Why the GOAT does NOT exist

[Talker]

Someone has to be the best.
Just because no one has the perfect resume is no reason to not have a GOAT.

Nothing has changed here, continue the arguments.... (which is always good for a laugh). lol

[TMF]

Originally Posted by Talker

Someone has to be the best.
Just because no one has the perfect resume is no reason to not have a GOAT.

Nothing has changed here, continue the arguments.... (which is always good for a laugh). lol

The only argument left for them is to throw in all the "but", "would have", "should have", "if...then else"

[smoledman]

Originally Posted by Blocker

Nadal
Nadal is an interesting one. Has won the career slam but still trails Federer in total slams won, even though he owns their H2H. Another thing which rules Nadal out is that so far he has been owned by Djok in their big matches. So again, knowing that Djok beat Nadal in 3 of 4 consecutive slam finals means that I would not have Nadal as GOAT because there is another player in the history of the world who has had the better of him.

Nadal leads the slam H2H 6-3 and 19-14 overall. How da **** can you get away with this crap?

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by TMF

Ever heard of experts from the Tennis Channel? JMac, Borg, Sampras, Laver, etc. have said Roger is the greatest.

Doesn't count for much. Federer has said how he idolized Sampras and Laver, so it is no wonder they return a compliment. Both also had a 1 handed backhand, so they see a continuity. JMac likes the all-court game and has a 1 handed BH too. It is more like these guys are siding with Federer against Nadal, who is their common enemy because they know he can bulldoze his way through their fancy elegant strokes any time. These guys have just not been able to face up to the Rafa-Fed head to head count.

[UCSF2012]

The GOAT is Steffi Graf, with 33 Slams.

...The GOAT of eye candy is Kournikova.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by sureshs

Doesn't count for much. Federer has said how he idolized Sampras and Laver, so it is no wonder they return a compliment. Both also had a 1 handed backhand, so they see a continuity. JMac likes the all-court game and has a 1 handed BH too. It is more like these guys are siding with Federer against Nadal, who is their common enemy because they know he can bulldoze his way through their fancy elegant strokes any time. These guys have just not been able to face up to the Rafa-Fed head to head count.

If you follow tennis and watch more often, it's clear that you hear most people say Federer is the greatest. Sampras and Laver said Federer is the greatest(I've posted their quote for the umpteen time). And I don't blame JMac and other ex-players, who believe 17 > 11.

Nadal is not on Fed's league anyway. The closest player being close to him is Borg.

[NatF]

Originally Posted by sureshs

Doesn't count for much. Federer has said how he idolized Sampras and Laver, so it is no wonder they return a compliment. Both also had a 1 handed backhand, so they see a continuity. JMac likes the all-court game and has a 1 handed BH too. It is more like these guys are siding with Federer against Nadal, who is their common enemy because they know he can bulldoze his way through their fancy elegant strokes any time. These guys have just not been able to face up to the Rafa-Fed head to head count.

A head to head mainly built on Nadal's best surface and Federer's worst. Plus it was relatively even up until Federer started his decline. Anyone sensible can see that the head to head is a rather flawed statistic. If the head to head meant Rafa was a better player he'd have won all those slams he entered with Roger and lost early in.

[TMF]

Deleted because of double post.

Sorry...this site is sooooooooo slow.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by NatF

A head to head mainly built on Nadal's best surface and Federer's worst. Plus it was relatively even up until Federer started his decline. Anyone sensible can see that the head to head is a rather flawed statistic. If the head to head meant Rafa was a better player he'd have won all those slams he entered with Roger and lost early in.

The meaning of head to head is very simple. No need to bring extraneous factors in. In tennis, the person with the better H2H is defined to be the better player. That is all.

Lack of understanding of this is the basis of umpteen threads about "I am the better player but I lost to a pusher." No dude you are not the better player.

[sureshs]

Oh and don't come back with the Rosol-Nadal H2H. Learn the meaning of statistically significant sample set before posting.

[NatF]

Originally Posted by sureshs

The meaning of head to head is very simple. No need to bring extraneous factors in. In tennis, the person with the better H2H is defined to be the better player. That is all.

Lack of understanding of this is the basis of umpteen threads about "I am the better player but I lost to a pusher." No dude you are not the better player.

So surfaces and old age don't factor into matchups? Shame Nadal couldn't use his winning head to head with Federer to win more slams from 2005-2007.

[NadalDramaQueen]

Originally Posted by sureshs

The meaning of head to head is very simple. No need to bring extraneous factors in. In tennis, the person with the better H2H is defined to be the better player. That is all.

Lack of understanding of this is the basis of umpteen threads about "I am the better player but I lost to a pusher." No dude you are not the better player.

Originally Posted by sureshs

Oh and don't come back with the Rosol-Nadal H2H. Learn the meaning of statistically significant sample set before posting.

Sorry, sureshs, you have already stated that you believe Federer is the GOAT. See below:

Originally Posted by sureshs

Today's semifinals feature the top 4 players. Unlike the last 2 "Slams". I contend that whoever wins here is the real #1 and the GOAT. I have a feeling it won't be the guy with the elegant strokes.

Everyone knows how that turned out.

Please resume making terrible posts.

[Shaolin]

Originally Posted by sureshs

The meaning of head to head is very simple. No need to bring extraneous factors in. In tennis, the person with the better H2H is defined to be the better player. That is all.

Lack of understanding of this is the basis of umpteen threads about "I am the better player but I lost to a pusher." No dude you are not the better player.

The head to head is actually not "simple". It takes takes some understanding of tennis to grasp it, which some people like yourself don't understand.

Playing a match on clay is not the same as hardcourt or indoor. You understand this much, right?

Therefore, the head to head will be different according to surfaces. They have played the vast majority of their matches on clay, Nadal's BEST SURFACE, Federer's WORST.

Nadal was not good enough to even reach Fed in many hardcourt or indoor tournaments where he would have been beaten.

If you don't grasp these things then you just don't understand tennis very well.

Think of it like this:

Right now you, surehs, have an EVEN head-to-head with Federer, the possible greatest player ever. Pretty awesome right? Not really, because its not that simple. You aren't good enough to qualify and make the first round of an ATP event where you would be destroyed by Federer 1st round, should you draw him. It's the exact same with Nadal, he failed to make later rounds in tournaments on Fed's best surface whereas Fed advanced to meet Nadal on Nadal's best surface.

Take some time to think about it, maybe you'll understand it at some point

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by Shaolin

The head to head is actually not "simple". It takes takes some understanding of tennis to grasp it, which some people like yourself don't understand.

Playing a match on clay is not the same as hardcourt or indoor. You understand this much, right?

Therefore, the head to head will be different according to surfaces. They have played the vast majority of their matches on clay, Nadal's BEST SURFACE, Federer's WORST.

Nadal was not good enough to even reach Fed in many hardcourt or indoor tournaments where he would have been beaten.

If you don't grasp these things then you just don't understand tennis very well.

Think of it like this:

Right now you, surehs, have an EVEN head-to-head with Federer, the possible greatest player ever. Pretty awesome right? Not really, because its not that simple. You aren't good enough to qualify and make the first round of an ATP event where you would be destroyed by Federer 1st round, should you draw him. It's the exact same with Nadal, he failed to make later rounds in tournaments on Fed's best surface whereas Fed advanced to meet Nadal on Nadal's best surface.

Take some time to think about it, maybe you'll understand it at some point

Neither Fed nor Nadal orchestrated their meetings on specific surfaces. It just happened. There was no power up above manipulating their meetings.

Talking about my head-to-head with Federer shows that you still haven't understood the meaning of statistically significant sample set. It is precisely for that reason that I warned about it in my previous post. 0 is not a statistically significant number. Both Fed and Nadal have played a large number of tournaments and met a large number of times, for the results to be statistically significant.

[The-Champ]

Originally Posted by sureshs

Doesn't count for much. Federer has said how he idolized Sampras and Laver, so it is no wonder they return a compliment. Both also had a 1 handed backhand, so they see a continuity. JMac likes the all-court game and has a 1 handed BH too. It is more like these guys are siding with Federer against Nadal, who is their common enemy because they know he can bulldoze his way through their fancy elegant strokes any time. These guys have just not been able to face up to the Rafa-Fed head to head count.

Actually, Laver said recently that Nadal and Fed are about equal. Agassi said in one of his recent interviews that Nadal and Federer are probably the two greatest players ever.

- Former greats are very supportive of the current generation but we know that Rafa hasn't surpassed Pete yet.

[jokinla]

Originally Posted by sureshs

Oh and don't come back with the Rosol-Nadal H2H. Learn the meaning of statistically significant sample set before posting.

Convenient that you have an acceptable excuse as to why the H2H isn't relevant when discussing Rosol, lol.

[Netspirit]

Tennis is a tournament sport played against the field. Federer has been the most successful against his field, therefore he is GOAT.

If tennis was a "champion vs. contender" sport (like boxing) his H2H with Nadal would be considered (but probably thrown away as being clay-skewed). However, H2H is simply not how the pro tour works.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by sureshs

Neither Fed nor Nadal orchestrated their meetings on specific surfaces. It just happened. There was no power up above manipulating their meetings.

Talking about my head-to-head with Federer shows that you still haven't understood the meaning of statistically significant sample set. It is precisely for that reason that I warned about it in my previous post. 0 is not a statistically significant number. Both Fed and Nadal have played a large number of tournaments and met a large number of times, for the results to be statistically significant.

The suresh has sure(sh)ly spoken. Davydenko>Nadal!

[jokinla]

Originally Posted by sureshs

Oh and don't come back with the Rosol-Nadal H2H. Learn the meaning of statistically significant sample set before posting.

If we consider your silly theory, then Nads isn't even the GOAT on clay, since he doesn't have a winning record against a former French Open champion, and all their matches were on clay.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by jokinla

If we consider your silly theory, then Nads isn't even the GOAT on clay, since he doesn't have a winning record against a former French Open champion, and all their matches were on clay.

Your argument is silly, because the other player is not a GOAT candidate.