How can Nadal be a GOAT candidate if...

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

  1. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,112
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Emerson won 12 majors in the amateurs (6 Australian, 2 French, 2 Wimbledon, 2 US). Emerson was an excellent player and the best amateur player in the world for several years, but the best players in the world in the 1960s were professionals, not amateurs. Gonzales dominated the professional game from 1954-1961, beating the best players in the world in the professional ranks, players like Kramer, Budge, Segura, Sedgman, Trabert, Rosewall, Hoad, Cooper, Anderson, Olmedo, Gimeno etc. and some of these opponents were serious opposition for Gonzales, yet he was never toppled as the best player in the world before he went into an 18 month retirement at the end of 1961.

    Gonzales didn't play against Laver for the first time until 1964, and even against a prime Laver, a post-prime Gonzales managed to win 21 out of 60 matches.
     
  2. TheFifthSet

    TheFifthSet Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2009
    Messages:
    2,356
    LOL. Somebody who is more articulate than I am should try to explain the circular logic of this post. It's just too mind-numbing for me to even attempt. No seriously, somebody legitimately should.

    Anyways, I didn't say Emerson "did nothing." You don't need to reel off his achievements. I know them. But that in no way puts him in even the same league as Pancho. ANYBODY who has access to a computer, can take five minutes out of their day and come to the resounding, no-questions-asked conclusion that Pancho Gonzales is one of the greatest tennis players of all time, and in every way superior to Emerson. There's just no way to not scoff at a list that doesn't acknowledge such obvious superiority.
     
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2012
  3. TheFifthSet

    TheFifthSet Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2009
    Messages:
    2,356
    And Gonzales is clearly in the top 10. You yourself rank Laver as the number 3 player of all time, yet Gonzales's career was arguably just as good, and their eras overlapped. To rank Laver number 3 but not rank Pancho somewhere near there just doesn't make sense.
     
  4. LuckyR

    LuckyR Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2006
    Messages:
    6,404
    Location:
    The Great NW
    Good point, not the world's greatest training regimen (for tennis).

    I wonder if Pro Football Warehouse Forum has silly topics like players from yesteryear being "better" than Modern players? Or if the Pro Basketball Forum has threads that maybe someone from the NBA before the color barrier was broken is maybe their GOAT? I don't think so.

    Example: Clarke Hinkle was a Hall of Fame Linebacker for the Packers... in the 30's, he was 5'11" and weighed 202, he is at least 2 standard deviations out of even making the NFL by today's standards.
     
  5. TheFifthSet

    TheFifthSet Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2009
    Messages:
    2,356
    A little different though, since in football there's a premium on physiciality, strength and sheer size. It's not the same in tennis, where technique and coordination are the most important qualities.
     
  6. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    IMO, Richard Nixon and George Bush daddy are very underrated guys.
     
  7. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Thanks, I´d be glad to share opinions with you.
     
  8. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Yes Kramer, Sedgeman, Segura, Trabert, Hoad, Rosewall, and Laver wasnt any tougher a field to face than Ashe, Stolle, Ralston, Roche, no difference at all. :lol:
     
  9. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    according to TMF standarts, none of them had the height to even deserve consideration:(
     
  10. The-Champ

    The-Champ Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2007
    Messages:
    6,541
    Location:
    Sweden
    Height is one of TMF's criteria for GOATness, so bye bye Laver and anyone shorter or taller than Federer :D
     
  11. TheFifthSet

    TheFifthSet Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2009
    Messages:
    2,356
    Mhm. Emerson might not have even been top 6-7 in his own era (if so then barely), much less 11th all time. Great great player...but not a historically great player.
     
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2012
  12. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,112
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    I'd say that Emerson was the fifth best player of 1964, behind Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales and Gimeno. If Hoad had been in better physical shape, he would have been better too. This is a year where Emerson won 3 of the 4 majors in the amateur game.
     
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2012
  13. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    But he enhances a lot Henin over Serena Williams, so the conclusion is that he uses height just as an excuse for his agenda ( anti Laver, anti Rosewall, anti Williams)
     
  14. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    I fully agree.While he was clearly below Gonzales ( even if he was just as competitive and hard to beat), that does not mean he was not one of the best players of his generation, and possibly better than Gimeno, or at least as good.He is in any top ten list of the 60´s, along Hoad,Rosewall,Gonzales,Laver,Gimeno,Fraser,Newcombe,Roche and Santana ( the other great amateur of his era).Maybe Ashe and Stolle could be at Santana´s or Gimeno´s level and be co-tenth.
     
  15. TheFifthSet

    TheFifthSet Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2009
    Messages:
    2,356
    Disagree, Federer's era isn't weak and even at 31 he was able to best Nole, Murray and others at majors, who are in their prime and extremely formidable. The head-to-head is a blemish, yes, but a slight majority of their meetings have been on clay. Imagine if Gonzales played Rosewall half the time on clay, their head to head probably would have looked different yet (by most accounts) Gonzales was a clearly superior player. It's unfair to penalize Fed for being good enough on clay to meet Nadal in finals. I think each great player has some kind of blemish. No one is perfect.

    And, while the net play the past few years has been disappointing in mens tennis, the baseline play is absolutely astounding. Having watched tennis all my life almost, I've never seen such a wealth of players who could dominate from the back of the court. Less variety, yes, but not lower quality. The slowing of the surfaces have definitely contributed to the lack of all-court play.
     
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2012
  16. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Maybe.And Gonzales was not clearly better than Rosewall, but just a little bit better or at the same ( enormous) level.
     
  17. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    Federers era was weak.

    There's no question he is a great player....that's not the point .

    The point is that there's no way in hell he would have won 17 slams with today's competition.....no way in hell.
     
  18. TheFifthSet

    TheFifthSet Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2009
    Messages:
    2,356
    Yeah, it speaks volumes. I think Emerson in '68-'69, after having dominated the amateur game, went on an epic losing streak to Laver, something like 12 or 13 matches if I'm not mistaken. Imagine that. A guy who was a powerhouse couldn't challenge Laver to save his life!
     
  19. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,112
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    I think we need to careful that we don't overrate nor underrate Emerson. He was an excellent player and although he was below the top professionals, he was the dominant amateur player for several years in the 1960s and would have been more than capable of holding his own in the professional game had he decided to turn professional instead of staying as an amateur due to his loyalty to Harry Hopman and Davis Cup. When Emerson did finally turn pro in early 1968 by joining the NTL group of players, the open era was just about imminent. As a pro in the open era, Emerson didn't have the longevity of other top players of his era. His peak had been the mid-1960s.

    As for Gimeno, I think he occupied the position in the mid-1960s of being better than than the top amateurs (Emerson, Stolle, Santana, Roche, Drysdale), yet wasn't as good as Laver and Rosewall, or even an old Gonzales if Gorgo played regularly.
     
  20. TheFifthSet

    TheFifthSet Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2009
    Messages:
    2,356
    I was a bit over-zealous there, yes of course there wasn't a huge difference between them although I would favour Pancho because of his unbelievable peak.
     
  21. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,112
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Emerson did very well against Laver in 1968. In 1968, the first year of the open era, Laver and Emerson met 10 times and each player won 5 matches. In 1969, Laver won 6 and Emerson won 1, while Laver won all 6 of their matches in 1970, and all 6 of their matches in 1971.
     
  22. TheFifthSet

    TheFifthSet Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2009
    Messages:
    2,356
    Ah, was thinking of that my mistake.
     
  23. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,212
    I think you totally misunderstood or intentionally trying to misrepresented me.

    I've said that Laver's height(5'8") is fine when he played in his heyday, but tennis has changed, and he would be at a disadvantage playing in the current era. Could he compete? Sure, but he's not going to be one of the elite player. In today's game, you need big serve, which Laver limited because of his size and reach. Power on both wings. The conditions today is suit for baseliner, not s/v, so power from the baseline is essential. Laver will still have good footwork, but missing the 2 key components will hinder his game, despite he's a very talented player. Player's today have big game, you don't see any player at 5'8" dominated the game. In fact, I've pointed out many times before that in the last 2 decades there isn't any player undersize that dominated the game. You can't dispute that. An ideal height for a player is at around 6'0~6'3", not 5'8" or 6'6".

    When a player combined a very gifted talent, the right height and work ethnic, that player has a chance to reach the top. Hence, Fed/Nadal/Nole/Murray have those attributes. Could you imagine if these 4 players were at 5'8"? haha, they wouldn't be where they are right now.
     
  24. TheFifthSet

    TheFifthSet Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2009
    Messages:
    2,356
    What???? YOU ranked Laver as the #3 player of ALL TIME, and now you say he wouldn't even be an elite player?

    David Ferrer is #5 in the world and he's only an inch taller, and not even a fraction of the tennis player Laver was.
     
  25. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,212
    I'm talking about Laver competing against the current era. It has nothing to do with what he achieved in the 60s and early 70s.

    Look, Court gets ranked high because the reason for her 11 AO titles. Do you really think she could win 11 AO in this era? If anyone does that makes Serena is just an average player, to put it mildly.

    And I'm suppose to believe laver would win 200 titles in this era too.:rolleyes:
     
  26. TheFifthSet

    TheFifthSet Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2009
    Messages:
    2,356
    You ranked him as better than many modern players, including Sampras I believe, Nadal etc.....

    David Ferrer is number five in the world. That's an elite player. He's one inch taller than Laver. One inch. One inch and -1000 less talent.

    Your arguments really aren't making much sense here.
     
  27. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,541
    Straight sets

    In 1968, those 5 matches Emerson beat Laver in, he won them all in straight sets. Think about it, beating an absolute peak laver 5 times in straight sets! What that tells me that Emerson was up there in ability. if he had gone pro in 1963, like Laver, I think he would have held his own. Emerson faded after that mainly due to age.
     
  28. Povl Carstensen

    Povl Carstensen Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    5,755
    It is not disqualifying for a goat to have a negative h2h against a surface goat. The era stuff is hypothetical (and beaten to death) and contradicted by 31 year old post peak Federer being nr 1.
     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2012
  29. billnepill

    billnepill Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Messages:
    2,075
    Location:
    UK
    Why, what's different? Federer is beating Murray and Djokovic most of the time and Nadal is winning only on clay for about 2 years now. Peak Federer could have been going for a GS in today's field lol
     
  30. Povl Carstensen

    Povl Carstensen Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    5,755
    Of course if you put all greats at peak in the same time, they would have less GS, all of them. Federer would perhaps have a some fewer, but so would the others, so he would still be in the lead. On the other hand, he would be raking in more now because of his amazing longeivity, so it all evens out. I explained this to you once, and your answer was "ok".
     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2012
  31. PSNELKE

    PSNELKE Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,134
    I agree back then when tennis was so competitive that old farts were able to challenge the Top guys.

    /end thread.
     
  32. NadalDramaQueen

    NadalDramaQueen Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,561
    Hello TheFifthSet, I am getting tired of defending TMF, but I again fail to see all of the contradictions you mention. The problem is in the definition of the GOAT in "GOAT lists." Do you really think that the number one player in that list wouldn't have at least one player throughout all of time who couldn't beat him more often than not? What I'm trying to say is, I don't think it would be possible to make a list in that manner (with the idea that the number one would defeat every player from any time period at least 6/10 times) due to contrasting styles, match up issues, etc.. Therefore, everyone has additional criteria in order to make a list that doesn't contain loops that defy logic.

    Back to the point, what exactly is your issue with giving Laver a high ranking due to his record but still being of the opinion that many players today would eat him alive? History is history, but comparing across eras is speculation, which is why you would give him his due in your rankings.

    As for the Ferrer comparison, I really wouldn't even go there.
     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2012
  33. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    No.

    I shouldn't just say today's competition only but evenjust Nadal.

    Nadal is Feds Kryptonite.


    Nadal missed four grand slams and an Olympics not to mention who knows what else.

    Out of those four grand slams that he missed I believe 3 of them Federer was the beneficiary . Wimbledon (against Roddick ) and the US open and AO I believe. Even Fed FO win was because Nadal fell out early due to personal problems am injury ( remember he skipped wimby).

    Prior to that say 2003- 2007 Nadal was merely a developing player.....a clay court specialist as he was labeled.

    It is during this period that Federer has won the majority of his slams.

    Never before in history has a goat been dominated by hos main rival . It os completely logical that if Nadal had been around as a fill player from day one Fed would no way have even near 17 slams.


    The argument is a logical one:

    Once Nadal became an all court player he dominated Federer. Therefore it is logical to assume that had Nadal been an all court player at the age of 18 he would have dominated Federer starting from 2003.
     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2012
  34. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    What's different? Fed has not won a slam in two years. The only slam he won is when it went indoors.....which by the way he lost to Murray in during the Olympics just a short time afterwards.

    Can Fed win slams: yes .....can he win 17 with today's crop? No way In hell.....

    And if you take away some of his 17 .....he is not the goat even on paper.
     
  35. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    Sort of the way 35 year old Agassi on one leg challenged Federer? Good point.
     
  36. prosealster

    prosealster Professional

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2006
    Messages:
    958
    this has been beaten to death.....fed's era only looked weak because he made them look weak. roddick who is such a joke of a player till recently was still beating the supposedly much superior djoker.....davydenko who's a headcase with no weapons has a positive head-to-head against the much superior nadal... ferrer who is over the hill interms of tennis age is just about playing the best tennis ever interms of result wise...grandpa fed who thrived on weak era who wouldnt have a chance in current era is still number one ahead of the other 3 who r in their tennis prime...etcetc....

    we can all speculate how many fed would win in this era...but at the end of the day it's all speculation....what we know is that with fed's longevity and dominance..he will bag a **** load of gs regardless of which era he played in
     
  37. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    Actually I'm wrong about Nadal.

    I think he missed 2 us opens 2 AO's ( going on three) and I think 1 FO and 1 wimby and 1 Olympic .

    Anyone have the numbers?
     
  38. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    if Laver was powerful at something, it was in his groundies.His left arm was monstruous.
     
  39. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Right, and we don´t need to go back too long ago.In the 90´s, the power and athleticism of Sampras,Becker,Lendl,Edberg,Bruguera,Courier,Agassi,Kafelnikov,Stich,Martin,Rafter, Ivanisevic or Krajicek was equal or better than current´s elite players...well, in that group, a midget like Chang ( shoter and less powerful than Laver) survived pretty well and reached a few major finals...
     
  40. RF20Lennon

    RF20Lennon Legend

    Joined:
    May 2, 2011
    Messages:
    7,225
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    So basically federer's wins don't count because nadal is a quitter ok.
     
  41. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Don´t forget that Laver and Emerson knew each other game by memory and were so close friends.That has an effect on a particular H2H that equalizes things ( unless you are Borg and Gerulaitis, of course), specially when there is not such a big difference of level of play.
     
  42. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Age means nothing.Tilden won majors past 35, so did Rosewall and, in the pros, Gonzales, against one of the fiercest cast of competitors ever gathered.Laver won the second GS in one of the most difficult eras ever, where such a gifted player as Tony Roche could not win a big title.Connors, in the middle of the Golden Era, recovered the nº 1 position and he was well over his 30´s.And Sampras and Agassi were past their 30´s when they won their last slam titles.it means nothing if you are in shape, and it certainly helps against less experienced players.
     
  43. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Is there a nº 1 that has had such a lousy record against his main opponent in the history of the game? I really would be curious.Certainly, not Borg,Laver and Sampras, and I don´t think so about Kramer,Wilding and Tilden.maybe Budge or Perry?
     
  44. Povl Carstensen

    Povl Carstensen Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    5,755
    I dont quite agree. But it does not detract from Federers status.
     
  45. Povl Carstensen

    Povl Carstensen Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    5,755
    Its a surface goat we are talking about. It is ok.
     
  46. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,212
    (sigh) I'm talking about apple and you're talking about oranges.

    The height issues playing in modern tennis that I've explained has nothing to do with the goat debate. It's not about career achievements, not about how much a player dominated his generation. Do you understand?

    And Ferrer is not an elite player. In that case Del Potro must one of all time great then.:roll: Even if a player managed to win 1 slam, I wouldn't call that an elite player. You got to do a whole lot better than be an elite player.
     
  47. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    No it's just some of his wins are not that great.

    Nadal in less time and in less slams has actually done more than Federer . He has also beaten Federer In his own house and on every surface .

    Federer is considered the greatest by some because he has 17 slams.

    But some of those slams were really not that big of a deal.

    The slams Nadal won were mainly against Federer himself . So I don't see how logically you can possibly say that Federer is the greatest player that ever lived when there is a player who is alive and dominates him.

    Feds slams came mainly before Nadal or as Nadal was developing.

    No way he can possibly win 17 slams with today's competition .....no way in hell.
     
  48. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,786
    Ignorant post is ignorant. Your basic premise that Tennis today works the same way as Tennis in the 60s is absolutely absurd.
     
  49. beast of mallorca

    beast of mallorca Legend

    Joined:
    May 19, 2010
    Messages:
    7,753
    You make a very sound argument there buddy. And I agree.
    But if Nadal is to contend for the GOAT status #1, he has to win more
    GS/ Majors (for those who want to always be 'politically' correct) out of Clay and get to number 1 ranking longer, maybe 200+ more. Just my 2¢
     
  50. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,786
    31 year-old Federer is world #1 "with today's competition." :lol:
     

Share This Page