it would be a bit strange that hypothetical peak Fed is GOAT in so many tournaments yet of the three surfaces he may end up as GOAT of only one, and of the one that is played the least.
As far as their respective peak levels go its this order - Novak -> Rafa -> Roger...end of discussion, like it or not, but its time to face it, that 2011 of Novak Djokovic was the strongest level anyone EVER performed! This is like a universal agreement amongst vast majority of tennis pundits, this is not even up to the argument! So Novak's 2011 - Rafa's 2010 -> Roger's 2006! As simple as that!
So you are saying it’s more difficult to be GOAT in the surface where the competition is weakest?Even if that is the case, it is difficult to be GOAT on a surface that is played least than the ones where players play day in day out. LMAO
The most intense baseline battle. A good deal of errors though, and mid-match was less intense that the first and last sets as Djokovic found the rhythm holding serve. 2018 Wimbledon is the best, I say, as it featured not only solid rallies, but great serving from both under pressure, and the match was super tight after the first set.
So you are saying it’s more difficult to be GOAT in the surface where the competition is weakest?![]()
Every tennis player grows up playing HC or clay. No one grows up playing grass. Where do you think players will develop more?Is that how you draw correlation ? The surface that is played least has the weakest competition ? Wow !
Every tennis player grows up playing HC or clay. No one grows up playing grass. Where do you think players will develop more?
Maybe I misunderstood your point but I thought that YOU were arguing that it was more difficult to be GOAT of the surface least played. See below:Again, the conclusion one can draw from that the player(s) levels on HC may be higher but how do you make the conclusion that the least played surface has the least competition ?
Even if that is the case, it is difficult to be GOAT on a surface that is played least than the ones where players play day in day out. LMAO
Maybe I misunderstood your point but I thought that YOU were arguing that it was more difficult to be GOAT of the surface least played. See below:
I think if we are going to rank surface competition by how much they are played the most difficult one will be the surface that is played the most. If the average player practices 70% of the time in HC, 25% in clay, and 5% in grass i would think his HC skills will be the most developed of all.
well, if you think that signaling that Fed could end up being GOAT of the surface least practiced is praising him...That only tells that the players will play better on HC as compared to grass. Does not tell anything about the competition.
So your post about trying to diminish Federer for just being the GOAT of a surface that is played least is actually "praising" him for being a GOAT on a surface where players hardly get a chance to practice, play and succeed.
well, if you think that signaling that Fed could end up being GOAT of the surface least practiced is praising him...
I think you are reading more into my original post than was intended. I was simply pointing out that there is a chance that Fed will end up as GOAT only of the surface that is the least relevant in the pro circuit (measured by the number of tournaments in that surface). I think that's relevant for any GOAT discussion (others may disagree).Let us start afresh .. (a) How do you draw the conclusion that the least played surface has the least competition ? (b) doesn't it take more talent to be the GOAT on a surface that you don't get a chance to practice as much ?
I think you are reading more into my original post than was intended. I was simply pointing out that there is a chance that Fed will end up as GOAT only of the surface that is the least relevant in the pro circuit (measured by the number of tournaments in that surface). I think that's relevant for any GOAT discussion (others may disagree).
Fed is a grass god and chances are he would have done very well against any competition but I don't see why it's so controversial to argue that if players train only a small portion of their time on grass they will develop a lot less than if they played more.
Wimbledon is the most prestigious but that doesn't change the fact that grass is the least important surface. That's easily measured by the amount of time players dedicate to training in each surface.Players developing a lot less on grass does not mean competition is not healthy. All players have the same level playing field.
Anyone that knows tennis understands Wimbledon is the most prestigious out of the 4 for eons and it will continue to be so. So saying grass is least relevant by measuring the number of tournaments is hollow. Rather the limited number of tournaments makes the 3 weeks of Queens / Halle and Wimbledon so much extra special.
Wimbledon is the most prestigious but that doesn't change the fact that grass is the least important surface. That's easily measured by the amount of time players dedicate to training in each surface.
And Wimbledon's prestige, while real, doesn't mean much in the real world. Does anyone argue that Murray's slam count is greater than Wawrinka's just because he has 2 Wimbledon's? Is Nole's Slam count the same as Nadal's because of his superior results at Wimbledon?
we were doing well without insults. let's not ruin that.The slam counts are completely irrelevant..
You made two "baseless" statements - grass has less competition because it is played lesser, grass tournaments are least relevant because they are less in number.
Both are DUMB
I disagree. TTW is so pro-Federer that a statement like "Djokovic is the GOAT" is considered to be Federer-bashing, which is not. Both Lew and Spencer Gore are excellent posters that greatly contribute to TTW. There is strong mathematical evidence to suggest that Nadal and Djokovic played more difficult field than Federer and indicating that is also not Federer bashing. Bashing is when you call a player mug, doper, cheater, abuser etc. I can't count number of times I was plainly insulted just for having a different opinion.
Except he would be GOAT on a surface rules by other GOATS/ATGs.it would be a bit strange that hypothetical peak Fed is GOAT in so many tournaments yet of the three surfaces he may end up as GOAT of only one, and of the one that is played the least.
He played peak Mode in 2005 at AO against Peak Safin and lost. So its NOT the highest peak ever. There there the countless losses to Nadal when he was at his peak. . Maybe most consistent highest level ever. but not the "highest" But Nadal, Djokovic, Sampras' "peaks" are clearly higher. They don't lose when they're in peak mode.
Well, Novak is the GOAT of a slam that used to be skipped a lot by top players in the past, so it has been easier to build a big count on it as a result.Wimbledon is the most prestigious but that doesn't change the fact that grass is the least important surface. That's easily measured by the amount of time players dedicate to training in each surface.
And Wimbledon's prestige, while real, doesn't mean much in the real world. Does anyone argue that Murray's slam count is greater than Wawrinka's just because he has 2 Wimbledon's? Is Nole's Slam count the same as Nadal's because of his superior results at Wimbledon?
Federer's competition at Wimb has been fine. Defeated many Wimb champions and multiple Wimb finalists. He even faced the world no.2 plenty of times to win Wimb. Lots of top 10 wins too.we were doing well without insults. let's not ruin that.
I think most would agree that competition is less in the surface that is played the least. What's the competition like today in carpet? What was it like in the past, when players practiced in that surface?
As for the relevance of grass ask any pro player how much he or she trains on it. There was a time when three of the four slams were grass. That time is long gone.
It's a shame he is not at his best that often.Disagree with OP. Fed is the GOAT because of his titles and records but in terms of highest ever peak performance, I feel Djokovic takes this. Most unbeatable player I have ever seen when at his best.
Agree, but my focus here wasn't on slam count but on surface dominance. Nole's AO wins are very important but his HC career is more than that (USO, WTF, Masters)Well, Novak is the GOAT of a slam that used to be skipped a lot by top players in the past, so it has been easier to build a big count on it as a result.
My point wasn't to diminish Fed's accomplishments. 20 slam winner with over 300 weeks at number 1 is beyond reproach. My point was to point out that grass, as a surface, is today the least relevant. It wasn't always the case but it's how tennis is played today.Federer's competition at Wimb has been fine. Defeated many Wimb champions and multiple Wimb finalists. He even faced the world no.2 plenty of times to win Wimb. Lots of top 10 wins too.
And he also has HC dominance for good measure.
My point wasn't to diminish Fed's accomplishments. 20 slam winner with over 300 weeks at number 1 is beyond reproach. My point was to point out that grass, as a surface, is today the least relevant. It wasn't always the case but it's how tennis is played today.
Novak is God.
I would have agreed, but you have ruined your op with your Djokovic obsession.
Correction: he is the Son of God, God being PeteYou could've stopped there. No need to try and justify anything after that.
His HC career is helped massively by his AO dominance.Agree, but my focus here wasn't on slam count but on surface dominance. Nole's AO wins are very important but his HC career is more than that (USO, WTF, Masters)
That's the problem of the coaches, not the surface itself.My point wasn't to diminish Fed's accomplishments. 20 slam winner with over 300 weeks at number 1 is beyond reproach. My point was to point out that grass, as a surface, is today the least relevant. It wasn't always the case but it's how tennis is played today.
But that’s true of Fed as well. Take away Fed’s AO wins and he’s no longer in the running for HC GOAT.His HC career is helped massively by his AO dominance.
His HC resume is more balanced.But that’s true of Fed as well. Take away Fed’s AO wins and he’s no longer in the running for HC GOAT.
It's tongue-in-cheek all in good humour, no?