How can Nadal be a GOAT candidate if...

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by TheFifthSet

Yeah, it speaks volumes. I think Emerson in '68-'69, after having dominated the amateur game, went on an epic losing streak to Laver, something like 12 or 13 matches if I'm not mistaken. Imagine that. A guy who was a powerhouse couldn't challenge Laver to save his life!

Emerson did very well against Laver in 1968. In 1968, the first year of the open era, Laver and Emerson met 10 times and each player won 5 matches. In 1969, Laver won 6 and Emerson won 1, while Laver won all 6 of their matches in 1970, and all 6 of their matches in 1971.

[TheFifthSet]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Emerson did very well against Laver in 1968. In 1968, the first year of the open era, Laver and Emerson met 10 times and each player won 5 matches. In 1969, Laver won 6 and Emerson won 1, while Laver won all 6 of their matches in 1970, and all 6 of their matches in 1971.

Ah, was thinking of that my mistake.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by kiki

But he enhances a lot Henin over Serena Williams, so the conclusion is that he uses height just as an excuse for his agenda ( anti Laver, anti Rosewall, anti Williams)

I think you totally misunderstood or intentionally trying to misrepresented me.

I've said that Laver's height(5'8") is fine when he played in his heyday, but tennis has changed, and he would be at a disadvantage playing in the current era. Could he compete? Sure, but he's not going to be one of the elite player. In today's game, you need big serve, which Laver limited because of his size and reach. Power on both wings. The conditions today is suit for baseliner, not s/v, so power from the baseline is essential. Laver will still have good footwork, but missing the 2 key components will hinder his game, despite he's a very talented player. Player's today have big game, you don't see any player at 5'8" dominated the game. In fact, I've pointed out many times before that in the last 2 decades there isn't any player undersize that dominated the game. You can't dispute that. An ideal height for a player is at around 6'0~6'3", not 5'8" or 6'6".

When a player combined a very gifted talent, the right height and work ethnic, that player has a chance to reach the top. Hence, Fed/Nadal/Nole/Murray have those attributes. Could you imagine if these 4 players were at 5'8"? haha, they wouldn't be where they are right now.

[TheFifthSet]

Originally Posted by TMF

I think you totally misunderstood or intentionally trying to misrepresented me.

I've said that Laver's height(5'8") is fine when he played in his heyday, but tennis has changed, and he would be at a disadvantage playing in the current era. Could he compete? Sure, but he's not going to be one of the elite player. In today's game, you need big serve, which Laver limited because of his size and reach. Power on both wings. The conditions today is suit for baseliner, not s/v, so power from the baseline is essential. Laver will still have good footwork, but missing the 2 key components will hinder his game, despite he's a very talented player. Player's today have big game, you don't see any player at 5'8" dominated the game. In fact, I've pointed out many times before that in the last 2 decades there isn't any player undersize that dominated the game. You can't dispute that. An ideal height for a player is at around 6'0~6'3", not 5'8" or 6'6".

When a player combined a very gifted talent, the right height and work ethnic, that player has a chance to reach the top. Hence, Fed/Nadal/Nole/Murray have those attributes. Could you imagine if these 4 players were at 5'8"? haha, they wouldn't be where they are right now.

What???? YOU ranked Laver as the #3 player of ALL TIME, and now you say he wouldn't even be an elite player?

David Ferrer is #5 in the world and he's only an inch taller, and not even a fraction of the tennis player Laver was.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by TheFifthSet

What???? YOU ranked Laver as the #3 player of ALL TIME, and now you say he wouldn't even be an elite player?

David Ferrer is #5 in the world and he's only an inch taller, and not even a fraction of the tennis player Laver was.

I'm talking about Laver competing against the current era. It has nothing to do with what he achieved in the 60s and early 70s.

Look, Court gets ranked high because the reason for her 11 AO titles. Do you really think she could win 11 AO in this era? If anyone does that makes Serena is just an average player, to put it mildly.

And I'm suppose to believe laver would win 200 titles in this era too.

[TheFifthSet]

Originally Posted by TMF

I'm talking about Laver competing against the current era. It has nothing to do with what he achieved in the 60s and early 70s.

Look, Court gets ranked high because the reason for her 11 AO titles. Do you really think she could win 11 AO in this era? If anyone does that makes Serena is just an average player, to put it mildly.

And I'm suppose to believe laver would win 200 titles in this era too.

You ranked him as better than many modern players, including Sampras I believe, Nadal etc.....

David Ferrer is number five in the world. That's an elite player. He's one inch taller than Laver. One inch. One inch and -1000 less talent.

Your arguments really aren't making much sense here.

[timnz]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Emerson did very well against Laver in 1968. In 1968, the first year of the open era, Laver and Emerson met 10 times and each player won 5 matches. In 1969, Laver won 6 and Emerson won 1, while Laver won all 6 of their matches in 1970, and all 6 of their matches in 1971.

In 1968, those 5 matches Emerson beat Laver in, he won them all in straight sets. Think about it, beating an absolute peak laver 5 times in straight sets! What that tells me that Emerson was up there in ability. if he had gone pro in 1963, like Laver, I think he would have held his own. Emerson faded after that mainly due to age.

[Povl Carstensen]

Originally Posted by kiki

Nadal is one of the two reasons Federer cannot be considered GOAT candidate, not because Nadal is a candidate but because of their H2H while sharing generation.

The other reason is Fed´s peak happened during an extremely weak era.

It is not disqualifying for a goat to have a negative h2h against a surface goat. The era stuff is hypothetical (and beaten to death) and contradicted by 31 year old post peak Federer being nr 1.

[billnepill]

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

Federers era was weak.

There's no question he is a great player....that's not the point .

The point is that there's no way in hell he would have won 17 slams with today's competition.....no way in hell.

Why, what's different? Federer is beating Murray and Djokovic most of the time and Nadal is winning only on clay for about 2 years now. Peak Federer could have been going for a GS in today's field lol

[Povl Carstensen]

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

Federers era was weak.

There's no question he is a great player....that's not the point .

The point is that there's no way in hell he would have won 17 slams with today's competition.....no way in hell.

Of course if you put all greats at peak in the same time, they would have less GS, all of them. Federer would perhaps have a some fewer, but so would the others, so he would still be in the lead. On the other hand, he would be raking in more now because of his amazing longeivity, so it all evens out. I explained this to you once, and your answer was "ok".

[PSNELKE]

Originally Posted by kiki

The GOAT debate was already close back in 1969.

I agree back then when tennis was so competitive that old farts were able to challenge the Top guys.

/end thread.

[NadalDramaQueen]

Originally Posted by TheFifthSet

You ranked him as better than many modern players, including Sampras I believe, Nadal etc.....

David Ferrer is number five in the world. That's an elite player. He's one inch taller than Laver. One inch. One inch and -1000 less talent.

Your arguments really aren't making much sense here.

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.

[The Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by Povl Carstensen

Of course if you put all greats at peak in the same time, they would have less GS, all of them. Federer would perhaps have a some fewer, but so would the others, so he would still be in the lead. On the other hand, he would be raking in more now because of his amazing longeivity, so it all evens out. I explained this to you once, and your answer was "ok".

No.

I shouldn't just say today's competition only but evenjust Nadal.

Nadal is Feds Kryptonite.


Nadal missed four grand slams and an Olympics not to mention who knows what else.

Out of those four grand slams that he missed I believe 3 of them Federer was the beneficiary . Wimbledon (against Roddick ) and the US open and AO I believe. Even Fed FO win was because Nadal fell out early due to personal problems am injury ( remember he skipped wimby).

Prior to that say 2003- 2007 Nadal was merely a developing player.....a clay court specialist as he was labeled.

It is during this period that Federer has won the majority of his slams.

Never before in history has a goat been dominated by hos main rival . It os completely logical that if Nadal had been around as a fill player from day one Fed would no way have even near 17 slams.


The argument is a logical one:

Once Nadal became an all court player he dominated Federer. Therefore it is logical to assume that had Nadal been an all court player at the age of 18 he would have dominated Federer starting from 2003.

[The Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by billnepill

Why, what's different? Federer is beating Murray and Djokovic most of the time and Nadal is winning only on clay for about 2 years now. Peak Federer could have been going for a GS in today's field lol

What's different? Fed has not won a slam in two years. The only slam he won is when it went indoors.....which by the way he lost to Murray in during the Olympics just a short time afterwards.

Can Fed win slams: yes .....can he win 17 with today's crop? No way In hell.....

And if you take away some of his 17 .....he is not the goat even on paper.

[The Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by PSNELKE

I agree back then when tennis was so competitive that old farts were able to challenge the Top guys.

/end thread.

Sort of the way 35 year old Agassi on one leg challenged Federer? Good point.

[prosealster]

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

What's different? Fed has not won a slam in two years. The only slam he won is when it went indoors.....which by the way he lost to Murray in during the Olympics just a short time afterwards.

Can Fed win slams: yes .....can he win 17 with today's crop? No way In hell.....

And if you take away some of his 17 .....he is not the goat even on paper.

this has been beaten to death.....fed's era only looked weak because he made them look weak. roddick who is such a joke of a player till recently was still beating the supposedly much superior djoker.....davydenko who's a headcase with no weapons has a positive head-to-head against the much superior nadal... ferrer who is over the hill interms of tennis age is just about playing the best tennis ever interms of result wise...grandpa fed who thrived on weak era who wouldnt have a chance in current era is still number one ahead of the other 3 who r in their tennis prime...etcetc....

we can all speculate how many fed would win in this era...but at the end of the day it's all speculation....what we know is that with fed's longevity and dominance..he will bag a **** load of gs regardless of which era he played in

[The Dark Knight]

Actually I'm wrong about Nadal.

I think he missed 2 us opens 2 AO's ( going on three) and I think 1 FO and 1 wimby and 1 Olympic .

Anyone have the numbers?

[kiki]

Originally Posted by TMF

I think you totally misunderstood or intentionally trying to misrepresented me.

I've said that Laver's height(5'8") is fine when he played in his heyday, but tennis has changed, and he would be at a disadvantage playing in the current era. Could he compete? Sure, but he's not going to be one of the elite player. In today's game, you need big serve, which Laver limited because of his size and reach. Power on both wings. The conditions today is suit for baseliner, not s/v, so power from the baseline is essential. Laver will still have good footwork, but missing the 2 key components will hinder his game, despite he's a very talented player. Player's today have big game, you don't see any player at 5'8" dominated the game. In fact, I've pointed out many times before that in the last 2 decades there isn't any player undersize that dominated the game. You can't dispute that. An ideal height for a player is at around 6'0~6'3", not 5'8" or 6'6".

When a player combined a very gifted talent, the right height and work ethnic, that player has a chance to reach the top. Hence, Fed/Nadal/Nole/Murray have those attributes. Could you imagine if these 4 players were at 5'8"? haha, they wouldn't be where they are right now.

if Laver was powerful at something, it was in his groundies.His left arm was monstruous.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by TheFifthSet

What???? YOU ranked Laver as the #3 player of ALL TIME, and now you say he wouldn't even be an elite player?

David Ferrer is #5 in the world and he's only an inch taller, and not even a fraction of the tennis player Laver was.

Right, and we don´t need to go back too long ago.In the 90´s, the power and athleticism of Sampras,Becker,Lendl,Edberg,Bruguera,Courier,Agass i,Kafelnikov,Stich,Martin,Rafter, Ivanisevic or Krajicek was equal or better than current´s elite players...well, in that group, a midget like Chang ( shoter and less powerful than Laver) survived pretty well and reached a few major finals...

[RF20Lennon]

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

Actually I'm wrong about Nadal.

I think he missed 2 us opens 2 AO's ( going on three) and I think 1 FO and 1 wimby and 1 Olympic .

Anyone have the numbers?

So basically federer's wins don't count because nadal is a quitter ok.