Balanced slam distribution is better? Think again

Let's suppose a player emerges in the near future that manages to win 20 GS at an exact distribution of 5-5-5-5. What happens there? That player wouldn't be the GOAT of anything and that would be deemed the biggest hole in their resume. There is no objectivity to slam distribution and it is a useless argument.
They would say this players is not dominant in one aspect, while Djoker had HC, Rafa had clay, and Fed had grass. You cant win in a "tiger" debate.
 

Fedforever

Hall of Fame
Presumably the reason tennis has multiple surfaces is because it's felt to be important that a player demonstrates the ability to win in different conditions? A player with a 5-5-5-5 has demonstrated this ability whereas one who wins all 20 at one event has not.
If you're going to say distribution doesn't matter then that's really an argument for all tennis matches to be played on one surface.
 
Balanced is always better. It means you're more versatile. If a players wins 28 slams, 7 at each slam. vs one who wins 28 slams all at USO. First player is better overall.
No I guess player with 28 us open will have a say that he won slam at the age of 45-50 or even more which is like a distant dream for any pro player.
 

ForehandRF

Hall of Fame
Balance matters in the GOAT conversation.For example Nadal is by far the greatest on clay, but players like Federer, Djokovic and Sampras are better hardcourt and grass court players than him.That's 2 out of 3 surfaces.
 
Last edited:

Bukmeikara

Legend
Balance matters in the GOAT conversation.For example Nadal is by far the greatest on clay, but players like Federer, Djokovic and Sampras are better hardcourt and grass court players than him.That's 2 out of 3 surfaces.
That is not a fair argument given that hard is 60% of the season, clay 30% and grass 10%. There are no actual rules for balance, its all subjective. If anything Nadal has a decent balance himself
 

ForehandRF

Hall of Fame
That is not a fair argument given that hard is 60% of the season, clay 30% and grass 10%. There are no actual rules for balance, its all subjective. If anything Nadal has a decent balance himself
Yes, hardcourt predominates, but maybe that's because it's considered a neutral surface.
 
Presumably the reason tennis has multiple surfaces is because it's felt to be important that a player demonstrates the ability to win in different conditions? A player with a 5-5-5-5 has demonstrated this ability whereas one who wins all 20 at one event has not.
If you're going to say distribution doesn't matter then that's really an argument for all tennis matches to be played on one surface.
I think it's just because tennis evolved that way over time - i.e. Wimbledon starting out on the English lawns, the clay courts emerging in the hotter climate of France, and eventually hard courts taking over in the US/Australia in the 80s (due to less/ cheaper maintenance? Not sure). In any case, tennis wasn't perfectly designed to have slams with different surface challenges for the greats - it's just a happy coincidence that things have played out that way.
 

JaoSousa

Semi-Pro
Let's suppose a player emerges in the near future that manages to win 20 GS at an exact distribution of 5-5-5-5. What happens there? That player wouldn't be the GOAT of anything and that would be deemed the biggest hole in their resume. There is no objectivity to slam distribution and it is a useless argument.
Well I might actually consider him the goat because he has 5 CGS. And imagine how good he would have to be to win on clay, grass, and hard at the same percentage! I think distribution matters, but not just because they look good. And while I do think most of Rafa's results are clay-skewed, it doesn't bring him down. It just shows how unbelievably good he is on clay compared to everybody else, and the fact that he could adapt his game to all the other surfaces.
 

mbm0912

Hall of Fame
Let's suppose a player emerges in the near future that manages to win 20 GS at an exact distribution of 5-5-5-5. What happens there? That player wouldn't be the GOAT of anything and that would be deemed the biggest hole in their resume. There is no objectivity to slam distribution and it is a useless argument.
How many Laver Cups??
 

Shaolin

G.O.A.T.
Let's suppose a player emerges in the near future that manages to win 20 GS at an exact distribution of 5-5-5-5. What happens there? That player wouldn't be the GOAT of anything and that would be deemed the biggest hole in their resume. There is no objectivity to slam distribution and it is a useless argument.
:rolleyes::rolleyes: The stupidity here never ceases.

When people say tennis Goat it is built in that it's across all surfaces, aka overall Goat.

Otherwise it is prefaced with the surface the player is Goat of, like Clay Goat.

A true Goat of tennis has mastered all playing fields like Federer and Djokovic.
 

zipplock

Semi-Pro
Let's suppose a player emerges in the near future that manages to win 20 GS at an exact distribution of 5-5-5-5. What happens there? That player wouldn't be the GOAT of anything and that would be deemed the biggest hole in their resume. There is no objectivity to slam distribution and it is a useless argument.
Disagree. That would be the most well rounded, balanced player ever!!!!
 

Imperator

Hall of Fame
5-5-5-5 would actually be very impressive and hard to achieve. Don't focus too much on the number 5 and look at the big picture.
 
Last edited:

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
Presumably the reason tennis has multiple surfaces is because it's felt to be important that a player demonstrates the ability to win in different conditions? A player with a 5-5-5-5 has demonstrated this ability whereas one who wins all 20 at one event has not.
If you're going to say distribution doesn't matter then that's really an argument for all tennis matches to be played on one surface.
Not that it doesn´t matter, but that it isn´t a KEY argument.

The most important thing BY FAR is that a player of this stature has won ALL FOUR slams. The distribution makes little difference to me after that. Every slam requires 7 bestof5 matches against the entire elite participating. A slam win is a slam win. Simple.

Winning one of each is enough proof of versatility. Whoever doesn´t consider this enough proof, they know nothing about tennis.

RF fans have been denigrating Rafa´s FO dominance for over a decade, and it gets funnier every time. Instead of being in awe that someone actually managed to dominate a slam/surface to this absurd record-breaking extent, they make childish and moronic arguments that clay is inferior, that it is filthy, and that only the holy grass whereon cows graze can be the ONE TRUE SURFACE, because as we know cows are holy animals or whatever, hence grass is holier than clay which cows aren´t interested in.

FACT IS, that neither Novak nor RF have won all four slams multiple times, hence they are really no "better" than Rafa in that regard. When Novak and RF win severa FOs then we can talk about this again. Until then... Surface distribution nonsense will remain a subject that the last remnants of Fedfan harakiri soldiers lost on an island will cling on to, as they cling on to all sorts of nonsense just to justify their own delusion that their tennis god is infallible and unbeatable when playing during his imaginary prime/peak/shmeep.
 

van_Loederen

Professional
:rolleyes::rolleyes: The stupidity here never ceases.

When people say tennis Goat it is built in that it's across all surfaces, aka overall Goat.

Otherwise it is prefaced with the surface the player is Goat of, like Clay Goat.

A true Goat of tennis has mastered all playing fields like Federer and Djokovic.
how have they "mastered" Roland Garros ? and which "playing field" Nadal has not mastered?

OP is talking about Slam count and meanwhile Nadal has 5 titles on hardcourt, just like that 5555 player has on clay and grass.
 

Fiero425

Hall of Fame
Not that it doesn´t matter, but that it isn´t a KEY argument.

The most important thing BY FAR is that a player of this stature has won ALL FOUR slams. The distribution makes little difference to me after that. Every slam requires 7 bestof5 matches against the entire elite participating. A slam win is a slam win. Simple.

Winning one of each is enough proof of versatility. Whoever doesn´t consider this enough proof, they know nothing about tennis.

RF fans have been denigrating Rafa´s FO dominance for over a decade, and it gets funnier every time. Instead of being in awe that someone actually managed to dominate a slam/surface to this absurd record-breaking extent, they make childish and moronic arguments that clay is inferior, that it is filthy, and that only the holy grass whereon cows graze can be the ONE TRUE SURFACE, because as we know cows are holy animals or whatever, hence grass is holier than clay which cows aren´t interested in.

FACT IS, that neither Novak nor RF have won all four slams multiple times, hence they are really no "better" than Rafa in that regard. When Novak and RF win several FOs then we can talk about this again. Until then... Surface distribution nonsense will remain a subject that the last remnants of Fedfan harakiri soldiers lost on an island will cling on to, as they cling on to all sorts of nonsense just to justify their own delusion that their tennis god is infallible and unbeatable when playing during his imaginary prime/peak/shmeep.
But you're probably overlooking the other records that are "wanting" outside that MAJRO count when it comes Nadal! No doubt, he will probably pass Federer next year and will deserve to be called the GOAT, but purist will want to reference the entire record! It wasn't until this year that Nadal finally defended a HC title! He still hasn't had much of a sniff when it comes to the YEC; often eliminated early or WD's due to his lack of success and injury! Being ranked #1 gets a boost if Nole doesn't defend points from last year! I could go on! Fedalovic all have something that on their resumes that give them hope of becoming "THE GOAT!" :unsure:
 

Shaolin

G.O.A.T.
how have they "mastered" Roland Garros ? and which "playing field" Nadal has not mastered?

OP is talking about Slam count and meanwhile Nadal has 5 titles on hardcourt, just like that 5555 player has on clay and grass.
Fed and Djokovic have both won RG.

YEC and indoor in general is the playing field Nadal hasn't mastered. He has 2 indoor titles in his 15 or more years on tour. He's horrible indoors.
 

BVSlam

Professional
What's funny is that some people actually believe that 1-5-2-4 would look better than 1-12-2-4.
Nobody thinks that, because that means you have seven fewer slams. People tend to use at least the same number of slams to argue stuff like distribution, whether you agree with it or not.

5-5-5-5 sounds better because it means you basically beat the field in all possible conditions of that time period. Not just surfaces, also balls used, weather conditions, facing all kinds of opponents in all those different conditions, different crowds. That's the one advantage about an even distribution.

However, in practice, that kind of distribution doesn't really occur with the best-of-five format, so it's a moot point.
 
Nobody thinks that, because that means you have seven fewer slams. People tend to use at least the same number of slams to argue stuff like distribution, whether you agree with it or not.

5-5-5-5 sounds better because it means you basically beat the field in all possible conditions of that time period. Not just surfaces, also balls used, weather conditions, facing all kinds of opponents in all those different conditions, different crowds. That's the one advantage about an even distribution.

However, in practice, that kind of distribution doesn't really occur with the best-of-five format, so it's a moot point.
Winning a slam 12 times is also an amazing achievement. So far nobody in history even got close to this. 5-5-5-5 might look balanced, however a player with such a record is not the GOAT in any specific slam.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
Winning a slam 12 times is also an amazing achievement. So far nobody in history even got close to this. 5-5-5-5 might look balanced, however a player with such a record is not the GOAT in any specific slam.
Not only that, but... Are we seeking robots or humans?

A robot would win all 4 equally. Humans, however, all differ. Some are better on grass, some on clay, some take a while to get better on HC, and so we have very different variations of 20 titles wins of all 4 slams, ALL of them perfectly equal.

The only factor that can make slams less or more worthy is LEVEL OF COMPETITION. That is far easier to nitpick than this distribution nonsense.
 

BVSlam

Professional
Winning a slam 12 times is also an amazing achievement. So far nobody in history even got close to this. 5-5-5-5 might look balanced, however a player with such a record is not the GOAT in any specific slam.
Of course it is an amazing achievement, it's ridiculous even. I don't think anyone would dispute that.
 
Yep, had the same thought myself recently as this "slam distribution" nonsense has become a major talking point recently. I'm sure people obsessed with slam distribution have also had the same thought and then made up even more nonsensical arguments in their mind to counter it. How can a player be GOAT if he has failed to even make a slam his own stage? And it makes it even worse when there are players of his own era have equaled or bettered him. It doesn't matter where you win your slams in the modern game.
 
Federer only dominated grass? LOL he's the hard court GOAT too. He dominated pretty much anything off clay during his prime.
Confusion. Did I read that right? Okay, while I do think Fed is the second all time player on HC, I think Djoker is probably the best. Yes Fed dominated hard, but Djoker has been better overall. But I wont argue with you, you said it, I will just agree. :sneaky:
 

King No1e

Legend
Confusion. Did I read that right? Okay, while I do think Fed is the second all time player on HC, I think Djoker is probably the best. Yes Fed dominated hard, but Djoker has been better overall. But I wont argue with you, you said it, I will just agree. :sneaky:
As of right now, I do think Federer is slightly ahead of Djokovic in HC achievements. But with another AO or two, Djokovic will hopefully take his spot as HC GOAT.
 
As of right now, I do think Federer is slightly ahead of Djokovic in HC achievements. But with another AO or two, Djokovic will hopefully take his spot as HC GOAT.
I liked your last quote better. ;)

That being said, the next player to have multiple FO's and a mix of a few others will be a huge deal regardless. Imagine a new player winning 2 FO's, 2 USO, 3 WC, and 2 AO. Even if that person finishes less than 10 slams, it will be massive, and there will be people who will put that guy with Pete, whether they are worthy or not.
 

octogon

Hall of Fame
Yes, hardcourt predominates, but maybe that's because it's considered a neutral surface.

Nothing to do with "neutral". Hardcourt predominates because it's the cheapest surface to maintain. We very nearly had 2 Clay court Grand slams in the late 90's, because the Australian Open was very close to going with clay as it's new surface, but the cheaper option of hardcourts prevailed.
 

Fiero425

Hall of Fame
As of right now, I do think Federer is slightly ahead of Djokovic in HC achievements. But with another AO or two, Djokovic will hopefully take his spot as HC GOAT.
It's as if people keep forgetting Nole's almost 6 years younger! He has time; Mon Dieu! Why does he have to match or surpass Fed TODAY? :sneaky:
 

Fiero425

Hall of Fame
I liked your last quote better. ;)

That being said, the next player to have multiple FO's and a mix of a few others will be a huge deal regardless. Imagine a new player winning 2 FO's, 2 USO, 3 WC, and 2 AO. Even if that person finishes less than 10 slams, it will be massive, and there will be people who will put that guy with Pete, whether they are worthy or not.
The thing about Pete unfortunately; as time goes on the more he drops on the list of GOAT's! I was one who jumped on that bandwagon of making Pete "TOP DOG" over 15 years ago! I think we were so caught up in making history with his tying, then surpassing Roy Emerson's mark of 12 we didn't seem to even care Sampras hadn't played a single FO final! He had a nice little distribution in comparison to his era, but with today's stars, his record's a little wanting; 7 W, 5 USO, 2 AO, & 0 FO (just 1 SF IIRC)! His last real hurrah was being tied with Djokovic, but now even that's gone! I'll still remember him fondly, but those last 2 seasons were hard to watch! :confused:
 
The thing about Pete unfortunately; as time goes on the more he drops on the list of GOAT's! I was one who jumped on that bandwagon of making Pete "TOP DOG" over 15 years ago! I think we were so caught up in making history with his tying, then surpassing Roy Emerson's mark of 12 we didn't seem to even care Sampras hadn't played a single FO final! He had a nice little distribution in comparison to his era, but with today's stars, his record's a little wanting; 7 W, 5 USO, 2 AO, & 0 FO (just 1 SF IIRC)! His last real hurrah was being tied with Djokovic, but now even that's gone! I'll still remember him fondly, but those last 2 seasons were hard to watch! :confused:
Yep, that is why this "tiger" thing is not healthy. Pete was my favorite, and Fed has been since Pete, so I am glad I never committed to this "tiger" debate. I just enjoy the tennis and the player. Both Pete and Fed have given me everything a fan could ask for. So to me, and obviously just my brain/heart, they are the greatest.
 

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
Nothing to do with "neutral". Hardcourt predominates because it's the cheapest surface to maintain. We very nearly had 2 Clay court Grand slams in the late 90's, because the Australian Open was very close to going with clay as it's new surface, but the cheaper option of hardcourts prevailed.
That would be so weird.
 

RaulRamirez

Hall of Fame
There shouldn't be any hard and fast rules to this. There are reasonable arguments (and counter arguments) for and against a more even distribution of majors.

Per Rafa, I don't give him extra points for winning 12 of his 19 majors at RG, nor do I use that "imbalance" against him. He has proven abundantly that he is also a great player on both hard and grass.

To me, there is something to winning the career GS, but again, perspective is needed. Agassi did this, Sampras didn't; this does not mean that Agassi's career was as great as Pete's.

If predicting what an up-and-coming player might achieve, perhaps, it's preferable to be about equally good across surfaces. But when assessing what has already been achieved, I question its importance.
 
Let's suppose a player emerges in the near future that manages to win 20 GS at an exact distribution of 5-5-5-5. What happens there? That player wouldn't be the GOAT of anything and that would be deemed the biggest hole in their resume. There is no objectivity to slam distribution and it is a useless argument.
Rafa has the best slam surface distribution this era when he Federer and Djokovic all peak at same time. He is only one to win on all surfaces twice. Djokovic is the most skewed towards one surface but he has enough on grass to prove he is ultra versatile. Federer has never won the FO or USO when both Nadal and Djokovic at their peak but has enough on grass and hard (ao) to show he is versatile.

This argument is more aimed at the likes of Kuerten v Hewitt type argument and who was better. Who will be more remembered. Hewitt probably considered more all round player but most people would say Kuerten is greater as 3 Slams at one event is more memorable.
 

ForehandRF

Hall of Fame
Rafa has the best slam surface distribution this era when he Federer and Djokovic all peak at same time. He is only one to win on all surfaces twice. Djokovic is the most skewed towards one surface but he has enough on grass to prove he is ultra versatile. Federer has never won the FO or USO when both Nadal and Djokovic at their peak but has enough on grass and hard (ao) to show he is versatile.

This argument is more aimed at the likes of Kuerten v Hewitt type argument and who was better. Who will be more remembered. Hewitt probably considered more all round player but most people would say Kuerten is greater as 3 Slams at one event is more memorable.
Both Djokovic and Nadal were already prime/peak when Fed won USO and the French.Your entire message is biased towards Nadal.
 
Top