Originally Posted by NadalDramaQueen
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.
Is there a nš 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 donīt think so about Kramer,Wilding and Tilden.maybe Budge or Perry?