GOAT is fictional thing - says Roger

OhYes

Legend
"GOAT just doesn't exist.
If it would exist, such player would be best in:
Weeks at No.1
Number of Grand Slam titles
Number of all titles combined
Longevity of a player" :oops: ... :laughing::-D:-D

Really Rog, Longevity ? Is that crucial ?
 
Last edited:

clayqueen

G.O.A.T.
GOAT just doesn't exist.
If it would exist, such player would be best in:
Weeks at No.1
Number of Grand Slam titles
Number of all titles combined
Longevity of a player :oops: ... :laughing::-D:-D

Really Rog, Longevity ? Is that crucial ?
Add to that:

Number of M1000 titles
Number of titles won at a single event
Number of times a player has won 10+ titles in more than event
The % of times a player has won a slam
 

Azure

Legend
GOAT should be a matter of personal opinion.

"The Greatest" is a vague term which could have multiple definitions and hence a range of players could be regarded, legitimately, as the GOAT.
I have often thought about it and I think right now I would like to think that it is indeed possible for someone to be the greatest at something within a generally accepted time frame but that person has to demonstrate clearly - I mean should be head and shoulders above his contemporaries - a bit like how Einstein was. Even then I am able to argue for him only within a certain domain and certain time span. :)
 

clayqueen

G.O.A.T.
Number of NCYGS
Number of Golden Masters
Your first won Slam must be first Slam in a year
Leader in prize money... stuff like that
Leader in prizemoney is misleading because Djokovic has won less titles than Federer and Nadal but has won the most in prize money because prize money increased significantly when Djokovic won the majority of his titles.
 
He has a point that as long as it’s arguable you’re not really GOAT. In hockey for instance it’s pretty clear cut with Gretzky just destroying every other player by miles in records. For instance there’s no “most 200 point seasons” record since he has multiple and no one else has 1.

Rod’s 2xCYGS is a unique record but then there’s all these other areas where he’s not clearly ahead
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
Problem with GOAT in tennis is you can pick holes in the top guy’s CV.

Fed is lacking in RG titles and Nadal in Wimbledon/AO for example.

You’d need a guy with at least 22/23+ slams, 4+ at each slam with one slam dominated (7+), CYGS, over 350 weeks at number 1 and most titles etc to be clearly head and shoulders the overall GOAT.

Of course, OHBH is a pre requisite.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
Add to that:

Number of M1000 titles
Number of titles won at a single event
Number of times a player has won 10+ titles in more than event
The % of times a player has won a slam
How about H2H, Rog?

Surely it matters how often you beat your biggest rival in slam matches?
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
Problem with GOAT in tennis is you can pick holes in the top guy’s CV.

Fed is lacking in RG titles and Nadal in Wimbledon/AO for example.

You’d need a guy with at least 22/23+ slams, 4+ at each slam with one slam dominated (7+), CYGS, over 350 weeks at number 1 and most titles etc to be clearly head and shoulders the GOAT.

Of course, OHBH is a pre requisite.
And still you can't be GOAT coz eras are incomparable.

The GOAT debate is really a debate which of the Big 3 is the biggest player. OAT does not exist. Only GOTE. Greatest of this Era.
 

Arak

New User
None of the current and past players qualifies as the GOAT. There might be one in the future, or not.
 

StANDAA

Legend
Problem with GOAT in tennis is you can pick holes in the top guy’s CV.

Fed is lacking in RG titles and Nadal in Wimbledon/AO for example.

You’d need a guy with at least 22/23+ slams, 4+ at each slam with one slam dominated (7+), CYGS, over 350 weeks at number 1 and most titles etc to be clearly head and shoulders the overall GOAT.

Of course, OHBH is a pre requisite.
And still you can't be GOAT coz eras are incomparable.

The GOAT debate is really a debate which of the Big 3 is the biggest player. OAT does not exist. Only GOTE. Greatest of this Era.
this and this
 
GOAT is if there is no death on earth and all human being is in prime at the same time, there would be no era to compare to and could easily compare the head to head match-up in thousand meetings. Until this happen, there is no GOAT in any sports period. Imagine this, Michael Jordan in his prime vs Lebron James in his prime and who's the GOAT if they meet at the same time? Didn't happen because the match-up didn't take place. That's why GOAT is overrated and is most useless debate when comparing eras. GOAT is when you happen to witness Nadal vs Borg in their prime or Federer vs Borg or McEnroe vs Nadal in their prime since McEnroe is a lefty and Nadal would not be able to use his forehand to the backhand. We'll never know of this match-up, sadly and settle the debate who is GOAT once for all. 20 to 30 years from now, people will begin to debate their player in their prime threating big 3 of the Slams count and even exceeding them all by 10's or 2 CYGS without any competition. If Nadal or Djokovic wasn't even born and Federer could have won 2 CYGS by now and maybe 30 to 35 slams. Just a rhetoric question.
 
He has a point that as long as it’s arguable you’re not really GOAT. In hockey for instance it’s pretty clear cut with Gretzky just destroying every other player by miles in records. For instance there’s no “most 200 point seasons” record since he has multiple and no one else has 1.

Rod’s 2xCYGS is a unique record but then there’s all these other areas where he’s not clearly ahead
Gretzky is a definite example, there just happens to be 3 in tennis so the separation is not even close. But era can be argued too as it is much harder to score these days.
 

BVSlam

Professional
Next time old Fedr better read up on this topic here on TW before talking about it in another interview so he may offer a more thorough list of every little necessary accomplishment that he now so arrogantly skipped!
 
‘But you know, it’s hard to judge who is the best of all time, you see Bjorn Borg, John McEnroe, Rod Laver, Rafael Nadal, Ivan Lendl, Jimmy Connors and Pete Sampras. ‘There are so many players [who] did fabulous things, so I tried my best with my career. I didn’t expect myself playing maybe this well at this age. I’m happy with what I achieved, and hope I can keep going.’

-Roger Federer

From 2017:

https://metro.co.uk/2017/10/18/roger-federer-suggests-hes-not-actually-the-goat-after-all-7010791/

 

topher

Semi-Pro
I have often thought about it and I think right now I would like to think that it is indeed possible for someone to be the greatest at something within a generally accepted time frame but that person has to demonstrate clearly - I mean should be head and shoulders above his contemporaries - a bit like how Einstein was. Even then I am able to argue for him only within a certain domain and certain time span. :)
Was even Einstein clearly head and shoulders above? You had very many hugely accomplished scientists from that time period. Niels Bohr comes to mind, Heisenberg maybe. I'd still put Einstein as clear #1 for the century to me, but I'm sure there's some Danish people who feel Bohr is #1.
 
‘But you know, it’s hard to judge who is the best of all time, you see Bjorn Borg, John McEnroe, Rod Laver, Rafael Nadal, Ivan Lendl, Jimmy Connors and Pete Sampras. ‘There are so many players [who] did fabulous things, so I tried my best with my career. I didn’t expect myself playing maybe this well at this age. I’m happy with what I achieved, and hope I can keep going.’

-Roger Federer

From 2017:

https://metro.co.uk/2017/10/18/roger-federer-suggests-hes-not-actually-the-goat-after-all-7010791/

OP knows why she's on this site. :)
 

Azure

Legend
Was even Einstein clearly head and shoulders above? You had very many hugely accomplished scientists from that time period. Niels Bohr comes to mind, Heisenberg maybe. I'd still put Einstein as clear #1 for the century to me, but I'm sure there's some Danish people who feel Bohr is #1.
Einstein was more wide ranging as far as his subjects go - how far is relativity from quantum physics really! Again as I said, it's only an argument and there is no definitive answer anyway.
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
"GOAT just doesn't exist.
If it would exist, such player would be best in:
Weeks at No.1
Number of Grand Slam titles
Number of all titles combined
Longevity of a player" :oops: ... :laughing::-D:-D

Really Rog, Longevity ? Is that crucial ?
Two things:

1. Is the quote legitimate.
2. When did he say it.

At the end of it al, if he did say it recently, it reads like's already trying to psychologically prepare himself from the day Nadal passes his majors count...to save face, and to play a passive attemot to con people into no longer bleiveing in the idea of a GOAT player.
 
Top