? There is not such thing as an official GOAT registry, hall of fame, etc. There is no official metric for evaluating the greatest. It will always simply be up the fan.
Personally, Roger will always be GOAT, to me. His records, his style of play, his shot making, grace, understanding of the game and so many other factors. Yes, Rafa has beaten him countless times, and one day he may even surpass his most notable records. While I think Rafa is a great player and enjoy watching him, Roger will always be the greatest to me.
That is simply my opinion and it won't be the same as others'. The GOAT is merely that - an opinion.
20 voters say it cannot be debated. Its fantical idoltry here at TW.
I am sorry but Federer is just too far ahead of Sampras. Nadal could still break into tier 2 though.
Troll, troll, troll your boat, gently down the stream........
There are a lot of people who argue for Nadal on this site. And they always lose the argument.
No lleyton is the undisputed goat.
Is it not possible to just accept that Universally neither player will EVER be known or accepted as the GOAT.
the only people who think federer is the undisputed GOAT are people who can't do math.
Nobody here is better than you when it comes to fanatical idolatry (well, I'm better at spelling it)
This is the most ridiculous post in this thread and that's saying something.
Why is it ridiculous? Are you disputing Federer hasn't surpassed Sampras?
Tiers are ridiculous.....how the hell did you come up with this stupid tier theory?
Do these so called "tiers" of goats exist anywhere outside of TW?
Oh no.....Nadal will be......rest assured he will be.
Right now it's arguable even though in my book and many many others he already is.
Tiers are just a way to pacify Nadal fans.
1. just 3 slams separate roger from Sampras.
2. Sampras was #1 for 6 years
3. Sampras owned his greatest rivals. he had a far better batting average than roger.
if nadal was not such a moron roger would be sitting on zero RG crowns today and most likely just 13 slams.
nadal left 3 slams on the table in 2009.
so how the hell is roger "just too far ahead of Sampras"?
Its childish fanboy nonsense. Similar to ranking superheroes or movie characters.
That should tell you all you need to know about the mind behind this "tier" business on TW.
Separate names with a comma.