If Nadal wins a true Grand Slam . . .

[hoodjem]

I don't believe any man has won a calendar year GS in the open era.

Laver did it in 1969. (Back when grass was grass, and clay was clay.)

 

[zagor]

You forgot 3 other things:

1. The true GOAT should be of Greek descent
2. The true GOAT should be married to an actress called Brigitte Wilson
3. The true GOAT needs to have puked on court in a slam event at least once.

LOL,too funny,great stuff !

On topic,a calendar Grand Slam would put Nadal over Fed for me most likely.I think Nadal actually has a solid chance of becoming GOAT of the open era,maybe all time as well with the pace he is going at the moment.Although time will tell,things can change quickly in tennis as in other proffesional sports.

 

[Shaolin]

No probably not, but there is always a Peter Doohan lurking out there.

Honestly, there really are no hidden threats to Nadal on clay lurking out there. There are only various degrees of ass kicking that players are going to receive from him.

I say this not even being a Nadal fan. I actually would prefer that Fed take the title, but after seeing that Fed/Murray Ive given up hope. If Fed has decided not to improve his deficient backhand, then there is no chance.

 

[Bud]

Laver did it in 1969. (Back when grass was grass, and clay was clay.)

I guess I should go further and state on four (considering 2 types of hardcourt) different surfaces... modern tennis, IMO when referring to slams, was born in 1988 when the AO switched from grass to hard court.

Laver won his Calendar Slams on basically the same surface... 3 grass and one clay.

 

[JoshDragon]

If Nadal wins a true, calendar-year Grand Slam in 2009, will he bypass Federer on you all-time GOAT list? That would give him 9 slams, which is certainly behind Fed's 13. But he has dominated Federer lately, and a true GS could cement this dominance.

Rafa won the Australian, and he is a huge favorite to win RG again. At Wimbledon he has a very good shot as the defending champion. The only thing left is the US Open, and Nadal has proven that he can win big on hard courts (at the Olympics, 09 AO, and Indian Wells).

So if he takes a true Grand Slam forty years into the Open era, where will he be on your all-time GOAT list?

If Nadal wins the calendar year grand slam, then yes I would consider him to be one of the GOATS. No player has won all of the majors, in the same year, on 3 different surfaces.

 

[hoodjem]

I guess I should go further and state on four (considering 2 types of hardcourt) different surfaces... modern tennis, IMO when referring to slams, was born in 1988 when the AO switched from grass to hard court.

Laver won his Calendar Slams on basically the same surface... 3 grass and one clay.

Bud, I get your point.

But back in the Former Player section we've had this ongoing, continual "debate" about how alike the grasses were in 1969, and if they were as alike or as different as Deco-Turf and Plexi-cushion Prestige are today.

 

[cknobman]

If Nadal wins a true Grand Slam.......


Ill eat a turd.

yep you read correctly Ill eat a turd.

 

[tahiti]

Ah..... but didn't you see on the previous goat thread, JeMar put Rafa's headband on the "true goat?" I thought he was the goat already :twisted:

 

[deltox]

But he has dominated Federer lately, and a true GS could cement this dominance.

the fact he is currently dominating him doesnt mean jack for the goat list. you have to take into account their ages and when they were in their prime for that list. not just whats going on now.. thus nadals title of best, right now.


as for the clay court season.. well nadal is basically on cruise control there..

davydanko is recovering from injury
monfils and simon are lacking in strokes although they can keep up in hustle. so yeah nadal will easy sweep the clay season, with maybe one loss total in my book.

 

[TheTruth]

You forgot 3 other things:

1. The true GOAT should be of Greek descent
2. The true GOAT should be married to an actress called Brigitte Wilson
3. The true GOAT needs to have puked on court in a slam event at least once.

ROFL!...Loved it!

 

[TheTruth]

Barfomatic!!

The career slam is close to meaningless. It is a recent marketing hype invention from that wise, sage genius of commentators, Mary Carillo. (Yes, the one we all love.)

It was invented to boost TV ratings in the late 1990s when Americans were not watching tennis on TV any longer. It was a fiction to give shallow American viewers a reason to "tune in to watch one of the greats." It has virtually no history, no pedigree, no tradition, and very little value.

Thee's a reason Agassi is the only winner. It was invented for him.

Think about it, and do the math. Over a 15 year career (age 18-33), one would have to win 4 tournaments out of 60 to win a career slam, or 7%. To win a Grand Slam, one has to win 4 out of 4 or 100%. Which is more difficult?

I totally agree. So many of these things the commentators say are for the reasons you stated. That's why they dangle terms like "the greatest" and "the goat." As soon as someone gets close to achieving it, they find some nitpicky reasons why they don't qualify.

The latest schtick? Fed can't beat his closest rival. While I agree with that to a certain extent, the bottom line is, neither's career is over, therefore such talk is premature and served with a purpose.

Oh well. Thank goodness I don't rely on them for their particular insights.

 

[veroniquem]

If Nadal can do that he will creat his own legand that is already overshadowing Roger's.

And if the can break the slam recored than it is a done deal at every level.



Here is what needs to be done, take all the top GOATS and list what makes them a GOAT. You can list no more than two things, then you will have a blueprint of how to become 100% GOAT.

#1 Most slam titles
#2 Calendar slam (bonous is including Olympic = golden slam)
#3 Most consecutive wins at 1-2 slams
#4 Time at number one
#5 Most total wins at 1-2 slams
#6 Most times won Wim. after Frech Open
#7 Most total titles
#8 Most total Master titles


Other things have to be considered ie who competed in most competitive erra making it more difficult to win.

Expand on the list, but it can only be major things not little special stats ONLY MAJOR.

#6 is completely irrelevant, #7 is not significant enough (easy to inflate your total with small non competitive events), #5 overrides #3 and why "1-2"? It should be most titles in 1 particular slam since the record over several slams is included in #1 (most slam titles) requirement. So my list would be:
#1 Most slam titles (currently Sampras)
#2 Grand slam (all 4) (Laver, Agassi for career slam)
#3 Number of weeks at #1 (currently Sampras)
#4 Most wins at 1 slam ( Sampras with 7)
#5 Most wins in Masters (currently Agassi) (of course that's a recent record but too significant not to be taken into account for current or recent players).
I totally disagree that career grand slam is meaningless, noone could do it apart from Agassi since the Laver era and that shows how difficult it is to achieve. Apart from the difficulty of it, the prestige of it seems quite obvious to me. From this list, we can see that currently Sampras is the closest thing to a GOAT. He may not have all the records but he has enough to be the guy to overtake for the other players.

 

[jackson vile]

#6 is completely irrelevant, #7 is not significant enough (easy to inflate your total with small non competitive events), #5 overrides #3 and why "1-2"? It should be most titles in 1 particular slam since the record over several slams is included in #1 (most slam titles) requirement. So my list would be:
#1 Most slam titles (currently Sampras)
#2 Grand slam (all 4) (Laver, Agassi for career slam)
#3 Number of weeks at #1 (currently Sampras)
#4 Most wins at 1 slam ( Sampras with 7)
#5 Most wins in Masters (currently Agassi) (of course that's a recent record but too significant not to be taken into account for current or recent players).
I totally disagree that career grand slam is meaningless, noone could do it apart from Agassi since the Laver era and that shows how difficult it is to achieve. Apart from the difficulty of it, the prestige of it seems quite obvious to me. From this list, we can see that currently Sampras is the closest thing to a GOAT. He may not have all the records but he has enough to be the guy to overtake for the other players.

We need more to the list than just 1-5, winning the olympics, Davis cup, anual grand slam, golden slams, total titles, consecutive slam titles ie Roger and Pete on grass, winning Wim right after French ie Borg.


You see you need to find all the things that made all the GOATS a GOAT and then see who beats who. Nadal is one of the very few that could own every single record that there is to hold.

But that is jumping the gun, and Roger hold most records with a few Major ones on the horizon.

 

[clayman2000]

What makes a GOAT?

is it complete domination in his era, is it the most slams, is it success on different surfaces, is it the most career titles? No it is everything combined. First of all to be a goat you obviously need a lot of slams. I would say to be a Goat you need at least 10 slams. Secondly year end no 1. That means this player must have been the best player in a single calendar year. Thirdly is success on different surfaces. By this i dont mean you have to have won both Roland Garros and Wimby, but i mean a goat must have had a chance to win in every tournament he played. Those are the qualities of a GOAT

 

[pmerk34]

What makes a GOAT?

is it complete domination in his era, is it the most slams, is it success on different surfaces, is it the most career titles? No it is everything combined. First of all to be a goat you obviously need a lot of slams. I would say to be a Goat you need at least 10 slams. Secondly year end no 1. That means this player must have been the best player in a single calendar year. Thirdly is success on different surfaces. By this i dont mean you have to have won both Roland Garros and Wimby, but i mean a goat must have had a chance to win in every tournament he played. Those are the qualities of a GOAT

The GOAT is subjective to any reasonable criteria one would have and I disagree with a few of yours such as they must win at least 10 slams when for decades certain slams didn't even matter to top players.

 

[clayman2000]

The GOAT is subjective to any reasonable criteria one would have and I disagree with a few of yours such as they must win at least 10 slams when for decades certain slams didn't even matter to top players.

Sorry, but when i talk about the GOAT, i really only mean GOAT of the open era. IF you include guys like Pancho Gozalez it makes it really hard to judge

 

[pmerk34]

Sorry, but when i talk about the GOAT, i really only mean GOAT of the open era. IF you include guys like Pancho Gozalez it makes it really hard to judge

The French Open didn't matter much for half of the 70's. The Australian didn't matter much until about 1985 or 1986 and even then look at it's list of winners compared to the Masters, US Open and Wimby.

 

[tacou]

of course he'd be one of the GOATS but OP you are getting way ahead of yourself. he should win FO easily, and if he then goes on to win defend his W then maybe we can have this chat.

 

[gj011]

Sorry, but when i talk about the GOAT, i really only mean GOAT of the open era. IF you include guys like Pancho Gozalez it makes it really hard to judge

You people should understand what GOAT stands for. It is "Greatest of ALL time". Note the ALL TIME.

If you are talking about the "Greatest of the open era", then you can't use GOAT acronym.

 

[gj011]

The French Open didn't matter much for half of the 70's. The Australian didn't matter much until about 1985 or 1986 and even then look at it's list of winners compared to the Masters, US Open and Wimby.

FO always mattered a lot, since it became open in the 1920s.
Maybe not in US, but in Europe it has always mattered. A lot. And more than USO.

 

[GameSampras]

The Australian never mattered a whole lot.

Hell the slam record NEVER mattered a whole helluva alot until Sampras began chasing Emerson's record.

 

[blue12]

I think he's going to do it!

 

[martini1]

If Nadal wins a true, calendar-year Grand Slam in 2009, will he bypass Federer on you all-time GOAT list? That would give him 9 slams, which is certainly behind Fed's 13. But he has dominated Federer lately, and a true GS could cement this dominance.

Rafa won the Australian, and he is a huge favorite to win RG again. At Wimbledon he has a very good shot as the defending champion. The only thing left is the US Open, and Nadal has proven that he can win big on hard courts (at the Olympics, 09 AO, and Indian Wells).

So if he takes a true Grand Slam forty years into the Open era, where will he be on your all-time GOAT list?

He would be up there but doing great in just one year is not as impressive as doing it consistently over at least 8-10 yrs. Rafa will need to will at least 10+ slams and a bunch titles to be on my GOAT list.

However, being GOAT or not is not that important. He is already a great one. I see in the next 5 yrs or so there will be a lot more jr playing like Nadal (in style) coming to the tour. Just like Fed's forehand will be copied by many future tour players.

 

[pmerk34]

The Australian never mattered a whole lot.

Hell the slam record NEVER mattered a whole helluva alot until Sampras began chasing Emerson's record.

Which is why Slam counting to rate all time players/all time great seasons is inane in some respects. Emerson's "record" is something that no one cared about except Sampras and then it became a big deal.

 

[Dilettante]

The thing is Laver won his Grand Slam on two surfaces - clay and grass.

People tend to forget that.

That's why I always think that Bjorn Borg should be in the 1st tier of GOAT candidates, with no doubt and (IMO) above Sampras.

 

[lawrence]

why do people underrate fed on the GOAT list? i mean he's probably not THE GOAT yet, but 8? i mean cmon, the guy wouldve had 2 calendar slams (06 - 07) in the open era. if he achieved that i would place him above laver, maybe.

laver is still king XD

 

[lawrence]

But back in the Former Player section we've had this ongoing, continual "debate" about how alike the grasses were in 1969, and if they were as alike or as different as Deco-Turf and Plexi-cushion Prestige are today.

this is a good point too, everyone discredits laver because of the lack of variety with slams back then, but was that his fault? i kind of get the feeling that even if 2 of those slams were on HC he would've calendar slammed twice

 

[carlos djackal]

certainly there is a good argument for it.........but only time will tell if a GOAT is in this ERA or not...

 

[sp00q]

He would be the GOAT. But I don't think it will happen this year. Fed will take back Wimbledon and Murray USO.

 

[jackson vile]

You guys really think Roge won't win the USO again?

 

[Bud]

If Nadal wins a true Grand Slam.......


Ill eat a turd.

yep you read correctly Ill eat a turd.

Open wide

 

[tomas9848]

yeah he will win maybe 2 but, def. 1.

 

[cknobman]

Open wide

Lets not jump the gun Nadal has 3 more to go this year.