How important is reaching Grand Slam finals and semifinals in determining GOAT?

[McEnroeisanartist]

How important is reaching Grand Slam finals and semifinals in determining GOAT?

If say Nadal wins 3 more Grand Slams, from reaching 3 Grand Slam semifinals (highly likely, as Nadal is so good at the end of a Grand Slam, he has won 4 out of the last 5 grand slams when he has reached the semifinals).

He would have 17 Grand Slams, the same # as Federer, but Federer would have 2 more Grand Slam finals, and 10 more Grand Slam semifinals.

Do all those Grand Slam semifinals build Federer's resume?

 

[TMF]

Reaching slam semifinal is not that easy and I think it's important metric to look at when determine goat.

Nishikori is the first Japanese player to reach men's semifinals at U.S. Open since 1918 and he had to played great tennis to get there.

 

[Bryan Swartz]

It's irrelevant since determining an illogical construct such as GOAT is an impossibility.

 

[jg153040]

It's irrelevant since determining an illogical construct such as GOAT is an impossibility.

Well, yes, but we can still decide subjectively.

We still can agree about criteria or at least about some criteria. And we are doing that. And it's fun.

We don't need science here. We just need general consensus. We aren't forcing anyone to believe anything or to do anything, so why do would we need science or logic?

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

You need recognized history, not desperation grabs such as the idea of just reaching majors finals and semis.

 

[ibbi]

Context determines greatness. Not a stat sheet.

 

[Djokovic2011]

You need recognized history, not desperation grabs such as the idea of just reaching majors finals and semis.

So winning is the only thing that matters TV?

 

[El Diablo]

Seems less important than head to head, in which Nadal demolishes Fed.

 

[irishnadalfan1983]

So winning is the only thing that matters TV?

No!

Fed's consistency blows me away - can't believe the year he is having at 33.

Looking forward to semi's tomorrow - on at a great time for people like yourself and myself

 

[tacou]

Every single victory and loss plays some part in a player's greatness or lack thereof. Winning 5 or 6 matches at a major is a great achievement, particularly when you do it a number of times

 

[TMF]

So winning is the only thing that matters TV?

According to some posters, losing in the early round is better than losing in the final.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

^Have seen that. Too funny.

So winning is the only thing that matters TV?

Yeah, that seems to be a common mentality around here. Very little consideration for going deep at the Slams. Go figure.

 

[jg153040]

No!

Fed's consistency blows me away - can't believe the year he is having at 33.

Looking forward to semi's tomorrow - on at a great time for people like yourself and myself

That's right. And him having weak draws in 2014 is junk.

He defeated Wawrinka at W. Tsonga/Murray at AO and played prime Nole very tough.

Who did Nole defeat on his way to AO and W finals? That's right he didn't even make AO finals, cuz strong draw took him out. And he didn't beat anyone close to Wawrinka to reach W finals.

Also doesn't Federer have the best record vs top 10 players?

 

[Bryan Swartz]

We don't need science here. We just need general consensus. We aren't forcing anyone to believe anything or to do anything, so why do would we need science or logic?

Science isn't an issue, but there's no point in debating something without logic. There are too many things that are different between eras, and no way to fairly resolve many of those differences.

It's like playing pin the tail on the donkey. It can be fun, but it doesn't actually achieve anything. Doing it repeatedly and territorially, as is done here, is very counterproductive and otherwhise useless.

I have no need, and I don't think in general fans should either, to worry about whether Federer or Sampras is 'greater'(as an example). Both have been great in their times, to different degrees and in somewhat different ways. I can appreciate them both immensely without having to constantly compare who was 'greater' by what will always be fake, invented, and faulty metrics. The same can be said about pretty much any comparison of top champions.

 

[Gary Duane]

Science isn't an issue, but there's no point in debating something without logic. There are too many things that are different between eras, and no way to fairly resolve many of those differences.

It's like playing pin the tail on the donkey. It can be fun, but it doesn't actually achieve anything. Doing it repeatedly and territorially, as is done here, is very counterproductive and otherwhise useless.

I have no need, and I don't think in general fans should either, to worry about whether Federer or Sampras is 'greater'(as an example). Both have been great in their times, to different degrees and in somewhat different ways. I can appreciate them both immensely without having to constantly compare who was 'greater' by what will always be fake, invented, and faulty metrics. The same can be said about pretty much any comparison of top champions.

But if you stop GOAT fights, most days there will be nothing to read here.

 

[smoledman]

Winning 9 RG titles pretty much trumps a bunch of lost semis/finals at other majors.

 

[Wynter]

Context determines greatness. Not a stat sheet.

This

It's like Messi is statistically better than Ronaldo (Brazilian) but I'd have Ronaldo over him almost every day.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

Winning 9 RG titles pretty much trumps a bunch of lost semis/finals at other majors.

But is doesn't trump a bunch of lost slam semi/finals PLUS 17 slam titles.
.

 

[irishnadalfan1983]

Winning 9 RG titles pretty much trumps a bunch of lost semis/finals at other majors.

Why go down that road? Of course what Nadal has done at RG is incredible but I also think Fed's consistency is incredible too.

Any chance all of you could just appreciate Nadal, Djoko and Fed?!

 

[Day Tripper]

Foe me it definitely has a bearing. I rate Federer ahead of Sampras at both Wimbledon and the US Open for the reason he has appeared in more finals and won more matches despite the fact they share the same number of slams each.

 

[jg153040]

Foe me it definitely has a bearing. I rate Federer ahead of Sampras at both Wimbledon and the US Open for the reason he has appeared in more finals and won more matches despite the fact they share the same number of slams each.

I can't agree about USO though. Sampras has I think 2 more finals.

But, Federer had those match points vs Djokovic and was very unlucky.

But, Federer has 5 consecutive USO wins and 6 consecutive finals. That is great consistency.

But, Federer still isn't done. If he makes a final today, in by book he can be equal to Sampras at USO. If by some miracle he wins, then Fed has the edge.

But at AO, there is no contest. Fed has 4 wins and 11 consecutive semis?

That is insane. You could argue that Fed is more consistent at AO than even some 5 AO winners if they existed.