GOAT according to McEnroe

diggler

diggler

Hall of Fame
According to McEnroe, Federer cannot be considered the GOAT unless he wins the French. McEnroe rated Laver above Federer.

Logically this means that Sampras is behind Laver as well. The total number of slams is also irrelevant based on this argument. (Total slams are always irrelevant because the previous holder of the record was Emerson and noone ever said he was the GOAT). Where does this put Borg and Agassi given they have won the French and Wimbledon?
 
If Federer has 15 slams but no RG, then he'll still be GOAT.
If he has 15 slams including a French, then he'll be undisputed GOAT.
 
He'll be behind Laver until he wins the French , 4 slams in a year and the Davis cup 4 years in a row.
 
Mad iX said:
If Federer has 15 slams but no RG, then he'll still be GOAT.
Click to expand...

Incorrect


Mad iX said:
If he has 15 slams including a French, then he'll be undisputed GOAT.
Click to expand...

Maybe by some, but not most knowledgeable annalists.

To be considered the "undisputed" GOAT he will need to win two calender Grand Slams.

At a minimum he will need at least one calender Grand Slam, otherwise he will not have come close to what Laver was able to do twice.
 
I'm just quoting McEnroe, I don't necessarily agree with him.


In defence of Laver, he lost several years when pros weren't allowed to enter Wimbledon. He might have 20 slams if he played all those years.

In defence of Federer, tennis wasn't a very international sport in the 60's.
 
diggler said:
I'm just quoting McEnroe, I don't necessarily agree with him.


In defence of Laver, he lost several years when pros weren't allowed to enter Wimbledon. He might have 20 slams if he played all those years.

In defence of Federer, tennis wasn't a very international sport in the 60's.
Click to expand...

:roll:

You had been doing well until you made that last comment.
 
Eviscerator said:
Incorrect




Maybe by some, but not most knowledgeable annalists.

To be considered the "undisputed" GOAT he will need to win two calender Grand Slams.

At a minimum he will need at least one calender Grand Slam, otherwise he will not have come close to what Laver was able to do twice.
Click to expand...

Will the half-truths ever stop?

Laver's first grand slam was against amateurs. It's a non-issue and a virtual non-accomplishment.
 
TheNatural said:
He'll be behind Laver until he wins the French , 4 slams in a year and the Davis cup 4 years in a row.
Click to expand...

No one will win the Davis Cup four years in a row. Tennis is much more competitive internationally. Besides the Swiss aren't well equipped to win the Davis Cup and that's not Federer's fault.
 
Mad iX said:
If Federer has 15 slams but no RG, then he'll still be GOAT.
If he has 15 slams including a French, then he'll be undisputed GOAT.
Click to expand...

Federer might already be the greatest of all time.

Name me one guy in tennis history who treated the first week of Wimbledon as a practice session.

Definitely not Laver.
 
CyBorg said:
Will the half-truths ever stop?

Laver's first grand slam was against amateurs. It's a non-issue and a virtual non-accomplishment.
Click to expand...

I agree but isnt it possible had there been open tennis then he would have had 2 slams anyway, another in one of those years he was in the then "pro" ranks. Of course his 62 slam was bogus. He would have had almost no chance of winning even 1 slam that particular year had there been "open" tennis.
 
Eviscerator said:
Incorrect




Maybe by some, but not most knowledgeable annalists.

To be considered the "undisputed" GOAT he will need to win two calender Grand Slams.

At a minimum he will need at least one calender Grand Slam, otherwise he will not have come close to what Laver was able to do twice.
Click to expand...

If 3 of the grandslams were played on grass, he'd have 10 calendar grandslams...
 
CyBorg said:
Federer might already be the greatest of all time.

Name me one guy in tennis history who treated the first week of Wimbledon as a practice session.

Definitely not Laver.
Click to expand...


I am a huge Federer fan obviously but he isnt even close to the greatest ever yet. He is one of the greats, I would say somewhere from 5th to 8th all time. He is definitely below all of Sampras, Borg, Laver, Gonzalez at this point. He may be ahead or may be below any of below Budge, Tilden, and Rosewall.
 
federerfanatic said:
I agree but isnt it possible had there been open tennis then he would have had 2 slams anyway, another in one of those years he was in the then "pro" ranks. Of course his 62 slam was bogus. He would have had almost no chance of winning even 1 slam that particular year had there been "open" tennis.
Click to expand...

I doubt he would have won two. It took him a little while to catch up to Rosewall. Laver beating Rosewall at the 69 French Open was an amazing accomplishment - comparable to Federer potentially beating Nadal. But it took him years to get to that level.
 
If I were mac, I'd consider myself the greatest of all time. That many singles and doubles wins makes him the most complete player of all time to me, but thats just my opinion. GOAT is relative anyway, there's never going to be a single face to put with that title that everyone will agree on. Besides, if its natural talent that makes one the GOAT, I think federer has it in the bag. If its dogged determination at the slams, maybe Sampras has it. If its winning grand slams on all surfaces, Laver's got it. To me, they are sort of a triumvirate of what makes up the GOAT. I still put mac up there because of his singles and doubles wins and dedication to davis cup, but again, thats a relative statement, bc its just my opinion. Tons of people will call me a fool for it and say that doubles is lazy and that its not a great accomplishment to have a great amount of doubles titles, thus my idea of mac being the GOAT is out the window. I'll still consider him the GOAT though, so who cares?
 
federerfanatic said:
I am a huge Federer fan obviously but he isnt even close to the greatest ever yet. He is one of the greats, I would say somewhere from 5th to 8th all time. He is definitely below all of Sampras, Borg, Laver, Gonzalez at this point. He may be ahead or may be below any of below Budge, Tilden, and Rosewall.
Click to expand...

He is not definitely below those guys. Yes, I would rate Borg, Gonzalez and Laver over him - but only by a hair. Federer is already the greatest ever on hardcourts. And I don't think it's blasphemous to say that he trumps all on grass. The guy quite simply doesn't lose sets on either of these surfaces. Borg, conversely, didn't lose sets on clay but had to scrap by on grass. Gonzalez and Laver - neither won with this kind of ease. Federer's play on clay lacks - and is actually overrated in my opinion - but it's still better than Sampras'.
 
CyBorg said:
I doubt he would have won two. It took him a little while to catch up to Rosewall. Laver beating Rosewall at the 69 French Open was an amazing accomplishment - comparable to Federer potentially beating Nadal. But it took him years to get to that level.
Click to expand...

Maybe you are right. It was a monumental achievement for him to beat Rosewall on clay.
 
caesar66 said:
If I were mac, I'd consider myself the greatest of all time. That many singles and doubles wins makes him the most complete player of all time to me, but thats just my opinion. GOAT is relative anyway, there's never going to be a single face to put with that title that everyone will agree on. Besides, if its natural talent that makes one the GOAT, I think federer has it in the bag. If its dogged determination at the slams, maybe Sampras has it. If its winning grand slams on all surfaces, Laver's got it. To me, they are sort of a triumvirate of what makes up the GOAT. I still put mac up there because of his singles and doubles wins and dedication to davis cup, but again, thats a relative statement, bc its just my opinion. Tons of people will call me a fool for it and say that doubles is lazy and that its not a great accomplishment to have a great amount of doubles titles, thus my idea of mac being the GOAT is out the window. I'll still consider him the GOAT though, so who cares?
Click to expand...

I agree.....
 
CyBorg said:
Will the half-truths ever stop?

Laver's first grand slam was against amateurs. It's a non-issue and a virtual non-accomplishment.
Click to expand...

:roll:

Hmmm, I was not aware reality was a half truth.
You are either obtuse or ignoring the fact that other great players were also amateurs at the time. Additionally calling the winning of all four majors in a calender year a virtual non-accomplishment is just absurd.

Regardless, he did it again in 1969 as a professional if that makes you feel any better, and until Federer is able to do that he can never be considered the "undisputed GOAT".
 
Eviscerator said:
:roll:

Hmmm, I was not aware reality was a half truth.
You are either obtuse or ignoring the fact that other great players were also amateurs at the time. Additionally calling the winning of all four majors in a calender year a virtual non-accomplishment is just absurd.

Regardless, he did it again in 1969 as a professional if that makes you feel any better, and until Federer is able to do that he can never be considered the "undisputed GOAT".
Click to expand...

*sigh* Do your homework before you post, folks.
 
Agassi won slams on 4 surfaces

Connors won US on 3 surfaces (Forest Hills grass and green clay, Flushing Meadows hardcourt.)
 
I agree with McEnroe about the need of a FO title. That was my argument all along in the GOAT discussion.

If Fed wins the FO, he'd be the GOAT in the open era in my mind because he would have conquered Slams on all surfaces and have the absolute number of Slam titles to show. Borg lacks the US Open; Agassi lacks the sheer number of Slams.
 
aimr75 said:
surfaces/majors

semantics
Click to expand...

Little details like this are vital. Draws, surfaces, pro/amateur are all factors. Don Budge's majors, for example, are only minor factors to his accomplishments once one looks carefully at all the details.
 
dysonlu said:
I agree with McEnroe about the need of a FO title. That was my argument all along in the GOAT discussion.

If Fed wins the FO, he'd be the GOAT in the open era in my mind because he would have conquered Slams on all surfaces and have the absolute number of Slam titles to show.
Click to expand...

What if Nadal breaks his leg and Federer wins the French Open?

What difference does that make to his greatness?

It doesn't - hence details. Gaston Gaudio has a French Open - don't forget that.
 
What I don't get is how people can call Laver the goat when 3 of the slams were played on grass, it just doesn't make sense to me.
 
dima said:
What I don't get is how people can call Laver the goat when 3 of the slams were played on grass, it just doesn't make sense to me.
Click to expand...

His was great on clay. He was great on grass. He won titles on hardcourts. He won titles on carpet.
 
because it is about the name: "open era" and the 4 different names of slams.
Tennis outsiders probably know about the 4 slams names, but if you ask them the differences in surfaces, they probably only know FO is red. Hence, the so-called GOAT of a calender grand slam that Laver has done makes more sense to outsiders only.
 
and to extend McEnroe's logic, Steffi Graf is the GOAT of all, men and women. Laver can't compare to her. Laver didn't win an Olympic gold in that calender year.
 
CyBorg said:
What if Nadal breaks his leg and Federer wins the French Open?

What difference does that make to his greatness?

It doesn't - hence details. Gaston Gaudio has a French Open - don't forget that.
Click to expand...

Then, no need to discuss about the GOAT. With What if's, we are getting no where. What if Nadal was playing during Borg's era or during Agassi's prime? Would they've won the FO?

For the sake of the discussion, we must only consider factors that a player can himself control. Nadal breaking his leg is not one of those factors.
 
dysonlu said:
Then, no need to discuss about the GOAT.
Click to expand...

Of course there is a need. One must just make an effort to make a coherent, in-depth argument rather than recycle the same old nonsense about 'The Slam' and how it is the essential accomplishment to decide who is the best. Similarly if a player wins a slam with a lightweight draw that should factor into the argument.

Details make us all more well-informed.
 
If we just concentrate on the Open Era, the Greatest of Open Era (GOOE) based on majors is

14: Pete Sampras
11: Björn Borg
10: Roger Federer
8: Andre Agassi, Jimmy Connors, Ivan Lendl
7: John McEnroe, Mats Wilander
6: Boris Becker, Stefan Edberg
5: Rod Laver, John Newcombe
4: Ken Rosewall, Guillermo Vilas, Jim Courier
3: Arthur Ashe, Gustavo Kuerten, Jan Kodeš, Rafael Nadal
2: Stan Smith, Lleyton Hewitt, Marat Safin, Patrick Rafter, Ilie Năstase, Yevgeny Kafelnikov, Johan Kriek, Sergi Bruguera
1: Goran Ivanišević, Andy Roddick, Richard Krajicek, Michael Stich, Pat Cash, Manuel Orantes, Gastón Gaudio, Juan Carlos Ferrero, Albert Costa, Carlos Moyá, Thomas Muster, Andrés Gómez, Michael Chang, Yannick Noah, Adriano Panatta, Andrés Gimeno, Thomas Johansson, Petr Korda, Brian Teacher, Roscoe Tanner, Mark Edmondson, Vitas Gerulaitis


That's pretty fair isn't it?
 
tennis_hand said:
and to extend McEnroe's logic, Steffi Graf is the GOAT of all, men and women. Laver can't compare to her. Laver didn't win an Olympic gold in that calender year.
Click to expand...

She probably is. Sheer number of Slams: 22 GS: 6 FO, 5 US Open, 7 Wimbledon, 4 AO. All GS surfaces conquered, multiple times. Calendar year Grand Slam + gold medal same year.
 
CyBorg said:
*sigh* Do your homework before you post, folks.
Click to expand...


My friend, you are the one who needs to do their homework if you actually believe some of the earlier comments you made. A player can only compete against who is available at the time, and the conditions of the time. Laver played and won a Grand Slam in 1962, and nothing can change that fact. Just because some of the better players were not available to play against him, does not take those titles he won away from him. Furthermore, players like Emerson were not chopped liver so give some respect to players like him rather than making it seem as if the amateurs then were somehow equivalent to amateurs of today.
 
diggler said:
If we just concentrate on the Open Era, the Greatest of Open Era (GOOE) based on majors is

14: Pete Sampras
11: Björn Borg
10: Roger Federer
8: Andre Agassi, Jimmy Connors, Ivan Lendl
7: John McEnroe, Mats Wilander
6: Boris Becker, Stefan Edberg
5: Rod Laver, John Newcombe
4: Ken Rosewall, Guillermo Vilas, Jim Courier
3: Arthur Ashe, Gustavo Kuerten, Jan Kodeš, Rafael Nadal
2: Stan Smith, Lleyton Hewitt, Marat Safin, Patrick Rafter, Ilie Năstase, Yevgeny Kafelnikov, Johan Kriek, Sergi Bruguera
1: Goran Ivanišević, Andy Roddick, Richard Krajicek, Michael Stich, Pat Cash, Manuel Orantes, Gastón Gaudio, Juan Carlos Ferrero, Albert Costa, Carlos Moyá, Thomas Muster, Andrés Gómez, Michael Chang, Yannick Noah, Adriano Panatta, Andrés Gimeno, Thomas Johansson, Petr Korda, Brian Teacher, Roscoe Tanner, Mark Edmondson, Vitas Gerulaitis


That's pretty fair isn't it?
Click to expand...

Slam totals became a worthy figure about 1987-onwards once they shifted the Aussie to January and players started to care enough to come there.
 
Eviscerator said:
My friend, you are the one who needs to do their homework if you actually believe some of the earlier comments you made. A player can only compete against who is available at the time, and the conditions of the time. Laver played and won a Grand Slam in 1962, and nothing can change that fact. Just because some of the better players were not available to play against him, does not take those titles he won away from him. Furthermore, players like Emerson were not chopped liver so give some respect to players like him rather than making it seem as if the amateurs then were somehow equivalent to amateurs of today.
Click to expand...

Who was the guy that won the juniot grand slam? Edberg?

Let's count him in the GOAT discussion with that exciting factoid.
 
CyBorg said:
Of course there is a need. One must just make an effort to make a coherent, in-depth argument rather than recycle the same old nonsense about 'The Slam' and how it is the essential accomplishment to decide who is the best. Similarly if a player wins a slam with a lightweight draw that should factor into the argument.

Details make us all more well-informed.
Click to expand...

People use "The Slam" argument because that would differentiate Roger from Pete, from Borg, if Roger does it. That would solidify the argument in favor of Roger being the GOAT. Of course, "The Slam" is NOT absolutely essential for him to be considered the GOAT.

Gaston Gaudio has a FO title, but nothing else. Not sure why you brought that up in the previous comment. No one ever said the FO title was the only criteria for being the GOAT.
 
Last edited:
dysonlu said:
People use "The Slam" argument because that would differentiate Roger from Peter, from Borg, if Roger does it. That would solidify the argument in favor of Roger being the GOAT. Of course, "The Slam" is NOT absolutely essential for him to be considered the GOAT.

Gaston Gaudio has a FO title, but nothing else. Not sure why you brought that up in the previous comment. No one ever said the FO title was the only criteria for being the GOAT.
Click to expand...

Gaston Gaudio won the French Open title in a transitional clay era, before Nadal, after Ferrero. It was a weak year. It basically fell into his lap.

It's living proof that not all grand slam titles are equal if one digs up enough information. Some are just more important than others.
 
tennis_hand said:
and to extend McEnroe's logic, Steffi Graf is the GOAT of all, men and women. Laver can't compare to her. Laver didn't win an Olympic gold in that calender year.
Click to expand...

It is bad enough trying to discuss this issue with so many apples to oranges so don't add women into the mix. Obviously the women cannot compete against the men, so rank them among themselves so as to not muddy the waters.

BTW- While I think Graf is one of the best of all time, Court has more slam titles, something like 60 total. Of those she won 24 in singles alone.

As to the surface issue, the players cant pick and choose which surface the slams are played on. Sure Federer would have more slam titles if 3 of 4 were played on grass. God only knows how many slams Sampras would have with 3-4 on grass. The fact of the matter is that neither Pete not Roger has one on clay, and until they do, you cannot say they are the GOAT of mens tennis. And for many annalists you need at least one calender GS to equal, much less top Laver.
 
CyBorg said:
Who has conquered all surfaces?

Laver? The US Open was played on grass at the time.
Click to expand...

While the majors were limited to grass and clay, Laver had an excellent record on hard courts and won many important HC titles - there are several threads on the Former Pro Player Talk forum that reconstruct his tournament wins.

Also, while Rosewall was undoubtedly the best clay-court player of the 1960s, Laver was able to beat him on clay prior to '69. Rosewall's win over Laver in the '68 French Open was considered an upset at the time.
 
chaognosis said:
While the majors were limited to grass and clay, Laver had an excellent record on hard courts and won many important HC titles - there are several threads on the Former Pro Player Talk forum that reconstruct his tournament wins.

Also, while Rosewall was undoubtedly the best clay-court player of the 1960s, Laver was able to beat him on clay prior to '69. Rosewall's win over Laver in the '68 French Open was considered an upset at the time.
Click to expand...

Very good points.

I definitely agree that Laver's legit and am not challenging the claim. I am challenging the statement which asserts that one must dominate all surfaces at the same time to be considered the greatest of all time, as that relates to the slam, because as history proves fewer players have done this than some think. And this doesn't exactly apply to Laver because three of the slams were held on grass. Regardless one might assume that Rod would have won the Grand Slam had the surfaces been allocated as they are right now and we all know that he was fantastic on hard courts.

You are also right about Rosewall in the late 60s - he was pretty old by then and while still competitive he was past his prime on clay. Nonetheless Laver came into his own and beat Ken on Rosewall's best surface. Great accomplishment, but probably not as great as Federer potentially beating Nadal (young and strapping) on clay.
 
caesar66 said:
If I were mac, I'd consider myself the greatest of all time. That many singles and doubles wins makes him the most complete player of all time to me, but thats just my opinion. out the window. I'll still consider him the GOAT though, so who cares
Click to expand...

Laver won 3 of the 4 Slams in doubles and mixed doubles, and was in the finals of the 4th in both of them.

Definitely Laver is above Mac.
 
sureshs said:
Laver won 3 of the 4 Slams in doubles and mixed doubles, and was in the finals of the 4th in both of them.

Definitely Laver is above Mac.
Click to expand...

again, relative. Mac is one of the greatest doubles players ever, your opinion doesnt make anything definite. People use slams as a counter for GOAT but dont consider general success at other tournaments. Mac had a ton of doubles titles, one of them coming just a year or two ago (did laver do that?). plus mac has kept good form and still competes with people a good bit younger than him on both seniors tours. Again, GOAT is relative. He's still the Goat to me, if Laver is to you, thats fine, but at least say that it is only "definite" to you.
A word on surfaces; some folks will say that bc fed hasnt won RG, he wont be the GOAT, but when you look at his talent on clay, he's possibly the second best claycourter out there. Again, lots of folks point directly to slams as specific to GOAT status, but not to the persons talent on a surface. If nadal were not around, Federer would have won the last three French Opens. Nadal may be the best claycourter of all time, and be better on clay than fed (possibly the best overall player of all time), but the fact that fed is a lock to get to the finals of most clay tournaments and a good bet to win clay tournaments that nadal isnt in shows that he's still successful on the surface. Down the road these folks that say he hasnt won RG and thus isnt the GOAT will forget that he's had more success on clay than Sampras could have dreamed of. Its a matter of *possibly* the best overall player of all time only not having a french open title because he ran into *possibly* the best claycourter of all time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

The Dark Knight
According to Agassi logic Nadal is the goat
2 3 4
Replies
183
Views
13K
The Dark Knight
The Dark Knight
J
Crap about GOAT.
Replies
1
Views
744
rocket
R
C
GOAT: Either Nadal or Borg!
2
Replies
69
Views
5K
FeroBango
F
W
Undisputed GOAT of Open Era?
Replies
9
Views
879
Airspun
Airspun
F
If Nadal gets between 16 and 18 slams does that make Laver the GOAT?
Replies
41
Views
2K
Deleted member 743561
D
Back
Top