Nadal on the GOAT debate

[tennisaddict]

According to Roger Federer yes.

Just take a look at Roger at the same age as Nadal .....roger was getting his butt kicked by Rafter everywhere . Why ? Either Roger was still a boy or Rafter was just better....choose .

I can't believe we are back to the same old points again .

It's getting sort of boring .

Did Rafter win 7 wimbledons and 17 majors ?

For Rafa to get to 17 majors and be considered on par as a GOAT, he needs to win at least 2 more AO/USO and 2 more wimbledon. That is mot happening.

 

[TheNightHunter]

Did Rafter win 7 wimbledons and 17 majors ?

For Rafa to get to 17 majors and be considered on par as a GOAT, he needs to win at least 2 more AO/USO and 2 more wimbledon. That is mot happening.

Rafa needs 6 slams and is 5 years younger than Fed. It's doable.

 

[Tennis Fanatic 070]

According to Roger Federer yes.

Just take a look at Roger at the same age as Nadal .....roger was getting his butt kicked by Rafter everywhere . Why ? Either Roger was still a boy or Rafter was just better....choose .

I can't believe we are back to the same old points again .

It's getting sort of boring .

LOL they played each other two times and second time was a final set tie-break.

And still you're proving nothing, like always

 

[SLD76]

Pete Sampras stopped caring as much about tennis, after he won his 13th Slam at Wimbledon in 2000. There he broke Emerson's record, and was pretty much ready to check out of tennis and call it a career.
The next couple years you could really see a decline in Pete's game. He was a step slower, and he didn't have the intensity he used to have.
Even when you watch Pete's last match where he won the 2002 US Open against Agassi, you can see that was not the same Pete Sampras we were used to seeing in his Prime.
(But Pete still made the Finals of the US Open 3 years in a row: 2000, 2001, 2002)
Infact he was already ready to let guys like Hewitt & Safin take over the sport. Pete was happy to retire.
Btw, if the US Open didn't have that stupid back-to-back Saturday(semi) & Sunday(final) deal, Sampras may have actually won it in 2000(vs Safin) and 2001(vs Hewitt). And Sampras may have ended up with 16 Slams. Btw, Sampras did beat Safin the following year. And along the way to the 2002 US Open Final, Sampras beat Roddick, and Agassi beat Hewitt. Which shows how even in their old age, Sampras and Agassi were still able to beat the young top players.(Hewitt was ranked #1, Safin was ranked #2. Agassi was ranked #3 in the world at that time. Sampras was ranked outside the top 10)

Anyway, my point is that this illustrates that transitional period in tennis where Sampras was clearly not the same dominant player he used to be and ultimately retired. Which allowed Agassi, even in his advanced age, to take advantage of that, and win 2 more Slams in 2001(AO) and 2003(AO) and he made the US Open Final versus Federer in 2005. A post-prime Agassi reaching the US Open Finals, and challenging a prime Federer to 4 sets, once again signifies how great of a player Agassi used to be in his Prime.
In other words, the fact that Agassi was still playing successfully past his prime, tells us that Hewitt, Safin, and Roddick would be no challenge for a Prime Agassi, Sampras, Rafter, etc.
Therefore, the years of 2000-2007 was a relatively weak era in tennis. And one man benefitted greatly... Roger Federer. No one was a true test for him during his years of dominance. There was no true talent playing in that time span who was comparable to a Prime Agassi or a Prime Sampras or a Prime Rafter. And it made Federer look like a God out there beating up against 3rd rate players. And everyone got fooled into thinking Federer is the GOAT.

Then in 2008, the Greatest Match in History took place at Wimbledon and changed everything.
Enter Rafa Nadal. Finally someone who could challenge Federer and beat him, and beat him, and beat him.
Someone on the level of a Prime Sampras, a Prime Agassi, a Prime Rafter.
Enter Novak Djokovic. Once Nole entered his Prime, he finally was able to challenge and beat Federer as well.
We can add Andy Murray to the mix as well, with his winning record over Fed and the beatdown he gave him at the Olympics.

Winning wasn't easy anymore for Roger Federer.
No more Hewitts, Safins, Roddicks to beat up on now.

I respect the 5 Grand Slams that Federer won from 2008 on.
But I don't respect the 12 cheap Grand Slam wins he racked up from 2003-2007.
A Prime Sampras, Agassi, Nadal, and Djokovic could've done the same thing in that weak field era.

Complete bollocks. You act like agassi took after when pete retired when the reality was, hewitt emerged as the heir apparentl. He was number one for nearly 2 years and won 2 slams(destroying sampras in one slam final). Safin had the game but was inconsistent and hewitt owned roddick.

The real transition was hewitts ascension before roger came into his own and began to dominate.

Nobody was saying players like hewitt safin or roddick were weak. Look at haas for goodness sakes. Former worls number two who is older than fed and yet almost a top ten player in this so called super hard era.


And wait, now we can't count nadals performances til 2008? How convenient. Never mind that he was 2 in the world, a mutli wimbledon finalist, and had won masters shields on hc, we can't anything til 2008.

What a load of garbage.

 

[Feather]

Roddick ....Nadal beat him at queens club on grass.

.

Just thought I will talk about this. Andy Roddick beat Nadal in Dubai 2008. Then he pulled out during French Open 2008 owing to shoulder injury and was considering surgery. The tournament in which he made his return was Queens. And he lost in second round in Wimbledon.

In short, Roddick was not 100% well.

 

[Day Tripper]

Pete Sampras stopped caring as much about tennis, after he won his 13th Slam at Wimbledon in 2000. There he broke Emerson's record, and was pretty much ready to check out of tennis and call it a career.
The next couple years you could really see a decline in Pete's game. He was a step slower, and he didn't have the intensity he used to have.
Even when you watch Pete's last match where he won the 2002 US Open against Agassi, you can see that was not the same Pete Sampras we were used to seeing in his Prime.
(But Pete still made the Finals of the US Open 3 years in a row: 2000, 2001, 2002)
Infact he was already ready to let guys like Hewitt & Safin take over the sport. Pete was happy to retire.
Btw, if the US Open didn't have that stupid back-to-back Saturday(semi) & Sunday(final) deal, Sampras may have actually won it in 2000(vs Safin) and 2001(vs Hewitt). And Sampras may have ended up with 16 Slams. Btw, Sampras did beat Safin the following year. And along the way to the 2002 US Open Final, Sampras beat Roddick, and Agassi beat Hewitt. Which shows how even in their old age, Sampras and Agassi were still able to beat the young top players.(Hewitt was ranked #1, Safin was ranked #2. Agassi was ranked #3 in the world at that time. Sampras was ranked outside the top 10)

Anyway, my point is that this illustrates that transitional period in tennis where Sampras was clearly not the same dominant player he used to be and ultimately retired. Which allowed Agassi, even in his advanced age, to take advantage of that, and win 2 more Slams in 2001(AO) and 2003(AO) and he made the US Open Final versus Federer in 2005. A post-prime Agassi reaching the US Open Finals, and challenging a prime Federer to 4 sets, once again signifies how great of a player Agassi used to be in his Prime.
In other words, the fact that Agassi was still playing successfully past his prime, tells us that Hewitt, Safin, and Roddick would be no challenge for a Prime Agassi, Sampras, Rafter, etc.
Therefore, the years of 2000-2007 was a relatively weak era in tennis. And one man benefitted greatly... Roger Federer. No one was a true test for him during his years of dominance. There was no true talent playing in that time span who was comparable to a Prime Agassi or a Prime Sampras or a Prime Rafter. And it made Federer look like a God out there beating up against 3rd rate players. And everyone got fooled into thinking Federer is the GOAT.

Then in 2008, the Greatest Match in History took place at Wimbledon and changed everything.
Enter Rafa Nadal. Finally someone who could challenge Federer and beat him, and beat him, and beat him.
Someone on the level of a Prime Sampras, a Prime Agassi, a Prime Rafter.
Enter Novak Djokovic. Once Nole entered his Prime, he finally was able to challenge and beat Federer as well.
We can add Andy Murray to the mix as well, with his winning record over Fed and the beatdown he gave him at the Olympics.

Winning wasn't easy anymore for Roger Federer.
No more Hewitts, Safins, Roddicks to beat up on now.

I respect the 5 Grand Slams that Federer won from 2008 on.
But I don't respect the 12 cheap Grand Slam wins he racked up from 2003-2007.
A Prime Sampras, Agassi, Nadal, and Djokovic could've done the same thing in that weak field era.

blah blah blah. Like all nadal fans your arguments rely on ifs and buts and maybes - sad really.

Bummer for you that the majority of well informed tennis fans, analysts and players the world over believe Federer to be the greatest player of all time.

Why? - because that is the logical conclusion based on the facts.

 

[Tennis Fanatic 070]

Safin when he was normal was as good as Murray only hard. On clay & grass not that great.

Hewitt .....interesting case. I think Sampras said it best . The reason Hewitt disappeared if because his game was made to defeat a serve and volleyer....but when things changed to baseliners, Hewitt became just an ordinary baseliner.

Roddick ....Nadal beat him at queens club on grass.

Ferrero.....world # 1 ????? Come on . How the hell did that happen....weak.

Nadal is the only one that leads joker Murray and fed.....however fed is losing to two of three.....losing to Murray and Nadal......there goes the field argument .

That's your opinion, and since you clearly didn't watch tennis ever.....

Safin in form was best player in history of the game IMO (and I actually did watch tennis then)
Hewitt 'disappeared' due to a lot of big injuries, including hip surgery.
Ferrero has beaten Nadal twice btw, once on clay as well....ouch
Roddick was injured when Nadal beat him at queens, but all this doesn't even matter because even if Nadal has beaten a fit Roddick on queens, wtf is your point? Like I said so many times, your ' opinion' is based on ignorance.....
And btw fed has beaten Murray on all their slam meetings accept this years AO.

So as always, you didn't make your point AT All, waste of space in this thread.

 

[jg153040]

That's your opinion, and since you clearly didn't watch tennis ever.....

Safin in form was best player in history of the game IMO (and I actually did watch tennis then)
Hewitt 'disappeared' due to a lot of big injuries, including hip surgery.
Ferrero has beaten Nadal twice btw, once on clay as well....ouch
Roddick was injured when Nadal beat him at queens, but all this doesn't even matter because even if Nadal has beaten a fit Roddick on queens, wtf is your point? Like I said so many times, your ' opinion' is based on ignorance.....
And btw fed has beaten Murray on all their slam meetings accept this years AO.

So as always, you didn't make your point AT All, waste of space in this thread.

I've learned to enjoy Fed haters. They contradict themselves so much it's now like watching a comedy.

Basing Nadal vs Roddick vs one win in queens, like this means a lot. But then 1 win that Rosol has vs Nadal in a GS, that is to be ignored.

There hundreds of those contradictions lol. There should be a thread only on those.

Complicating simple facts. I learned a lot that when people complicate things to much, they are either ignorant or lying.

All we need is 17 slams and 300 weeks. Nadal did prevent for Fed to be undisputed goat , he stopped him from 2 CYGS. Simple, anything else is just noise.

Maybe God got jealous that Fed is worshiped over him and send Nadal on the field.

 

[jg153040]

Rafa needs 6 slams and is 5 years younger than Fed. It's doable.

Just to match his slam count. Assuming Fed stops. I think the old guys has still one left in him. So Nadal will need 8 more probably to surpass his slam count.

But the more Nadal wins, the better Fed looks. Because no shame losing to a guy from new generation, especially if he is tier 1.

That would mean two tier 1 guys playing in the same era. That never happened.
And how unlucky Fed was and other greats lucky they didn't have to face a guy 5 years younger of the Borg caliber.

Imagine a little past prime Sampras having to deal with younger Nadal. And fitness is very important to Nadal, his game is more based on fitness.

People who think Nadal would do bad in the 90s are delusional. He is talented and the product of this era. He is also a work horse. So in the 90s he would be hitting millions of more serves and volleys in practice and he would also be good.

 

[The Dark Knight]

Just to match his slam count. Assuming Fed stops. I think the old guys has still one left in him.

Roger Federer : "I think I'm playing some of the best tennis of my life right now."

 

[Tennis Fanatic 070]

Roger Federer : "I think I'm playing some of the best tennis of my life right now."

So your point is? He will win more slams?

 

[ledwix]

Maybe God got jealous that Fed is worshiped over him and send Nadal on the field.

Haha, well that would be weird, because Federer believes in God but Nadal doesn't.

 

[jg153040]

Roger Federer : "I think I'm playing some of the best tennis of my life right now."

Well he did say this for 2012 only. He was nr.1 and owned the field. So does this mean when Fed playing his best tennis, he owns the field?

Yes, thank you for stating the obvious.

 

[jg153040]

Haha, well that would be weird, because Federer believes in God but Nadal doesn't.

Who says god has to be nice, haha. He saw Fed gaining too much power so he destroyed him. Also with Satan. God loved him, until Satan started to believe he is the same as god and people started to worship him. So he destroyed Satan also.

 

[The Dark Knight]

Well he did say this for 2012 only. He was nr.1 and owned the field. So does this mean when Fed playing his best tennis, he owns the field?

Yes, thank you for stating the obvious.

I see....so when he wins he is in his prime but when he loses he is all of a sudden washed up.

Very convenient.

 

[The Dark Knight]

So your point is? He will win more slams?

I think he will.

 

[jg153040]

I see....so when he wins he is in his prime but when he loses he is all of a sudden washed up.

Very convenient.

It's fair, the same is with all players. With Nadal also. Unless you are saying Nadal was in his prime losing to Zeballos and Rosol? Or in 2009?

 

[The Dark Knight]

It's fair, the same is with all players. With Nadal also. Unless you are saying Nadal was in his prime losing to Zeballos and Rosol? Or in 2009?

On any given day any player can beat anyone. It was one day.....one match.

It happens......

Federer lost to Canas and to Peurta..... It happens sometimes .

 

[jg153040]

On any given day any player can beat anyone. It was one day.....one match.

It happens......

Federer lost to Canas and to Peurta..... It happens sometimes .

Yes it does. FEDAL have 28 slams together. Doesn't this prove they are unbeatable at their best?

Even if Djoker starts to beat Nadal on clay now, it doesn't matter.
Nadal dominated clay for 8 years, what more do you want?

 

[zagor]

According to Roger Federer yes.

Just take a look at Roger at the same age as Nadal .....roger was getting his butt kicked by Rafter everywhere . Why ? Either Roger was still a boy or Rafter was just better....choose .

I can't believe we are back to the same old points again .

It's getting sort of boring .

And according to Nadal Fed is... well read the OP.

 

[jg153040]

I think he will.

What's so hard to understand about Rafter? At the time he beat Fed, he was better. Fed in 2002-2007 was Better than Nadal. Also in 2009 and 2012.

But in 2008 and 2010 Nadal was better than Fed.

And today Rafa is not the best either. Nobody stays the best forever.
And in 2020 some newbies will be also better than FEDAL.

And on those 6 days in slam finals Nadal was better than Fed.
It doesn't mean he was better ALL the days.

I don't know what the problem is here.

 

[The Dark Knight]

What's so hard to understand about Rafter? At the time he beat Fed, he was better. Fed in 2002-2007 was Better than Nadal. Also in 2009 and 2012.

But in 2008 and 2010 Nadal was better than Fed.

And today Rafa is not the best either. Nobody stays the best forever.
And in 2020 some newbies will be also better than FEDAL.

And on those 6 days in slam finals Nadal was better than Fed.
It doesn't mean he was better ALL the days.

I don't know what the problem is here.

I agree with most of what you said.

But personally I believe Rafter was better because Federer was still a boy

The same as Fed won his only slams against Rafa because Rafa was still a boy.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

That would mean two tier 1 guys playing in the same era. That never happened.

You might want to think about that.

So in the 90s he would be hitting millions of more serves and volleys in practice and he would also be good.

...and you are basing this on what?

 

[jg153040]

You might want to think about that.



...and you are basing this on what?

I'm saying only if Nadal breaks Feds records. He can even still win CYGS in theory. Also Djokovic.

I'm basing this on the laws of physics. Practice makes perfect.
Also basing that Paul who is coach of Fed and Sampras, what he said.

He said greats would be great in any era. What makes them great is that they solve problems and that they ADAPT to their surroundings.

That is why it is hard to beat them, they change a lot of tactics even on the fly during matches.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Additionally, you said:

That would mean two tier 1 guys playing in the same era. That never happened.

Again, you should think about that.

 

[The Dark Knight]

JG .....

It's ok to change your mind.

It's called being human.

Nothing wrong with it.

 

[Feather]

JG .....

It's ok to change your mind.

It's called being human.

Nothing wrong with it.

I can understand your confusion. Roger says he is not the greatest of all time. Nadal says Roger is the greatest of all time. Now as a Nadal fan, you decided that Roger Federer is right.

Never knew that you were a Roger Federer fan.

 

[zagor]

JG .....

It's ok to change your mind.

It's called being human.

Nothing wrong with it.

But Nadal never changed his mind, he always claimed Fed is the greatest.

Do you know better than Nadal himself? Are you a Nadal hater?

 

[Feather]

But Nadal never changed his mind, he always claimed Fed is the greatest.

Do you know better than Nadal himself? Are you a Nadal hater?

The Dark Knight is getting owned left, right centre and he now runs for cover. Where is Alfred when he needs him the most?

 

[zagor]

The Dark Knight is getting owned left, right centre and he now runs for cover. Where is Alfred when he needs him the most?

Since when does Alfred assist escaped Arkham Asylum patients :wink:

 

[jg153040]

JG .....

It's ok to change your mind.

It's called being human.

Nothing wrong with it.

Of course it is. But I never really changed my mind. I never before put Fed as the undisputed goat. I give Fed and Laver as the best in history. And Fed the best of the last 40 years.

I also don't put Nadal over Fed unless he wins a lot more. I mean Fed is better overall. Fed has the records, Nadal has the h2h. But for me records are more important. In some ways Nadal is also better. But considering the full package, I go with Fed. Also Nadal makes it look way too hard. Fed makes it look easy. The best players always make it look easier.

It's like this. Roddick on clay has better serve than Nadal. But Nadal is better overall.

 

[The Dark Knight]

Of course it is. But I never really changed my mind. I never before put Fed as the undisputed goat. I give Fed and Laver as the best in history. And Fed the best of the last 40 years.

I also don't put Nadal over Fed unless he wins a lot more. I mean Fed is better overall. Fed has the records, Nadal has the h2h. But for me records are more important. In some ways Nadal is also better. But considering the full package, I go with Fed. Also Nadal makes it look way too hard. Fed makes it look easy. The best players always make it look easier.

It's like this. Roddick on clay has better serve than Nadal. But Nadal is better overall.

I respect that.

To you records are more important

To me you can't really generalize Fedal....no two players have ever met in as many slam finals and on all surfaces......and no number 2 has ever dominated a number 1 as badly as this before.

To me that is glaring proof that Feds completion was lacking.

Am I right? I think so but you certainly can disagree and be right as well.

But personally this situation is mind boggling to me .....how the hell did such a slam H2h occur on all surfaces ? The better question .....,is why ?

 

[Tennis Fanatic 070]

I respect that.

To you records are more important

To me you can't really generalize Fedal....no two players have ever met in as many slam finals and on all surfaces......and no number 2 has ever dominated a number 1 as badly as this before.

To me that is glaring proof that Feds completion was lacking.

Am I right? I think so but you certainly can disagree and be right as well.

But personally this situation is mind boggling to me .....how the hell did such a slam H2h occur on all surfaces ? The better question .....,is why ?

That's above all because Nadal has got a huge advantage especially on clay when he plays against a player with a 1hbh.

 

[Tennis Fanatic 070]

Of course it is. But I never really changed my mind. I never before put Fed as the undisputed goat. I give Fed and Laver as the best in history. And Fed the best of the last 40 years.

I also don't put Nadal over Fed unless he wins a lot more. I mean Fed is better overall. Fed has the records, Nadal has the h2h. But for me records are more important. In some ways Nadal is also better. But considering the full package, I go with Fed. Also Nadal makes it look way too hard. Fed makes it look easy. The best players always make it look easier.

It's like this. Roddick on clay has better serve than Nadal. But Nadal is better overall.

For me, above all, it was the quality of tennis that Federer produced that makes him the GOAT. He had so many backhand winner as well back in the days, for example.

 

[Tennis Fanatic 070]

LLLLLET'S GET READY TO RRRRRUMMMBBBLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!

Nole will beat Nadal in 5....

 

[chandu612]

But Nadal never changed his mind, he always claimed Fed is the greatest.

Do you know better than Nadal himself? Are you a Nadal hater?

Didnt djokovic say Nadal is the greatest? Are you a nole hater?

 

[chandu612]

JG .....

It's ok to change your mind.

It's called being human.

Nothing wrong with it.

Thats the whole point about all of the fans here...Though Fed fans know their idol was lucky, their ego comes in the way

 

[chandu612]

All we need is 17 slams and 300 weeksfield.

Lol..you keep talking abt not complicating things..Here is one for you.
Fed has 17 slams and 300 weeks. Thats a fact.
But that does not make him a GOAT. Now you are complicating things.

 

[jg153040]

Lol..you keep talking abt not complicating things..Here is one for you.
Fed has 17 slams and 300 weeks. Thats a fact.
But that does not make him a GOAT. Now you are complicating things.

You care way too much about Fed.

 

[chandu612]

You care way too much about Fed.

Dont complicate things again now. Stick to the topic...Come up with circular logic again. lol

 

[TMF]

Sampras fans were waiting for Roger to break his records. Fed fans are now waiting for Nadal to break Roger's records.

 

[jg153040]

Dont complicate things again now. Stick to the topic...Come up with circular logic again. lol

Maybe circular logic is new to you, but it's nothing new really.

 

[chandu612]

Maybe circular logic is new to you, but it's nothing new really.

You mean like..."Fed plays great, you will start liking him..Then no matter how he plays, he is great because you like him" ? lol

 

[jg153040]

You mean like..."Fed plays great, you will start liking him..Then no matter how he plays, he is great because you like him" ? lol

Yeah, but you can say that about any fanbase.

Some are blinded with emotions, some are not.

 

[chandu612]

Yeah, but you can say that about any fanbase.

Some are blinded with emotions, some are not.

Ture..some dont know they are blinded

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Fed fans are now waiting for Nadal to break Roger's records.

HA! Oh, please. How many anti-Nadal posts have been generated today? Accusations of:

1. Cheating
2. PEDs
3. officials favoring Nadal.
4. cheating uncle.

..and the usual insults about his speech pattern, butt-picking, predictions for his knees, other vile posts I will not quote (but is in the last few pages of the match thread)...the works.

This board--today--was/is filled with bitter Federer fans who were pretty much orgasmic when they thought Djokovic had a chance to win. Why? Because it would prevent Nadal from adding another major to his credit--moving him just another step closer to Federer's count.

 

[TMF]

HA! Oh, please. How many anti-Nadal posts have been generated today? Accusations of:

1. Cheating
2. PEDs
3. officials favoring Nadal.
4. cheating uncle.

..and the usual insults about his speech pattern, butt-picking, predictions for his knees, other vile posts I will not quote (but is in the last few pages of the match thread)...the works.

This board--today--was/is filled with bitter Federer fans who were pretty much orgasmic when they thought Djokovic had a chance to win. Why? Because it would prevent Nadal from adding another major to his credit--moving him just another step closer to Federer's count.

I don't know, how many? I don't read every single posts on this forum. Plus I've other posters on my ignore lists and wouldn't bother to visit nonsensical threads.

 

[jg153040]

Ture..some dont know they are blinded

True. But how to know who is blinded? A blinded person accuses of others being blinded. So it could as well be you and me.

We could deny it but don't people who don't know they are blinded deny, that they are blinded?

 

[VPhuc tennis fan]

You mean like..."Fed plays great, you will start liking him..Then no matter how he plays, he is great because you like him" ? lol

Typical rookie! Full of boast!
Here are my 2 cents for you: Until the day that Rafa equals AND surpasses Fed's achievements in ALL categories that you can come up with, then Rafa deserves to be in the GOAT discussion. Until that day, worthless discussion. All you can come up is that typical h2h, clay records. Look, Djoker owned Rafa 3 out of 4 slams in 2011, and perhaps the 4th if not for a guy named Fed standing in his way. So does it mean that Djoker is ahead of Rafa? For some Djoker's fan, that stat alone may be sufficient already. However, in the big picture, Djoker still trails Rafa in GS titles, # of weeks as #1, MS1000 titles, etc. So a short answer is: NO. So apply the same reasoning to Rafa and Fed. No one gives a rat's a***ss about the h2h. Let your hero Rafa break all Fed's record then we'll talk about GOAT debate, until then it's still Fed above Rafa. Yeah, I can hear," but the h2h is..." Read my bold part. Simple enough to understand!

 

[BobbyOne]

Till now GOATs are Rod Laver and Roger Federer. Rod Laver had CYGS but there were only two surfaces at that time. Slight edge to Rogie.

FreeBird, Roger has never realized a Grand Slam, Laver did it twice or three times if we consider his Pro Slam in 1967. The greatest achievements equally if two or three surfaces.