illusions30
Banned
There was a poll for the strongest so I figured there should be one for the weakest too. Which GOAT candidate (and per previous request I am adding Rosewall) had the weakest competition.
Which GOAT candidate had the weakest competition
- Thread starter illusions30
- Start date
M
monfed
Guest
Why did you include Nadal in the list,Prof? :lol:
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Which poster has the weakest threads ever???
NatF, You "forgot" Gimeno. Gonzalez was so much declining that he beat both Laver and Rosewall at the 1966 Wembley BBC 2 event, beat Roche (No.2) at the 1968 US Open, Rosewall (twice), Ashe (6-0,6-2,6-4); Newcombe (6-1,6-2) in 1969, Laver thrice in 1970, also Newcombe and Roche in 1970...
90's Clay
Banned
Federer- Roddick,Hewitt, Baghaditis, Gonzales, Agassi on his last leg, Nadal before puberty, Davydenko, Fat Boy Nalbandian, Blake,and Bar Fly Safin who never showed up to play.
Fed had it more difficult later on when Nadal, Nole, Murray finally came into their own.. But had it BEYOND easy from 2003-2007 when he amassed the majority of his accomplishments anyways
When Roddick or 35 year old Sciatica ridden Agassi is your main competition that says it all.
Hell, Agassi proves how HORRIBLE it was. The guy was a decade (or over) older than Fed's main contemporaries slowed down with a bad back and still beating all these guys, with a high ranking, and getting far in tournaments.
Old Agassi would have been blown off the court if he played at that age (with a bad back) back in the 80s, 90s or today
Fed had it more difficult later on when Nadal, Nole, Murray finally came into their own.. But had it BEYOND easy from 2003-2007 when he amassed the majority of his accomplishments anyways
When Roddick or 35 year old Sciatica ridden Agassi is your main competition that says it all.
Hell, Agassi proves how HORRIBLE it was. The guy was a decade (or over) older than Fed's main contemporaries slowed down with a bad back and still beating all these guys, with a high ranking, and getting far in tournaments.
Old Agassi would have been blown off the court if he played at that age (with a bad back) back in the 80s, 90s or today
Last edited:
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
Jeopardy question - Who won 5 majors beating Pioline, Todd Martin and grandpa Chang ?
illusions30
Banned
I picked Gonzales as I dont think the mid 50s had much in the way of competition for him until Hoad and Rosewall turned pro.
Don't tell me you buy 90's Clay's typical BS? As far as I know, he's never supported with data anything he posts about the so-called weak era. If half of what he said was factual, guys like Roddick, Hewitt, etc. would have been lucky to have made a living on the Challenger circuit.
illusions30, Gonzalez had Kramer, Segura, Sedgman, Trabert, Rosewall, Hoad, Laver, Gimeno, Newcombe, Roche, Ashe, Okker, Smith, Connors...
A few names - Frank Sedgman, You could also add Segura, (and in the early 50's) Kramer, Trabert
The Dark Knight
Legend
10 characters
Last edited:
The Dark Knight
Legend
The Dark Knight
Legend
Anti-Fedal
Professional
Federer by a fair margin. Then probably Tilden and Budge then after that Nadal.
I think it's Laver. He certainly could've made it difficult on himself had he turned pro earlier, but Laver I think will be known for dominating 1966-1970. Rosewall was still pretty darn good at the time, but everyone on the list had to contend with at least one other great player, and this version of Rosewall was age 32+.
Federer had a relatively easy run early on, but with Fed's longevity being better than most, and these past 5 years being so stacked up top, you could argue that Fed's overall competition has been average overall.
Sampras is the big wildcard IMO. On one hand there were a ton of good players in his generation, but if you're a GOAT candidate, don't you take the career where you don't have to face any other GOAT candidates? Agassi is in the discussion I guess, but he was so inconsistent that he wasn't the constant threat that a Connors/McEnroe/Federer/Nadal/Djokovic/Rosewall/Laver/Gonzales were in their primes that the other candidates had to deal with.
So the more I think about it, I'd go Laver or Sampras, with Gonzales in the "who knows" category. Rosewall, Borg, Nadal should have a combined 0 votes IMO, would like to hear from those who voted for them so far.
Federer had a relatively easy run early on, but with Fed's longevity being better than most, and these past 5 years being so stacked up top, you could argue that Fed's overall competition has been average overall.
Sampras is the big wildcard IMO. On one hand there were a ton of good players in his generation, but if you're a GOAT candidate, don't you take the career where you don't have to face any other GOAT candidates? Agassi is in the discussion I guess, but he was so inconsistent that he wasn't the constant threat that a Connors/McEnroe/Federer/Nadal/Djokovic/Rosewall/Laver/Gonzales were in their primes that the other candidates had to deal with.
So the more I think about it, I'd go Laver or Sampras, with Gonzales in the "who knows" category. Rosewall, Borg, Nadal should have a combined 0 votes IMO, would like to hear from those who voted for them so far.
Crose
Professional
Yeah but my guess is that he's just a ridiculously good tennis player. Or in other words, a GOAT candidate.
sbengte
G.O.A.T.
Umm..well, if he was that exceptional, he would have dominated the field much more when healthy and in his prime (more multi-slam years, more time at #1 than any of his competition.) That obviously is not the case.
Last edited:
Anti-Fedal
Professional
Why did you vote for Borg?
NatF
Bionic Poster
I did actually forget Gimeno, I assume your speech marks are meant to imply I did it on purpose? Eitherway Gimeno doesn't elevate the period too much IMO. Split fields are inherently weaker than full ones and Laver certainly had less competition than Rosewall who faced Gonzalez and Hoad at their best as well as Laver/Gimeno. I think the field of the 50's was also stronger than that of the 60's, so I rate Gonzalez higher too.
I don't think the competition was weak, I just find it the weakest.
Agassi was better in 03-05 then in most of Pete's prime. His back only gave him real trouble in 06, at the USO even in 05 it was fine up until the last set of the final. He missed so much time in the 90's his mileage was alot less. Funny how you're claim Federer had it easy with Agassi but the early 70's had 30 year old Laver and 35+ Rosewall at really high rankings. Connors was #7 in 1988 when he was 36 BTW.
Full of crap as usual.
is this even seriously a question ??? Fed had a joke field with the likes of grandfather 35 years old Agassi with the likes of hewitt and roddick. The guy only won RG because of nadal injury and that says it all. His fans with multiple accaunts can create atmosphere like people indeed believe he is goat.The reality is he is way behind Laver Sampras Nadal and Borg. Fed certainly is Margeret Court of men tennis.Thats it.
Last edited:
Russeljones
Talk Tennis Guru
Laver's were practically pub players, the majority of them.
The Dark Knight
Legend
Or maybe he was just that good?
But then again he didn't play hall of famers like Philopusis , Baghdatis or Nalbandian.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
he did play though the goats puerta and berdych
yeah he beat Fed and Murray before beating them.:twisted:
sbengte
G.O.A.T.
He was so good when in his prime and healthy that he couldn't even stay the top ranked player longer than his competitors or win multiple slams for two years in a row. Tell me more.
Nalbandian who ? You mean the same guy , who in his prime, fed a bagel , baguette and a breadstick to your hero in the first two matches they played ?
Last edited:
illusions30
Banned
One odd thing is Nadal and Federer were 1st and 2nd on my poll of strongest competition, yet Federer who was 2nd on that poll is also 1st on the poll for weakest competition thus far, and Nadal who was 1st on that poll is 3rd on the poll for weakest competition. I guess it is one extreme or other with them, or maybe alot of posters arent even familiar with any players before Sampras at the earliest anyway, so wouldnt even have a clue either way on most of these.
Who Am I?
Banned
Definitely Nadal. His only 2 impressive slam wins were 2008 Wimby and 2009 AO. Both of his US Open victories happen because of cake draws and a tired and out of sorts Novak Djokovic waiting in the finals.
All his FO titles came by a virtue of beating a grass court specialist and a hard court specialist. Which great clay courter did he beat to win any of his FO titles? Oh, that's right, Ferrer. Lol! At least Federer defeated grass court specialists in Murray, Roddick and Hewitt to win most of his Wimbledon titles. Nadal didn't have to contend with any clay courter for his RG.
And let's not even talk about his cake Wimbledon 2010 triumph, where he had to play his pigeon and biggest fanboy in the final who did his dirty work by taking out two of his main rivals. It's a classic example of a servant repaying his master only to be taken out himself by the master in the very end.
All his FO titles came by a virtue of beating a grass court specialist and a hard court specialist. Which great clay courter did he beat to win any of his FO titles? Oh, that's right, Ferrer. Lol! At least Federer defeated grass court specialists in Murray, Roddick and Hewitt to win most of his Wimbledon titles. Nadal didn't have to contend with any clay courter for his RG.
And let's not even talk about his cake Wimbledon 2010 triumph, where he had to play his pigeon and biggest fanboy in the final who did his dirty work by taking out two of his main rivals. It's a classic example of a servant repaying his master only to be taken out himself by the master in the very end.
mud volcano
Banned
L Rosol , F. VerdSco , Sahfin
illusions30
Banned
Rating Agassi's better years in small groups I would say:
Best years: 1995, 1999
Secondary best years: 1994, 1990, 2001, 2002
Pretty good years: 1991, 1996, 2000, 2003, 2004, 2005
Bad years: 1993, 1997, 1998
So if we consider Pete's prime as 93-99 I would say Agassi in 2003-2005 was below 3 of those years (94, 95, 99), about on par with 1 (1996), and much stronger than 3 (1993, 1997, 1998 ). So in that respect it would be about on par with the average, much better than some, although far below say the late 94/95 and 99 Agassi's.
NatF
Bionic Poster
I agree for the most part although I would put 1994 into the pretty good years considering his results were only good for half the year. I'd rate 2003 higher than 1994 personally, possibly even over 2002 considering he won a slam in 2003. You missed out 1992 as well which I'd place in pretty good or secondary best.
Russeljones, As a HallofFamer you should study tennis history a bit more careful.
For the record, Agassi's first big year was 1988. He finished the year ranked #3, had a record of 63-11 (second only to his 73-9 of 1995), and won six tournaments.
I'd say that 2003 was clearly better than 1990, and possibly roughly equal to the other three Secondary best years.
1998 wasn't a total disaster. Yes, the results in majors were weak, but he did OK in the other events, winning five tournaments.
Kenshin
Semi-Pro
This is not true at all. Coincedence or not, even Federer's last grandslam wins were when Nadal was injured.
sbengte
G.O.A.T.
O rly ? By that count all of Nadal's non-clay wins were because Fed was old and Delpo, Djoko, Murray were injured
mike danny
Bionic Poster
who cares about nadal? djokovic was no. 1 not nadal. federer beat the world no. 1 on his way to victory. it cannot get anymore impressive than that.
all of a sudden it is a blemush on fed's win nadal could not reach him. Federer does not meet nadal>>>>> he was scared what a wuss; nadal does not meet federer>>>> federer is so lucky.
**** logic at its best
D
Deleted member 21996
Guest
World no. 1 and defending champion. Definitely the toughest opponent there was at Wimbledon 2012.
Yes in terms of level of play. But Rafa is such a bad matchup for Roger that I think he is the tougher opponent for him.
Rafa at 70% is tougher for Roger than Nole playing 95%. RG 2011 proves this.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
it does not matter. becoming world no.1 by beating the world no.1 en route to winning a slam is the most impressive achievement
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
Let's talk about a mid 30's Lendl straight setting the number 1 ranked at the time peak Sampras on a fast hard court.
Who Am I?
Banned
Who gives a crap about Nadal? Federer beat the guy who trashed your boy in the last years final on his way to the final, where he met and defeated a new and improved Murray. That's more impressive than beating Nadal. And he has already beaten Nadal twice at Wimbledon so has nothing to prove to anyone.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Perhaps ironically in this case, Fed wins every poll (regardless of its content).
Similar threads
