How can Nadal be a GOAT candidate if...

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Mike Sams, Oct 1, 2012.

  1. The Bawss

    The Bawss Banned

    Joined:
    May 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,829
    Location:
    Lyon, France.
    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.
     
    #51
  2. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    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.
     
    #52
  3. Zarfot Z

    Zarfot Z Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2012
    Messages:
    786
    Lol no.

    10lolnos
     
    #53
  4. SoBad

    SoBad Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    8,185
    Location:
    shiran
    Davydenko is a solid player.
     
    #54
  5. The Bawss

    The Bawss Banned

    Joined:
    May 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,829
    Location:
    Lyon, France.
    Nikolay Davydenko is a solid player.
     
    #55
  6. SoBad

    SoBad Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    8,185
    Location:
    shiran
    I think we need to restart this discussion by establishing that Nikolay Vladimirovich Davydenko is an accomplished professional tennis player.
    [​IMG]
     
    #56
  7. Vcore89

    Vcore89 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2012
    Messages:
    2,089
    Location:
    The synapse
    Like Ferrer is a solid player. Hey the guy won at least one WTF as oppose to Mr. Rafael's nada (as in zit).:)
     
    #57
  8. Vcore89

    Vcore89 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2012
    Messages:
    2,089
    Location:
    The synapse
    Nadal is GOATesque for sure. No?
     
    #58
  9. Zarfot Z

    Zarfot Z Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2012
    Messages:
    786
    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.
     
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2012
    #59
  10. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    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.
     
    #60
  11. NDFM

    NDFM Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2012
    Messages:
    255
    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.
     
    #61
  12. RF20Lennon

    RF20Lennon Legend

    Joined:
    May 2, 2011
    Messages:
    7,307
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    Couldn't have out it better myself
     
    #62
  13. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,387
    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.
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2012
    #63
  14. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,387
    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.
     
    #64
  15. TheFifthSet

    TheFifthSet Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2009
    Messages:
    2,429
    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?
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2012
    #65
  16. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    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
     
    #66
  17. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,786
    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.
     
    #67
  18. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    I doubt tennis has been weaker than in 2005 to 2007.
     
    #68
  19. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,786
    Laver doesn't.
     
    #69
  20. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,387
    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.
     
    #70
  21. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,786
    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.
     
    #71
  22. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,387
    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
     
    #72
  23. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    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.
     
    #73
  24. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,387
    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)?
     
    #74
  25. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,786
    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.
     
    #75
  26. SoBad

    SoBad Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    8,185
    Location:
    shiran
    I am a solid player, but I never won a Christmas indoor exhibition tournament because I never bothered to sign up for one.
     
    #76
  27. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,786
    Yeah, maybe they should just hand it you then because you're too lazy to go and win it.
     
    #77
  28. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    laver wom pro majors and doubles nadal´s record...will you ever learn that?
     
    #78
  29. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,115
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    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.
     
    #79
  30. LuckyR

    LuckyR Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2006
    Messages:
    6,404
    Location:
    The Great NW
    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...
     
    #80
  31. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,387
    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.
     
    #81
  32. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,115
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    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.
     
    #82
  33. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Troll Master Freaky has written another master piece of his own
     
    #83
  34. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    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.
     
    #84
  35. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,574
    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
     
    #85
  36. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    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
     
    #86
  37. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,574
    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.
     
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2012
    #87
  38. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    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
     
    #88
  39. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    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".
     
    #89
  40. LuckyR

    LuckyR Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2006
    Messages:
    6,404
    Location:
    The Great NW
    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.
     
    #90
  41. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,115
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    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.
     
    #91
  42. TheFifthSet

    TheFifthSet Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2009
    Messages:
    2,429
    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?
     
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2012
    #92
  43. TheFifthSet

    TheFifthSet Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2009
    Messages:
    2,429
    ^^This post.
     
    #93
  44. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    ...and a bunch of beer drinkers, too:)
     
    #94
  45. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,387
    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.
     
    #95
  46. Evan77

    Evan77 Banned

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Messages:
    1,745
    Kiki has some very good points and that list from Wiki is full of flaws, but too lazy to type. maybe later.
     
    #96
  47. TheFifthSet

    TheFifthSet Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2009
    Messages:
    2,429
    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?
     
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2012
    #97
  48. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    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.


    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.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 5, 2012
    #98
  49. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,387
    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.
     
    #99
  50. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,115
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    LOL. Gonzales is certainly top 5, let alone top 10. He was the best player in the world for 8 years, for goodness sake.
     

Share This Page