Goat List

Dechizen

Dechizen

Banned
Anyone disagree with this list, it's done according to Grand Slam Single Titles:

1. Roger Federer
2. Pete Sampras
3. Bjorn Borg
4. Rafael Nadal
5. Andre Agassi/Ivan Lendl/Jimmy Connors
6. Stefan Edberg/Mats Wilander/Boris Becker/John McEnroe

*Where does Laver go??
Now we will see if Nadal surpasses Federer:)
 
veroniquem

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
You could at least give the source: sports illustrated. It's one guy's opinion. Nothing more, nothing less. It's an endless debate because it all depends on the criteria people use. There is no possible consensus.
 
veroniquem

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
Oops you actually listed the criterion: # of slams won. In that case, yeah, sure, no argument :)
I just don't think 1 criterion is enough to determine the GOAT...
(and by the way, I should know since I'm one ha ha)
 
Last edited:
powerangle

powerangle

Legend
Dechizen said:
Anyone disagree with this list, it's done according to Grand Slam Single Titles:

1. Roger Federer
2. Pete Sampras
3. Bjorn Borg
4. Rafael Nadal
5. Andre Agassi/Ivan Lendl/Jimmy Connors
6. Stefan Edberg/Mats Wilander/Boris Becker/John McEnroe

*Where does Laver go??
Now we will see if Nadal surpasses Federer:)
Click to expand...

"GOAT" lists should definitely be done based on more than one criterion.
This is just a list of "# of grand slams won" :)
 
powerangle

powerangle

Legend
Dechizen said:
Grand Slams is what all the players really care about.I would rather win Wimbledon once than 50 non grandslam titles
Click to expand...

Fair enough that's your opinion. No need to discuss it then since you already have your criteria set in stone. ;) The facts are already there and no one can argue the number of grand slams won by each player.

If that's the case though,

Wilander and McEnroe should be above Edberg and Becker. You have that grouped together even though they won different number of slams (7 versus 6).
 
veroniquem

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
But even regarding slams, there are lots of different factors to consider: total # of, consecutive wins (at 1 slam AND overall), number of years at winning slams, all 4 or not, # of seasons with multiple slams, # won at every slam, age feats, winning pace, winning % in finals, etc, etc.
It's never that simple.
 
R

Richards19

Rookie
forzamilan90 said:
agassi's overrated, should not even be in top 10
Click to expand...

He should won at least 10 or 11 Slams if he played in Melbourne before 1995 (the first year he played at this place). The AO was definitely the place where he can play at his best. Maybe Nada is invincible at the FO, but Agassi was close to be invincible in Melbourne. Also, it's very difficult to complete a career GS especially on the old grass...
 
ubermeyer

ubermeyer

Hall of Fame
Dechizen said:
Anyone disagree with this list, it's done according to Grand Slam Single Titles:

1. Roger Federer
2. Pete Sampras
3. Bjorn Borg
4. Rafael Nadal
5. Andre Agassi/Ivan Lendl/Jimmy Connors
6. Stefan Edberg/Mats Wilander/Boris Becker/John McEnroe

*Where does Laver go??
Now we will see if Nadal surpasses Federer:)
Click to expand...

Really, nobody besides Federer, Sampras, Laver is relevant now. Nadal will probably be added to this list for GOAT contention, but at the moment he is not. Federer has already surpassed Sampras in pretty much every way, but Sampras was still great.
 
P

paul the octopus

New User
Dechizen said:
Grand Slams is what all the players really care about.I would rather win Wimbledon once than 50 non grandslam titles
Click to expand...

No they aren't. Back in Borg's time, nobody talked about slam count like they do today, or else he would actually have showed up to Australia.

I can't believe how little respect Borg gets. He was more dominant at the French than Rafa and better at Wimbledon than Roger. He was a peer genius, the greatest talent the game has ever known. If he had been operating under the same mindset with regards to slams as modern players, he would have blown past 16 like it was nothing.
 
clayman2000

clayman2000

Hall of Fame
paul the octopus said:
No they aren't. Back in Borg's time, nobody talked about slam count like they do today, or else he would actually have showed up to Australia.

I can't believe how little respect Borg gets. He was more dominant at the French than Rafa and better at Wimbledon than Roger. He was a peer genius, the greatest talent the game has ever known. If he had been operating under the same mindset with regards to slams as modern players, he would have blown past 16 like it was nothing.
Click to expand...

I know Borg had some sick FO's, but he didnt win his first 4 FO's played like Rafa did. Both have won the FO twice without dropping a set, but Nadal did bagel Fed in the 08 final, and had to beat the world no 1 for his first 4 titles.

As for being better than Fed at Wimby.... Fed to won 5 in a row, and added the 6th. He also made 7 straight finals, and had to play the no 2 seed in those finals 5 times.
 
D

Deleted member 21996

Guest
Dechizen said:
Anyone disagree with this list, it's done according to Grand Slam Single Titles:

1. Roger Federer
2. Pete Sampras
3. Bjorn Borg
4. Rafael Nadal
5. Andre Agassi/Ivan Lendl/Jimmy Connors
6. Stefan Edberg/Mats Wilander/Boris Becker/John McEnroe

*Where does Laver go??
Now we will see if Nadal surpasses Federer:)
Click to expand...

that is list very complete and insightfull...

:rolleyes:
 
T

The Black Reaper

Banned
1) Federer; noone dominated like he did. At least with Nadal, people think they can beat him outside of clay.....except that Spannish tw@t Verdasco who doesn't think he can beat anyone. With Federer in his prime, no one truly believed they could beat him on a hard court, or grasscourt and most players on a claycourt besides Nadal in years 04-07. Weak era theorists are stupid. Yes this era isn't what you would call strong but to dominate guys like Hewitt, Roddick, Nalbandian, Ferrero, Djokovic and others like he did for those 4 years was something else.

2) Sampras. Arguably as good as Federer in terms of skill and ability, he lost a lot more than Federer. Also was subject to brutal beatdowns to guys like Hewitt, Krajicek, Safin etc which didn't happen to Federer outside of FO08 and AO 2008 where against Djokovic he wasn't even 100%.

Borg, simply because he could have won more.


These are the only three players who I consider worthy of getting GOAT status.
 
B

baseliner

Professional
#1 Has to be Laver. Won the calendar year grand slam two different times. How many of your GOAT nominees have even won each of the GS titles 2 times? No one? Now I believe Nadal can win another USO and another Australian but as of now, I don't think anyone on your list has won all of the GS titles twice. Laver has. That is my criteria for GOAT.
 
H

hawk eye

Hall of Fame
The Black Reaper said:
1) Federer; noone dominated like he did. At least with Nadal, people think they can beat him outside of clay.....except that Spannish tw@t Verdasco who doesn't think he can beat anyone. With Federer in his prime, no one truly believed they could beat him on a hard court, or grasscourt and most players on a claycourt besides Nadal in years 04-07. Weak era theorists are stupid. Yes this era isn't what you would call strong but to dominate guys like Hewitt, Roddick, Nalbandian, Ferrero, Djokovic and others like he did for those 4 years was something else.

2) Sampras. Arguably as good as Federer in terms of skill and ability, he lost a lot more than Federer. Also was subject to brutal beatdowns to guys like Hewitt, Krajicek, Safin etc which didn't happen to Federer outside of FO08 and AO 2008 where against Djokovic he wasn't even 100%.

Borg, simply because he could have won more.


These are the only three players who I consider worthy of getting GOAT status.
Click to expand...

Sampras had those loses to Hewitt and Safin way outside of his prime.. and Krajicek was the kind of player Federer never had to face, and Sampras in abundace:
A big server with lots of game. Krajicek, Becker, Stich, Ivanisevic.. compare that to Andy Roddick. No contest.

Roger Federer is a good player, a great player even...
But let's face it: he's no Pete Sampras.
 
Last edited:
vive le beau jeu !

vive le beau jeu !

Talk Tennis Guru
Gorecki said:
that is list very complete and insightfull...

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
a little contribution to the GOAT debate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSYnTY5Re5A

billy_boy.jpg
 
Mustard

Mustard

Bionic Poster
baseliner said:
#1 Has to be Laver. Won the calendar year grand slam two different times. How many of your GOAT nominees have even won each of the GS titles 2 times?
Click to expand...

But it has to be pointed out that Laver's calendar year Grand Slam in 1962 was amateur players only. It's extremely unlikely he'd have achieved it with professionals like Ken Rosewall in the draw.
 
G

Gizo

Hall of Fame
Laver's pro slam in 1967 is more impressive than this 1962 grand slam as an amateur.

It's pretty impressive that he has the distinction of enjoying the best ever year in each of the amateur era, pre open era professional era and the open era.

Also in 1969 he won the biggest hard court and indoor titles available to him alongside his slam titles on grass and clay. He was utterly dominant on grass, hard and indoor carpet/hard for a while, as well as being a major force on clay.
 
MixieP

MixieP

Hall of Fame
There should be a goat for each decade.
1970s - Borg
1980s - ?
1900s - Sampras
2000s- Federer

In which case they have to be called GOAD.
 
Mustard

Mustard

Bionic Poster
1920s: Henri Cochet
1930s: Fred Perry
1940s: Bobby Riggs
1950s: Pancho Gonzales
1960s: Rod Laver/Ken Rosewall
1970s: Bjorn Borg
1980s: Ivan Lendl
1990s: Pete Sampras
2000s: Roger Federer
 
Raiden

Raiden

Hall of Fame
Mustard said:
1920s: Henri Cochet
1930s: Fred Perry
1940s: Bobby Riggs
1950s: Pancho Gonzales
1960s: Rod Laver/Ken Rosewall
1970s: Bjorn Borg
1980s: Ivan Lendl
1990s: Pete Sampras
2000s: Roger Federer
Click to expand...
Hmm... ;)

forzamilan90 said:
wasn't tilden the biggest force in the 20's and 30's?
Click to expand...
Yes and no - (yes during the '20s but apparently not during the '30s (he only won one slam in 1930 (his last) while plenty other players won multiples of majors in that decade, and also went on beating Bill in the then fledgling semi-pro circuit
.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

K
History Bagels... attack's Nole
Replies
11
Views
1K
Inanimate_object
Inanimate_object
M
Greatest List
2 3
Replies
130
Views
7K
abmk
abmk
5555
Grand Slams Career Win-Loss In Open Era
Replies
5
Views
871
Talker
Talker
RF-18
What does this list say?
Replies
32
Views
2K
Mustard
Mustard
The_Order
The TMF GOAT list
Replies
20
Views
2K
NoleFam
NoleFam
Top