If Federer had a winning H2H against everyone, would you consider him the GOAT?

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by tank_job, Jul 30, 2012.

  1. tank_job

    tank_job Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2012
    Messages:
    991
    Or would records like Nadal's 8 Monte Carlo's, or Connor's slam appearances throw that GOAT-dom into dispute?
     
    #1
  2. YellowBall77

    YellowBall77 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2012
    Messages:
    258
    Id consider him the GOAT then probably. Or at least no less than tied for GOAT. Too bad for him Rafael Nadal Parera exists...and Djoker might end with a positive h2h.
     
    #2
  3. kishnabe

    kishnabe G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2008
    Messages:
    17,161
    Location:
    Toronto
    The most grand slams > over +ve h2h against everyone on tour!
     
    #3
  4. JustBob

    JustBob Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2009
    Messages:
    1,992
    Only a couple of days left, we might actually beat the monthly record for idiotic threads.
     
    #4
  5. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,335
    If he just had a winning record vs. his main rival all these years Rafa, then maybe I would consider him GOAT . But he doesn't, Thus why I only give Roger "one of the elite all time greats' status.

    I don't believe you should have the "hands down GOAT" label if your main rival has violated you on the big stage your entire career and throughout various pretty big tourneys throughout your career. All the main big matches Nadal 8 or 9 times out of 10 has won while Fed has pretty much been on the losing end.

    Roger is one of the GOATs. With Laver, Rosewall, Sampras, Tilden and Pancho.. Thee GOAT? No..
     
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2012
    #5
  6. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,215
    It doesn't matter what Fed detrators say. Fed has accomplished more than any tennis player so he's the greatest. Just like Gretzky or Pele who is the #1 in their respective sport.
     
    #6
  7. Towser83

    Towser83 Legend

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    9,496
    No, because baring in mind the different eras you can't really say there is one GOAT.maybe if Federer totally blew away every record. Like 3 Calendar grand slams and 25 slams or something ridiculous like that. Then maybe you can say, ok no-one in history comes close. But he hasn't made the previous players look ordinary by comparison. Laver especially is still up there. Sampras not as much for me because his failures on clay and the fact that he is only 10 years older than Federer. But he could still be up there. Nadal will also likely at least come close to Federer slam count.

    Even Federer said after Wimbledon he does not think he is the greatest, because all those players before him made it possible for him to do what he has done. They made records which became targets for new players like him, and it has become more about chasing records these days.

    However maybe Federer will end up with enough achievements to be called the GOAT by nearly everyone, since people like picking a title for something that is not really easy to judge. He's there at the moment, but again it could become a stronger or a weaker claim.
     
    #7
  8. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,112
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Has he? Where's Federer's 200 tournament wins like Laver, or 8 years as the world's best player like Gonzales? And before you say "different era", the same applies with Gonzales who was banned from the mainstream majors (amateurs only) from age 21 to age 40.

    As much as Federer has achieved, there are still other legends of tennis on the GOAT contender list.
     
    #8
  9. kishnabe

    kishnabe G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2008
    Messages:
    17,161
    Location:
    Toronto
    LOL Laver 200 Tournament wins were mostly 2 matches and some of those were just 1 set exhibition. GONZO a great of a player e was....who knows if he would have been number one in the open era. He did not have to deal amateurs....who could have beaten him more than pros. Tha highly suspectiable with Gonzo great match over Pasarell when he as over the hil.

    Not all era are created equal. 1970's + had a great rubric. Too bad Laver achieved in the wrong time that his only great achivements that matter were his 2 CYGS. Plus his first CYGS was overrated....the first few rounds were not best of 5.
     
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2012
    #9
  10. Federererer

    Federererer Banned

    Joined:
    May 14, 2012
    Messages:
    695
    Fed is clearly already GOAT for those with a balanced mind. However, for the inane and insane, I think if Fed improves the H2H so he is down only by 3 or 4, that should shut some of them up. A 4 deficit H2H is certainly within the realm of possibility.
     
    #10
  11. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,215
    Here's the problem and I've mentioned this before. Back then Fed's main obstacle was to win the FO to complete the career slam, and people like Collins keep saying if he can win the FO he can't be lower than Laver. In fact, Fed had hard time winning the FO because of Nadal getting in his way, and Collins in ESPN said if he can win the FO he'll bow before him. So Fed in 2009 after winning the FO was in the same level as Laver. Since then, Fed have added alot more to his legacy by winning slams, WTF, many other titles, and set more records. It doesn't make sense for not moving Fed ahead of Laver. If Fed reaches 20 slams, does that mean Fed is still stuck at Laver's level?:confused: In contrast, Nadal and NOle have accomplished a lot and they are moving upward in the all time greatest. Funny how Fed can't even move an inch.

    I can understand that because that's who he is. Legendary athlete like Ali will say he's the greatest without a hesitation. The opposite with the great Jerry Rice who never answer that question despite being address the question so many times. It's really depend on who they are, but for us we judge by their career.


    Right. He works hard for years and he earn it.
     
    #11
  12. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,215
    You know that comparing 200 titles to today's standard ATP titles is BS. Most of those events only needed to win 1 or 2 matches, and doesn't even have the full field competing. That's why experts have Connors' 109 titles as the record holder.
     
    #12
  13. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,112
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    And a load were not. The fact is that Laver has won 200 tournaments, and was the world's best player for 7 years. He is also the only male player to win the Grand Slam against an open field, which he did in 1969.

    LOL. You should be saying that the amateurs didn't have to deal with Gonzales after he turned professional in late 1949 at the age of 21. The amateur champions of the 1950s then got all those accolades without having to face the man who would become the best player in the world by 1954.

    Gonzales beat all the newly turned professionals like McGregor, Trabert, Rosewall, Hoad, Cooper, Anderson, Olmedo, Gimeno, MacKay, Buchholz etc. on world professional tours. Out of the newly turned professionals between 1954-1961, only Hoad in 1958-1959 gave Gonzales real trouble. Gonzales' other big rivals were Segura (a pro since 1947) and Sedgman (a pro since 1952).

    The pro tours were the most important thing back then, but even in the tournament scene, Gonzales won 8 US Pros, 4 Wembley Pros and 3 Tournament of Champions.

    I'm sorry, but as good as Federer has been since 2003, it would be wrong to say that he has no challengers to being GOAT. He clearly has many if you study tennis history with an open mind.

    Why are Laver's 2 CYGS the only achievements that matter? Because that's what today's mentality and criteria is? It's silly, because Laver was probably only the fourth best player in the world in 1962 (when he won his first Grand Slam). The professional players Rosewall, Hoad and Gimeno were better than Laver that year, yet I hear some commentators mention Laver's 1962 Grand Slam as though it was as big as his 1969 Grand Slam, which it certainly wasn't.

    If we're going to talk about GOAT, the latter two letters meaning All Time, then we need to realise that before the open era started in April 1968, there were no open era majors like today. And even well into the open era, many players sometimes missed majors because of politics, scheduling concerns, boycotts, not enough prize money etc. Therefore, it is silly to judge those old eras with today's criteria.

    Even in the open era, when Laver was aged 29 or older, he won 74 tournaments. Connors' 109 is the ATP record, and that doesn't include many other titles that Connors won.
     
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2012
    #13
  14. Towser83

    Towser83 Legend

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    9,496
    Good points. The only thing I'm saying is how do you decide what makes someone the greatest? Is it what you win, is it talent?

    Federer will probably end up winning more slams than anyone. Not overall more titles. But then "winning the most" changes to "winning the most of what are highly prized titles". Then you get into "who did they play?"

    If it's talent, then that's hard to decide. If Federer was born the year Laver was would he have won more or less, or the same? If Laver was born in 1981 grew up watching Federer and all the other guys Federer did, would he have outstripped what Federer did? It's impossible to say. But I'll be happy If Federer can be the best of this era, which so far, he has been.
     
    #14
  15. smoledman

    smoledman Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2012
    Messages:
    5,410
    Location:
    USA
    If Federer can narrow the H2H to 3 or 4 that would do it in my mind. Oh and beat Nadal 2-3 more times in a slam.
     
    #15
  16. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,215
    I told you they are nowhere near the same weight as the modern atp tournaments. Fed has a total of 75 titles, but if you think laver's 74 is the equal to Fed's 74 then good for you. I'm sorry but I will never buy that, or anyone in their right mind would either. You can sell Federer short all you want to.
     
    #16
  17. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,112
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    So we're back to the "it was different back then" approach? Don't call the Federer the Greatest of All Time, then.
     
    #17
  18. フェデラー

    フェデラー Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2009
    Messages:
    2,423
    I feel like if Fed had a winning head to head against Nadal, more and more people would just say that it is a very weak era and Federer didn't earn anything. If Nadal wasn't around Federer would have 20+ slams with probably multiple Calendar slams, and as nice as that would be, as a spectator that really isn't fun. I am glad Nadal is here, and now Novak, to keep things in check. It's just like if Novak didn't come along, Rafa would have just kept on winning everything as Federer's career is, slowly, coming to a close. This has all made this era easily the most entertaining era of all time, in my opinion.

    As most have said before, the GOAT argument itself is flawed as the way we judge who is better is subjective. If we look at just slams, weeks at no.1, records, and consistency, it's hard not to give it to Fed, especially compared to Borg, Connors, Sampras, et al. Of course this all gets murky when Laver is thrown in, as he has the calendar slams, but everything now is so different (which is unfair to Laver). Obviously if we let actual players judge, most of them will always say Roger, including Laver, Rosewell, Rafa and even Pete, while Roger would still tout Pete and Laver. I wish we could just appreciate the game itself instead of this petty nonsense we have turned the game into.
     
    #18
  19. Leto

    Leto Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2012
    Messages:
    452
    I personally consider Fed the GOAT, but there would def be a lot more people who would consider him GOAT if not for the H2H.

    We each try to weigh so many different factors that's it's impossible to ever get unanimous agreement on something like this. The H2H is a factor I consider, but just don't give it as much weight as some others do. No right or wrong answer for something like this.
     
    #19
  20. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,335
    Fed is definitely up there with an argument obviously.. One will question at least the TALENT of his opposition at the time when he was collecting an easy 3 slams a year. With his main competition coming from mostly Roddick overall or Agassi operating on his last legs.

    While Roddick is certainly a GOOD PLAYER and would have won maybe a handful of slams if he didn't have to deal with the Fed express... He certainly isn't as talented as the top players of the 80s, 90s, or even back as far as Laver and Rosewall's time. Tennis just used to have more TALENT at the top.. Bottom line

    Roddick just isn't as talented as the top guys we had in the golden years of the 60s, 70s, 80s or early to mid 90s. Thats not to sell him short.. He just isn't as talented
     
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2012
    #20
  21. nadal2012uso2013ao

    nadal2012uso2013ao Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2012
    Messages:
    311
    I don't know how Federer would go against a high-ranked 20th Century player in their prime. They had balls back then. They were all Nadal mentally.
     
    #21
  22. dh003i

    dh003i Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2006
    Messages:
    5,114
    Mustard really has some points here.

     
    #22
  23. dh003i

    dh003i Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2006
    Messages:
    5,114
    I think this is really a rosy-glasses way to look at it. No one in their right mind would say that the best basketball players of the 50s and 60s were on par with say Jordan or even any of the other greats from 1980 - present.

    Tennis is a much more popular sport now with a much broader talent pool to choose from. Just by statistics alone, we'd expect the best of the best to be more freakishly off the bell-curve than from players of prior eras.

     
    #23
  24. smoledman

    smoledman Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2012
    Messages:
    5,410
    Location:
    USA
    Ah so what you're saying is that Federer is really a choker in clutch situations when he goes up against Nadal-types.
     
    #24
  25. nadal2012uso2013ao

    nadal2012uso2013ao Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2012
    Messages:
    311
    Bottom line, it is impossible for any player to claim the "goat" crown. Fans will claim it, today and in year 2020, and 2030 and 2040 and 2050 etc.
     
    #25
  26. nadal2012uso2013ao

    nadal2012uso2013ao Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2012
    Messages:
    311
    I think even Federer's fan base would admit that. Same thing would happen if Federer played prime Connors or Sampras. Even the guys who rarely won slams were much tougher mentally than today's top 10. Federer would struggle to win a slam in the 80s and 90s, because his talent would be overshadowed by his mental shortcomings (which would be exposed by men).
     
    #26
  27. RF-17-GOAT

    RF-17-GOAT Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2012
    Messages:
    447
    lol at posters who responded seriously to this thread.
     
    #27
  28. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,335
    Well... No one in their right mind would say the best of the best for the past 20 years that have been in the NBA is even CLOSE to Jordan's level either.. I mean you got guys like Lebron and Kobe and Wade around, but no one (At least sane people) would put them at MJ's level. I mean more people are playing basketball globally then ever, why haven't we seen anything even CLOSE to the level MJ was at? We haven't seen anyone even CLOSE to Gretzky's level since Gretzky, etc.. etc..


    We haven't seen even ONE american that has came close to the talent that Mac, Connors, Andre, Pete had... More people are playing tennis in the states then before... Why haven't we produced more talent coming out of the states since the 80s and 90s. All the kids playing tennis in the U.S and the best we have had in the last 10-15 years or guys like Blake, Roddick, Isner etc??


    Hell I haven't even seen an american player in the last 10-15 years that were even close to Courier's talent level.. And courier was maybe the 3rd best american in his day in the 90s. If you compare put him in today's era, talent wise he's head shoulders above anything else the america can produce right now.


    I just don't find it 100 percent plausible, that just because we have more players playing a certain sport, it automatically makes the talent pool deeper and things "tougher"
     
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2012
    #28
  29. Tennis_Hands

    Tennis_Hands Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    3,807
    Location:
    Inside the service box - the business end
    You mean, that they gave up on their Wimbledon title defence as well?

    Oh, my!
     
    #29
  30. nadal2012uso2013ao

    nadal2012uso2013ao Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2012
    Messages:
    311
    Wimbledon doesn't mean the world to everyone....just as Roland Garros doesn't mean the world to everyone (but it does to Nadal).
     
    #30
  31. RF-17-GOAT

    RF-17-GOAT Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2012
    Messages:
    447
    So you say that by not doing 100% in wimbledon Nadal is still a rock mentally? Ok. lmao
     
    #31
  32. Talker

    Talker Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,986
    There were those who had arguments when Fed was at 13 slams.

    But many said he needed the french.

    That was #14, so many jumped on the GOAT bandwagon.

    But now he's added 3 more and WTF's to go with weeks at #1.

    Poncho said that the level of play was way past what he ever had when playing, he doesn't mince words. That was in 1994 IIRC.

    Lendl said the same thing recently, and Agassi made similar comments.
     
    #32
  33. RF-17-GOAT

    RF-17-GOAT Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2012
    Messages:
    447
    Apparently, TT posters' opinions>>>>>>> All time greats.
     
    #33
  34. Talker

    Talker Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,986
    Because some posters know history they can hide the stats that can hurt their case from the past, they do it for sure.
    They won't bring up anything negative, they are heavily biased.
     
    #34
  35. Tennis_Hands

    Tennis_Hands Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    3,807
    Location:
    Inside the service box - the business end
    It certainly means a lot to ..... Nadal.

    I would search for the exact quote, but, right now, Google gives too many results about Nadal being dumped out of Wimbledon by Rosol. :twisted:
     
    #35
  36. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,112
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Just because the technology is more advanced and there's more power in the modern game, it doesn't mean it's better, but that it's different. In the very old days, fitness was predominantly about stamina and not being able to sit down at all during the matches, and wooden racquets dominated. Transport today's players to the 1950s/1960s and make them quickly play a match with the old equipment, and they cannot do the things they do in the modern game, it's that simple. I actually laugh at the thought of today's professional players driving from town to town, city to city, country to country, like the pros of the 1950s.
     
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2012
    #36
  37. RF-17-GOAT

    RF-17-GOAT Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2012
    Messages:
    447
    Talker wasn't talking about that Bruh.
     
    #37
  38. laughingbuddha

    laughingbuddha Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2012
    Messages:
    174
    Except for Our Rafa.
     
    #38
  39. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,215
    This is true in the Laver Forum.

    Not only some of the members in their hide the negative facts, but exaggerate about the players achievements(eg Laver's gargantuan 200 titles).
     
    #39
  40. borg number one

    borg number one Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2007
    Messages:
    7,640
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    This is a really good post. I completely agree with this. Somehow many make the mistaken assumption that if you have a bigger pool of athletes, that automatically translates to greater players at the top and that's just not the case. The greatest players tend to be huge anomalies and very unlike "average" players at any time. They just happen to come along once in a while and are rare. The NBA example is a good illustration of the fact that more globalization and more total players in the pros does not mean that the top players are necessarily better than past players. Look at the U.S. and Spain as examples. In the U.S. we have the "latest training methods" and a large pool of junior players right now right? Well, why hasn't that produced the greatest players that can be produced? Don't we have all the right ingredients? Then look at Spain. I'm sure that players like Moya, Ferrer and then Nadal led to larger numbers of junior players and tennis is booming in Spain I'm sure. Yet, how many young players are there from Spain in the top 100? The last time I checked, they didn't have many at all under the age of 25. Why? Greater numbers do not automatically translate into greater players. I would also submit that Mustard is making some really good points in this thread about some great players from the past such as Laver, Gonzalez and Rosewall. Why is it okay to "discount" the accomplishments of past players but at the same time improper to discount accomplishments of current players due to lack of surface versatility and competition at the top in certain years especially?
     
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2012
    #40
  41. Tennis_Hands

    Tennis_Hands Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    3,807
    Location:
    Inside the service box - the business end
    So, Pancho is wrong and you are right?

    Also, stop with the stupid Jordan analogy. Jordan is a pretty modern basketball player. Giving him the same status as the pre open era tennis Greats and compare them respectively to the current players doesn't cut it. Try the Wilt Chamberlain for starters and see how probable it is to score over 50 points in every single match in today's conditions for an entire season. And the analogy still will not be very accurate, but if you insist on doing this at least start from the right position.
     
    #41
  42. borg number one

    borg number one Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2007
    Messages:
    7,640
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    Pancho being right about what exactly? Also, why is the example of there not being constant progression in the NBA a "stupid analogy"? Jordan throws a big wrench in the constant progression theory. In addition, they play basketball "games" not "matches" in the NBA. Besides Jordan, look at centers like Ewing and Robinson. Are the centers of today better than them? Why not?
     
    #42
  43. Tennis_Hands

    Tennis_Hands Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    3,807
    Location:
    Inside the service box - the business end
    About the game being on a different level now. Larger pool, better nutrition, technology. Whatever it is, it is not the same, so bringing up past greats (especially from the pre-Open era) doesn't lead us anywhere.

    Because Jordan is a modern player. He played with the same tactic as the modern game. He benefitted from exactly the same (or close enough) nutrition as the current players. He exercised his profession in exactly the same manner as the current players (logistically, the way he travelled, the way the games were organized etc.). All those things were different back in the day, when Chamberlain played. I ask you again. Can you picture any modern player doing a whole season with 50 points per match?

    I do not care how you would call them. Matches or games. Could you tell me why are you saying this? In Europe we say Basketball match. Watching NBA doesn't change my language. I am sorry if it changes yours.

    EDIT: I just noticed, that I used the word "games" in one of my sentences. You are in trouble now.
     
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2012
    #43
  44. BreakPoint

    BreakPoint Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    43,468
    Even if Federer had a winning H2H against NO ONE, he would still be the GOAT.

    Why?

    Because it's not about H2H. Repeat after me: IT'S NOT ABOUT H2H!!!!!!

    It's about your records, such as:

    Number of Grand Slams
    Weeks at #1
    Consecutive Slam finals
    Consecutive Slam semis
    Consecutive Slam quarters
    Total number of Slam finals
    Number of total tournaments won
    Number of total matches won
    Number of times you've ever retired from a match
    How many different shots you're able to hit
    etc., etc.

    :)
     
    #44
  45. JustBob

    JustBob Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2009
    Messages:
    1,992
    In the past 20 years, tennis has evolved 10 times faster than any other pro sport. There have been noticeable changes in the past 5-6 years alone. Have any of you ever coached? Or at least know coaches and/or people involved in player development programs? Ask them to compare today vs 20 years ago. It's night and day.
     
    #45
  46. borg number one

    borg number one Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2007
    Messages:
    7,640
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    I think that guys like Borg and Lendl were so above the "average" in terms of fitness that they would be among the fittest players on the Tour today. There is a larger pool and technology allows for a different brand of tennis, whereas there is, in many ways, less skill involved in purely making contact with the ball in the sweet spot but it's more about the legs now than before, that's true. Yet, when it comes right down to it, not many modern "training techniques" can replicate the benefits of for example how Borg and Vilas would practice. Bjorn Borg would play for hours and hours on clay or grass courts to get ready for tournaments for example and he'd absolutely wear out 99% of the pros around today. For example, his workouts with Vilas, with Tiriac and Bergelin coaching them, were tough.

    It all depends on what you define as "modern". How many years ago and why that time? My point is that if one contends that athletes have just gotten better in all sports by virtue of constant progression and increased globalization, you can't point to the NBA as an example of that if you go back 25-30 years and the same is true in many respects when it comes to the top players in tennis as well. Yes, technology has changed more in tennis, but look at Borg's strengths and style back then and how revolutionary he was, copying NO ONE, and blazing a trail that led to the modern game. Players play like Borg now, not like McEnroe or Connors and he did that at a time when fast courts were faster and there was only one hard court major. There were no majors on slow hard courts. The dynamics now tend to favor his style of play whereas before, the court surfaces combined with the technology, made various styles of play feasible. That presented many challenges that are not before current players. Also, you have to focus on the top, not "average" guys in the first rounds at the majors and those ranked 500-1000. Look at today's game and how much of a gap there is between the top three and others in the top 10 and top 20 as a very good example of that. Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, and Sampras are all simply great players. You used the word "match" and you were talking about the NBA, so that's why I referred to it. Don't worry, you're not in trouble.
     
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2012
    #46
  47. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    26,018
    Location:
    Weak era
    Nope, because I don't believe there's such thing as GOAT, possibly all-time great tennis tiers but that's about as far as I'd go.
     
    #47
  48. borg number one

    borg number one Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2007
    Messages:
    7,640
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    I agree, in that you can make very plausible arguments for many players and using tiers is a very good way to look at it.
     
    #48
  49. Sentinel

    Sentinel Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2008
    Messages:
    30,390
    Location:
    Somewhere over the rainbow
    And if H2H is all that important, then ROSOL is the GOAT

    :)
     
    #49
  50. Leto

    Leto Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2012
    Messages:
    452
    I've said it before and I'll say it again...the amateur/pro split before the Open Era really weakens the arguments for the players that played during that era, even though it's through no direct fault of their own.

    I applaud the tennis historian types that feel knowledgeable enough to hypothesize which amateur or pro would have dominated overall at various points in time, but who would have hypothesized that Rafa would be taken out by Rosol? In the tennis historian's hypothetical world, that would never happen, and Rafa would have surely won Wimbledon, or at the very least, lost in a monumental hard-fought battle against Djoker :rolleyes:

    I would be really interested to see how someone who has a good knowledge of the pre Open Era amateur/pro days, would "hypothetically" split the currfent ATP Tour into separate amateur and pro fields, while keeping a straight face that it wouldn't make things any less competitive...
     
    #50

Share This Page