Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Mick3391, Jan 28, 2013.
Djokovic is not even top 10-15.
Maybe top 20 of all time.
federer is to tennis what michael schumacher was to f1
Bottom line is this:
Jordan: hands down basketball GOAT (Kareem 2nd but still far away)
Gretzky: Hands down GOAT in hockey
Nicklaus: Hands down golf GOAT (Unless Tiger surpasses him but thats not likely)
Phelps: Hands down GOAT at swimming with records that won't be surpassed for 1000000 years.
Federer: AMONG the GOATS but with 3-4 guys with just as much claim to GOAT status as Fed does. (Laver, Pancho, Rosewall) Considering titles, time on top, dominance over main rivals
Anything else is ****ish claims
This is what I would call a complete Petetard post. Keep believing what you want. Maybe deep down inside you don't really believe it, but just write this to diminish his legacy. Good luck with that.
GOAT depends on what you value
Me, I value shot making and variety and display of skill over pure physical athleticism and ability to retrieve everything.
This is the best post yet. Well said.
The numbers can be manipulated, "If Fed wasn't around, would Nadal....", "Since Joe beat Stan, then"
It can drive you nuts. I pick Fed because of the pure quality of play, I'm not saying "Oh he plays beautifully, that's why he's the best", but rather "He plays beautifully AND has the record".
Some may say others were better than Ali, but no one looked better than Ali, same deal Federer. I mean only during a Fed match can he make a shot and Mcenroe says "No way", the audience gasps, and everyone is thrilled.
Absolutely correct. Tell Baldly to run along and resume his "Breaking Bad" imitation.
He won two more.
Nadal is by far the clay court GOAT and is also greater on clay than any other player in history on any surface. Djokovic is the Australian Open and overall slow hard court GOAT. Federer is the overall hard court GOAT (slow and fast combined) despite not being the clear best on either slow or fast. The overall GOAT however is Rod Laver.
Yes pretty much. Federer cant be compared to those guys who are hands down the best in the history of their sport, not just one of the GOAT contenders in their sport like Federer is.
What makes it official, that you say it, LOL! Having Nadal 3 spots below Borg is quite the joke, and Gonzales down at 6 ends any possability to take such a rank seriously.
Sooo...you're saying Grand Slam tally doesn't matter? You had to stick that dominance over main rivals in there didn't you? Consider this: What if Federer wasn't such a good clay player? Suppose he didn't make it to so many clay semis and finals where he faced Nadal? The H2H would look much different wouldn't it? Nadal won 12 of the 14 times they met in finals or semifinals on clay. No one is disputing that Nadal is one of the best ever on clay. Federer would have been wise to lose early in those tournaments like Nadal did on surfaces that favored Federer. If only Federer had known then that people would put so much emphasis on this rivalry, even though he's won the most Grand Slams of any player.
I think NSK is Yanick Noah
Novak will eventually be HC Goat.....
Novak can manage 6 more HC Slams.
Fed and Nadal have met at RG more then they have met at all the other slams combined. Nadal didn't hold up his end of the bargain at the slams. Just sayin.
Would you call him the GOAT if he beats Federer's HC slams with a AO-heavy HC resume.
Federer has a nice balance: 5 USO and 4 AO.
Djokovic has 4 AO and 1 USO. I want to see Djokovic dominate on faster HC like USO(well, at least for todays standards) before calling him the GOAT HCer.
It matters... to an extent.. But its not the ultimate measuring stick since you are not looking at an even playing field in regards to slam count since the old school GOAT contenders (Laver, Pancho, Rosewall etc) didn't have 100 cracks at slams opportunities like guys of the last 20-30 years.
Soo all things have to be considered:
Dominance over field (especially your main rivals)
Does Fed have that?? Yess. To an extent (Issues with his main rival hindering him) But not to the same level other guys do.
Give Pancho, Rosewall, Laver as many cracks at a slam as Nadal, Fed, Nole and others and chances are they come out with 25 plus slams EASY. Laver had 11 and didn't even play the slams in his prime
Borg had 11 and he didn't even play the Australian
Importance of slams have changed as has the opportunities of top players to enter them
If Slam count was the measuring stick, I guess Emerson was GOAT long before PEte and Roger were?
I think Agassi is best placed to talk about this. He has played Federer and Nadal, so he knows exactly what they were bringing to the game that tennis hadn't seen before. He's also not a Goat contender. Sampras, on the other hand, would have a hard time saying these things, partly because he never played Nadal, and never played Federer on a hardcourt, or even the new grass. The closest he got to playing on hardcourts against these guys was against Hewitt, who Agassi shrewdly points out was an evolutionary step or two behind Fed and Nadal. Also, if Sampras were to come out and say that these three guys are playing better tennis than anything he faced as a pro, as Agassi just did, his GOAT credentials would take a major hit. (Although there is more to the GOAT discussion than level of play, namely, accomplishments.) Agassi experienced it, a little bit, but says that these guys have taken it to another level even since he retired. As a baseliner he sees what would happen to him if he stepped on the court with these guys. Basically, he said, he'd need a new body, he'd have to be faster and more powerful to play the kind of tennis these guys are playing on these slow courts. Maybe he'd say something different about fast carpet or grass.
Well put ... except Djokovic has a long way to go to be in any GOAT conversation. Agassi is a weird dude, and I do agree with earlier post that many of his GOAT comments are indirect slights to Sampras, who kicked his butt so many times.
What we're in is not a golden age, but in a predictable age created by a desperately thin talent level beyond the top 4. Three slams to go this year, and we already know who will be in the semis of every one, with the possible exception of Nadal, simply due to health concerns. It is boring.
I would be surprised if he did that. I can easily see him winning 3 more Australian Opens, but not 3 more U.S Opens. Crazier things have happened though.
I think Murray will be the one preventing Djokovic from dominance on fast hard courts and the U.S Open. Murray should also be able to take an Australian Open title away from Djokovic at some point, but possibly only 1. Djokovic has the clear edge on all slow courts over Murray. On faster courts like grass and fast hard courts of the Open it is a much more even matchup, and I dont see Djokovic dominating Murray on faster courts like he generally does on slow. There is also the Nadal factor, but I will be a bit surprised if he manages another U.S Open even if he returns strong, but could definitely see him winning the Australian or Wimbledon again.
You do realize the NBA is a TEAM sport?
Also Nicklaus finished 2nd in a major 19 times, which means his "finals" record is 18-19. Far worse then Roger's 17-7.
I couldn't care less about your appraisal of it.
I rank Gonzales as #7.
He was a Sampras equivalent (dominant of fast surfaces but won squat on clay), but played in a weaker era. No way he gets ranked above the Open Era greats like Fed/Sampras/Borg/Nadal. I also think Laver and Rosewall had greater careers than him.
Oh and yes, when I said Djokovic was "maybe top 20", I was talking all-time. He is 9th in the Open Era.
yes, this ...... this needs to be made a sticky ...
Right now Federer Nadal looks genius. But wait after they retire.
10-20 years later, let's see Federer Nadal,s status can withstand test of time
My bet is they will be outside top 5.
In fact, only thing that can withstand test of time from this baseliners generation
will be just Nadal's clay court record.
Talk to you after 20 years!
kid yourself as much as you want .... sampras has been clearly surpassed by federer in almost every aspect ..... no amount of revisionism is going to change that ...
laver, borg, fed will be the ones standing the test of time ...
gonzales/rosewall - their 'under-rated' records are being brought more and more into the main-stream now ...
I disagree. The video footage we have of Fed and Nadal doing their thing renders them immortal. Until somebody breaks Fed's records he's the measuring stick. I find it laughable that Sampras will stay relevant, but Fed wouldn't withstand the test of time. This is open era tennis baby, these guys are the new citadels of records for which future generations will strive to beat. Btw u must be out of your mind if you think Gonzales, Rosewall and Laver will also be higher thought of and remembered in 20 years time in comparison to Federer especially
Agassi has a bias against Sampras but other than that his analysis is really good. Of course every generation pushes the level of play forward. Training moves forward too.
It would be easier to analyze if today's surfaces varied in speed and bounce as much as the past.
Here's the deal, despite what we like or wish or try to manipulate.
EVERY PRO, EVERY COMMENTATOR says Roger Federer is the greatest of all time, and that is what everyone looks at. He's also extremelly popular, so to strip him of his GOAT status can't be done, you can argue it, but you are arguing against the Tennis establisment.
If Fed retired today, he would be referred to the GOAT by everyone except some on this forum, until the next guy comes along or unless say Nadal starts winning everything.
Yea it's hard to argue "Nadal is better than Fed", when Nadal says Fed is better
do you know what "every" means?
If you cannot say 100% of every working and retired pro, pundit and writer has made that statement, then no, he is no GOAT...and never will be as he was not skilled/talented enough to win the Grand Slam.
Relax dude, I'm in a way on your side. Do you know what generalizing to 99% means? Yea, every commentator, past pro, says Fed is the greatest, sorry if that's not good enough for you, but it is for the masses.
You can make a good argument that someone else is better and that's cool, but if you look at what "Experts" say, it's Fed, surely you won't deny that!
No one is saying Fed is a 100%, undisputed goat. No athlete is 100% goat in his/her sport either, so let's try to keep that in mind for now on. However, when vast majority of the fans/experts/ex-players/commentators have said Federer is the greatest, he deserve the title more than any past legends. M Jordan doesn't earned 100% votes from the masses, but he's still regard as the greatest NBA player of all time.
Yeah, we've noticed that already.
Uh, that's why I rephrased with "OK, 99%". Geez guys, you have to cool your jets, think your guy is the best, fine, but why not debate with dignity and respect, there's one guy on here who calls Federer fans *******s or something, nothing get's accomplished that way.
I, and a overwhelming percent of experts think Fed is the GOAT, does that mean he is? No, but I THINK HE IS, could I be wrong? Of course.
Personally, I can't wait for the next Federer. I don't like Djokavich or Murray, that's not an insult, just happen to not like to watch them play. Fed just has that rare quality, that Charisma, as Dr. Evil would say "that something else" that captures everyones attention. I mean movie stars are intrigue by him.
Does that mean Novak or Andy are not good as some Fed fans claim? Of course not, THEY ARE AWESOME. I like our sport, but our sport is like a ******* sport, the finals of the AO finish, go to sports on the major networks online, you MAY find the results, or find it on 5th down right below "Stanford beat UCLA".
We need stars. I'd even go for a Mcenroe, a total punk, say what you will but he increased interest in Tennis. I want to hear some "I'm going to kick his ass", or some broken racquets, sounds bad but controversy sells, we need STARS to increase awareness of this great sport, we don't want it going the way of boxing, that is dead.
I'd love to see Novak come out and say like Ivan drago "I shall defeat all man", "I am physically unbeatable", GUARANTEED crowds would double to watch him lose. Like Ali said in the 60's of all of his bragging, "Half the people came to see me get beat up, other half to see what all the fuss was about".
in level of play the 3 are indeed the best ever. I think prime fed, prime nadal and 2011 novak are about equal as players.
but still when we talk about achievements the other 2 are not even close to fed because fed did that for 5+ years while nadal and djokovics primes were quite short.
I don't have nadal in my top4 and nole just inside my top10 all time with fed obbviously being the GOAT.
Actually, I know more than anyone else on this forum.
probably make the most money too
Well if it was 10 Australians and 1 US then....I would give credit to Federer for more diversity.
If Novak can manage 4 more Aussie.....which is possible with his game fitting that event. Luck 2 more US Open wins....been to 3 consecutive finals.....so I don't think it such a far off thought.
He may just as easily not win more than another 2 HC slams.....Murray, Nadal and Federer can still beat him on the Hard.
Andre seems to be saying a lot of weird stuff recently, like that comment how he would have to fight to be #5 in today's game. Seems like typical generational modesty, to me. Who wants to sound like that old timer who says "Back in my day, we played tennis with tiny wooden racquets, while wearing a blindfold and listening to a Sony Walkman whatcha-ma-gadget that played nothing but Azarenka shrieks"?
Agassi is sorely underselling his own generation. Maybe if you took one of those guys and transported them to this time, he'd do badly after he just arrived. But give him the training regimen, nutrition regimen of these current guys, and he'd be competing with the best of them.
So? He had to deal with the greatest single-surface player of all time, BY FAR. Nadal is better on clay than any player was on any surface. You think Laver, Pancho, or even Rosewall would be favoured against Nadal at the French? You'd be in the minority.
And even if they get over that hurdle, there's stil more work to be done.
A single season of dominance doesn't offset an entire career. Having said that, Laver's career itself was amazing.
Agassi is selling himself short, he doesn't think he's a step ahead of players like Ferrer, Berdych, Tsonga, Del Potro? lol. Let's be real, Agassi at his best would be sitting in the top 3 comfortably.
Andre the druggie enabler whose 1st wife endured his druggie-induced "moments," Andre the "big game hunter" who'd shoot hawks circling above his house (his roof littered with carcasses), who wore a wig (LMAO!), who went to bed with 28-years-older Steisand (imagine waking up to that schnozzle *gulp!*) .... yeah, Andre, the zen master ...
... whatever .....
I don't know about COMFORTABLY. I think he'd be in the the top 4, however he would fight ot be top 3 with fed nadal and djokovic there.
Did Agassi do this? I never read his book, but shooting hawks for no reason would be far worse than admissions of drug use, in my opinion.
did he really go to bed with Barbra, I just hope he brought her flowers. and made here remember "the way we were" with Redford.
No, he didn't do that. I guess you didn't read the book carefully enough - it was his father that did that. His father hated the hawks because they killed small animals.
Separate names with a comma.