Sport
G.O.A.T.
I was reading another tennis forum which I can't mention here, and I saw that a user called Fedjkodal posted a ranking GOAT criteria. In his ranking he not only accounts Grand Slams, but also WTFs, Olympics, Masters 1000, weeks as #1, etc. Even though his ranking was interesting and very detailed, I feel like any attempt to make an all-title GOAT ranking will always underestimate the value of Grand Slams.
According to Fedjokodal's ranking, Andy Murray is greater than Mats Wilander. Why? Because Murray has the WTF, two Olympic Medals, more Masters 1000 and more weeks as #1. Basically, Murray is better than Wilander everywhere outside Grand Slams.
But Wilander has 7 Grand Slams (having won 3 of them on clay, 2 on hard courts, and 2 on grass). Murray "only" has 3 Grand Slams (and 0 on clay). 4 Grand Slams are a giant difference, and Murray was unable to win Grand Slams on all surfaces.
I would obviously put Wilander over Murray, but I was shocked when I saw that in m*nstennisf*rum some suggested Murray could be better than Wilander.
Who do you consider greater and why?
Discuss.
According to Fedjokodal's ranking, Andy Murray is greater than Mats Wilander. Why? Because Murray has the WTF, two Olympic Medals, more Masters 1000 and more weeks as #1. Basically, Murray is better than Wilander everywhere outside Grand Slams.
But Wilander has 7 Grand Slams (having won 3 of them on clay, 2 on hard courts, and 2 on grass). Murray "only" has 3 Grand Slams (and 0 on clay). 4 Grand Slams are a giant difference, and Murray was unable to win Grand Slams on all surfaces.
I would obviously put Wilander over Murray, but I was shocked when I saw that in m*nstennisf*rum some suggested Murray could be better than Wilander.
Who do you consider greater and why?
Discuss.
Last edited: