GOAT according to McEnroe

D

Deleted member 3771

Guest
Rod Laver may have won 9 Wimbledons in a row if he didnt have to miss the 5 Wimbledons (63-67) between turning professional in 1963 and the start of the Open era in 1968. He also missed all the other slams for those 5 years yet still achieved 2 career slams. What a freak. I think Fed has a way to go to top that feat.

Wimbledon titles: 1961, 1962, 1968, 1969
 
D

Deleted member 3771

Guest
I think people are talking about singles GOAT here. Singles and doubles are very specialised and different sports. Woodbridge is way ahead of mac in the doubles GOAT.

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.
 

brc444

Rookie
Everyone seems to have their own GOAT criteria. For me, it's total number of slams period. So the current GOAT for me is Sampras with 14 and if Fed reaches 15, then he is GOAT period (regardless of whether he wins the FO).
 

CyBorg

Legend
Everyone seems to have their own GOAT criteria. For me, it's total number of slams period. So the current GOAT for me is Sampras with 14 and if Fed reaches 15, then he is GOAT period (regardless of whether he wins the FO).

So Pancho Gonzalez is where on your list?
 

chaognosis

Semi-Pro
So Pancho Gonzalez is where on your list?

I guess he's tied with Rafter, Safin, Hewitt...?

Also, Emerson is greater than Laver, Borg, Federer, Budge...?

The "Slams only" methodology is so obviously flawed if people would just THINK about it.
 

brc444

Rookie
How many slams did Gonzales win? I am only aware of his 1948 and 49 wins at the US Open. It does not look like he would fare to well on my GOAT criteria. I assume he turned pro early on and lost out on many opportunities to win more slams.
 

avmoghe

Semi-Pro
Everyone seems to have their own GOAT criteria. For me, it's total number of slams period. So the current GOAT for me is Sampras with 14 and if Fed reaches 15, then he is GOAT period (regardless of whether he wins the FO).

No offense, but I consider this ridiculous. So, if Nadal wins the FO for the next 12 years (without any other slams), he would be your GOAT?

Mastery and accomplishment on *EVERY* available tennis surface is an absolute must.

PS: Note the use of the word "available" - a hundred years from now we may be playing on some completely different surface - but that cannot be held against Federer, Sampras, or anyone else.
 

brc444

Rookie
I don't think it would be ridiculous. If Nadal could mange the unbelievable accomplishment of winning 15 FO's, why wouldn't we consider him the GOAT? Being able to win slams at all 4 majors gives you more opportunities to increase your total slam wins but if someone like Nadal can reach the highest total with less opportunities by excelling at one major, the more power to you.
 

caesar66

Professional
I think people are talking about singles GOAT here. Singles and doubles are very specialised and different sports. Woodbridge is way ahead of mac in the doubles GOAT.

I'm just saying that Mac, to me, is the overall GOAT because of the fact that he was great at singles and doubles. I agree that you can talk of a GOAT at singles or doubles GOAT's in there own right, and that the GOAT at singles is more qualified than Mac in the singles category, and the Doubles GOAT is better than Mac in the doubles category, I just mean that, for me, his accomplishments on both specialized and different sports qualify him as my GOAT. I consider sampras the GOAT for specifically singles (with Fed eclipsing him if he ties the 14 GS records, due to his appearances in the finals of RG), and probably woodbridge the "GOAT" for doubles (though i'd have to put it as the Woodies together, rather than just Woodbridge), I'm just saying that for the overall Greatest rounded player of all time, to me its mac. My comment was just that if Mac is giving advice to fed on being the GOAT overall, if I were Mac, I'd make the case for myself.
 

CyBorg

Legend
How many slams did Gonzales win? I am only aware of his 1948 and 49 wins at the US Open. It does not look like he would fare to well on my GOAT criteria. I assume he turned pro early on and lost out on many opportunities to win more slams.

Well, at least you're coherently ignorant.
 

ksbh

Banned
I have to agree with Eviscerator and other posters ... Roger Federer being considered GOAT is laughable!

Until he stops getting repeatedly spanked by Rafael Nadal in French Open finals and actually wins one, he's not even close to being GOAT.
 

brc444

Rookie
Borg could have become GOAT if he didn't decide to retire after 1981. He would have had some good oppotunities to win several more slams, especially at the FO, so he could have reached 15. For me these tennis career decisions, have consequences in terms of GOAT because they have less slam wins. Other decisions that have negative consequences include players skipping the AO in the 1970s and 1980s, players in the 1970s missing slams to play World Team tennis, and players in the pre-open era turning pro too soon. I have heard both Mcenroe and Agassi say they regret their decsions to skip so many AOs.
 

diggler

Hall of Fame
I don't know how you could pick Woodbridge over McEnroe in doubles. If you were playing for your life, you would want Mac by your side.
 

Greengrass

New User
Laver is the GOAT for Mac because Laver is the player that Mac grew up idolising. Its very hard to "let go" of our childhood heroes.
 

superman1

Legend
It's very hard for me to pick between Sampras and Laver...but I have to go with Sampras. He dominated a greater number of high quality players with varying styles, and he did it with a tiny racquet and a serve/volley style that was going out of style. Send him back in time and he would have blasted away EVERYONE with wooden racquets.
 

lawrence

Hall of Fame
"And despite his advanced age he held an overall win-loss-percentage of around 80% in open era alone, which places him still fifth on the open era list behind Björn Borg, Jimmy Connors, Ivan Lendl and John McEnroe, but ahead of Pete Sampras and Roger Federer."

thats pretty good considering he wouldve been old already
 
Last edited:
Top