Talk Tennis

Talk Tennis (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php)
-   General Pro Player Discussion (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/forumdisplay.php?f=13)
-   -   A Tennis Hypothetical (would this player be GOAT?) (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=445428)

zam88 11-11-2012 06:16 AM

A Tennis Hypothetical (would this player be GOAT?)
 
A tennis prodigy emerges.

After a juniors career where he blew everyone off the court he wins his first major at the AO in 2019

Then he gets on the sickest, hottest streak ever and also reels off the next 7 majors for a double consecutive Calendar Year Slam. In a few of those tournaments he never drops serve.

In addition he wins a significant number of the masters in those two years, and wins the 2020 Olympic Gold. he also wins the WTF both seasons.

The era before he started winning was considered medium strong (there were a few multi-slam winners in near-prime form on tour)


Then his private jet crashes on the way to the 2021 AO and he tragically dies.


Prior to this somewhere around his 5th or 6th consecutive majors people were wondering if we were witnessing a new GOAT. This player was lethal on all surfaces equally.


So he ends his life with "only" 8 majors, a gold, a WTF, "only" 100 weeks at #1.

But he'd blown EVERY one of his peers off the court for 2 straight years, passed the eyeball test of just looking the part of the perfect game, had a positive H2H against every opponent he'd played more than twice.


Could this player be a GOAT without surpassing any of the grand slam champions?

urban 11-11-2012 06:20 AM

Maureen Connolly.

joeri888 11-11-2012 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by urban (Post 7007423)
Maureen Connolly.

This is your answer. I had to google her. So no, this person would never be considered the greatest in history. Though he would not quickly be forgotten, if at all, tennis is about what you achieve mostly. Not about how, or when, or in which time. That's why I also never get the thing where people say someone should retire to 'protect his legacy'.

zam88 11-11-2012 06:52 AM

interesting, had never heard of maureen connolly. She had a pretty sick run.


I can't help but think that the theoretical person I'm talking about though in the modern era would by hyped up a lot more, would have a lot more video around to prove their dominance, etc.

However, I also suppose you could compare this person to Monica Seles since he career was rocking before the stab job.


I guess what i'm talking about though is absolute dominance to the highest order... no one was touching this guy... and in an era where everyone has the same access to top rate coaching, conditioning, equipment, etc.

Goosehead 11-11-2012 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joeri888 (Post 7007475)
This is your answer. I had to google her. So no, this person would never be considered the greatest in history. Though he would not quickly be forgotten, if at all, tennis is about what you achieve mostly. Not about how, or when, or in which time. That's why I also never get the thing where people say someone should retire to 'protect his legacy'.

:shock: you seriously never heard of maureen 'little mo' connolly..the horse riding accident that ended her career when she was hoovering up majors for a laugh...is a big a 'what if' as seles and what wouldve happened if not been stabbed.

joeri888 11-11-2012 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goosehead (Post 7007762)
:shock: you seriously never heard of maureen 'little mo' connolly..the horse riding accident that ended her career when she was hoovering up majors for a laugh...is a big a 'what if' as seles and what wouldve happened if not been stabbed.

No. I've never heard of her, and never seen her in any goat debate. I wiki'd here and know what you talk about. It says something that me, a non-american, but way more than casual fan of tennis, don't know who she is.

That tells you that in history, what ifs are important, but not as important as people who actually did what they were destined to do, as opposed to people who never got the chance.

borg number one 11-11-2012 08:58 AM

I'd say that on paper a player like this would definitely be one of the all time greats with a strong argument for being the greatest ever. He'd be in the running though, as would several other players. How much did the player impact professional tennis though? How influential was he in terms of affecting those that followed? These things are also factors in my view. To be one of the greatest players ever, with as many great tennis players as there has been, requires more than a large number of titles and records. The greatest players leave a mark that transcends the game and influences generations that follow them.

jokinla 11-11-2012 09:48 AM

Borg certainly would have won more slams had he not retired.

Prisoner of Birth 11-11-2012 09:55 AM

Unfortunately, they wouldn't be the GOAT for me. As cruel as this sounds, you haven't done it until you've done it. But I'd have this player as one of my top 10 GOATs for sure, possibly even top 5.

Gonzo_style 11-11-2012 10:08 AM

Only if he has a negative H2H with biggest rival, if he is poor player on clay or if he played in the sixties of the last century :)

zam88 11-11-2012 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by borg number one (Post 7007816)
I'd say that on paper a player like this would definitely be one of the all time greats with a strong argument for being the greatest ever. He'd be in the running though, as would several other players. How much did the player impact professional tennis though? How influential was he in terms of affecting those that followed? These things are also factors in my view. To be one of the greatest players ever, with as many great tennis players as there has been, requires more than a large number of titles and records. The greatest players leave a mark that transcends the game and influences generations that follow them.


Some say he impacted it positively because he was a great role model and excellent for the sport. He was every bit the media and commercial success that Federer is.

However some say he impacted it negatively because he was so dominant that it left little intrigue in the match.

He was so dominant without dropping sets and consistently bageling, breadsticking, and golden setting people that he never had any signature legendary 5 set matches, or any type of a real rival.

IN fact, on internet tennis message boards, people were beginning to wonder whether the player was actually brilliant or if the era was unbelievably weak.

Going into the 2021 AO there was little hope for anyone else to win, if you wanted to bet on him it was 1/5 that he would win the title. 2/1 that he'd win it without dropping a set.

If he had a real mark it was that every time he changed surfaces, he changed his game just a little to optimize on that surface.

But really his trademark was the absolute blowouts

sonicare 11-11-2012 11:10 AM

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=306768

zam88 11-11-2012 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sonicare (Post 7008050)

interesting thread, but an even more extreme example.


that type of a player would definitely be the biggest "what if" stories of our time.


Boy that would make for some boring matches.


100% first serve... and i'm guessing his serve is massive.... you'd have 5 set matches over in 1:15

mattennis 11-11-2012 11:52 AM

He would be undoubtedly the best player of some "mini" era (those two years) and as BIG a "what if" as you could get.

Mustard 11-11-2012 12:15 PM

Tennis history is so complex, with ever changing and evolving equipment as well, that I don't see how there can be a tennis GOAT.

Quote:

Originally Posted by zam88 (Post 7007541)
interesting, had never heard of maureen connolly. She had a pretty sick run.


I can't help but think that the theoretical person I'm talking about though in the modern era would by hyped up a lot more, would have a lot more video around to prove their dominance, etc.

However, I also suppose you could compare this person to Monica Seles since he career was rocking before the stab job.


I guess what i'm talking about though is absolute dominance to the highest order... no one was touching this guy... and in an era where everyone has the same access to top rate coaching, conditioning, equipment, etc.

Monica Seles (circa 1989-1993) had the nickname "Little Mo" as well, just like Maureen Connolly.

borg number one 11-11-2012 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zam88 (Post 7008036)
Some say he impacted it positively because he was a great role model and excellent for the sport. He was every bit the media and commercial success that Federer is.

However some say he impacted it negatively because he was so dominant that it left little intrigue in the match.

He was so dominant without dropping sets and consistently bageling, breadsticking, and golden setting people that he never had any signature legendary 5 set matches, or any type of a real rival.

IN fact, on internet tennis message boards, people were beginning to wonder whether the player was actually brilliant or if the era was unbelievably weak.

Going into the 2021 AO there was little hope for anyone else to win, if you wanted to bet on him it was 1/5 that he would win the title. 2/1 that he'd win it without dropping a set.

If he had a real mark it was that every time he changed surfaces, he changed his game just a little to optimize on that surface.

But really his trademark was the absolute blowouts

Many weigh a high level of play heavily when considering great players. To exand on this, did players try and emulate the style of play he adopted? Did they try and behave the way he did during matches (on court demeanor)? Did they adopt many of his training methods off court? In those ways, a great player could leave a brilliant legacy for those that followed. I think that the hypothetical player you describe would definitely be in the conversation, especially since there tends to be a modern bias. If a player accomplished that much by 2021, many fans at that time would be absolutely convinced that he would crush Federer, Nadal, or any player before him, because of the natural "evolution" of tennis. I doubt that I would agree with that even by then, but that tends to occur during every era. If that happened, guess what? The Nadal and Federer fans of today would be making the very same arguments that posters in the Former Pro Player Talk section make today wouldn't they?

Mustard 11-11-2012 12:27 PM

When Sampras won his 13th and 14th majors, I don't think Sampras thought that any player would get near those totals for decades, especially as the 1998-2003 period had a load of different major winners.

From 1998-2003 (a 6 year period), the following players won majors:

Petr Korda
Carlos Moya
Pete Sampras
Patrick Rafter
Yevgeny Kafelnikov
Andre Agassi
Gustavo Kuerten
Marat Safin
Goran Ivanisevic
Lleyton Hewitt
Thomas Johansson
Albert Costa
Juan Carlos Ferrero
Roger Federer
Andy Roddick

Yet from 2004-2012 (a 9 year period):

Roger Federer
Gaston Gaudio
Marat Safin
Rafael Nadal
Novak Djokovic
Juan Martin del Potro
Andy Murray

Sabratha 11-11-2012 12:31 PM

A similar thing happened at the 1999 US Open (golf). The winner died in a tragic plane accident, but I don't think this would actually make them the GOAT.

Mustard 11-11-2012 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sabratha (Post 7008589)
A similar thing happened at the 1999 US Open (golf). The winner died in a tragic plane accident, but I don't think this would actually make them the GOAT.

That was Payne Stewart. Seles and Connolly were utterly dominant in their sport before the stabbing/horse riding accident, while Stewart was one of many strong golfers at the time of his death.

Agassifan 11-11-2012 12:50 PM

Post 90s (aka modern game): Absolutely
Pre 70s : No wai


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:36 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2006 - Tennis Warehouse