Is Djokovic an all-time great?

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by 5555, Nov 25, 2012.

  1. Povl Carstensen

    Povl Carstensen Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    5,757
    Anything could be argued to be a matter of opinion. After all, perhaps reality is just an illusion. But if we accept reality and a time continuum, then a hierachy introduces itself of opinions that are more or less in accordance with the observed reality. If we conversely assume that all opinions are of equal value in terms of accordance with reality and "the truth", then all discussion and dialogue and TT is meaningless. So it is of paramount importance that 5555's hypothesis is refuted.
     
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2012
  2. merlinpinpin

    merlinpinpin Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,583
    Ahhh, now this thread is starting to get interesting... :)

    I see what you're getting at, but I'm afraid you're wrong. Let's forget unicorns, dragons, and even elves for a minute. In most cases, when you state something with a positive sentence, you can say exactly the same thing with a negative sentence, and 5555 and you are arguing that the actual wording determines who gets to prove what he or she says, which isn't logical at all.

    Here is one example: should a lawyer say "My client is innocent", then according to you, he's got to prove that what he says is right. Fair enough. But should he say "My client isn't guilty" (which means exactly the same thing), then the burden of proof would fall on the prosecution. In real life, innocent until proven guilty or guilty until proven innocent depends on your judiciary system, not on the opening statement at the trial.

    Here's another one: it is widely accepted as truth that the Americans landed on the moon in 1969. However, conspiracy theorists like to say that this is false. In a conversation between two different-minded people on this issue, one saying "The Americans landed on the moon" and the other saying "They never did", who do you think is going to have to prove what he says? That's right, the one who stated that the Americans *didn't* land on the moon (ie negative), because he's going against the perceived notion of "truth". Doing otherwise would be engaging in sophistries all day long, and you could then "prove" (ala 5555) that nothing is certain and that nothing exists. (For example, "The Americans landed on the moon in 1969." "The burden of proof is on you because you stated something in a positive way, so prove it." "Here are the photographs, the recordings, etc." "Prove they haven't been doctored." And as he can do that ad vitam aeternam, you just won't get anywhere in the end.)

    Back to the matter at hand, we're not arguing on the point he brought up. I never said "reliable sources" cared about what I wrote (I couldn't care less whether they did or not, tbh). However, he claimed that they don't care. I don't have a problem with that, but he brought that up, he's got to back it up with facts. Otherwise, he's just talking out of his backside.
     
  3. merlinpinpin

    merlinpinpin Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,583
    Oh, so now you want me to prove a negative, after arguing inanely for pages on end that the burden of proof falls on the person with the positive statement? Care to make up what passes for your mind, kiddo?

    So I guess the question you really wanted to ask (but were too confused--or afraid--to) was: Can you prove that Djokovic is top 20 all-time?

    And I explained why he was wrong.

    Considering the fact that you passed this sentence as a direct quote from Agassi (while it's clear in the article that he never said that) while drowning it amongst over quotes, I think it's fair to say that, yes, you did that on purpose to further your claim.

    So, yes, you were lying with a clear intention to mislead. Deliberately.
     
    Last edited: Dec 22, 2012
  4. merlinpinpin

    merlinpinpin Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,583
    Exactly. It all depends on whether you consider tier 3 (or 4) players to be all-time greats or not. I don't, personally, as I don't think a sport which has been around for 130 odd years needs 20+ all-time greats (the more all-time greats there are, the less great they are as a whole and the less the term is meaningful, obviously), but it's a matter of opinion.
     
  5. 5555

    5555 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,750
    Location:
    London
    According to your logic burden of proof is on you. Why do you still refuse to provide proof? Is it because you run out of arguments?

    The question here is whether something is fact or not. You stated that it is a fact (positive) that Djokovic is not top 20 all-time, so burden of proof is on you.

    Is it a fact?

    I have never heard that any jury delivered verdict "Innocent" or "Not innocent". I have heard "Guilty", "Not guilty" or neither in case of a hung jury.

    General rule is that burden of proof is on person who makes positive claim. Is it widely accepted as truth that reliable sources do care what you say?

    Opinion is a defence recognized in nearly every jurisdiction. If the allegedly defamatory assertion is an expression of opinion rather than a statement of fact, defamation claims usually cannot be brought because opinions are inherently not falsifiable.

    My statement was an expression of opinion.

    1. "while it's clear in the article that he never said that"
    If you look at the article, you will see that it's not a typical page layout for interview like:
    A: Question.
    B: Answer.
    A: Question.
    B: Answer.
    It is not clear in the article that he never said for someone who does not look carefully.
    2. "while drowning it amongst over quotes"
    It's logical that I, Djokovic fan, will quote tennis experts, as many I can find, who claim that Novak is an all-time great.

    So, your argument is not proof that I deliberately inteded to deceive.

    I said:

    I did not say "If criteria for greatness is frequently based on facts...". I said "If criteria for greatness is not matter of opinion..."

    Is it a factual statement?

    Opinion can be false, so "all discussion and dialogue and TT" is not meaningless.
     
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2012
  6. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,373
    Can you prove that you are a tennis fan?
    Can you prove that your opinion is sincere?
    Can you prove UFO exist?
    Can you prove that you will go to heaven after death?

    Stop with all of these silly discussion about prove this, prove that.

    Just prove to yourself if your opinion makes any sense.
     
  7. Povl Carstensen

    Povl Carstensen Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    5,757
    Opinions are a matter of opinion, and that's a fact. Or is it?
     
  8. Povl Carstensen

    Povl Carstensen Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    5,757
    I dont really care. I was just pointing out that "it is only an opinion" is a poor defence of a viewpoint (which is what I feel you have been doing). Which leads to:

    Exactly, which is why I welcome some reality into the argument instead of sophistry.
     
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2012
  9. PCXL-Fan

    PCXL-Fan Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2008
    Messages:
    2,872
    Location:
    Arlington, VA
    Its an interesting question. I would say no not yet because he needs more titles. So far he had a limited time period where he played as well as an all time great, but so has Marat Safin although for 1/4th the length of time.

    At the end of the day he's gonna needs several more Slams (which he is almost certain to get). But if he quit today he would not be an all time great except in the eyes of some fellow Balkaners.
     
  10. merlinpinpin

    merlinpinpin Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,583
    Wow, trollington unravelling fast. Try to at least hold it together until Christmas, will you?

    Still evading and refusing to man up to what you wrote, I see. Not that I expected anything else from you.

    Already proved it, there are at least 20 other tennis players whose records are bigger than his, so he isn't top 20 all-time. Pretty easy to understand, in fact. Even for you.

    You obviously didn't understand what I wrote.

    Irrelevant again, I never made any kind of claim (either positive or negative) regarding your "reliable sources" (which you seem unable to define) and what I say. You were the only one who did, so prove it.

    You mean you quoted an article without really reading it? It's 100% clear this was said by the writer of the article and not Agassi, as there is no direct quote nor any reference to Agassi in this sentence.

    Considering how fond you are of sophistry and all kinds of nitpicking, I find it hard to believe that you would be stupid enough to quote an article without understanding what was written.

    The inescapable conclusion, of course, is that you did this on purpose, with the intent to deceive.
     
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2012
  11. dyldore

    dyldore Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2012
    Messages:
    131
    Location:
    so cal
    When you are using casual language, it may seemingly change it, but in logic, it does not. Take a logic course or look it up if it further intrigues you, because I am no great teacher.

    At first glance you would think that "My client is innocent" is a positive claim, but it is not. Innocence is always negative. By definition it is a claim that you did not do something that you are accused of.

    Simply the presence of a "not" or "isn't" is not what makes a statement negative or positive. I will use your guilty/innocent example. You used an example from a defense attorney. Which is exactly right, the defense would not have to prove their claim of non-guilt, or innocence. That is why they are called the defense. They defend against the claim of the prosecution. Say it is a murder case. The prosecution would make a positive claim "X murdered X at X on X." Then the defense would go on to defend it with other positive statements. "X was at Y on Y". Good luck being an attorney and have your whole defense be "X was not at X on X" ( a negative claim). It doesn't work, you would need to show that X was not at X on X by showing that X was somewhere else (a positive claim).

    I won't get into the boring logical idiosyncrasies, you picked a perfect analogy to show you without them.

    When you stated that the burden of proof would be on the person claiming that the Americans did not land on the moon, you are wrong, it is on the people claiming that they did. The standard for proof that 5555 is looking for is one that would mean that nothing is certain. That is why, in my first post, I said it was silly to argue using such a ridiculous standard.
     
  12. merlinpinpin

    merlinpinpin Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,583
    Although I generally agree with what you say, we're not talking exactly about the same thing here. You're talking burden of proof in the religious/philosophical sense of the word, I'm not. In the matter we're refering to, once again, there was *no* debate, ie no positive/negative side. He just made a claim, I never claimed the opposite. So the only one who's got something to prove here is him.

    About the Americans landing on the moon, burden of proof is also dependent on the situation. The path you're taking here (as we already mentioned) is that nothing can be proved, and therefore, all debate is meaningless (which is odd to say the least on Internet message boards). As for 5555, this is what he's been doing all the time, but that's different--his thread is full of sophistry because it's his favoured mode of trolling, we all know that. ;)
     
    Last edited: Dec 24, 2012
  13. merlinpinpin

    merlinpinpin Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,583
    double post
     
  14. dyldore

    dyldore Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2012
    Messages:
    131
    Location:
    so cal
    Why does anybody argue with him then?? :confused:

    Anyways...Djokovic has certainly earned his place in my books as a great player, an all time great?...if he keeps up this level of play I would certainly say so.
     
  15. firepanda

    firepanda Professional

    Joined:
    May 11, 2012
    Messages:
    1,423
    Location:
    New Zealand
    The problem is, players are constantly improving in skill and dedication, as more and more money is being thrown at tennis. Old matches look positively tame compared to the game of today. Everybody is moving faster and hitting harder. Changes to racquet and string technology only complicate matters.

    Anyway, regarding Djokovic, here's my logic. The Open era has been around 50 years. Considering how pathetic tennis was before then, I'd say we begin judging from there. You'd expect about two 'all-time greats' to crop up each decade, I'd say. More, and things start to get a bit crowded.

    2x5=10 Therefore, at this point in time, an all time great great is the top 10 of the Open Era.

    Now, top 10 depends on how much you agree with the sentiment I expressed in the first paragraph. If the skill level is constantly rising, then Murray and Djokovic are almost certainly all-time greats.

    More likely, and to preserve the sanctity of the phrase, we look at players relative to their era. Therefore, top 10 are: Federer, Sampras, Borg, Nadal, Laver, Rosewall, Connors, Lendl, Agassi

    These are just Grand Slam Winners, which is a fairly neutral way of rating achievements. I personally believe Rosewall and Laver should be replaced by McEnroe and Wilander, but there you go.
     
  16. 5555

    5555 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,750
    Location:
    London
    I said: "The question here is whether something is fact or not. You stated that it is a fact (positive) that Djokovic is not top 20 all-time, so burden of proof is on you."

    According to your criteria for greatness, Djokovic is not top 20 all-time, but it's debatable what should be criteria for greatness. Tennis experts desagree whether he is top 20 all-time. For example, Tim Henman said that in his opinion Novak is top 8 all-time.

    So, your argument is not proof it's a fact that Djokovic is not 20 all-time.

    Is it a fact?

    Well, in that case, made it clear what you wanted to say, so we can continue the debate.

    I do not have to prove it because my statement was an expression of opinion. Opinion is a defence recognized in nearly every jurisdiction. If the allegedly defamatory assertion is an expression of opinion rather than a statement of fact, defamation claims usually cannot be brought because opinions are inherently not falsifiable.

    Without understanding what was written? What if I thought that I understood what was written? What if I thought that I understood what was written? It is not hard to believe that, in rare occasions, I will make such a mistake.

    Conclusion: your reasoning is not proof that I deliberately inteded to deceive.

    In a serious discussion you have to prove allegations of fact.

    You run out of arguments, so you are distracting from the actual issue. I ask you again: do you admit now that my reasoning as to why criteria for greatness is a matter of opinion was correct?

    Can you tell me exactly where is sophistry in my argumentation?
     
  17. Povl Carstensen

    Povl Carstensen Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    5,757
    Well I have an different opinion.
    I can tell you that I think you are a nuisance and a pain in the a.. in this thread. If you want to know why, I think Dyldore sums it up pretty well.
     
  18. 5555

    5555 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,750
    Location:
    London
    merlinpinpin, what happened? Was the post on 12-23-2012 your last-ditch defense?


    An opinion may be supported by an argument. What is your argument?

    Collins dictionary: "sophistry
    1.
    a method of argument that is seemingly plausible though actually invalid and misleading
    b.the art of using such arguments
    2.subtle but unsound or fallacious reasoning
    3.an instance of this; sophism
    "
    http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/sophistry?showCookiePolicy=true

    If I'm a "nuisance and a pain in the a.." it does not mean that my reasoning is fallacious, invalid etc. So, I ask you again where is exactly sophistry in my argumentation?
     
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2012
  19. TheFifthSet

    TheFifthSet Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2009
    Messages:
    2,424
    y'all have some time on your hands
     
  20. Povl Carstensen

    Povl Carstensen Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    5,757
    Well I did make an reference to Dyldore, so you can get your answer there, if you don't mind reading yourself instead of asking everybody to spell everything out for you.
     
  21. 5555

    5555 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,750
    Location:
    London
    merlinpinpin, I'm going to ask you just one more time: was the post on 12-23-2012 your last-ditch defense?



    This is how the debate unfolded:

    You still have not provided counterargument to my last argument above.

    Well, dyldore stated that what I was saying was logicaly correct http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=7070961&postcount=287
     
  22. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,373
    5555, for the last month you've spent most of the time on this thread. There's more to tennis talk than this same old boring subject. You win, you have beaten everyone. Your argument is perfect and everyone else are illogical. Are you happy now?? Please, move on !
     
  23. -RF-

    -RF- Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2012
    Messages:
    2,211
    Location:
    London
    Get a ****ing life mate.
     
  24. veroniquem

    veroniquem Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    Messages:
    31,126
    Location:
    New York
    So McEnroe is not an all time great??? Nor Agassi? On what grounds exactly? That's ridiculous, sorry.
     
  25. Steve0904

    Steve0904 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2012
    Messages:
    11,176
    Location:
    NL, Canada
    I'm sorry, but my list is pretty high standard. When I think all time great, I think the absolute best. You also have to realize I was responding to NadalAgassi who changes his opinion frequently. I will concede that not including Agassi may be a stretch, however he was clearly second best in his era, (Federer and Nadal are disqualified from this discussion since they have enough GS to put both of them in there easily) and he was a little too up and down IMHO. The pro for Agassi is that he won the calendar GS. That's probably enough to put him on my list as it is, but I'm not sure McEnroe is such a clear cut case. He had nowhere near the consistency and/or longevity of the last two guys on my list, and it depends on where you want to cut off the list. Becker and Edberg are certainly not all time greats IMO, nor is Wilander, so McEnroe is not clear cut IMO which is why I left him off. Now that said, I won't pretend to be the defining standard of tennis lists.
     
  26. veroniquem

    veroniquem Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    Messages:
    31,126
    Location:
    New York
    What??? You're insane! McEnroe is #3 in # of titles won in open era. He's the one who defeated Borg at Wimbledon. He's won 19 super nine (most after Lendl, Nadal and Fed). He's won 3 W and 4 USO (more slams than Lendl outside of AO which no one cared about in the 70s), he stayed #1 for 170 weeks (5th most in open era), he's won 3 WTF titles, he's probably the best doubles player of all time, he had one of the best tennis seasons EVER in 1984 and he's not an all time great????????????? YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :evil::evil::evil::evil::



    ETA: oh and talking about longevity, he had 4 year ends at #1 too (most after Sampras, Connors and Fed)
     
    Last edited: Jan 1, 2013
  27. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,786
    Give it a rest. Maybe Steve takes "All-time great" to mean "one of the greatest of all time". If I did the same, McEnroe wouldn't make my list, either. Considering Tennis has so few relevant candidates, and a short history, I'd be inclined to include no more than 6 or 7 in all.
     
  28. veroniquem

    veroniquem Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    Messages:
    31,126
    Location:
    New York
    It really doesn't matter what he means. I'm not gonna take ANYONE seriously who has the nerve to claim McEnroe is not an all time great in a list that includes 7 players from open era. Absolutely preposterous. McEnroe is ABOVE #7 in almost every stat.
     
  29. veroniquem

    veroniquem Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    Messages:
    31,126
    Location:
    New York
    And by the way, it's also completely nonsensical to exclude Agassi. One doesn't exclude a player who has won the 4 slams when so few have done it. Especially a player who has won as many slam titles total as Lendl, WTF, the Olympics and many more masters than Sampras and who's done so much for the popularity of the sport in general.
     
    Last edited: Jan 1, 2013
  30. 5555

    5555 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,750
    Location:
    London
    That's it. merlinpinpin and Povl Carstensen lost the arguments.
     
  31. pringles

    pringles Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    460
    Just a thought - Lendl won his AO titles in 1989 and 1990 when the AO did matter. One could argue that prime McEnroe (bar 1983) never had the chance to score in another major but that's life.
     
  32. pringles

    pringles Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    460
    Is this an opinion or a fact?
     
  33. Steve0904

    Steve0904 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2012
    Messages:
    11,176
    Location:
    NL, Canada
    Well that's fine. I never take you seriously either.
     
  34. Steve0904

    Steve0904 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2012
    Messages:
    11,176
    Location:
    NL, Canada
    And yes that is exactly what I mean. As I said, Agassi could and probably should be included, but McEnroe is more of a stretch for me.
     
  35. veroniquem

    veroniquem Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    Messages:
    31,126
    Location:
    New York

    And you still haven't provided any credible argument why McEnroe should not be on a 7+ best players list of open era. Of course because there is none. It is simply an arbitrary and non sensical decision I'm pretty sure no tennis expert would agree with.
     
  36. jokinla

    jokinla Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2011
    Messages:
    2,705
    We all know who the real loser is.
     
  37. jokinla

    jokinla Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2011
    Messages:
    2,705
    BAHAHAHAHA, good one.
     
  38. jokinla

    jokinla Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2011
    Messages:
    2,705
    Of course no expert would agree with this nonsense, clearly this guy hasn't been watching tennis long, Mac's 84 was one of the best seasons ever, if he doesn't choke away a 2 set lead to Lendl in the FO final, he wins all 4 that year, the closest anyone's come since Laver, obviously Mac's an all time great.
     
  39. veroniquem

    veroniquem Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    Messages:
    31,126
    Location:
    New York

    My point is the AO didn't matter much in McEnroe's time and outside of AO, McEnroe won more slams that Lendl. In any case, spitting on 77 titles overall, 19 masters, 3WTF and 4 year ends at #1 is pretty absurd, no matter how you want to look at it.
     
  40. Steve0904

    Steve0904 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2012
    Messages:
    11,176
    Location:
    NL, Canada
    That can't be proven regardless if he choked a 2 set lead or not. You know that. Come on now.
     
  41. veroniquem

    veroniquem Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    Messages:
    31,126
    Location:
    New York

    Thank you. To me, it's so sad that anyone would show such a level of disrespect for a tennis legend like JMac. There aren't that many. The least we can do is treasure the ones we have...
     
  42. merlinpinpin

    merlinpinpin Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,583
    We sure haven't. And as you're stating something (positive), the burden of proof is on you, so get cracking.
     
  43. merlinpinpin

    merlinpinpin Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,583
    Back to the drawing board and the salient points of this thread, then, as our dear friend tried to muddle the issue by inflating his post count.

    Still not. See page 2 or 3 for my take on the matter.

    BTW, despite the fact that you started this thread, you still haven't given *your* opinion on the matter. Is it because you don't have one? Or because you're afraid you can't back it up with facts?

    I don't need to, remember? Burden of proof is on you, yadda, yadda, so can you prove he was serious and sober at that time?

    (Oh, and BTW, notice I wrote "serious", not "honest". Did you misquote me on purpose, the way you did with Agassi, or is it just something you can't help?)

    Which leads us to:

    The quote above shows that you also misquoted me, so these "rare occasions" don't seem to be that "rare" after all, do they?

    Unless you can prove that you didn't do this on purpose, I'll go with Ockham's razor, here--the path of least resistance is that you did it on purpose both times. Which is consistent with your trolling behaviour.
     
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2013
  44. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,373
    This is most immature thread of all time.
     
  45. merlinpinpin

    merlinpinpin Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,583
    Careful, or 5555 will ask you to prove it... ;)
     
  46. Povl Carstensen

    Povl Carstensen Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    5,757
    You are entitled to that opinion.
     
  47. jokinla

    jokinla Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2011
    Messages:
    2,705
    He won the other 3 that year and was one set away from the last, the closest anyone has come since Laver, those are the facts, Mac's an all time great, "you know that, come on now".
     
  48. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,786
    Even if he won that set, he still wouldn't be anywhere near being in the GOAT conversation. You know that, come on now.
     
  49. jokinla

    jokinla Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2011
    Messages:
    2,705
    Federer is the GOAT, but Mac is an all time great, although if he wins that set, he certainly elevates his status in the GOAT talks.
     
  50. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,786
    McEnroe, had he won the set, would have 8 Grand Slams. Less than half of what Federer has now. And less than his adversary, Borg. He is still not even close to being in discussions, in my mind.
     

Share This Page