For me, Fed has surpassed Jordan, Brady and Gretzky

Rosstour

Hall of Fame
Gretzky was easily the most dominant against his peers. Jordan is pretty clearly the NBA GOAT as well and is a worldwide icon. As for Brady, he’s an incredibly good player but his number of Super Bowls are the only argument he has for being the GOAT and that’s a team achievement not an individual one
Oh please, really?

The only constants in the Pats "dynasty" are Brady and Belichick. Everyone else has come and gone, and aside from Randy Moss he has never had a bona fide #1 diva receiver.

They win because of preparation, execution, and coaching...and Brady's decision-making under pressure.

Plus the fact that Brady is still playing at 40+ when even guys younger than him are hitting the wall, in an incredibly violent sport...no other player has had that level of longevity and consistency, aside from Jerry Rice, and when he was Brady's age he was no longer a top player.

You didn't even mention his longevity, the guy has 6 SBs in 9 appearances over 18 seasons as a starter. WTF?

He led the league in passing at age 40 and won the MVP. C'mon guy.

Counterpoint to Jordan, you can use the same "Team Game" argument against him.

Neither Jordan nor Kobe never won without Phil. Boom, done. Their success was entirely dependent on having a coach who could manage their egos, and a great supporting cast with another HOFer for good measure.

Without Phil (or Shaq or Pippen), there is a possibility that neither one of those guys ever get a ring.
 

accidental

Hall of Fame
He’s only won 1 Davis Cup though.

Jordan won 6 rings.

If there were 4x 1 on 1 basketball tournaments every year during Jordan’s prime he could have racked up 20 of those too
 

Karma Tennis

Hall of Fame
schumacher greater than senna, senna can be better driver, it's arguable, but not the best in terms of greatness
I love Schumi. But he wasn't half the driver that Senna was. Pit them against each other in Go-Karts and I think Senna would have left Schumi in his dust.

Also, Schumi's records need to be viewed in light of the fact that Senna passed on, the Benetton cars' rules breaches, and the way the FIA favoured Ferrari when he started winning races with that team. It's true that a lot of the credit for turning the Ferrari team around can be given to Schumi. But once the car dominated, any decent Driver probably would have achieved similar results. And Lewis Hamilton is set to take most of the records Schumi set soon enough. Does that make him a Greater Driver than Schumi or Senna? I don't think so, but many others will.

"Greatness" is not just about numbers.

I agree that Federer hasn't matched Laver in some categories, but based on overall tennis ability as well as impact on tennis i believe he has long surpassed him.
Well it could be argued that in "Absolute" terms, Nadal has had just as great an impact on the sport as Federer has. And the way things are going, Djokovic might surpass them both in the numbers game.

I also believe that in "Relative" terms, Bjorn Borg had the greatest impact on the sport of all the players. It can be argued that Borg literally saved Tennis from oblivion. I don't think It's fair to compare "Absolutes" because the world is truly a Global Village now.

However, until another Male player achieves the GRAND SLAM .... Laver will be right up there in my books.
 
Last edited:

Service Ace

Hall of Fame
Oh please, really?

The only constants in the Pats "dynasty" are Brady and Belichick. Everyone else has come and gone, and aside from Randy Moss he has never had a bona fide #1 diva receiver.

They win because of preparation, execution, and coaching...and Brady's decision-making under pressure.

Plus the fact that Brady is still playing at 40+ when even guys younger than him are hitting the wall, in an incredibly violent sport...no other player has had that level of longevity and consistency, aside from Jerry Rice, and when he was Brady's age he was no longer a top player.

You didn't even mention his longevity, the guy has 6 SBs in 9 appearances over 18 seasons as a starter. WTF?

He led the league in passing at age 40 and won the MVP. C'mon guy.

Counterpoint to Jordan, you can use the same "Team Game" argument against him.

Neither Jordan nor Kobe never won without Phil. Boom, done. Their success was entirely dependent on having a coach who could manage their egos, and a great supporting cast with another HOFer for good measure.

Without Phil (or Shaq or Pippen), there is a possibility that neither one of those guys ever get a ring.
Not to mention he holds every playoff record for a QB and doesn't have a losing record to any team in the NFL. Haters just can't bring themselves to acknowledge his status but everybody with a functioning brain pretty easily recognizes him as the GOAT.
 

Karma Tennis

Hall of Fame
Actually, come to think of it, why are we comparing a Champion of an Individual Sport with three from Team Sports?

Surely it is a whole lot more difficult to achieve "Greatness" in an individual sport because you are basically competing for yourself on your own?

That puts the great Golfers, Tennis Players, and Motor Racers (to a lesser extent) in a different light? Doesn't it?
 
D

Deleted member 716271

Guest
i assume we can bring some analogy with european football.. don't know much about american football(in europe it's not so popular), but let's look at two groups of players..first it's forwards: messi(let alone his playmaking abilities as well), ronaldo, mbappe, neymar ..and second..midfielders(playmakers): modric, xavi, iniesta, pirlo. it's a matter of taste)) yes, playmaker is a brain of a team, most strategy and further ball location depends on him, but more attention and popularity from the crowd, fans, awards goes to forwards, playmakers tend to be in the shadow of forwards for the most part..same situation with basketball.. jordan, bryant are shooting guards(equivalent of recievers in american football) more popular than point guards(iverson, nash, magic johnson, stockton) as equivalent of quarterbacks...forwards rely on playmakers but playmakers don't rely on forwards)
I like the analogy somewhat. There is a difference though. In football the quarterback usually makes or break the offense, not the playmakers, which certainly help but QB is definitely the most important position. Although it's shifting in basketball (there are more point guards as the team's best player like a Steph Curry), typically the best player will be a shooting guard historically (like jordan) or a small forward (Lebron) etc. A long time ago it was centers.

Someone like Lebron, who is a SF can play point and take the ball up the floor but it isn't really a true point. The true PGs are the field generals or leaders in a sense, but typically not the best player on a team, especially if it's a great team.

In other words the "glamour position" in basketball isn't really the point guard, whereas in football it definitely is quarterback.
 

GoldenSwing

Rookie
I’m a huge Federer fan but the bias is real here....

Federer has a losing record against two of his greatest rivals and both of them are within strikeable distance of his greatness.

That means he’s barely GOAT of one sport.

It’s almost preposterous to say he’s the GOAT of all sports. There are much more legendary figures such as MJ, Gretzky, and Muhammad Ali

MJ was the ultimate offensive and defensive player. His achievements are nearly untouchable as an individual player and he is 6-0 in the finals of every championship.

Not to mention he had a global impact in the world with his playstyle and made basketball a world wide phenomenon

Then there are guys like Messi, Mayweather, and Usain Bolt.......
 

Karma Tennis

Hall of Fame
Federer is the greatest thanks to his records but also his playing style and aura.
Federer's playing style is nothing new. He has not introduced anything new to the game with his playing style or stroke technique.

Borg was the first player to exploit massive topspin. (Gonzales also used a heavy topspin FH but was not consistent.)
Borg was the first player to use a predominantly Baseline style of play to consistently win against traditional Serve and Volley players.
Borg was the first player to sign multi million dollar endorsement contracts with tennis equipment and tennis clothing manufacturers.
Borg was pretty much responsible for bringing an entirely new group of younger fans - especially younger women - to the sport.
Borg's "Aura"? LOL! No other player in the history of the sport attracted as much attention and mystery as Borg.

And if you don't believe me. Just watch the Borg / McEnroe movie. While the producers have dramatised a lot of the story, the character aspects of Borg are pretty much spot on. The way he is portrayed in that movie is very similar to the way he was viewed in real life.

No doubt, someone someday will make a movie about the Federer / Nadal rivalry. But it will probably be Nadal that gets the "Mystery" treatment. Federer is very much an open book. I don't recall ever seeing Roger Federer being treated like he was a member of The Beatles. Of course, that's not Roger's fault. The modern world, social media, the internet, and everything that goes with it makes it very difficult for high profile sportspeople to have much of a private life now.

It was a lot easier to maintain privacy in Borg's time. And that would have certainly helped add to his Aura!
 

-NN-

G.O.A.T.
Ding Ding Ding. We have a Winner!

Ali is the one I completely forgot about. He totally transcended his chosen Sport and was known to worldwide in places many people had never heard of.

Definitely the "Elvis Presley" of the Sporting Universe.
Who is The Beatles and who is Michael Jackson?
 

Karma Tennis

Hall of Fame
Who is The Beatles and who is Michael Jackson?
Michael Jordan is Michael Jackson.

Both men took old stuff, polished it up, and made it look like it was something new, modern, and completely different to what had come before. Jordan borrowed from Chamberlain. Jackson borrowed from Astaire.

The Beatles? Hmmm, that is a tough one. We need a "team" of at least four completely different individuals that combined to produce something greater than the sum of their individual parts.

Here's a great article. Take your pick depending on where you come from ...

http://www.espn.com.au/espn/story/_/id/19358417/what-qualifies-team-rank-greatest-sports-history

For me there is no question .... It is the NEW ZEALAND ALL BLACKS Rugby Union Team.
 

-NN-

G.O.A.T.
Michael Jordan is Michael Jackson.

Both men took old stuff, polished it up, and made it look like it was something new, modern, and completely different to what had come before. Jordan borrowed from Chamberlain. Jackson borrowed from Astaire.

The Beatles? Hmmm, that is a tough one. We need a "team" of four completely different individuals that combined to produce something greater than the sum of their individual parts. Let me think about that one for a while.

Here's a great article. Take your pick depending on where you come from ...

http://www.espn.com.au/espn/story/_/id/19358417/what-qualifies-team-rank-greatest-sports-history

So you're saying that The Big Four is The Beatles...
 

-NN-

G.O.A.T.
When you say "The Big Four", are you talking about Roger, Rafa, Novak, and Andy?

If you are .. "No", they are not a Team. Tennis is not a team sport!

I figured it would be OK as you have team sporter Michael Jordan as "solo artist" Michael Jackson.

***

Brady is Madonna at best.
 

alexio88

Hall of Fame
"Greatness" is not just about numbers.
exactly not only about the numbers..schumacher, jordan, zidane, maradona..what unites them, they all could transform good team to a great team, having sheer leadership and wins the titles and that's a bright sign of greatness.
 
Last edited:

DJTaurus

Professional
What a disrespectful opinion to use the name of MJ in the same sentence with other athletes. There are many great athletes out there in many sports....and they are a few athletes like MJ and Ali that were a cultural phenomenon above their sports. It’s a joke to compare MJ with mental midgets. Wtf are u??? A millennial ?

 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
Federer's playing style is nothing new. He has not introduced anything new to the game with his playing style or stroke technique.

Borg was the first player to exploit massive topspin. (Gonzales also used a heavy topspin FH but was not consistent.)
Borg was the first player to use a predominantly Baseline style of play to consistently win against traditional Serve and Volley players.
Borg was the first player to sign multi million dollar endorsement contracts with tennis equipment and tennis clothing manufacturers.
Borg was pretty much responsible for bringing an entirely new group of younger fans - especially younger women - to the sport.
Borg's "Aura"? LOL! No other player in the history of the sport attracted as much attention and mystery as Borg.

And if you don't believe me. Just watch the Borg / McEnroe movie. While the producers have dramatised a lot of the story, the character aspects of Borg are pretty much spot on. The way he is portrayed in that movie is very similar to the way he was viewed in real life.

No doubt, someone someday will make a movie about the Federer / Nadal rivalry. But it will probably be Nadal that gets the "Mystery" treatment. Federer is very much an open book. I don't recall ever seeing Roger Federer being treated like he was a member of The Beatles. Of course, that's not Roger's fault. The modern world, social media, the internet, and everything that goes with it makes it very difficult for high profile sportspeople to have much of a private life now.

It was a lot easier to maintain privacy in Borg's time. And that would have certainly helped add to his Aura!
Non have done it as elegantly or as gracefully as Federer, the eternal GOAT.
 

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
I’m a huge Federer fan but the bias is real here....

Federer has a losing record against two of his greatest rivals and both of them are within strikeable distance of his greatness.

That means he’s barely GOAT of one sport..
Tennis isn't a head to head sport though. There's no trophies for head to head wins. No prize money for head to head wins. No ranking points for head to head wins.

Tennis is about winning trophies and points. You do that by being the last man standing at a range of tournaments throughout the season, and across multiple seasons.

And Federer currently has done that better than either Nadal or Djokovic.

Unless of course you're mentally challenged in which case please continue as normal with the head to head circle-jerk which no-one who appreciates the historically important aspect of tennis cares one iota about.
 
D

Deleted member 716271

Guest
Tennis isn't a head to head sport though. There's no trophies for head to head wins. No prize money for head to head wins. No ranking points for head to head wins.

Tennis is about winning trophies and points. You do that by being the last man standing at a range of tournaments throughout the season, and across multiple seasons.

And Federer currently has done that better than either Nadal or Djokovic.

Unless of course you're mentally challenged in which case please continue as normal with the head to head circle-jerk which no-one who appreciates the historically important aspect of tennis cares one iota about.
And determining how iconic an athlete is or comparing legacies isn't something that you get ranking points or prizes for either...

That poster stated his opinion respectfully and look at you getting all insulting and touchy LOL
 

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
And determining how iconic an athlete is or comparing legacies isn't something that you get ranking points or prizes for either...

That poster stated his opinion respectfully and look at you getting all insulting and touchy LOL
That's what posters get when they repeat, ad nauseum for years, the same tired old crap about h2hs. They ignore accomplishments that all of the tennis organisations do care about and elevate the same desperate, fringe debating points year after year. For that they deserve little more than contempt and mocking.
 
D

Deleted member 716271

Guest
That's what posters get when they repeat, ad nauseum for years, the same tired old crap about h2hs. They ignore accomplishments that all of the tennis organisations do care about and elevate the same desperate, fringe debating points year after year. For that they deserve little more than contempt and mocking.
You are over sensitive about h2h. I wonder why
 

-NN-

G.O.A.T.
I love Schumi. But he wasn't half the driver that Senna was. Pit them against each other in Go-Karts and I think Senna would have left Schumi in his dust.

Also, Schumi's records need to be viewed in light of the fact that Senna passed on, the Benetton cars' rules breaches, and the way the FIA favoured Ferrari when he started winning races with that team. It's true that a lot of the credit for turning the Ferrari team around can be given to Schumi. But once the car dominated, any decent Driver probably would have achieved similar results. And Lewis Hamilton is set to take most of the records Schumi set soon enough. Does that make him a Greater Driver than Schumi or Senna? I don't think so, but many others will.

"Greatness" is not just about numbers.



Well it could be argued that in "Absolute" terms, Nadal has had just as great an impact on the sport as Federer has. And the way things are going, Djokovic might surpass them both in the numbers game.

I also believe that in "Relative" terms, Bjorn Borg had the greatest impact on the sport of all the players. It can be argued that Borg literally saved Tennis from oblivion. I don't think It's fair to compare "Absolutes" because the world is truly a Global Village now.

However, until another Male player achieves the GRAND SLAM .... Laver will be right up there in my books.
As far as I'm concerned, the grotesque sportsmanship from both Senna and Schumacher takes away from their greatness. Also I think you're underestimating Schumacher's natural talent bigtime. Schumacher was so dominant that he made his cars look better than they actually were. The Ferrari was not dominant every year from 2000-2004. He transcended the sport and evolved driving technique through corners with his gradual throttle control and masterful corrections whilst cornering, driving on the edge far more than his contemporaries.

Seeing the same right now with Hamilton vs Vettel where in both 2017 and 2018 Ferrari had the car for Vettel to take the WDC, with Hamilton taking the spoils.
 

daddy

Legend
did you know there is also only one Super Bowl?
Yes of course but having in mind that Football is a whole different animal compared to Basketball I can safely say that no QB however influential he is - can be compared to the influence one star basketball player has in a squad of 12 people ( especially in 90's ) where you have 5 starters and a few subs of importance and a couple of players used for rotation / trash time in 2nd quarter. In a 44 player squad with defensive, attacking and special teams, kickers, offensive & defensive coordinators as well as head coaches not even Brady has influence which can ever compare to Jordan's. Take the last Super Bowl for example - he played an average game at best and they won. Jordan was MVP in all six finals which are played in the best of 7 possible games in a 5 man starting team. Jordan was by far the best defensive and offensive player in the league for a decade. He set the bar very high, I am afraid that high that no QB can be in the mix with him.

When you take into account the physical aspect of basketball ( compared to quarterbacks in football ) Jordan had about 10 seasons from the time he debuted while Brady had 20. He's basically protected and can choose to play physically or to avoid that as much as possible - by not running, by letting go of the football before being sacked especially with these new rules enforced or by deploying running backs, throwing to tight ends and using screen passes or whatever - he does not have to do the physical part, he just has to call the action and supply the ball ( even more, most of QB's do not call anything, they just follow instructions ).

You thought because I'm a European I don't know Football ?
 
Federer is the greatest thanks to his records
but also his playing style

and aura.
.
Kneepads and Gaping Maw said:
I approve of this post ^^^
.

"kiss my aura Dora......mmmmm...it's real angora......would you like some more-a?...right here on the floor-a?............and how 'bout you 'Fauna?....you wanna?...." - FZappa

.
 
Last edited:

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
Cross sport comparisons are fragile at best so I don't think Fed has surpassed any one of these people. The easiest and perhaps most accurate thing to say is that those 4 are the GOATs of their respective sports for now, at least from a statistical standpoint. In the sports themselves, Gretzky is clearly ahead of everyone in hockey more so than any of the other 3 are in the other sports. Jordan is probably 2nd, Brady 3rd, and Fed 4th, but the only real certainty is Gretzky, and even then you hear arguments about Lemieux or Orr, or the fact that 80's hockey was high scoring and as such inflated his numbers and will cause them to stand the test of time, which is definitely a valid point IMO, but there's no way to compare.

Basketball is my least favourite of the 4 sports here, so I can't say much about arguments against Jordan. I know he's not the all time leading scorer, and I don't think Lebron is better, but he's definitely no worse IMO. They're on the same general skill level plane I think. After that it's only statistical arguments, and tbh I think people that grew up watching Jordan get nostalgic about Jordan and tend to underrate Lebron because it's such a contentious topic.

I put Brady 3rd only because no one in the current era will win 6+ SBs so the classic argument against Brady is Montana, but it's not much of an argument IMO. Cross era comparisons are as hard as cross sport ones, but with every SB the Patriots win (and overall consistency included) it gets harder and harder to make a statistical argument for Montana when you consider that Brady will break many important individual records as well. I've never been the biggest proponent of the playoffs in football and particularly SB titles determining greatness in such an uncompromising way as most people view it, but I can't deny Brady's greatness either. And this is coming from a Peyton Manning fan since I was 13.

I put Fed 4th only because his statistical GOAT claim is the most in jeopardy, but to be perfectly honest, tennis is a much more physically demanding sport than probably any of the other 3, but certainly football and the QB position. Overall, what QB's do from a physical standpoint has never impressed me that much. As such, all of Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic have impressed me many more times than Brady has. I guess that's not Brady's fault, but I can't just sit here and put Federer and Brady on the same athletic plane either.
 

-NN-

G.O.A.T.
A certain pundit always likes to say QB is the hardest position in sports but this view will never jive with me. I know said pundit means team sports otherwise it would be pointless to mention the word position, but Wodger has to attack and defend. Football is so modularised that I can never really equate any figure in it with someone as almightily brilliant and all-round as Federer. Most other team sports involve the same players having to both attack and defend and show often extremely rounded skillsets.


Nope.
 

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
As far as I'm concerned, the grotesque sportsmanship from both Senna and Schumacher takes away from their greatness. Also I think you're underestimating Schumacher's natural talent bigtime. Schumacher was so dominant that he made his cars look better than they actually were.
Formula One (and indeed other forms of motorsport) have their share of insanely talented people but, Formula one, moreso than any prominent motorsport series is mostly about the car. There are eons of example of the best drivers becoming nothing once the car they are in under-performs, and vice versa too.

In 1999 when Michael Schumacher broke his leg mid-season at the British GP his team-mate Eddie Irvine took over the lead role in the team. Their ring-in driver Mika Salo waltzed to a sure win in his second race for the team (Germany) but gifted the win to Irvine on team orders near the end.

There are literally dozens of key races in F1 recent history (last 20 years) where the winning driver won by dint of teammate gifts or teammate spoiler actions (Irvine often held competitors back so Schumacher could drive off into the distance when his car wasn't the best it could be).

Conversely, some drivers are known to hustle and wring performance out of a car which most others could not. Senna was exactly that sort of driver. Schumacher, for all his insane success, was nohwere near as adept at that and he showed it many times in his career. His success once at Ferrari was primarily due to the fact that most of the time he had the best car, or Bridgestone developed their tires with Ferrari so everyone else who used them had to guess how to engineer their suspension and steering attributes to get the best out of them (they were even long accused of supplying a better version of the tires to Ferrari on occasion despite it being against the rules). Moreso, a number of key times Ferrari themselves cheated blatantly only to have the rules either ignored, or changed in their favour under the threat from Ferrari's bosses that they would leave F1 if rule changes, and technical rules, weren't to their liking.

The first year Schumacher didn't have an obvious car advantage over the others, 2005, he announced his retirement mid-season. He was non-competitive (owing to the Michelin tires of other teams being vastly better than Ferrari's Bridgestones).

IMO, Senna was easily as good as Schumacher - his career was just tragically cut short. I would say most racing experts - most I've spoke to in decades off following F1 at least - would also say Alain Prost was as good a driver as Schumacher. His comparative lack of results can be attributed to much of the above - luck, or lack of, and also having to drive in an era when there were often genuinely 3 other teams on the grid who were competitive. Unlike the best years for Schumacher where the car was so good his virtually anonymous teammates were regularly 2nd or won races where he suffered misfortune.

Schumacher was so dominant that he made his cars look better than they actually were. The Ferrari was not dominant every year from 2000-2004.
Yeah. I don't think so. Other than in 2003 he won more than half the races in EVERY season he won with Ferrari. He waltzed home dozens of times against other cars which suffered mechanical issues (famously McLaren) or were well off the pace (nothing to do with Schumacher's driving skill). Senna's competition was such that only once ever did he win even half the races in a season (1988). The other times he won he was winning against highly competitive cars which could match or beat the McLaren for pace much of the time. In the anomaly season of 2003 the Ferrari was still, by far, the best on the low down-force circuits which Ferrari romped home to wins at. His nearest competitor won just 1 race in the championships to Schumacher's 6.

For a further example to show the flip-side of Schumacher's ability. When he came back to F1 in 2010 with Mercedes he joined sophomore Nico Rosberg who'd done relatively little in his F1 career prior to then. In the entire season he was out-qualified by Rosberg in 15 of 19 races. He was vastly outperformed for three straight years at Mercedes despite efforts and technical advantages over his teammate (which caused ruffles more than a few times).
 
Last edited:

-NN-

G.O.A.T.
Formula One (and indeed other forms of motorsport) have their share of insanely talented people but, Formula one, moreso than any prominent motorsport series is mostly about the car. There are eons of example of the best drivers becoming nothing once the car they are in under-performs, and vice versa too.

In 1999 when Michael Schumacher broke his leg mid-season at the British GP his team-mate Eddie Irvine took over the lead role in the team. Their ring-in driver Mika Salo waltzed to a sure win in his second race for the team (Germany) but gifted the win to Irvine on team orders near the end.

There are literally dozens of key races in F1 recent history (last 20 years) where the winning driver won by dint of teammate gifts or teammate spoiler actions (Irvine often held competitors back so Schumacher could drive off into the distance when his car wasn't the best it could be).

Conversely, some drivers are known to hustle and wring performance out of a car which most others could not. Senna was exactly that sort of driver. Schumacher, for all his insane success, was nohwere near as adept at that and he showed it many times in his career. His success once at Ferrari was primarily due to the fact that most of the time he had the best car, or Bridgestone developed their tires with Ferrari so everyone else who used them had to guess how to engineer their suspension and steering attributes to get the best out of them (they were even long accused of supplying a better version of the tires to Ferrari on occasion despite it being against the rules). Moreso, a number of key times Ferrari themselves cheated blatantly only to have the rules either ignored, or changed in their favour under the threat from Ferrari's bosses that they would leave F1 if rule changes, and technical rules, weren't to their liking.

The first year Schumacher didn't have an obvious car advantage over the others, 2005, he announced his retirement mid-season. He was non-competitive (owing to the Michelin tires of other teams being vastly better than Ferrari's Bridgestones).

IMO, Senna was easily as good as Schumacher - his career was just tragically cut short. I would say most racing experts - most I've spoke to in decades off following F1 at least - would also say Alain Prost was as good a driver as Schumacher. His comparative lack of results can be attributed to much of the above - luck, or lack of, and also having to drive in an era when there were often genuinely 3 other teams on the grid who were competitive. Unlike the best years for Schumacher where the car was so good his virtually anonymous teammates were regularly 2nd or won races where he suffered misfortune.


Yeah. I don't think so. Other than in 2003 he won more than half the races in EVERY season he won with Ferrari. He waltzed home dozens of times against other cars which suffered mechanical issues (famously McLaren) or were well off the pace (nothing to do with Schumacher's driving skill). Senna's competition was such that only once ever did he win even half the races in a season (1988). The other times he won he was winning against highly competitive cars which could match or beat the McLaren for pace much of the time.

It was generally harder to win 50% of races then also because reliability typically wasn't bulletproof. Ferrari did not have a dominant car in 2000 nor 2003 - similar to Mercedes not having a dominant car in 2017 nor 2018. Schumacher outclassed Hakkinen in 2000 because he was quite a lot better AND as you more or less point out his teammates were lackeys. Also, Hakkinen had a woeful start to the season with multiple retirements when the McLaren was probably the fastest car to open the season, having attained several pole positions. Nonetheless, McLaren were very competitive in 2000 and there are many serious F1 fans who don't even believe Ferrari had the fastest car on balance over the season in that year. Ferrari International Assistance surely helped Ferrari for much of the period. So I make that to be 3 dominant seasons and 2 where they could have lost but Schumacher made a lot of the difference.

I agree that Senna was as good as Schumacher, possibly more gifted, though Schumacher changed the game regarding both technique and professionalism. Senna was a genius but Schumacher changed the game. If the tragedy didn't happen then I suspect Senna would have won several more titles. He was at the right team for the task.

Alonso was more in the Senna mold for being able to churn out consistently impressive performances in inferior machinery. The 2012 effort was especially memorable, for how often does one win the WDC in the 3rd (or worse) best car? But yeh - he came up short.

Formula 1 is mainly about the car as almost every title has been won in either the first or second best car, but at the same time if Mercedes didn't have Hamilton, Vettel would have likely won the last two Championships. The best drivers tend to find their way into the best cars. Alonso can largely blame himself for not having more opportunities.
 

-NN-

G.O.A.T.
For a further example to show the flip-side of Schumacher's ability. When he came back to F1 in 2010 with Mercedes he joined sophomore Nico Rosberg who'd done relatively little in his F1 career prior to then. In the entire season he was out-qualified by Rosberg in 15 of 19 races. He was vastly outperformed for three straight years at Mercedes despite efforts and technical advantages over his teammate (which caused ruffles more than a few times).
Schumacher was gaining ground over that period (points not telling the whole story) but he definitely got outclassed. I read various things into this. The era of unlimited testing being over and done took away Schumacher's biggest edge, which was his maniacal professionalism and work ethic. The drivers by this stage had absorbed anything to be learned from Schumacher's throttle control evolutions anyway. Also, given how Rosberg then later performed against Hamilton, it would appear that Rosberg is a very good racing driver who looks better in hindsight having throttled Schumacher and testing Hamilton in 2014 and 2016, winning in 2016 (he wasn't better but he won). I don't think Schumacher was in his prime but it's still a significant episode which shouldn't be so readily dismissed, and it should count against him.
 

tacou

G.O.A.T.
You thought because I'm a European I don't know Football ?
haha....no. I had no idea you were European and assumed you did know there is only one Super Bowl.
I think it is pointless to compare a tennis player, hockey player, basketball player and QB, which was the point of both my comments.
 

tennis132325

New User
Jordan, Gretzky, Brady, etc are amazing but i can't be so sure that they are the best in their craft. It's a team sport, with too many other variables.

This is the reason i am trying to become a tennis fan. I can be sure who the best player was. It's clear as day that Djokovic is the best current tennis player for example. In the NBA, there's 5 guys in the discussion, and another 5 guys who would be in the discussion if they were on a different team in a different role.
 

Karma Tennis

Hall of Fame
I figured it would be OK as you have team sporter Michael Jordan as "solo artist" Michael Jackson.

***

Brady is Madonna at best.
Michael Jackson was a pivotal part of the "team" with the Jackson 5, and later with The Jacksons!

Surely Brady is more like Lady Gaga? ;)
 

PMChambers

Hall of Fame
If Federer retired today, there's a very good chance his major Major's record will be broken within 3 years.
People on this forum laugh at Sampras for his record and how it stood the test of time. Federers likely won't last that long.
He's other records are either consistency based, which is not always a good measure of ultimate GOAThood or time restrained in an era often referred to as "transitional or weak". Anyway, it's likely it would be obvious if he's the best of his Gen using a 5 years gen for tennis.
 

Fiero425

Hall of Fame
If Federer retired today, there's a very good chance his major Major's record will be broken within 3 years.
People on this forum laugh at Sampras for his record and how it stood the test of time. Federers likely won't last that long.
He's other records are either consistency based, which is not always a good measure of ultimate GOAThood or time restrained in an era often referred to as "transitional or weak". Anyway, it's likely it would be obvious if he's the best of his Gen using a 5 years gen for tennis.
I think that's one of the main reasons that Fed is hanging on well past his prime! His record will mean squat within a few years; not even a decade since 2 other players are hot on his arse! He was fortunate Nole was disabled for well over a year, won 3 more Majors, but it didn't stop Rafa from picking up 3 as well! This is a great time to be a tennis fan even if not a fan of Fedalovic! :unsure: :cautious: :rolleyes: ;)
 

daddy

Legend
haha....no. I had no idea you were European and assumed you did know there is only one Super Bowl.
I think it is pointless to compare a tennis player, hockey player, basketball player and QB, which was the point of both my comments.

I certainly agree. I would say that there's no point even comparing players from different eras except in a light of their achievements vs their peers because all sports evolve and if you go just a few decades ago it's like you're watching a different sport.

However one can argue that although collective sports are very different, you can underline the importance of any individual within a team based on how much depends on an individual player in that particular sport.
 

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
I put Fed 4th only because his statistical GOAT claim is the most in jeopardy..
Please explain this?

If you mean statistically as in the statistical metrics by which tennis players are measured then you're way off base here. Federer absolutely and utterly dominates the most important tennis stats lists of all time (open era at least). In the few categories he's not #1 he's #2 or #3. And the most important statistics by which great tennis players are compared he basically tops them all outright. And Nadal and Djokovic are not nearly as close to assailing him in more than one or two of the most key metrics.

What you said about tennis being a much more physically demanding sport than probably any of the others mentioned in your post is dear right. The multi-faceted skill-set required to become a top tennis player, in addition to the ludicrous all-round athletic abilities required, are hugely demanding compared to virtually any other sport but especially American football which is a sport of specialist positions with very defined, narrow roles and athletic attributes required.
 

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
Please explain this?

If you mean statistically as in the statistical metrics by which tennis players are measured then you're way off base here. Federer absolutely and utterly dominates the most important tennis stats lists of all time (open era at least). In the few categories he's not #1 he's #2 or #3. And the most important statistics by which great tennis players are compared he basically tops them all outright. And Nadal and Djokovic are not nearly as close to assailing him in more than one or two of the most key metrics.

What you said about tennis being a much more physically demanding sport than probably any of the others mentioned in your post is dear right. The multi-faceted skill-set required to become a top tennis player, in addition to the ludicrous all-round athletic abilities required, are hugely demanding compared to virtually any other sport but especially American football which is a sport of specialist positions with very defined, narrow roles and athletic attributes required.
What I mean is that his statistical GOAT claim is more in jeopardy than the others in the other sports because Nadal and-or Djokovic may surpass his slam count because they are current players and Djokovic in particular has more than enough in common with Federer (overall dominance and such) to create a heated debate. In contrast, Gretzky is so far ahead in hockey it is laughable, Then I put Jordan 2nd and Brady 3rd because no current players will match them, Lebron is unlikely to win 6 championships at this point, and only a player from a bygone era has a relatively minor argument against Brady.

I think Fed is by far the best athlete of the 4 if you look at overall skill set needed, and of the 4, only Jordan matches him somewhat in popularity, but neither of those things matter to me here because they do not really address the topic.
 

GoldenSwing

Rookie
What I mean is that his statistical GOAT claim is more in jeopardy than the others in the other sports because Nadal and-or Djokovic may surpass his slam count because they are current players and Djokovic in particular has more than enough in common with Federer (overall dominance and such) to create a heated debate. In contrast, Gretzky is so far ahead in hockey it is laughable, Then I put Jordan 2nd and Brady 3rd because no current players will match them, Lebron is unlikely to win 6 championships at this point, and only a player from a bygone era has a relatively minor argument against Brady.

I think Fed is by far the best athlete of the 4 if you look at overall skill set needed, and of the 4, only Jordan matches him somewhat in popularity, but neither of those things matter to me here because they do not really address the topic.
This post pretty much nails it. But we also have to go beyond sport achievements and towards global impact which is why Ali and MJ are greater than Fed....

It’s my opinion of course but I feel like Federer is barely even a household name here in the United States. AND he’s the most iconic and popular tennis player of all time..
 

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
This post pretty much nails it. But we also have to go beyond sport achievements and towards global impact which is why Ali and MJ are greater than Fed....

It’s my opinion of course but I feel like Federer is barely even a household name here in the United States. AND he’s the most iconic and popular tennis player of all time..
That's only because Federer isn't American. On a global scale Federer is right up their with anyone including Ali and MJ.
 

Karma Tennis

Hall of Fame
That's only because Federer isn't American. On a global scale Federer is right up their with anyone including Ali and MJ.
How big is Federer in South America these days? I know he did a very successful Exhibition Match Tour there back in 2019.

But is he a household name there these days?
 

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
How big is Federer in South America these days? I know he did a very successful Exhibition Match Tour there back in 2019.

But is he a household name there these days?
Wouldn't be able to say. I'm from North America. I just know tennis is a significantly more global sport than ice hockey and American football. And when you consider both India and China have over a billion people and Federer has traveled to each country a few times you'd have to think he's up there with anyone past or present in a popularity contest including Ali and MJ. I see Nadal and Djokovic being very popular worldwide as well for that matter.
 

-NN-

G.O.A.T.
Wouldn't be able to say. I'm from North America. I just know tennis is a significantly more global sport than ice hockey and American football. And when you consider both India and China have over a billion people and Federer has traveled to each country a few times you'd have to think he's up there with anyone past or present in a popularity contest including Ali and MJ. I see Nadal and Djokovic being very popular worldwide as well for that matter.
Interesting how generational these things are though. In my dealings with young people even up to early 20s, a remarkable amount don't have a clue who Federer are even though he's still active. And they often don't know who Ali and MJ are, so these megastars don't have quite the reach one might think. I know because these are the sort of queries I find ways to slip in out of curiosity.

Djokovic is dominant and many don't know who he is (UK based but quite international representation).
 
Top