Drop 2 major wins, add 1 they didn't win.

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by ttwarrior1, Apr 16, 2013.

  1. ttwarrior1

    ttwarrior1 Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2005
    Messages:
    1,145
    Location:
    kentucky
    Would you feel any different for each player if this happened.

    Borg: 1 less French open and 1 less Wimbledon win, but won a us open

    Lendl: 1 less French open and us open win, but wins a wimby

    Conners: 1 less us open and wimbledon but wins a french open.

    Fed:1 less us open and wimby for fed but 1 more french open

    Sampras: 1 less us open and wimby for sampras but wins a french open

    Becker: 1 less wimby and aussie open but wins a french open

    Kuerten, only 1 french open championship but wins a us open

    Edberg : 2 less majors but wins a French

    Nadal: 2 less french opens but add a us open

    Wilander: 1 less aussie and french but wins wimbledon.

    Venus Williams: 1 less wimbledon and us open but wins a French

    You get the idea. I think some people would say Borg or Lendl would be the goat in this situation , or even conners. Sampras for sure.

    How would your opinions on each one be if this happened. 1 less total major but wins one they didn't or didnt win much of.
     
    #1
  2. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,156
    Then winning all four slam would be a relatively meaningless achievement as most of the players who won more than 5 majors would have won all them. It would change nothing to the all time great ranking.
     
    #2
  3. ttwarrior1

    ttwarrior1 Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2005
    Messages:
    1,145
    Location:
    kentucky
    disagree, i didnt say if all that happened.

    Im asking what if one of these things happened to just one of these guys, good grief
     
    #3
  4. ttwarrior1

    ttwarrior1 Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2005
    Messages:
    1,145
    Location:
    kentucky
    if Lendl would of won wimby he would be called the goat
    if borg won the us open he would be
    same goes for sampras.
     
    #4
  5. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    I don't think so. In your scenario,

    Lendl: 2 USO, 2 FO, 2 AO, 1 W (+ many other achievements)

    That's nowhere near Fed's actual record.

    Borg: 5 FO, 4 W, 1 US (+ many other achievements)

    This is still 7 slams short of Fed, although Borg would have the incredible FO-W triple-double. I still don't think he would be GOAT though.

    Sampras: 6 W, 4 US, 2 AO, 1 FO (+ many other achievements)

    This would still put him short of Fed (7 W, 5 US, 4 AO, 1 FO), although it would put him closer than he is in reality due to having won on all surfaces.

    Nevertheless, none of these changes would impact on the GOAT status of these candidates. Federer would still reign supreme in the Open Era for sure.
     
    #5
  6. mattennis

    mattennis Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,234
    If I was a pro player, I wouldn't.

    To win just one single GS tournament is something incredibly difficult.

    I would stay with, say, 8 GS (like Lendl's case) having won 3 of them, than changing to 7 GS having won the four of them.

    Only when comparing two players (from the same era) with equal number of total GS tournaments won, it would be interesting to see if any of them won the four GS, and still I wouldn't call him "better than the other", just different.

    Some examples:

    If Nadal ends with 11 GS and Djokovic ends with 12 GS (without RG, suppose he wins 2 more AO and 4 more US OPEN), I would never see Nadal's 11 GS (with the four of them) as "better", because Djokovic would have won one more GS overall, and ANY GS tournament (no matter which one) is just so difficult to win.

    Even if they both end up with 11 GS (and Djokovic not winning RG) I still wouldn't see Nadal's 11 GS as "better" than Djokovic's 11 GS.

    For example, if a player ends wins 4 GS (the four of them once each) and another ends also with 4 GS (he won, for example, Wimbledon four times), which is better? I don't know, it is just different. The first one means he was a good enough player on different surfaces as to win at least once each. The second means he was a beast in Wimbledon, winning four times.

    Which one is "better" is totally opinable, it depends on what any person would prefer. I wouldn't mind any of those achievements for myself. :)
     
    #6
  7. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,156
    I agree with the first part of your post. If Djokovic can win 12 majors, the last one was sure very hard to win.

    But I think that it is harder to win four different slams that one four time. If you happen to be the best player on a surface, you can dominate it relatively easily. It has happened a lot of time. But to win the four major, you have to be very good everywhere, and that is much more difficult to do.

    Look at Federer or Sampras: easy to win titles after titles on grass and hardcourt. Not so easy to win one on clay.

    Borg, Federer, Sampras, Nadal, McEnroe, Connors, all could dominate one tournament. But to win all four, that was a different story.
     
    #7

Share This Page