View Single Post
Old 09-25-2012, 05:10 PM   #15
Hood_Man
Legend
 
Hood_Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Wales
Posts: 8,050
Default

This is the problem with going purely by numbers IMHO. Guys like Borg, Laver, Connors etc didn't have the goals to aim for that todays players do, they were creating those goals themselves. A great athlete with a determination to meet a goal will achieve amazing things, but if we're trying to determine how "good" these guys were then it's impossible to compare them to each other.

If a player today wins 8 Wimbledons and retires happy and content, are they worse than someone who wins 9 Wimbledons in 20 years time, who then in turn retires happy and content?
Not necessarily, because the former may have carried on and gone for #9 if that was the goal at the time, and the latter would then have had to aim for 10 so on and so forth etc etc...

I wouldn't lose sleep if Nadal was the undisputed clay GOAT as he's pretty much dominated the last 8 clay seasons (or co-dominated in 2009 with Fed and 2011 with Djokovic), and numbers do come into that, they're just not everything. Nadal winning 7 French Opens alone doesn't automatically put him above Borg in my eyes.



...Although Nadal only being beaten once in 8 years and only being pushed to 5 sets once too, now that just might...

[EDIT]

If we use Greatest to mean "largest in number" however, then Nada is the Greatest French Open Player of the Open Era no doubt.
__________________
"You used to be able to disagree with people and still be friends." - Clint Eastwood

Last edited by Hood_Man : 09-25-2012 at 05:12 PM.
Hood_Man is offline   Reply With Quote