Greatest Player of All Time - Three Tournaments Played

[McEnroeisanartist]

Am I insane to think that one way you could determine GOAT between Federer and Nadal and Sampras would be if you had three hypoethical tournaments, one on hard, grass, and clay with the 8 greatest players of the open era - which player of those three would you predict to have the best average results.

Clay
(1) Nadal def (2) Borg in Final
(1) Nadal def (4) Federer, (2) Borg def. (3) Lendl in semifinals
(1) Nadal def ( 8 ) Sampras, (2) Borg def (7) McEnroe, Lendl (3) def. (6) Connors, Federer (4) def. (5) Agassi in quarterfinals

Hard
(1) Federer def (2) Sampras in Final
(1) Federer def (4) McEnroe, (2) Sampras def. (3) Lendl in semifinals
(1) Federer def. ( 8 ) Borg, Sampras def (7) Nadal, Lendl (3) def (6) Agassi, (4) McEnroe def. (5) Connors

Grass
(1) Sampras def (2) Federer in Final
(1) Sampras def (4) McEnroe, (2) Federer def Borg in semifinals
(1) Sampras def ( 8 ) Lendl, (2) Federer def (7) Agassi, (3) Borg def (6) Nadal, (4) McEnroe def. (5) Connors

Federer - SF, W, F
Nadal - W, QF, QF
Sampras - QF, F, W

 

[LazyNinja19]

 

[ark_28]

Don't talk sh1t

 

[not_federer]

So federer is better because he has the best hypothetical results in an impossible tournament with a draw that you just made up to give him the best results?

I usually love your threads man, seriously I do, but this time...no...just stop. I understand what you're going through now that nadal is coming close to breaking Feds slam count, I get it, I'm really upset too. I spent the last few days drinking wine and lighting candles in the bath while watching wimbledon highlites from 2003-2007 too. But really dude, it's gonna be ok...

 

[crazyups]

So federer is better because he has the best hypothetical results in an impossible tournament with a draw that you just made up to give him the best results?

I usually love your threads man, seriously I do, but this time...no...just stop. I understand what you're going through now that nadal is coming close to breaking Feds slam count, I get it, I'm really upset too. I spent the last few days drinking wine and lighting candles in the bath while watching wimbledon highlites from 2003-2007 too. But really dude, it's gonna be ok...

But wait, how do you make the Federer poster stick to the wall with all the steam??

 

[BobbyOne]

Am I insane to think that one way you could determine GOAT between Federer and Nadal and Sampras would be if you had three hypoethical tournaments, one on hard, grass, and clay with the 8 greatest players of the open era - which player of those three would you predict to have the best average results.

Clay
(1) Nadal def (2) Borg in Final
(1) Nadal def (4) Federer, (2) Borg def. (3) Lendl in semifinals
(1) Nadal def ( 8 ) Sampras, (2) Borg def (7) McEnroe, Lendl (3) def. (6) Connors, Federer (4) def. (5) Agassi in quarterfinals

Hard
(1) Federer def (2) Sampras in Final
(1) Federer def (4) McEnroe, (2) Sampras def. (3) Lendl in semifinals
(1) Federer def. ( 8 ) Borg, Sampras def (7) Nadal, Lendl (3) def (6) Agassi, (4) McEnroe def. (5) Connors

Grass
(1) Sampras def (2) Federer in Final
(1) Sampras def (4) McEnroe, (2) Federer def Borg in semifinals
(1) Sampras def ( 8 ) Lendl, (2) Federer def (7) Agassi, (3) Borg def (6) Nadal, (4) McEnroe def. (5) Connors

Federer - SF, W, F
Nadal - W, QF, QF
Sampras - QF, F, W

McEnroeisanartist, None of the players you list up is the GOAT.

 

[Dedans Penthouse]

Am I insane to think that one way you could determine GOAT between Federer and Nadal and Sampras would be if you had three hypoethical tournaments, one on hard, grass, and clay with the 8 greatest players of the open era - which player of those three would you predict to have the best average results.

Clay
(1) Nadal def (2) Borg in Final
(1) Nadal def (4) Federer, (2) Borg def. (3) Lendl in semifinals
(1) Nadal def ( 8 ) Sampras, (2) Borg def (7) McEnroe, Lendl (3) def. (6) Connors, Federer (4) def. (5) Agassi in quarterfinals

Hard
(1) Federer def (2) Sampras in Final
(1) Federer def (4) McEnroe, (2) Sampras def. (3) Lendl in semifinals
(1) Federer def. ( 8 ) Borg, Sampras def (7) Nadal, Lendl (3) def (6) Agassi, (4) McEnroe def. (5) Connors

Grass
(1) Sampras def (2) Federer in Final
(1) Sampras def (4) McEnroe, (2) Federer def Borg in semifinals
(1) Sampras def ( 8 ) Lendl, (2) Federer def (7) Agassi, (3) Borg def (6) Nadal, (4) McEnroe def. (5) Connors

Federer - SF, W, F
Nadal - W, QF, QF
Sampras - QF, F, W

You have to ask?

 

[McEnroeisanartist]

Being GOAT is about being consistently great across all surfaces. Sampras was not. Nadal is not yet near Federer. Borg is right there in the mix with his 4 US Open finals and vastly underrated Year End Final Wins.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

McEnroeisanartist, None of the players you list up is the GOAT.

Yes, McEnroeisanartist's latest act of desperate, Federer Fanaticism presents a GOAT list where Laver is nowhere to be seen.

Clearly, he avoids Laver, as McEnroeisanartist believes it (somehow) creates an environement where his Federer trips his way into being the GOAT.

He--like the rest of the Federer Fanatics--would not need to start endless threads, troll existing threads, or start new usernames to support themselves if Federer was truly the GOAT.

 

[ollinger]

Am I insane to think that because 1) I dreamt a few nights ago that Nadal was the greatest player of all time, and 2) I'm almost certain my cat has been meowing "Naaaaaadaaaaaaaaaal" recently, that this is evidence of Nadal being the GOAT?

 

[McEnroeisanartist]

Yes, McEnroeisanartist's latest act of desperate, Federer Fanaticism presents a GOAT list where Laver is nowhere to be seen.

Clearly, he avoids Laver, as McEnroeisanartist believes it (somehow) creates an environement where his Federer trips his way into being the GOAT.

He--like the rest of the Federer Fanatics--would not need to start endless threads, troll existing threads, or start new usernames to support themselves if Federer was truly the GOAT.

I should have said Greatest of Open Era. I don't think Laver would make the top 8. That being said, watching Laver play is breathtaking. A mesmerizing player.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

I should have said Greatest of Open Era. I don't think Laver would make the top 8. That being said, watching Laver play is breathtaking. A mesmerizing player.

Laver played in the Open Era, and above all else, won the Grand Slam in the Open Era.

 

[TMF]

I should have said Greatest of Open Era. I don't think Laver would make the top 8. That being said, watching Laver play is breathtaking. A mesmerizing player.

Laver is not in goat discussion in the open era. However, counting his pre and open era career he's #2 behind Federer. I think most people who have Rosewall in the top 5 have removed him and replace Nadal after he won 2014 FO.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Laver played in the Open Era, and above all else, won the Grand Slam in the Open Era. Federer is not even close to being Laver's shadow.

 

[monfed]

Laver played in the Open Era, and above all else, won the Grand Slam in the Open Era. Federer is not even close to being Laver's shadow.

Yes he isn't, his reality is better than Laver.

 

[ravelok]

Laver is not in goat discussion in the open era. However, counting his pre and open era career he's #2 behind Federer. I think most people who have Rosewall in the top 5 have removed him and replace Nadal after he won 2014 FO.

1. Nobody sane ever had Nadal outside the top 5 even before RG last year. Those who have Rosewall in the top 5 would simply not have Borg and/or Sampras in it all along.
2. Federer is most certainly not above 2 Grand Slammer Laver.

But wait, how do you make the Federer poster stick to the wall with all the steam??

That would seem to apply to 95% of the posters here.

 

[Phoenix1983]

Laver played in the Open Era, and above all else, won the Grand Slam in the Open Era. Federer is not even close to being Laver's shadow.

The second statement shows that you are clearly trolling. Even if you consider Laver the GOAT, to say that "Federer is not even close" (i.e. implying that he's not even in the all-time top 10, or something like that) is obviously incorrect.

Also, the odds are very high that Laver would not have won the CYGS ("Grand Slam" is an anachronism) if he had faced Nadal at the FO. The latter has a 66-1 record at the event, with 64 matches being won having not even been pushed to 5 sets. To expect Laver to have defeated Nadal at the FO is fanciful.

 

[ravelok]

Also, the odds are very high that Laver would not have won the CYGS ("Grand Slam" is an anachronism) if he had faced Nadal at the FO.

if wishes were fishes. Maybe part of the reason Nadal's record at RG is so near perfect if he doesnt even face a top 20 clay courter all time. Facing top 10 clay courter all time Laver would be much more a challenge to him than facing Federer or Djokovic, just as Borg would have had much more challenge facing Laver and even an old Rosewall than Vilas and Ramirez.

 

[Phoenix1983]

if wishes were fishes. Maybe part of the reason Nadal's record at RG is so near perfect if he doesnt even face a top 20 clay courter all time. Facing top 10 clay courter all time Laver would be much more a challenge to him than facing Federer or Djokovic, just as Borg would have had much more challenge facing Laver and even an old Rosewall than Vilas and Ramirez.

It's near perfect because no-one can get anywhere near beating him there.

Djokovic, every year, beats him on all other surfaces, and quite often in clay tune-ups, but every year at the main event, he gets beaten, and usually without Nadal even being pushed to 5 sets.

Maybe Borg or Rosewall would have stood some kind of chance against Nadal at the FO, but not Laver. The latter was not the greatest clay courter of his era and probably not all-time top 10 on clay to be honest.

 

[TMF]

1. Nobody sane ever had Nadal outside the top 5 even before RG last year. Those who have Rosewall in the top 5 would simply not have Borg and/or Sampras in it all along.
2. Federer is most certainly not above 2 Grand Slammer Laver.

Tennis experts disagree with you.

 

[TMF]

The second statement shows that you are clearly trolling. Even if you consider Laver the GOAT, to say that "Federer is not even close" (i.e. implying that he's not even in the all-time top 10, or something like that) is obviously incorrect.

Also, the odds are very high that Laver would not have won the CYGS ("Grand Slam" is an anachronism) if he had faced Nadal at the FO. The latter has a 66-1 record at the event, with 64 matches being won having not even been pushed to 5 sets. To expect Laver to have defeated Nadal at the FO is fanciful.

Not only Nadal would have stop Laver, but his 1969 GS was only on 2 surfaces, and the AO was only a 64 man draw.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Yes he isn't, his reality is better than Laver.

Federer failed to win the Grand Slam--so he's one of the "best of the rest," and to reiterate, he's not even close to being Laver's shadow.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

1. Nobody sane ever had Nadal outside the top 5 even before RG last year. Those who have Rosewall in the top 5 would simply not have Borg and/or Sampras in it all along.
2. Federer is most certainly not above 2 Grand Slammer Laver.

Note how a certain member tosses out "tennis experts" (usually a cable TV channel he often refers to), but history is fixed, not tossed around at the whim of those living in a fantasy world.

That would seem to apply to 95% of the posters here.

Indeed.

 

[Dedans Penthouse]

Laver is not in goat discussion in the open era.

However, counting his pre and open era career he's #2 behind Federer. I think most people who have Rosewall in the top 5 have removed him and replace Nadal after he won 2014 FO.

You no longer #1 poster.

Goat must have give birth to you.

 

[ravelok]

It's near perfect because no-one can get anywhere near beating him there.

Djokovic, every year, beats him on all other surfaces, and quite often in clay tune-ups, but every year at the main event, he gets beaten, and usually without Nadal even being pushed to 5 sets.

Maybe Borg or Rosewall would have stood some kind of chance against Nadal at the FO, but not Laver. The latter was not the greatest clay courter of his era and probably not all-time top 10 on clay to be honest.

Laver beat Rosewall in straight sets once to win RG, very impressive. And remember 35 back then was basically the same as 28 today, tennis was entirely different. Unless you really think players aged the exact same way, in which case Laver by completing the Calendar Grand Slam at age 31 vs an exceptional field in 69 would make him the hands down GOAT to begin with (just look at Federer at 31 by comparision, and imagine Nadal or Djokovic by that age). Laver was the best player in the world on clay atleast 2 other years, including the years Kodes won RG, but due to big money exhibitions which caused most players to skip RG didnt play. I think a player who was the best clay courter in the world 3 or 4 different years, is probably top 10 all time on clay.

Djokovic of late is about the same in competitiveness vs Nadal on clay as hard courts, despite that Nadal is the better overall clay courter, and Djokovic the better overall hard courter. On outdoor hard courts he does worse vs Nadal lately if anything. Nadal's game has changed of late and some aspects of playing on hard courts helps him in the matchup despite the general surface preferences. I dont think unless Djokovic has a big run of form or Nadal some big loss in confidence prior to the U.S open that Nadal will lose should they play there this year either (considering Nadal's mental edge in the big match right now). Surface doesnt matter nearly as much in that matchup as it does many of Nadal's others. And lets face it, without a RG title, Djokovic all time wouldnt have a remotedly high rank on clay, as much as I do think he is an excellent clay courter skill wise. So it would be silly to say just because Djokovic cant do something, someone else cant.

Federer in addition to not being the best clay courter has serious matchup issues with Nadal, but also developed psychological issues and underperformed in general. How do you explain how Nadal even has a winning record vs him on hard courts, and owns him something like 7-2 on outdoor hard courts, and no it is not just because they played some matches when Federer was old (30 or above say) since they played some when Nadal was 17-19 too. Federer in general has to take blame for his underperformance vs Nadal, even on clay, and one cant just assume everyone else would have done the same. The matchup issue with Nadal, which we cant guarantee Laver or whomever else having as we have no idea, well that is his problem to either solve or not solve, just as it doesnt matter one bit that on the flip side he was super lucky his main rivals besides Nadal like Roddick and Hewitt are ridiculously easy matchups for him.

I will concede Laver would have almost no hope of beating Nadal at RG in 2007, 2008, or 2010, but younger and non prime Nadal who Federer lost to at the French in 2005 and 2006, and the slowing down on clay Nadal of today? It certainly isnt impossible Laver would have won in some of those years, and possibly completed the Grand Slam with it. Federer (the early years) and Djokovic (the later years) had chances in the matches some of those years (unless the middle peak years where they truly had none) but just werent mentally tough enough in the end; and there is no indication at all either of those are better clay courters than Laver. It doesnt mean it is an easy or anything but an extremely difficult task, but there is no evidence it is impossible for Laver to have managed.

 

[ravelok]

Tennis experts disagree with you.

There are many experts and historians on the game who still consider Laver the GOAT, and there are some others who consider Gonzales as well. If you mean the ESPN team and others who cover tennis, then yes you are probably right, but anyone with a brain knows their job is only to promote the current game and its current players. After all do you consider Serena or Nadal the GOATs too. Since most of the group of people who call Federer the GOAT are the same ones who also call Serena and Nadal the GOAT of late, but I am sure you would say in the case of Serena and Nadal this is not so. And you are right, it isnt so at this point, it is just for the sake of promoting the game, and that is their motive with Federer too. We will see how many people say Federer is the GOAT when he has retired (especialy if Nadal has as many or more slams than him by that point). When Sampras retired many were calling him the GOAT over Laver too, which puts things into perspective, and today most dont even have him top 5.

 

[Phoenix1983]

Laver beat Rosewall in straight sets once to win RG, very impressive.

No denying that, his most impressive clay win for sure.

Laver was the best player in the world on clay atleast 2 other years, including the years Kodes won RG, but due to big money exhibitions which caused most players to skip RG didnt play. I think a player who was the best clay courter in the world 3 or 4 different years, is probably top 10 all time on clay.

Which years do you mean? 1971 may be debatable, as he won the Italian Open in that year, beating Kodes in the final, when the latter won RG.

I don't think you can give Laver more than 2 years as best on clay though. Which is maybe 1 more than Federer, and probably not enough to get him into the all time top 10 on clay.

These guys may all have greater clay credentials than Laver, for instance:

Wilding
Cochet
Nusslein
Trabert
Rosewall
Borg
Wilander
Lendl
Kuerten
Nadal

Djokovic of late is about the same in competitiveness vs Nadal on clay as hard courts, despite that Nadal is the better overall clay courter, and Djokovic the better overall hard courter. On outdoor hard courts he does worse vs Nadal lately if anything. Nadal's game has changed of late and some aspects of playing on hard courts helps him in the matchup despite the general surface preferences. I dont think unless Djokovic has a big run of form or Nadal some big loss in confidence prior to the U.S open that Nadal will lose should they play there this year either (considering Nadal's mental edge in the big match right now).

Not sure why you say this as Djokovic won 4 in a row against Nadal before the FO this year - I don't think Nadal has a mental edge over him on hard courts.

Surface doesnt matter nearly as much in that matchup as it does many of Nadal's others. And lets face it, without a RG title, Djokovic all time wouldnt have a remotedly high rank on clay, as much as I do think he is an excellent clay courter skill wise. So it would be silly to say just because Djokovic cant do something, someone else cant.

The point is that Djokovic has been a thorn in Nadal's side for many years, with a style of play which bothers him immensely across all surfaces (4 wins against him on clay since 2011), but when it comes to the biggest clay court tournament of them all, Nadal is always victorious. Nadal is aided by the larger space behind the court on Philippe Chatrier, and also has a psychological desire almost to prefer death to losing at RG (and no I'm not really exaggerating).

Federer in addition to not being the best clay courter has serious matchup issues with Nadal, but also developed psychological issues and underperformed in general. How do you explain how Nadal even has a winning record vs him on hard courts, and owns him something like 7-2 on outdoor hard courts, and no it is not just because they played some matches when Federer was old (30 or above say) since they played some when Nadal was 17-19 too. Federer in general has to take blame for his underperformance vs Nadal, even on clay, and one cant just assume everyone else would have done the same. The matchup issue with Nadal, which we cant guarantee Laver or whomever else having as we have no idea, well that is his problem to either solve or not solve, just as it doesnt matter one bit that on the flip side he was super lucky his main rivals besides Nadal like Roddick and Hewitt are ridiculously easy matchups for him.

Other than being a lefty, what advantage do you think Laver has over Federer, in terms of taking on Nadal at RG? I see nothing to suggest that Laver would have bested him.

I will concede Laver would have almost no hope of beating Nadal at RG in 2007, 2008, or 2010, but younger and non prime Nadal who Federer lost to at the French in 2005 and 2006, and the slowing down on clay Nadal of today? It certainly isnt impossible Laver would have won in some of those years, and possibly completed the Grand Slam with it.

The term is CYGS (Calendar Year Grand Slam).

Those who use the term 'Grand Slam' are living in the past.

Federer (the early years) and Djokovic (the later years) had chances in the matches some of those years (unless the middle peak years where they truly had none) but just werent mentally tough enough in the end; and there is no indication at all either of those are better clay courters than Laver. It doesnt mean it is an easy or anything but an extremely difficult task, but there is no evidence it is impossible for Laver to have managed.

I don't think either Fed or Djoker had chances to beat Nadal in any year except 2013, when I concede Djokovic was very close.

It's not impossible for Laver to have beaten Nadal, but it's highly improbable. I'm mainly basing this on the fact that Nadal has dominated Djokovic at the FO (6 wins, only once being taken to five sets), despite the fact that Djokovic has basically been Nadal's nightmare matchup for a number of years now, outside the FO.

If Nadal can dominate even those rivals who cause him severe problems at the FO, then there's no reason to think he couldn't have defeated the borderline all-time top 10 clay candidate Laver.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

There are many experts and historians on the game who still consider Laver the GOAT, and there are some others who consider Gonzales as well. If you mean the ESPN team and others who cover tennis, then yes you are probably right, but anyone with a brain knows their job is only to promote the current game and its current players.

True; only a small number of ESPN talking heads know enough to acknowledge Laver's 45 year standing as the GOAT, while others parrot the line seen on this board.

After all do you consider Serena or Nadal the GOATs too. Since most of the group of people who call Federer the GOAT are the same ones who also call Serena and Nadal the GOAT of late, but I am sure you would say in the case of Serena and Nadal this is not so.

Rational point; the "experts" are only referred to IF the Federer fantasy is propagated. Once Nadal (and/or Serena) is celebrated as GOAT, then the crown must be questioned, ridiculed or dismissed. All too expected.