Applying TW Federer logic Nadal and Emerson are greater than Laver

I am looking at history and facts. Experts? Depends on who you call an "expert" I don't consider JMac and crew experts.

I definitely don't believe in majority. That's just conformity and carries no weight.

Do you believe what JMac says? Because he changes his opinion daily. And, sadly he is the cheerleader of this GOAT talk. Along with Sampras, Agassi, and Laver. If these are your experts their opinions deserve to be ignored since they're written in sand and likely to change with each new accomplishment.

However, when you actually look at what many others say about GOAT this theory is blown out of the water, because GOAT is not determined in this era only. It takes into account all of the accomplishments of past players too, which can't be so easily discounted.

Seriously ..... That was deep.

Bravo !
 
And Nadal DIDN'T get lucky with his USO win?

Exactly, being injury free and caring yourself with a good style of play is another aspect of being a great player.

Not when you change your grip 2 weeks before a Match , increase your speed by 20mph and win almost all the slams in one amazing comeback year.

The pattern with Nadal is very different than Fed and you guys should realize it by now . Don't you see it ?

Nadals game is extremely physical and is very hard on his body . In order for him to continue he must take off for a while , regroup , recharge and comeback stronger than ever.

2009 was one of those years . He tried hard to stay with it .....he should have skipped the FO but didn't ......he realized that of he is not 100 percent he should stay out . So he skipped Wimbledon .

He came back the next year stronger than ever and won the FO , Wimbledon and the USO....( jeez did he skip the AO on 2010?).....

2012 was again one of those years where he should have taken off earlier . After Wimbledon he stayed out and now has worked hard and regrouped yet again.....

I'm not sure he was actually quite ready yet.....but he was not going to skip his beloved clay for any reason. I have a sneaking suspicion he will skip Wimbledon .
 

TheTruth

G.O.A.T.
I agree with you in some parts. We are all biased. But this is a paradox, it evens out. You are biased, saying that goat doesn't exist. What is the purpose of this?

Some things are absolute. Everything is not relative. I disagree for not listening to experts. They are likely to be less biased and more likely to be right. They have track record of success. I won't value opinions of poor people on how to make money. Listening dieting advice from couch potatoes? Unless, they have their information from experts (guys with track record of replicated success).

Well we argue goat because we have a definition. Goat is the guy with best stats. That is general definition. We now argue who has the best stats in context. Of course you can't compare eras. But you can compare numbers with context.

It's not all subjective. It's based on measuring. Math. It's not like what movie is best. It's more like is 17 with context greater than 14 with context. And other things.

But you are saying you don't give a definition for goat. So there is no point in arguing. I get that. But why do you come in goat discussion saying this? It defeats its purpose.

GOAT cannot be absolute because conditions cannot be replicated.

Personally, I think JMac led this charge about GOAT, and in the beginning he hailed Federer as the GOAT. Many FedFans, imo, want to hold onto this. But, notice that no one mentions JMac much any more, like they did in the past, because now he is singing another tune, along with many experts.

Even, during the FO Wertheim and Flink were saying that Nadal, with a few more slams off clay, having reached only 15 majors could have a case for being GOAT. Do you believe this as it comes from the same "experts" you lend so much credence to? That's the problem with the "experts" their opinion keeps changing. Which leads you to wonder, what else are they using to make this claim?

The stats says that Jimmy Connors has 109 titles, does that trump Federer's 76?

The stats also say that Laver completed the CYGS twice, does that trump Federer's Career grand slam?

Borg only played until 25, or 26, so his accomplishments were completed in a shorter period. Does he get credit for that?

These are just a few examples, from which there are many.

If you are going to take the "experts" opinions, then you're going to have to be flexible and move with the wind, because it keeps changing.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
GOAT cannot be absolute because conditions cannot be replicated.

Personally, I think JMac led this charge about GOAT, and in the beginning he hailed Federer as the GOAT. Many FedFans, imo, want to hold onto this. But, notice that no one mentions JMac much any more, like they did in the past, because now he is singing another tune, along with many experts.

Even, during the FO Wertheim and Flink were saying that Nadal, with a few more slams off clay, having reached only 15 majors could have a case for being GOAT. Do you believe this as it comes from the same "experts" you lend so much credence to? That's the problem with the "experts" their opinion keeps changing. Which leads you to wonder, what else are they using to make this claim?

The stats says that Jimmy Connors has 109 titles, does that trump Federer's 76?

The stats also say that Laver completed the CYGS twice, does that trump Federer's Career grand slam?

Borg only played until 25, or 26, so his accomplishments were completed in a shorter period. Does he get credit for that?

These are just a few examples, from which there are many.

If you are going to take the "experts" opinions, then you're going to have to be flexible and move with the wind, because it keeps changing.
still they must bring something to the media and this is why the goat concept has been created. but all it did was to turn the fan bases against each other and create hatred
 

TheTruth

G.O.A.T.
still they must bring something to the media and this is why the goat concept has been created. but all it did was to turn the fan bases against each other and create hatred

Exactly. It has been an effective tool for those who believe in absolute GOATS.
 
still they must bring something to the media and this is why the goat concept has been created. but all it did was to turn the fan bases against each other and create hatred

Actually no.

I'm not sure i should be speaking for the Nadal camp .....

But personally for me it's about Fed not being the greatest.

It doesn't have to be Nadal.....but I do truly believe that on Federers best day and Nadals best day on any current slam surface .....Nadal wins
 

VPhuc tennis fan

Professional
I say take that up with Laver, since he seems to think Nadal and Federer are equals.
I'm asking YOU, TV. Is 17>12? Simple enough, really? Let's say I have $17 in my wallet, whereas you have $12 in yours. Which one of us has MORE money?
Am I spinning lies by asking this simple question?
Another question: since when the greatest ≠ the best? Asking this question qualifies me as the playground bully, or tantrum-throwing brat?
 

VPhuc tennis fan

Professional
Fed did sort of get lucky with that FO. But you have to hand it to him for getting to the finals every year.

Still though .....it was a mediocre win like most of his slams.....

I swear God smiled on Fed....he is the most fortunate player in history .

The man comes along at the right time, never has any personal issues, and never has been injured. It's amazing.

Holy crap! The extent of your delusion! Never ceases to amaze me.
When Fed wins, it's all crap due to God-send luck. When Rafa wins, it's all fair and square!
English must not be your native language, yes? If so, I can understand how you can come up with statement such as "the greatest, but not the best". Holy mother...!
 
Holy crap! The extent of your delusion! Never ceases to amaze me.
When Fed wins, it's all crap due to God-send luck. When Rafa wins, it's all fair and square!
English must not be your native language, yes? If so, I can understand how you can come up with statement such as "the greatest, but not the best". Holy mother...!

Fed has not beaten Nadal in a slam for 6 years .

Nadal owns Fed.

Exactly how many more times must Nadal wipe the floor with your golden boy until you are beaten into submission ?
 

cronus

Professional
Exactly how many more times must Nadal wipe the floor with your golden boy until you are beaten into submission ?

Rosol owns nadal he mowed the Wimbledon court lawn with him in 2012 and will do so if they ever meet in again, no matter how much he grunts,delays time or complains to umpire about a banana stuck in his throat he will be used as lawn mower over and over again.
 
Rosol owns nadal he mowed the Wimbledon court lawn with him in 2012 and will do so if they ever meet in again, no matter how much he grunts,delays time or complains to umpire about a banana stuck in his throat he will be used as lawn mower over and over again.

Yes Rosol won . It was an upset .....is this the only glee you can get ? It's pretty sad when your hero can't get the job done isn't it?

Pretty pathetic if you ask me .

I'm sorry but nothing absolutely nothing will take away the pain of losing 2008 Wimbledon in his own house and the greatest match in history .

It is the most famous match of all time . It will never be forgotten and it marked the end of Federer wins against Nadal.

Never again would Federer beat Nadal in a slam. And for the rest of Federers career Roger became nothing more than Nadals whipping boy .

That's the greatest player ever ? Not in my book ....not even close . I don't care what the records say..... When you are beaten that badly that often you just can't claim to be the greatest ever . Insanity .
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
Don't know but it sure as hell ain't a whipping boy.

It's just that every great player has glaring holes in their résumé, so I wonder who the GOAT could be. Maybe it's Laver, he seems to have no bad h2h records plus he won many Majors over a long period of time and managed to win a Calendar Year Grand Slam. If it's not Federer then obviously it's really hilarious to imagine it could be anyone from this era as Federer has the greater overall set of records at the moment. Having said that, if Nadal keeps going as he is he might have a legitimate claim in a couple of years time of being the best of the best. What do you reckon?
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Yes Rosol won . It was an upset .....is this the only glee you can get ? It's pretty sad when your hero can't get the job done isn't it?

Pretty pathetic if you ask me .

I'm sorry but nothing absolutely nothing will take away the pain of losing 2008 Wimbledon in his own house and the greatest match in history .

It is the most famous match of all time . It will never be forgotten and it marked the end of Federer wins against Nadal.

Never again would Federer beat Nadal in a slam. And for the rest of Federers career Roger became nothing more than Nadals whipping boy .

That's the greatest player ever ? Not in my book ....not even close . I don't care what the records say..... When you are beaten that badly that often you just can't claim to be the greatest ever . Insanity .
what do you mean that badly? he simply lost a lot of close matches that's all. credit to nadal for being better in pressure moments but those matches could have gone either way. it is just that nadal happened to come out on top
 

cronus

Professional
Don't know but it sure as hell ain't a whipping boy.

Rosol and Tony is and always will be his whipping boy, i agree.

Pretty pathetic if you ask me .

If i ask you? no i wont ask you,i will ask soderling :)

For the record federer is not my hero,but i think he is a better player than any one in the current generation,never been a fan of nadal because he is a slave, slave to many rituals and to uncle tony,he is not a free man.Never liked to watch him play because of his style and the funny rituals, which some times makes me laugh so much i never take any of his matches seriously.

I'm sorry but nothing absolutely nothing will take away the pain of losing 2008 Wimbledon in his own house and the greatest match in history .

It is the most famous match of all time . It will never be forgotten and it marked the end of Federer wins against Nadal.

Never again would Federer beat Nadal in a slam. And for the rest of Federers career Roger became nothing more than Nadals whipping boy .

Again, all those matches nadal out survived federer with all his grunting,time violation,in match coaching and baseline slogging,those were nothing short of surviving to be alive when some one on the other end is whipping you left and right, finally the guy who whips gets tired and goes home to take rest,the surviver gets the title of dominator, that's how funny it is :)this the story of almost of all of nadal's win against federer.

Nadal got owned and been hammered in many GS during his prime,faced early throw out due to hammering,he got served begal during his prime,he been the whipping boy of many players who hammered him out of tournaments without having to run around for 5 hours and waiting for the opponent to fall asleep.

I don't care what you think, nadal is not on the same planet as anything close to great when he has been hammered so many times from grand slams.
 

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
Rosol owns nadal he mowed the Wimbledon court lawn with him in 2012 and will do so if they ever meet in again, no matter how much he grunts,delays time or complains to umpire about a banana stuck in his throat he will be used as lawn mower over and over again.

WOW! A new, aggressive *******! Welcome to the fray :grin:
 
Well done :)

Say all you want about rosol.....it just make Fed look even worse.

Soderling and Rosol did something Federer cannot.

Therefore how can Fed be the greatest??

You guys dig your own grave......

In fact Joker came much closer then aged could even dream of at the FO.....and if you ask me Joker is a far better clay court player than Fed......

In fact I think both Joker and Nadal are better than Fed.
 
You can also reverse that. During his prime Federer only got beaten by the clay GOAT and a potential overall GOAT candidate. OTOH, Nadal got beaten by a bunch of slamless wonders during his prime, Soderling, Tsonga, Ferrer, Rosol, and 1-slam wonders Murray (2x) and Delpo.

I guess this means the inevitable GOAT is Djokovic :)
 
Say all you want about rosol.....it just make Fed look even worse.

Soderling and Rosol did something Federer cannot.

Therefore how can Fed be the greatest??

You guys dig your own grave......

In fact Joker came much closer then aged could even dream of at the FO.....and if you ask me Joker is a far better clay court player than Fed......

In fact I think both Joker and Nadal are better than Fed.

Rosol beat Nadal at wimby, Fed beat nadal at wimby as well (in two finals), how does that make Rosol's accomplishment "something Fed cannot"
 

VPhuc tennis fan

Professional
Fed has not beaten Nadal in a slam for 6 years .

Nadal owns Fed.

Exactly how many more times must Nadal wipe the floor with your golden boy until you are beaten into submission ?

Until Rafa gets equal # of GS titles that Fed does, AND SURPASSES it! Count your sheep, TDK
BTW, where's that list I demanded to see several times where Rafa's # are SUPERIOR to Fed? Without counting the h2h, FO titles.
Perhaps I should ask for the list of 'bs' excuses? It would come pretty fast since you have it written already. Things such as:
1) well, Rafa was still a boy...not a man yet....So laughable!
2) parent divorce...Big issue but in the bigger context, do you know how many billions of people face the same drama? Just curious. Make it sound like ONLY Rafa has that problem.
3) knee problems...well, well, is that a problem that Fed has to fix for your golden boy?
4) did NOT participate in tourneys...well, well, shoulda, coulda, woulda.... bla bla bla
should I go on? Show me the numbers.
BTW, the greatest=the best in (proper) English speaking.
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
I'm asking YOU, TV. Is 17>12?

You are playing the game where someone says, "17 is greater than 12," which you leads you to say, "argument over. Federer is better than Nadal and/or GOAT." Not playing that, chum.

However, for those of the Federer fringe who want to rely on GOAT Laver as their would-be "gotcha" about the GOAT debate (seen in this thread), then they have to accept his statement that Nadal & Federer are equal, thus the debate--for the fringe--is over: if you believe Federer is a GOAT, then according to your appeal to authority, Nadal is co-GOAT.

Case closed.

Asking this question qualifies me as the playground bully, or tantrum-throwing brat?

You are coming up with your titles. Pick your favorite, then apply.
 

VPhuc tennis fan

Professional
You are playing the game where someone says, "17 is greater than 12," which you leads you to say, "argument over. Federer is better than Nadal and/or GOAT." Not playing that, chum.

However, for those of the Federer fringe who want to rely on GOAT Laver as their would-be "gotcha" about the GOAT debate (seen in this thread), then they have to accept his statement that Nadal & Federer are equal, thus the debate--for the fringe--is over: if you believe Federer is a GOAT, then according to your appeal to authority, Nadal is co-GOAT.

Case closed.



You are coming up with your titles. Pick your favorite, then apply.
I didn't appeal to Laver. Just asking you a simple arithmetic question. Is 17>12? No need to pull Laver in it. :)
Second, as for the playground bully, you were the one coining it to me in your previous to add that flaming antics don't help. See, all your words.
I don't need to play 'gotcha' game. If Rafa is superior to Fed, just show me the numbers instead of dodging the questions. At least Hitman came up with some numbers, which I appreciated. I also replied by showing another list where Rafa CLEARLY is NOT superior to Fed. Show me the list of yours then.
Fed, GOAT or no GOAT. I don't give a rat's *** about it. What I care is some objectivity in your claim. Show me the numbers or the list proving that Rafa is superior to Fed. Preferably in many categories, and not 1, or 2.
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
You are playing the game where someone says, "17 is greater than 12," which you leads you to say, "argument over. Federer is better than Nadal and/or GOAT." Not playing that, chum.

However, for those of the Federer fringe who want to rely on GOAT Laver as their would-be "gotcha" about the GOAT debate (seen in this thread), then they have to accept his statement that Nadal & Federer are equal, thus the debate--for the fringe--is over: if you believe Federer is a GOAT, then according to your appeal to authority, Nadal is co-GOAT.

Case closed.



You are coming up with your titles. Pick your favorite, then apply.

Who do you think the great Rod Laver believes are the Top 10 Players of the Past and Present?

Here are his picks. (With his usual humility, he excludes himself, of course.)

PAST
10. John Newcombe (AUS)
9. Jack Crawford (AUS)
8. Bobby Riggs (USA)
7. Ellsworth Vines (USA)
6. Ken Rosewall (AUS)
5. Fred Perry (GBR)
4. Don Budge (USA)
3. Pancho Gonzalez (USA)
2. Jack Kramer (USA)
1. Lew Hoad (AUS)

PRESENT (OPEN ERA)
10. Stefan Edberg (SWE)
9. Ivan Lendl (USA)
8. Jimmy Connors (USA)
7. Andre Agassi (USA)
6. Novak Djokovic (SER)
5. Rafael Nadal (ESP)
4. John McEnroe (USA)
3. Pete Sampras (USA)
2. Bjorn Borg (SWE)
1. Roger Federer (SUI)
 
Rod Laver is a nice old man and is a legend . Probably better than Federer was for his day. His opinion is definitely important but it is not the be all end all.

You also have to take a look at what he actually said . First off he said he didn't even know if there is such a thing as greatest .....and he also said this

Regarding Federer and Nadal :


“They're very close. Are they great champions and do they have equal abilities? I'd say 'yes', they're pretty much equal.” Rod Laver
 
Pete Sampras :

When asked whether Nadal needed to pad his resume to cement his place among the sport's all-time greats, Sampras said, "Quite honestly, I don't think he needs to."
"He's won all the majors. He's won the Olympics. He's dominated his main rival, in Roger," Sampras said, referring to the Spaniard's 14-7 head-to-head edge over the Swiss master.
"I don't think his goal is 16, or 17 or 18. He's just going to try to improve as a tennis player and if it happens, great.
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
Who do you think the great Rod Laver believes are the Top 10 Players of the Past and Present?

Here are his picks. (With his usual humility, he excludes himself, of course.)


PRESENT (OPEN ERA)
10. Stefan Edberg (SWE)
9. Ivan Lendl (USA)
8. Jimmy Connors (USA)
7. Andre Agassi (USA)
6. Novak Djokovic (SER)
5. Rafael Nadal (ESP)
4. John McEnroe (USA)
3. Pete Sampras (USA)
2. Bjorn Borg (SWE)
1. Roger Federer (SUI)

You are not very experienced with Laver's PR track record if you believe this list. When McEnroe was active, he said he believed John could become the greatest player. When Sampras was rolling, he said the same thing. Now, he says this about Federer AND Nadal. It is quite obvious he believes he promoting the survival of the game by picking the then-current strongest players as a potential GOAT (depsite the fact he's repeatedly said there's no way to judge that).

Moreover, you cannot ignore the recently linked article where he says Nadal and Federer are equals.

You have not proved a thing.
 
Last edited:
How many more times do I have to tell you not to treat all matches equally? Do you think that grand slams are worth less or more than a regular tournament ? Are they not called "Grand" for a reason?

And in the slams it's 8-2 ( barely 2) and three of the matches were not on clay. Federer has not beaten Nadal in a slam since 2007 .....or 6 years! It's complete and utter domination .....actually the worst in history.

How much more of a beating will it take exactly ?
It is still 3-2 off clay, 0-2 in Federers prime.
 
There seems to be some miscommunication regarding Laver quotes. Let's get it right shall we?

With regards to "I'd say 'yes', they're pretty much equal.” This is taken out of context. It is in response to "Are they great champions and do they have equal abilities? I'd say 'yes', they're pretty much equal.”

However, preceding this is the quote “Roger Federer certainly is my claim to be the best of all time if there is such a thing,” said the 73-year-old Australian."
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
You are not very experienced with Laver's PR track record if you believe this list. When McEnroe was active, he said he believed John could become the greatest player. When Sampras was rolling, he said the same thing. Now, he says this about Federer AND Nadal. It is quite obvious he believes he promoting the survival of the game by picking the then-current strongest players as a potential GOAT (depsite the fact he's repeatedly said there's no way to judge that).

Moreover, you cannot ignore the recently linked article where he says Nadal and Federer are equals.

You have not proved a thing.

You are contradicting yourself. So this means he is only promoting Nadal by saying he is not far behind? This means by your theory, we should not listen to him also about Nadal being close behind.

You are just listening his opinion when it suits you.

I have proven Laver's opinion of top 10 in the open era. This is different. If he is promoting with this list, why does he put Nadal on the 5th place?

This also disproves your theory that experts don't put Fed as the goat. Some do, some don't. Also experts saying you can't compare eras, they don't mean Federer is not the goat. It means, we can't 100% know who is the goat.

I will throw you a bone. If Laver thinks, Federer is the goat, this doesn't make it so.

In all sports, goat is somewhat subjective. It's putting the numbers across eras into context. Goat is different for different people. But, there is general agreement what has most value in the open era.

People don't want to push Fed as goat and then search for evidence. Greatness "formula" was around before Fed even existed. And people saw Fed fits it. It's the other way around. Not what you think.

Also, Laver says Nadal is from different era. Nadal says this also. This means Fed is best even on clay in his era and he dominates all of his rivals.
So, Fed doesn't have any holes, if we subscribe to this theory.

I don't know what do you even try to argue. Who do you put as the best of open era? Sampras, Nadal, Borg? And why? It's not like there are a lot of goat contenders. Just a few.

I don't understand why do you think that Fed with best stats of the open era, is not the goat.
 

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
All this relying on Laver's opinion. Hypothetically, what if Roger ends up saying he thinks Laver is the goat? Does that make it a fact?
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
All this relying on Laver's opinion. Hypothetically, what if Roger ends up saying he thinks Laver is the goat? Does that make it a fact?

No, we just don't rely on Laver's opinion but many other ex-players and experts. The reason why Laver is bought up because people are still in denial. Whatever Fed believe who's the goat, that doesn't deter most fans who believe he's the great. MJ or Rice can keep saying they are not the greatest, but still, most fans will always stick to them as being the greatest.
 
All this relying on Laver's opinion. Hypothetically, what if Roger ends up saying he thinks Laver is the goat? Does that make it a fact?

"Look. There's many former players, many experts, who think they know everything. Sometimes they're right, but they can also be wrong. You can't always listen to them, especially as a player. From a former top player -- almost a legend of the game -- to hear stuff like this is obviously very disappointing. I thought I got along well with him; I probably still am, because he never told these things to my face. Next time I see him, maybe I'll say something. Or maybe he's not a man to be around for me. Because if you say stuff like this? There's professional and there's friendship, but if you cross the line too many times eventually you're going to lose your friends. That's maybe what he's doing."
-- Roger Federer on Mats Wilanders' comments that he had "no balls" when playing against Rafael Nadal.
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
All this relying on Laver's opinion. Hypothetically, what if Roger ends up saying he thinks Laver is the goat? Does that make it a fact?

No. But it proves that Federer haters are wrong saying, that only delusional Fed fans put Federer as goat and that experts don't agree.

Laver is just one example of proving, they are wrong. Goat is somewhat subjective. Not in the strict sense like what is the best movie of all time, since we have numbers.

So, does majority opinion matter or doesn't. Majority believes Earth is round.
Does this make it a fact? I don't know. Opinions are based on facts.

Is perception of reality the truth? If majority decides, that there is a goat and they agree on the criteria, can there be a goat?

You tell me, what is a fact? How do we decide what a fact is?
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
"Look. There's many former players, many experts, who think they know everything. Sometimes they're right, but they can also be wrong. You can't always listen to them, especially as a player. From a former top player -- almost a legend of the game -- to hear stuff like this is obviously very disappointing. I thought I got along well with him; I probably still am, because he never told these things to my face. Next time I see him, maybe I'll say something. Or maybe he's not a man to be around for me. Because if you say stuff like this? There's professional and there's friendship, but if you cross the line too many times eventually you're going to lose your friends. That's maybe what he's doing."
-- Roger Federer on Mats Wilanders' comments that he had "no balls" when playing against Rafael Nadal.

Haha, nice find. I remember this.
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
You are just listening his opinion when it suits you.

Said the person who only quotes Laver...wait for it...when his opinion suits your pro-Federer agenda.

Go figure.

I have proven Laver's opinion of top 10 in the open era. This is different. If he is promoting with this list, why does he put Nadal on the 5th place?

What is the date of that list.

...and of course, you skip over his own statement about Nadal and Federer being equal. So, as others have stated, Laver's opinions flip flop; one day, Nadal is #5, another day, he is equal, which ties into his support of the strongest players in order to promote the sport.

This also disproves your theory that experts don't put Fed as the goat.

Get your facts straight, as I never said "all experts do not say he's a GOAT," but they do flip flop on opinion, or never had him in the position at all.

In all sports, goat is somewhat subjective. It's putting the numbers across eras into context.[/quote]

Eras do not matter, as proven in the baseball example--it is about accomplishment.

People don't want to push Fed as goat and then search for evidence. Greatness "formula" was around before Fed even existed. And people saw Fed fits it. It's the other way around. Not what you think.

Blanket statement which (of course) ignores that Laver and Graf were rountinely referred to as GOAT after they won the Grand Slam. That formula has existed for decades---funny how it is ignored when judging Federer.

The agenda is clear.

I don't understand why do you think that Fed with best stats of the open era, is not the goat.

He does not have the most important Open Era stat of all: the Grand Slam. Without the supreme achievement, he's fighting for the "best of the rest," nothing more, nothing less.
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
Said the person who only quotes Laver...wait for it...when his opinion suits your pro-Federer agenda.

Go figure.



What is the date of that list.

...and of course, you skip over his own statement about Nadal and Federer being equal. So, as others have stated, Laver's opinions flip flop; one day, Nadal is #5, another day, he is equal, which ties into his support of the strongest players in order to promote the sport.



Get your facts straight, as I never said "all experts do not say he's a GOAT," but they do flip flop on opinion, or never had him in the position at all.

In all sports, goat is somewhat subjective. It's putting the numbers across eras into context.

Eras do not matter, as proven in the baseball example--it is about accomplishment.



Blanket statement which (of course) ignores that Laver and Graf were rountinely referred to as GOAT after they won the Grand Slam. That formula has existed for decades---funny how it is ignored when judging Federer.

The agenda is clear.



He does not have the most important Open Era stat of all: the Grand Slam. Without the supreme achievement, he's fighting for the "best of the rest," nothing more, nothing less.[/QUOTE]

You have no reasons to argue with me, because I don't put Laver in the open era. He is from split fields. I only compare modern tennis players against each other. And from those Fed is the best. Majority thinks so.

I consider Laver pre modern tennis. Totally different game for me and I don't even compare. It's like apples and oranges because game changed too much.

So you can have Laver the goat of non modern tennis, I don't mind.
But you are making a mistake trying to compare Fed and Laver.

But Federer is still better than Sampras, Nadal, Borg. I never even argue Fed vs Laver.

So, you are barking at the wrong tree.
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
I think Djokovic can now legitimately be argued to be greater than Federer now given how he's won most of his Majors having to go through Federer or Nadal and also had a dominant peak year where he was able to crush his main rival in all finals, the same guy who crushed who was 'the man' in Roger Federer.


Some people may laugh at my assertion but I believe it to be true that you should laugh because it's absolutely hilarious.
 
Top