An Easier Question: GOAT by Grand Slam and by Surface

N

Nadal-GOAT

Banned
Okay, overall GOAT has been argued to death. How about GOAT by Grand Slam tournament as well as GOAT by surface? What are your picks? Here are mine:

Australian: Agassi
Roland Garros: Nadal
Wimbledon: Sampras
US Open: Sampras

I'm biased because I'm only care about the Open-era. Also I'm biased towards modern technology, which is why I chose Sampras over Connors and Nadal over Borg.

Hard Courts: Agassi
Clay: Nadal
Grass: Sampras
Carpet: John McEnroe

Carpet tournaments are uncommon these days, so no one is going to ever beat McEnroe's GOAT status on carpet. (McEnroe had a 75-match winning streak on indoor carpet between September 1983 and April 1985.)

For hard courts I chose Agassi because he has 46 hard court titles (plus 6 carpet titles), and these titles include:

4 Australian Opens
2 US Opens

and every non-clay Master's Series tournaments:

1 Indian Wells Masters
5 Miami Masters
3 Toronto/Montreal Masters
3 Cincinatti Masters
1 Madrid Masters
2 Paris Masters
1 Year-End Masters Cup

(He also won 1 clay Masters at Rome)

Federer is close in catching Agassi, as Federer has 36 hard titles (and 2 carpet titles), and Federer needs to win the Paris Masters, as that is the only non-clay Masters tournament he hasn't won.
 
Good topic, generally agree with everything. I would almost have to say that Federer will probably replace Agassi on hardcourts when he's done. But when you break it down like that and you see Sampras' name down on three categories, makes you wonder why there is even a debate.
 
Nadal-GOAT said:
Okay, overall GOAT has been argued to death. How about GOAT by Grand Slam tournament as well as GOAT by surface? What are your picks? Here are mine:

Australian: Agassi
Roland Garros: Nadal
Wimbledon: Sampras
US Open: Sampras

I'm biased because I'm only care about the Open-era. Also I'm biased towards modern technology, which is why I chose Sampras over Connors and Nadal over Borg.

Hard Courts: Agassi
Clay: Nadal
Grass: Sampras
Carpet: John McEnroe

Carpet tournaments are uncommon these days, so no one is going to ever beat McEnroe's GOAT status on carpet. (McEnroe had a 75-match winning streak on indoor carpet between September 1983 and April 1985.)

For hard courts I chose Agassi because he has 46 hard court titles (plus 6 carpet titles), and these titles include:

4 Australian Opens
2 US Opens

and every non-clay Master's Series tournaments:

1 Indian Wells Masters
5 Miami Masters
3 Toronto/Montreal Masters
3 Cincinatti Masters
1 Madrid Masters
2 Paris Masters
1 Year-End Masters Cup

(He also won 1 clay Masters at Rome)

Federer is close in catching Agassi, as Federer has 36 hard titles (and 2 carpet titles), and Federer needs to win the Paris Masters, as that is the only non-clay Masters tournament he hasn't won.
Click to expand...

you definitely are biased. your putting of nadal over borg where borg won it 6 times shows it. whereas you care put sampras over fed in the us open and wimbledon where federer won the former 4 consecutive times (like nadal at roland garros) and the latter 5. i won't dispute the wimby, though. only the us open.
 
luckyboy1300 said:
you definitely are biased. your putting of nadal over borg where borg won it 6 times shows it. whereas you care put sampras over fed in the us open and wimbledon where federer won the former 4 consecutive times (like nadal at roland garros) and the latter 5. i won't dispute the wimby, though. only the us open.
Click to expand...

Nadal is only 22, and he's won the French 4 times. He will probably win at least a couple more. Bottom-line: Nadal is stronger than Borg on clay.

Sampras won the US Open 5 times. Federer only won it 4. Also Connors won it 5 times as well.

Sampras won Wimbledon 7 times, and he's never lost a Wimbledon final. Federer won Wimbledon 5 times, and he's lost 1 final.

Federer will never be GOAT at the French, clay, or carpet. He has a chance to be GOAT for hardcourts, and maybe the US Open. For the Australian, he's got tough competition in Djokovic and maybe Nadal. For Wimbledon, he's got Nadal.

Because Federer lost a Wimby final, he will never be Wimbledon GOAT.
 
As biased as it gets. If Federer can never be the Wimbledon GOAT because he lost one final, then you can write off Sampras for the US Open because he lost one final and got destroyed in two other finals.
 
logansc said:
Good topic, generally agree with everything. I would almost have to say that Federer will probably replace Agassi on hardcourts when he's done. But when you break it down like that and you see Sampras' name down on three categories, makes you wonder why there is even a debate.
Click to expand...

Sampras has also produced warrior-like performances:

- Single-handedly winning the 1995 Davis Cup final against Russia on clay! (Sampras won both his singles rubbers as well as the doubles rubber.)

- Sampras beating Alex Corretja at the US Open when he was sick and throwing up.

- Sampras beating Jim Courier while under emotional distress because his coach is dying.

Federer on the other hand will probably never win Davis Cup (Wawrinka is not bad, but the competition is too great), and Federer is not the type of player to fight through a match. He's more of a player that is really into playing beautiful and perfect tennis. Throw a wrench into that gameplan, and he becomes stubborn and annoyed, and would rather lose than get engaged in a street-fight.

Bottom-line: Federer is a ballet-dancer (beautiful, effortless, tennis), Sampras is a tae-kwon-do expert (offensive firepower), and Nadal is the Brazilian jiujitsu expert (monster defense with knockout submission holds).

Hence Sampras and Nadal is comfortable in streetfighting tennis.

Name me one match where Federer fought tooth-and-nail to win. It's just not his style.

In fact, Federer gives away matches. He probably leads the statistical category in losing matches where he's actually won more total points. What is up with that?
 
aus open - agassi
roland garros - guga imo had best game, nadal should be most successful, right?
wimby - sampras
uso - sampras

strongest players on different surfaces:
grass - sampras
hard - sampras
carpet - sampras
clay - guga
rebound ace - agassi
 
Nadal-GOAT said:
Sampras has also produced warrior-like performances:

- Single-handedly winning the 1995 Davis Cup final against Russia on clay! (Sampras won both his singles rubbers as well as the doubles rubber.)

- Sampras beating Alex Corretja at the US Open when he was sick and throwing up.

- Sampras beating Jim Courier while under emotional distress because his coach is dying.

Federer on the other hand will probably never win Davis Cup (Wawrinka is not bad, but the competition is too great), and Federer is not the type of player to fight through a match. He's more of a player that is really into playing beautiful and perfect tennis. Throw a wrench into that gameplan, and he becomes stubborn and annoyed, and would rather lose than get engaged in a street-fight.

Bottom-line: Federer is a ballet-dancer (beautiful, effortless, tennis), Sampras is a tae-kwon-do expert (offensive firepower), and Nadal is the Brazilian jiujitsu expert (monster defense with knockout submission holds).

Hence Sampras and Nadal is comfortable in streetfighting tennis.

Name me one match where Federer fought tooth-and-nail to win. It's just not his style.

In fact, Federer gives away matches. He probably leads the statistical category in losing matches where he's actually won more total points. What is up with that?
Click to expand...




Agree, overall so far Sampras is the GOAT
 
strongest players on different surfaces:
grass - sampras
hard - sampras
carpet - sampras
clay - guga
rebound ace - agassi[/QUOTE]



Oh:shock: Hard and rebound Ace are 2 different surface ??? R u a Agassi fan?
 
phoenicks said:
strongest players on different surfaces:
grass - sampras
hard - sampras
carpet - sampras
clay - guga
rebound ace - agassi



Oh:shock: Hard and rebound Ace are 2 different surface ??? R u a Agassi fan?
Click to expand...

no i just made some difference between us hard and aus hard since many people say its not the same surface
if you want overall hard - its definitely sampras
 
It's funny how in all the latest GOAT threads Federer is rarely even mentioned as a possibility. Either some people have really short memories, or the last 4 years did not really happen.

I bet the OP actually thought of giving Nadal the Wimbeldon GOAT title, while not even considering Federer as an option.

"Nadal is only 22, and he's won the French 4 times. He will probably win at least a couple more. Bottom-line: Nadal is stronger than Borg on clay."

In the same way, Federer can win Wimbeldon a few more times too. So what? You never know what's going happen. Need I remind you that it was Federer who defeated Samprass at Wimbeldon? That doesn't make him the Wimbledon GOAT does it?

"Because Federer lost a Wimby final, he will never be Wimbledon GOAT."

So by that logic losing a Wimbly final is worse than losing a semi-final or even before that. Again - Samprass lost to Federer, at Wimbeldon. Nadal lost twice to Federer - at Wimbeldon. I don't like all of these GOAT stuff and I agree Smaprass (for now) is the Wimbeldon master. But to say Federer has no chance of becoming just that after 5 straight wins is a pathetic joke.

Biased thread from yet another biased Nadal fan.
 
There are many different types of hard courts, and Rebound Ace is one of them. Every tournament, even if they share the same type of surface, still have unique qualities to their own surface.

Hard court is a general category. ATP stats count carpet as an indoor hardcourt surface.
 
Nadal-GOAT said:
Because Federer lost a Wimby final, he will never be Wimbledon GOAT.
Click to expand...

Sure he will, if he gets two more wins at Wimb. you can make an argument he is GOAT compared to Sampras. And if he bangs off three more grass titles then he is GOAT indeed.

That 2008 loss in the finals means nothing if he can get as many titles as Sampras. In fact is "helps" prove it due to that would be 8 Wimbledon finals, to Sampras's seven.

Sure, if Federer finishes with 5 or 6 Wimbeledon titles then he won't be GOAT but its too early to write him off.
 
"Name me one match where Federer fought tooth-and-nail to win." - Well, there are many, but the one that comes right to mind is Fed vs. Tips AO 2008. He was in trouble and barely won the match.
 
As a big-time Nadal fan, I actually appreciate Federer's game immensely. No one else possessed the overall effortless technique that he has. And no one else executed high-risk tennis at the baseline like he has, where high-risk tennis before Federer was charging the net.

Because Federer attempts shots that are high-risk, i.e. hitting outright winners when their opponent is in a neutral position. (Normally it is wiser to attempt to hit winners when their opponent is in a defensive position, i.e. out-of-position). This is great when he's executing beautifully, but when he is not, it is painful to watch as the unforced errors pile up; just look at this year's French Open final. Nadal didn't need to play great tennis. He just served and hit the majority of his shots to Federer's backhand, and he just let Federer make a noose for himself. Tactically, the 2008 French Open final was the worse ever performance by not only Federer, but any #1 in history.
 
Nadal-GOAT said:
As a big-time Nadal fan, I actually appreciate Federer's game immensely. No one else possessed the overall effortless technique that he has. And no one else executed high-risk tennis at the baseline like he has, where high-risk tennis before Federer was charging the net.

Because Federer attempts shots that are high-risk, i.e. hitting outright winners when their opponent is in a neutral position. (Normally it is wiser to attempt to hit winners when their opponent is in a defensive position, i.e. out-of-position). This is great when he's executing beautifully, but when he is not, it is painful to watch as the unforced errors pile up; just look at this year's French Open final. Nadal didn't need to play great tennis. He just served and hit the majority of his shots to Federer's backhand, and he just let Federer make a noose for himself. Tactically, the 2008 French Open final was the worse ever performance by not only Federer, but any #1 in history.
Click to expand...

yes it was a terrible FO final. but he changed his gameplan from the past couple years, in which people were criticizing him for not s&ving against nadal. it was a terrible #1 performance. but everyone has their bad days. and you can't judge him just by that 1 performance, which i think is his worst by fra.

you are obviously bias. your logic in deciding these GOAT ideas are bias because nadal, who is 2 short of borg, is your clay GOAT, and federer's also only 2 short of sampras, and is not the GOAT.
 
P_Agony said:
It's funny how in all the latest GOAT threads Federer is rarely even mentioned as a possibility. Either some people have really short memories, or the last 4 years did not really happen.

I bet the OP actually thought of giving Nadal the Wimbeldon GOAT title, while not even considering Federer as an option.

"Nadal is only 22, and he's won the French 4 times. He will probably win at least a couple more. Bottom-line: Nadal is stronger than Borg on clay."

In the same way, Federer can win Wimbeldon a few more times too. So what? You never know what's going happen. Need I remind you that it was Federer who defeated Samprass at Wimbeldon? That doesn't make him the Wimbledon GOAT does it?

"Because Federer lost a Wimby final, he will never be Wimbledon GOAT."

So by that logic losing a Wimbly final is worse than losing a semi-final or even before that. Again - Samprass lost to Federer, at Wimbeldon. Nadal lost twice to Federer - at Wimbeldon. I don't like all of these GOAT stuff and I agree Smaprass (for now) is the Wimbeldon master. But to say Federer has no chance of becoming just that after 5 straight wins is a pathetic joke.

Biased thread from yet another biased Nadal fan.
Click to expand...

seconded. agree with every point.
 
you are obviously bias. your logic in deciding these GOAT ideas are bias because nadal, who is 2 short of borg, is your clay GOAT, and federer's also only 2 short of sampras, and is not the GOAT.
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]

No the Logic is perfectly fine.

Nadal is only 22 and he has been utterly dominant during clay season from 2005-2008 , thus it's reasonable to make him a clay GOAT.

While Federer on the other hand, is reaching 27, way past his prime and proabably had to work his butt to win a wimbledon.

In short, Nadal's chances of winning more FO and clay titles is higher then Fed's chances of winning Wimbledon in view of the current trend !!!
 
In my book, Sampras has a higher GOAT status than Federer because Sampras has a winning percentage over almost all his opponents who won Grand Slam titles in the 1990's:

Agassi (8 GS titles): 20-14
Becker (6 GS titles): 12-7
Edberg (6 GS titles): 8-6
Courier (4 GS titles): 16-4
Rafter (2 GS titles): 12-4
Kafelnikov (2 GS titles: 11-2
Chang (1 GS title): 12-8
Ivanisevic (1 GS title): 12-6
Muster (1 GS title): 9-2

The following are his opponents in the 1990's who won GS titles and has a winning percentage over Sampras:

Bruguera (2 GS titles): 2-3
Krajicek (1 GS title): 4-6
Stich (1 GS title): 4-5

Even these head-to-head records are very close.
 
Federer's winning head-to-head records against opponents who won GS titles in the 2000's:

Agassi (8 GS titles): 8-3
Hewitt (2 GS titles): 14-7
Safin (2 GS titles): 9-2
Roddick (1 GS title): 15-2
Ferrero (1 GS title): 9-3
Djokovic (1 GS title): 6-2

However here is Federer's head-to-head against Nadal:
Nadal (5 GS titles): 6-12

How can a GOAT be owned like this?
 
How about Nadal's head-to-head against his rivals that either won GS titles or will probably win one:

Federer (12 GS titles): 12-6
Djokovic (1 GS title): 9-3
Murray (0 GS titles): 5-0
Gasquet (0 GS titles): 5-0
 
phoenicks said:
No the Logic is perfectly fine.

Nadal is only 22 and he has been utterly dominant during clay season from 2005-2008 , thus it's reasonable to make him a clay GOAT.

While Federer on the other hand, is reaching 27, way past his prime and proabably had to work his butt to win a wimbledon.

In short, Nadal's chances of winning more FO and clay titles is higher then Fed's chances of winning Wimbledon in view of the current trend !!!
Click to expand...

actually it's not. yes, federer is less likely than nadal to win more wimbledons than nadal is to win more FO's. but his career isn't over, and federer isn't one to rule out. he won 5 wimbly's, and lost the 6th final losing 6-8 in the last set.
 
Nadal-GOAT said:
In my book, Sampras has a higher GOAT status than Federer because Sampras has a winning percentage over almost all his opponents who won Grand Slam titles in the 1990's:

Agassi (8 GS titles): 20-14
Becker (6 GS titles): 12-7
Edberg (6 GS titles): 8-6
Courier (4 GS titles): 16-4
Rafter (2 GS titles): 12-4
Kafelnikov (2 GS titles: 11-2
Chang (1 GS title): 12-8
Ivanisevic (1 GS title): 12-6
Muster (1 GS title): 9-2

The following are his opponents in the 1990's who won GS titles and has a winning percentage over Sampras:

Bruguera (2 GS titles): 2-3
Krajicek (1 GS title): 4-6
Stich (1 GS title): 4-5

Even these head-to-head records are very close.
Click to expand...

Nadal-GOAT said:
Federer's winning head-to-head records against opponents who won GS titles in the 2000's:

Agassi (8 GS titles): 8-3
Hewitt (2 GS titles): 14-7
Safin (2 GS titles): 9-2
Roddick (1 GS title): 15-2
Ferrero (1 GS title): 9-3
Djokovic (1 GS title): 6-2

However here is Federer's head-to-head against Nadal:
Nadal (5 GS titles): 6-12

How can a GOAT be owned like this?
Click to expand...

while federer does get owned by nadal, you forget the fact that there was absolutely no one that could touch him during his reign besides nadal. he purely dominated everyone but one.

besides nadal, who does federer have a losing record to?

Nadal-GOAT said:
How about Nadal's head-to-head against his rivals that either won GS titles or will probably win one:

Federer (12 GS titles): 12-6
Djokovic (1 GS title): 9-3
Murray (0 GS titles): 5-0
Gasquet (0 GS titles): 5-0
Click to expand...

or will probably win one? both are headcases and personally, i don't see either of them winning a slam soon. murray maybe, but i don't have much confidence in him.

this topic is about the GOAT of each surface, and i'm not arguing that federer or sampras is the absolute GOAT.
 
Okay, so regarding Federer, he has a chance to be:

Wimbledon GOAT: If he wins 8 of them (he currently has 5, and Sampras has 7).
US Open GOAT: If he wins 6 of them (he currently has 4, and both Sampras and Connors has 5).
Aussie Open: If he wins 5 of them (he currently has 3, and Agassi has 4).
Roland Garros GOAT: Umm... not possible.

The first act of Federer's career is his rise, from 1998-2002. Then comes the second act of his domination from 2003-2007. Now comes the third act of his career, 2008-2012. This third act is how true champions are remembered. How Federer responds to adversity will be a reflection of great of a champion he is. Again, looking at Sampras is a good model.
 
Federer will not have to work harder to win the US Open, Aussie Open, and Wimbledon. It will be exciting to see him challenged, and see if he rises to the occasion.

As for the French, Federer can only win it if he doesn't face Nadal, just like how Ivanisevic won Wimbledon because Federer knocked Sampras out in the R16's.

Nadal's heavy lefty topspin forehand is just Kryptonite.
 
veritech said:
while federer does get owned by nadal, you forget the fact that there was absolutely no one that could touch him during his reign besides nadal. he purely dominated everyone but one.

besides nadal, who does federer have a losing record to?



or will probably win one? both are headcases and personally, i don't see either of them winning a slam soon. murray maybe, but i don't have much confidence in him.

this topic is about the GOAT of each surface, and i'm not arguing that federer or sampras is the absolute GOAT.
Click to expand...

A 6-12 record is not quite ownage in the sense of Federer owning Roddick, however, that is a huge blemish on Federer's record. He should try to play Nadal as much as possible. The only way Federer can even that record is if they play more on fast hard courts. Forget about clay. Nadal is almost untouchable on that surface.
 
Nadal-GOAT said:
Okay, so regarding Federer, he has a chance to be:

Wimbledon GOAT: If he wins 8 of them (he currently has 5, and Sampras has 7).
US Open GOAT: If he wins 6 of them (he currently has 4, and both Sampras and Connors has 5).
Aussie Open: If he wins 5 of them (he currently has 3, and Agassi has 4).
Roland Garros GOAT: Umm... not possible.

The first act of Federer's career is his rise, from 1998-2002. Then comes the second act of his domination from 2003-2007. Now comes the third act of his career, 2008-2012. This third act is how true champions are remembered. How Federer responds to adversity will be a reflection of great of a champion he is. Again, looking at Sampras is a good model.
Click to expand...


And don't forget, Federer is competing in a "weak" field ( Roddick, old agassi, djokovic who used to Choke ) , and sampras is fighting agaisnt a pool of top talent ( Edberg, Agassi, Rafter and many more ) during his era.

Federer has to win against tougher opponent 2 more times to get his USO GOAT status.

And now federer probably has to bounce back to win a few more slam against better and more mature players to not be regarded as a Dominant Champion with a weak state of mind, particularly when his motivation is lacking. Not easy at all, I'm afraid.
 
Fed at US Open i'd say over Sampras. Sampras won one more than Federer, but Fed has the record for most consecutive.
 
Nadal-GOAT said:
A 6-12 record is not quite ownage in the sense of Federer owning Roddick, however, that is a huge blemish on Federer's record. He should try to play Nadal as much as possible. The only way Federer can even that record is if they play more on fast hard courts. Forget about clay. Nadal is almost untouchable on that surface.
Click to expand...

Away from clay courts, their record is 5-3 Nadal. Fed got unlucky that their matches were on clay 10 times.
 
Federer is the #2 clay courter in the world, yet he is owned on clay courts.

If Federer is unlucky to play Nadal on clay, then Nalbandian is unlucky to play Federer on clay as well since:

Their overall head-to-head of Federer v. Nalbandian is 9-8. If you take away their clay matches and include only hard court and carpet, then the record of Federer v. Nalbandian is 6-8.

And don't forget that Nalbandian blitzed Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic last Fall on indoor hardcourts.
 
Nadal-GOAT said:
A 6-12 record is not quite ownage in the sense of Federer owning Roddick, however, that is a huge blemish on Federer's record. He should try to play Nadal as much as possible. The only way Federer can even that record is if they play more on fast hard courts. Forget about clay. Nadal is almost untouchable on that surface.
Click to expand...

i don't think the record against nadal is that big of a blemish. like i said earlier, he showed dominance over the whole field for years, and if one was to criticize his greatness due to his record just against nadal, then you just don't like federer.
 
Nadal-GOAT said:
Federer is the #2 clay courter in the world, yet he is owned on clay courts.

If Federer is unlucky to play Nadal on clay, then Nalbandian is unlucky to play Federer on clay as well since:

Their overall head-to-head of Federer v. Nalbandian is 9-8. If you take away their clay matches and include only hard court and carpet, then the record of Federer v. Nalbandian is 6-8.

And don't forget that Nalbandian blitzed Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic last Fall on indoor hardcourts.
Click to expand...

the point mansewers is making is that federer virtually doesn't lose against anyone on clay besides nadal and is unlucky to have met nadal in many, many clay court finals.

your analogy with federer and nalbandian is irrelevant because nalbandian does lose to others on clay, not just federer.

nalbandian blitzed federer nadal and djokovic last fall? so what? the fact just highlights his inconsistency.
 
veritech said:
i don't think the record against nadal is that big of a blemish. like i said earlier, he showed dominance over the whole field for years, and if one was to criticize his greatness due to his record just against nadal, then you just don't like federer.
Click to expand...

I actually like Federer and I like his game. What I don't like is his stubbornness in playing down-and-dirty tennis. Sometimes you have to win ugly. I have the feeling that Federer would rather lose beautifully than to win ugly.

Notable beautiful losses by Federer: 2008 Wimbledon Final, 2006 Rome Final.

In Federer's beautiful losses, he always hits more winners than his opponents, even 50% more winners, and sometimes he wins more total points (against Karlovic at Cincy 2008, Stepanek at Rome 2008, against Canas at 2007 Indian Wells and Miami, against Nadal at 2006 Rome and a bunch of other matches).

So tell me, is it smart tennis when you when more total points, and yet you lose the match? Federer does this all the time, which makes me think that he is stubborn.
 
Nadal-GOAT said:
I actually like Federer and I like his game. What I don't like is his stubbornness in playing down-and-dirty tennis. Sometimes you have to win ugly. I have the feeling that Federer would rather lose beautifully than to win ugly.

Notable beautiful losses by Federer: 2008 Wimbledon Final, 2006 Rome Final.

In Federer's beautiful losses, he always hits more winners than his opponents, even 50% more winners, and sometimes he wins more total points (against Karlovic at Cincy 2008, Stepanek at Rome 2008, against Canas at 2007 Indian Wells and Miami, against Nadal at 2006 Rome and a bunch of other matches).

So tell me, is it smart tennis when you when more total points, and yet you lose the match? Federer does this all the time, which makes me think that he is stubborn.
Click to expand...

i don't even know what we're talking about anymore. if you think federer would "lose beautifully than to win ugly" then that's your opinion. doesn't make much sense to me but to each his own.
 
The greatest grass court player ever is probably the greatest player ever, which would be Laver. If not Laver then Gonzales, on the strength of his bigger, more consistent serve.

As for Nadal-Borg, this is one of those discussions that go nowhere, because it is uninformed to argue about these two while completely ignoring Rosewall, Trabert and Cochet - all players with arguably better clay resumes than Nadal. Definitely deeper resumes.
 
CyBorg said:
The greatest grass court player ever is probably the greatest player ever, which would be Laver. If not Laver then Gonzales, on the strength of his bigger, more consistent serve.

As for Nadal-Borg, this is one of those discussions that go nowhere, because it is uninformed to argue about these two while completely ignoring Rosewall, Trabert and Cochet - all players with arguably better clay resumes than Nadal. Definitely deeper resumes.
Click to expand...

thanks for the perspective. i just got so caught up in the nadal-federer discussion that i didn't include anyone else in the GOAT discussions.
 
It's true that Nadal leads the H2H 12-6. However, most of Nadal's wins were on clay. I believe Federer has the upper hand in number of non-clay wins. But seriously, who cares? I believe Blake leads the H2H with Nadal 2-0. Does that make him a better player than Nadal? Not even close.

I'll give you another example. Nadal wasn't able to break the Karlovic serve at Queens (not even once). Federer, at Cincy 2008 was able to do it just once. Andy Murray was the most successful of the bunch, breaking serve quite a few times. Does that make Murray the better player of the three? not at all, even if he leads the H2H of breaking the karlovic serve.

I can find a million more H2H examples that wouldn't matter at all.

Point is - every player has his bad days and his worst competition. It's about momentum, mental ability, and frankly, quite a bit of luck too.

Federer losing at Wimbly 2008 could've just as easily ended the other way around.

That is why I think the whole GOAT thing is stupid. You can't say Federer is the Wimbly GOAT, as he lost to Nadal. You can't say Nadal is the Wimbly GOAT, as he lost to Federer twice and won only once. You can't say Samprass is the Wimbly GOAT, as he lost to Fed. It's a gigantic loop and there are no facts here. The same implies for every other surface and/or GS.

What you can do however, is to appreciate these great players and hope that we continue to enjoy high-quality tennis for many years to come.
 
CyBorg said:
The greatest grass court player ever is probably the greatest player ever, which would be Laver. If not Laver then Gonzales, on the strength of his bigger, more consistent serve.

As for Nadal-Borg, this is one of those discussions that go nowhere, because it is uninformed to argue about these two while completely ignoring Rosewall, Trabert and Cochet - all players with arguably better clay resumes than Nadal. Definitely deeper resumes.
Click to expand...

Rosewall and trabert only have 2 FO, and u said they have better resumes ???:shock: u r having a laugh. Only Cohet can be regarded as a player who have better clay resumes ( 5 times FO winner ) even then, it's way back in end of 20's and beginning of 30's, hardly comparable to the open era !
 
Nadal-GOAT said:
Sampras has 7 Wimbledon titles, Federer only has 5. That stat alone makes Sampras Wimbledon GOAT.
Click to expand...

Borg has 6 French Open titles, Nadal only has 4. That stat alone makes Borg French Open GOAT.


Let's be logic and fair.
And please don’t tell me Nadal could or will win more. I don’t care. Nadal will be the clay GOAT when he will have achieved more than Borg on clay.
Actually we should not even mention GOAT but only greatest of the open era.
 
PERL said:
Borg has 6 French Open titles, Nadal only has 4. That stat alone makes Borg French Open GOAT.


Let's be logic and fair.
And please don’t tell me Nadal could or will win more. I don’t care. Nadal will be the clay GOAT when he will have achieved more than Borg on clay.
Actually we should not even mention GOAT but only greatest of the open era.
Click to expand...

Haven't you figured out there is no logic on these boards whatsoever? Thus, when in Rome ...

Also how do you feel about Ruby on Rails? I still think Perl/cgi-bin is superior. Ruby on Rails is for lazy programmers. E B a y uses Perl/cgi-bin. If it used Ruby on Rails, that whole website would be shut down with all kinds of exception errors all over the place, with their programmers struggling like crazy.
 
P_Agony said:
It's true that Nadal leads the H2H 12-6. However, most of Nadal's wins were on clay. I believe Federer has the upper hand in number of non-clay wins. But seriously, who cares? I believe Blake leads the H2H with Nadal 2-0. Does that make him a better player than Nadal? Not even close.

I'll give you another example. Nadal wasn't able to break the Karlovic serve at Queens (not even once). Federer, at Cincy 2008 was able to do it just once. Andy Murray was the most successful of the bunch, breaking serve quite a few times. Does that make Murray the better player of the three? not at all, even if he leads the H2H of breaking the karlovic serve.

I can find a million more H2H examples that wouldn't matter at all.

Point is - every player has his bad days and his worst competition. It's about momentum, mental ability, and frankly, quite a bit of luck too.

Federer losing at Wimbly 2008 could've just as easily ended the other way around.

That is why I think the whole GOAT thing is stupid. You can't say Federer is the Wimbly GOAT, as he lost to Nadal. You can't say Nadal is the Wimbly GOAT, as he lost to Federer twice and won only once. You can't say Samprass is the Wimbly GOAT, as he lost to Fed. It's a gigantic loop and there are no facts here. The same implies for every other surface and/or GS.

What you can do however, is to appreciate these great players and hope that we continue to enjoy high-quality tennis for many years to come.
Click to expand...

Nadal H2H with Blake is now 2-2

Of coz, H2H in breaking of serve is no meaning, in fact, downright pathetic. But H2H in terms of tennis match does have a meaning as it tell us that Player A is able to win Player B with his repertoire of strokes and tennis style.
 
phoenicks said:
Rosewall and trabert only have 2 FO, and u said they have better resumes ???:shock: u r having a laugh. Only Cohet can be regarded as a player who have better clay resumes ( 5 times FO winner ) even then, it's way back in end of 20's and beginning of 30's, hardly comparable to the open era !
Click to expand...

You sound informed enough to have an opinion on this. Ever heard of the pro/amateur split? Do you know what the big event was that happened in 1968?
 
phoenicks said:
Nadal H2H with Blake is now 2-2

Of coz, H2H in breaking of serve is no meaning, in fact, downright pathetic. But H2H in terms of tennis match does have a meaning as it tell us that Player A is able to win Player B with his repertoire of strokes and tennis style.
Click to expand...

It was meant to look pathetic - that was the point. The point is that those H2H are pathetic, as player A can have a winning lead over player B, who has a winning lead over player C, who has a winning lead over player A. Who's the better player? You can't tell by that. You CAN tell however what is the competition each player struggles against. For Federer it's Nadal, but that hardly means Nadal is the better player (overall). If Nadal was the better player of the two, he would have been #1 in 2006 already, as simple as that, but the truth is that Nadal couldn't do it up until now, despite having a lead in the Federer H2H.
 
Nadal-GOAT said:
Haven't you figured out there is no logic on these boards whatsoever? Thus, when in Rome ...

Also how do you feel about Ruby on Rails? I still think Perl/cgi-bin is superior. Ruby on Rails is for lazy programmers. E B a y uses Perl/cgi-bin. If it used Ruby on Rails, that whole website would be shut down with all kinds of exception errors all over the place, with their programmers struggling like crazy.
Click to expand...

I am not a programmer, thanks God. I know a little bit more about human languages. So I thought we could go back to basics here. Hope this helped. Now I’m going to watch the Cincy final to check out who is the GOAT for today. Have fun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

money_ball
GOAT by surface
2 3 4
Replies
171
Views
14K
abmk
abmk
S
Titles By Surface
Replies
6
Views
1K
coloskier
C
M
Federer and Nadal and Tournaments Won by Surfaces
Replies
7
Views
890
viduka0101
viduka0101
money_ball
A brief history of the Masters/Grand Prix Super Series, 1979-current
Replies
4
Views
758
mr tonyz
M
T
Best male player per surface/conditions - 70s, 9080s, 90s, 00s, 10s
Replies
9
Views
1K
nolefam_2024
nolefam_2024
Back
Top