[POLL] Are slam titles really the only metric to determine the GOAT?

After the slams, what is the second parameter you evaluate to establish to GOAT?

  • Total voters
    78
Totals don’t mean everything. Would you say a player that won 17 slams over a 15+ year career is a greater tennis player than another that won 16 slams over a 4 year career?

greatest career of all time or greatest player of all time?

Bo Jackson is a rough example. Holds very few records, if any, of importance. Yet everyone knows he was an absolute monster and one of the best to ever play football.
 
Curtennis said:
Totals don’t mean everything. Would you say a player that won 17 slams over a 15+ year career is a greater tennis player than another that won 16 slams over a 4 year career?

greatest career of all time or greatest player of all time?

Bo Jackson is a rough example. Holds very few records, if any, of importance. Yet everyone knows he was an absolute monster and one of the best to ever play football.
Click to expand...
Yes. I would say that.

The guy who won 16 and then quit is a quitter and LOSER.

I would put a big L on his forehead and move on.

These kind of hypothetical discussions are left for Lawyers in courts. Who will twist the truth and get the accused acquitted. This is not NATURAL way of thinking.

But coping mechanism come multiple ways.
 
ND-13 said:
Public acceptance and their admiration is what matters at the end of the day.

If you have all the records but not enough admiration, they you are the most accomplished.

But the greatest is factored by public perception.
Click to expand...
For me its Slams and YE1 and Olympics. Thats what i look at. But there has to be context. When slams were won in terms of competition is also very important. No way for instance are the Big 3 6, 8 and 10 slams better than Sampras. I have seen all 4 players live and Sampras off clay was easily as good as the big 3 perhaps better. He just had a far tougher era full of great champions which in truth the Big 3 never had. That said i have Sampras a close 4th because he didnt have all 4 slams or the Olympics.
 
nolefam_2024 said:
Yes. I would say that.

The guy who won 16 and then quit is a quitter and LOSER.

I would put a big L on his forehead and move on.

These kind of hypothetical discussions are left for Lawyers in courts. Who will twist the truth and get the accused acquitted. This is not NATURAL way of thinking.

But coping mechanism come multiple ways.
Click to expand...
You do not understand sport clearly. Ask any professional player in any sport and they will tell you 10 slams in 6 years is better than 12 slams in 10 years.
If you need proof listen to Ronnie O'Sullivan as to where he sits in terms of the greatest world champion in snooker. He has same number as Hendry but he won them over many more years. Osullivan is on record as saying Hendry and also Davis (who had one less) were greater at the crucible.
 
roysid said:
If popularity, conduct on and off court and playing style is the criteria then Federer wins hands down. He is like the golden boy of tennis.
His tennis achievements are also tremendous. Nadal is equally impressive. But Djokovic has surpassed all. That's the plan cold fact
Click to expand...
Well in which way did Federer conduct well himself off the court? I did not hear that Federer helped to young tennis players with a career, He did not support them financially. Also he did not care for lower ranked players and tough conditions ... I have never hear him speaking about those problems. In fact, he did not do more than the others. And also he was pasive agressive on post match press conferences. He also broke racquets or fought with umpires - he had dark side since Young days. And he did not mind to jab players down on press conferences. I don't understand how anybody can make Jesus from Federer. He is not Saint. He knows how to be super alibistic slick politician, that's his mastery off the court indeed.
 
ND-13 said:
Public acceptance and their admiration is what matters at the end of the day.

If you have all the records but not enough admiration, they you are the most accomplished.

But the greatest is factored by public perception.
Click to expand...
Then you are wrong, as always. When generations of Federer's fans die, people will remember only results. Nobody will care about Rogers 5th place or Nadal third place. Result will stay forever. That's the reason why Kasparov will always be rated higher than likeable Tal.
 
Oleksandr.Usyk said:
Well in which way did Federer conduct well himself off the court? I did not hear that Federer helped to young tennis players with a career, He did not support them financially. Also he did not care for lower ranked players and tough conditions ... I have never hear him speaking about those problems. In fact, he did not do more than the others. And also he was pasive agressive on post match press conferences. He also broke racquets or fought with umpires - he had dark side since Young days. And he did not mind to jab players down on press conferences. I don't understand how anybody can make Jesus from Federer. He is not Saint. He knows how to be super alibistic slick politician, that's his mastery off the court indeed.
Click to expand...

Lol.

Federer has very positive image in all public. He has always been respectful to the crowd. Took lowest time to serve. Took lowest medical time outs. Grunted least. Did not shout at his camp even when things went bad. Did not swear remotely as much as Djokovic. Did not break racket.

In many ways Federer conducted himself better.
 
Winner Sinner said:
Let me start by saying that I don't want to direct the discussion to superfluous topics such as popularity, style, and many other such superficial issues.

Since the beginning of the world, in sport the ultimate goal is to win, every other question is irrelevant.
So those who achieve the greatest successes should be given a preferential lane when debating the GOAT topic.

Having said that, I wondered why some only take slams into consideration.
These are obviously the most important and prestigious tournaments, however the fact remains that the tennis calendar is not structured only on those 4 tournaments.
The same ranking that at the end of the year essentially assigns the best player of the season to whoever ends the year at number 1, does not only take into consideration the counting of points scored in the slams.

All this to say that I think Djokovic is the GOAT not only because he has scored the most slams, but also because he holds the record in other areas, such as the most weeks and seasons finished at number 1, the most ATP Finals, the most masters 1000, in general the most big titles, and also commands the h2h against the main rivals of his generation.

Ultimately, if one day there was a player capable of taking away Djokovic's record of slam wins, but at the same time accumulating fewer weeks and seasons closed at number 1, fewer ATP Finals, fewer Masters 1000s, in general fewer big titles, I I'm absolutely not convinced I can consider him the GOAT.

What do you think?
Click to expand...

Eye Test
Rolex Ads
A Captivating Game

FEDR
 
nolefam_2024 said:
Lol.

Federer has very positive image in all public. He has always been respectful to the crowd. Took lowest time to serve. Took lowest medical time outs. Grunted least. Did not shout at his camp even when things went bad. Did not swear remotely as much as Djokovic. Did not break racket.

In many ways Federer conducted himself better.
Click to expand...
Yeah yeah , we know this into some extend, but I asked "off the court". I do not see any super special greatness off the court... That was my curiosity.
 
MichaelNadal said:
You know I respect you but you absolutely went nuts on how no one was close to Federer bc of his stats. It is what it is, yes I completely agree Novak got lucky af with his circumstances. But you were the biggest stat person here when Federer had them.
Click to expand...
If the depth and level competition were relative strong across all era I can understand. Old, past prime 30+ Djokovic stats and slam rate conversion was better than he was during his peak/prime years(in his 20s). The only explanation is he was vulturing all of his stats against the weakest era of all time. The 90s' born players today have failed are now being taking over by the young 2000s born players.

Also given the fact that every past ATGs achieved 90% in their best years(in their 20s), and very little(if any) during father time. Sampras, Borg, Lendl, Mac, Federer, etc, all of their achievements follow the same patterns. It's the norm that every next generation take over tour, while the previous generation in their 30s either retire and/or wins literally nothing.

These evidences cannot be deny. Quantity doesn't always equate to quality and Djokovic 12 slams in the CIE are not impressive when compare to any previous, normal era
 
GabeT said:
Lol, no. You were fine with the results until Fed got left behind.


That’s ok, you are a fan, not an analyst. Happens to all fans, we want our favorite to win. As you yourself said the holy grail of tennis is the slam race. Novak won it
Click to expand...
^
Read post above
 
TMF said:
If the depth and level competition were relative strong across all era I can understand. Old, past prime 30+ Djokovic stats and slam rate conversion was better than he was during his peak/prime years(in his 20s). The only explanation is he was vulturing all of his stats against the weakest era of all time. The 90s' born players today have failed are now being taking over by the young 2000s born players.

Also given the fact that every past ATGs achieved 90% in their best years(in their 20s), and very little(if any) during father time. Sampras, Borg, Lendl, Mac, Federer, etc, all of their achievements follow the same patterns. It's the norm that every next generation take over tour, while the previous generation in their 30s either retire and/or wins literally nothing.

These evidences cannot be deny. Quantity doesn't always equate to quality and Djokovic 12 slams in the CIE are not impressive when compare to any previous, normal era
Click to expand...
Lol

Just admit your fav lost the slam race
 
I think players should be banned for playing after 30 if none of their results actually count and it is a detriment to the sport.

Funny though, back in 2017, not a single thread about winning titles in the 30s being meaningless...back then, it was a sign of someone's GOAThood.

And where is the backlash of Laver winning a CYGS in his 30s, back in the freaking 60s, when 30 truly was old in sporting terms...Oh, there isn't any.
 
TMF said:
If the depth and level competition were relative strong across all era I can understand. Old, past prime 30+ Djokovic stats and slam rate conversion was better than he was during his peak/prime years(in his 20s). The only explanation is he was vulturing all of his stats against the weakest era of all time. The 90s' born players today have failed are now being taking over by the young 2000s born players.

Also given the fact that every past ATGs achieved 90% in their best years(in their 20s), and very little(if any) during father time. Sampras, Borg, Lendl, Mac, Federer, etc, all of their achievements follow the same patterns. It's the norm that every next generation take over tour, while the previous generation in their 30s either retire and/or wins literally nothing.

These evidences cannot be deny. Quantity doesn't always equate to quality and Djokovic 12 slams in the CIE are not impressive when compare to any previous, normal era
Click to expand...
Do not do this. You don't make Federer look good.

Federer would never have more than 17 GSlams if not Djokovic's elbow injury from 2016 to 2018. Djokovic lost 2 years of his absolute prime when he was perfectly balanced player. Federer never needed to deal with such a circumstances. I will not mention that Djokovic went glutein free diet super late and his bad decisions with Covid times, but even if I do not mention these two things- Federer and Nadal did not lose two years in their Prime. Djokovic is the only underachiever from Djofedal. Other two are lucky overachievers. Let go and accept the reality. You have to move on. You can not live in past anymore.
 
Who has done the best job at overcoming the toughest competition.
This is my criteria for the GOAT.
I mean, let's face it - what is more valuable, winning ONE GS title in the form of Wimbledon 2008 or winning THREE GS titles in the form of AO 2023, RG 2023 and USO 2023?? We know the obvious answer.
Look, winning GS titles in a stupidly weak era does serve as a decoration, I give you that. But this is only decoration at most. What really makes up the important part is dominating, or at least, doing the best against the toughest competition.
And for that, Federer fits the criteria better than either Nadal or Djokovic could ever dream of. But now, Sinner has dethroned him in that category. Ever Slam that Sinner won, he overcame the toughest competition.
 
Megafanoftennis100 said:
Who has done the best job at overcoming the toughest competition.
This is my criteria for the GOAT.
I mean, let's face it - what is more valuable, winning ONE GS title in the form of Wimbledon 2008 or winning THREE GS titles in the form of AO 2023, RG 2023 and USO 2023?? We know the obvious answer.
Look, winning GS titles in a stupidly weak era does serve as a decoration, I give you that. But this is only decoration at most. What really makes up the important part is dominating, or at least, doing the best against the toughest competition.
And for that, Federer fits the criteria better than either Nadal or Djokovic could ever dream of. But now, Sinner has dethroned him in that category. Ever Slam that Sinner won, he overcame the toughest competition.
Click to expand...
This is a lie. Winning AO 2012 or Wimbledon 2011 or US Open 2011 or French Open 2013 is more valuable than Wimbledon 2008. Djodal rivalry is the highest quality in the history of tennis. Even Wimbledon semifinal 2018 or Wimbledon final 2022 is more quality than majority of Roger's Finals. Federer did not participace in the most iconic matches and when he did - He lost badly.

Djokovic spent his Prime against Prime Nadal, Prime Federer, Prime Wawrinka, Prime Murray (Federer had a negative H2H against baby Murray until 2008), Tsonga, Del Potro, Berdych, Ferrer etc. .... Federer got majority of his GS agaisnt babies Nadal, Djokovic, Murray.... It says everything we need to know. Roger's Wins over Gonzales, Phillipoussis or Baghdatis and Bjorkman or Hewitt or James Blake WHO would not make a TOP10 nowadays are not really impressive... Those wins aged bad.
 
Last edited:
Oleksandr.Usyk said:
Do not do this. You don't make Federer look good.

Federer would never have more than 17 GSlams if not Djokovic's elbow injury from 2016 to 2018. Djokovic lost 2 years of his absolute prime when he was perfectly balanced player. Federer never needed to deal with such a circumstances. I will not mention that Djokovic went glutein free diet super late and his bad decisions with Covid times, but even if I do not mention these two things- Federer and Nadal did not lose two years in their Prime. Djokovic is the only underachiever from Djofedal. Other two are lucky overachievers. Let go and accept the reality. You have to move on. You can not live in past anymore.
Click to expand...
Yes I will continue to do this because it's the truth.

At an optimum age for an athlete, Djokovic failed to capitalized is because he wasn't good enough to compete against the strong competition. 3 years(2012-2014), he managed only to win 3 slams while Federer was past his prime. Not to mention some of his slam titles were very fortunate since he was when facing match points. Definitely should have lost to a 38 years Federer in 2019 Wimbledon.

Every players have injuries in his/her career but Djokovic is the luckiest player to have the least injuries. What's shocking is that a washed up, slow, burned out Nadal and grandpa, post surgery Federer is Djokovic most stiffest competition while the lousy 90s born players who are suppose to take over the tour didn't make Djokovic break a sweat. LOL
 
Oleksandr.Usyk said:
This is a lie. Winning AO 2012 or Wimbledon 2011 or US Open 2011 or French Open 2013 is more valuable than Wimbledon 2008. Djodal rivalry is the highest quality in the history of tennis. Even Wimbledon semifinal 2018 or Wimbledon final 2022 is more quality than majority of Roger's Finals. Federer did not participace in the most iconic matches and when he did - He lost badly.
Click to expand...
I strongly, strongly disagree. 2003-2009, 2012, 2015, 2017, 2019 versions of Federer and 2006-2008, 2010-2011, 2018 versions of Nadal would have destroyed 2022 Djokovic, let alone freaking KYRGIOS, in a Wimbledon final without a doubt.
 
nolefam_2024 said:
Only goat arguments are not even fun for me.
Click to expand...
Then how can you possibly argue with a man who says, "The concept of a GOAT is fundamentally flawed to begin with."

I have no argument with anyone who says that when talking about the best of the best, Djokovic belongs at the top. That means to me that no one belongs above him. I think his record has earned that respect. But there are several other players I would not put below him. Probably equal. To put one player above all others is an insult to other champions. It also is very linked to recency bias. And it brings in excuses for blind love for a favorite player without any objectivity or even respect.
 
Gary Duane said:
Then how can you possibly argue with a man who says, "The concept of a GOAT is fundamentally flawed to begin with."

I have no argument with anyone who says that when talking about the best of the best, Djokovic belongs at the top. That means to me that no one belongs above him. I think his record has earned that respect. But there are several other players I would not put below him. Probably equal. To put one player above all others is an insult to other champions. It also is very linked to recency bias. And it brings in excuses for blind love for a favorite player without any objectivity or even respect.
Click to expand...


This is it really.

If there is no GOAT, that is fine, but no one should be ranked above Djokovic at this stage, as his case is the best, if such a thing as GOAT exists IMO.
 
Gary Duane said:
CIE - CHOOSING INSINCERITY and EMOTION (over fairness) :)
Click to expand...
Man, I just have to tell you that I am so sick of blind disrespect to great players. It is asinine to think that players are lucky in only facing weak opponents when they've had very long careers. Certainly you can make that claim for individual years. But over a career it has to balance out. There has never been and never will be an objective standard for rating how great a player is based on who he beats. Not in tennis.

At least we can talk about the fastest man in the world. That's an objective standard. When going back in time, we know that previous champions are going to slow have slower records, but it seems to me you have to respect people according to what they are doing in their own time.

Who is greater, Jesse Owens or Usain Bolt? I would say both are equally great because they absolutely dominated their rivals in their times. There is no doubt about either being the fastest in the world in their own era.

But in tennis you have no objective standards. We can talk about who serves the most aces, but that is entirely dependent upon the ability of the man on the other side of the net to return those serves. In order to be objective we have to have measurable standards that are independent of the opponent, and all of the important statistics in tennis are not like that at all.
 
Hitman said:
This is it really.

If there is no GOAT, that is fine, but no one should be ranked above Djokovic at this stage, as his case is the best, if such a thing as GOAT exists IMO.
Click to expand...

This problem is coming from only Djoker fan base who insist their favorite male idol is GOAT and everyone must agree.

Ignorant while being arrogant
Entitlement
Aggressive
Disrespect
 
Gary Duane said:
Man, I just have to tell you that I am so sick of blind disrespect to great players. It is asinine to think that players are lucky in only facing weak opponents when they've had very long careers. Certainly you can make that claim for individual years. But over a career it has to balance out. There has never been and never will be an objective standard for rating how great a player is based on who he beats. Not in tennis.

At least we can talk about the fastest man in the world. That's an objective standard. When going back in time, we know that previous champions are going to slow have slower records, but it seems to me you have to respect people according to what they are doing in their own time.

Who is greater, Jesse Owens or Usain Bolt? I would say both are equally great because they absolutely dominated their rivals in their times. There is no doubt about either being the fastest in the world in their own era.

But in tennis you have no objective standards. We can talk about who serves the most aces, but that is entirely dependent upon the ability of the man on the other side of the net to return those serves. In order to be objective we have to have measurable standards that are independent of the opponent, and all of the important statistics in tennis are not like that at all.
Click to expand...

We always find ways to tear people down my friend.
 
TMF said:
This problem is coming from only Djoker fan base who insist their favorite male idol is GOAT and everyone must agree.

Ignorant while being arrogant
Entitlement
Aggressive
Disrespect
Click to expand...

I'm not some Johnny Come Lately To This Party.

I've been here from the start, and so have you, and this behavior you speak of was seen plenty before Djokovic got the record, it was also seen from Federer fans and until most recently Nadal fans...no one is innocent here.
 
Hitman said:
I'm not some Johnny Come Lately To This Party.

I've been here from the start, and so have you, and this behavior you speak of was seen plenty before Djokovic got the record, it was also seen from Federer fans and until most recently Nadal fans...no one is innocent here.
Click to expand...

Here's my initial post in this thread
TMF said:
NO.

There's no general consensus in list of criteria for evaluating the player's placement in ATG
Click to expand...
You can't express your opinion without getting attack by angry Djoker fans.
 
TMF said:
Here's my initial post in this thread

You can't express your opinion without getting attack by angry Djoker fans.
Click to expand...

I'll say this again, you are painting it out like this is some new thing, that only Djokovic fans have done, when we both know, this has been done by Federer fans for years here, and Nadal fans had their turn in 2022.

The thing you need to acknowledge is that no fanbase is full of saints, and this sort of stuff always happens, it just depends on who is on top.
 
TMF said:
Yes I will continue to do this because it's the truth.

At an optimum age for an athlete, Djokovic failed to capitalized is because he wasn't good enough to compete against the strong competition. 3 years(2012-2014), he managed only to win 3 slams while Federer was past his prime. Not to mention some of his slam titles were very fortunate since he was when facing match points. Definitely should have lost to a 38 years Federer in 2019 Wimbledon.

Every players have injuries in his/her career but Djokovic is the luckiest player to have the least injuries. What's shocking is that a washed up, slow, burned out Nadal and grandpa, post surgery Federer is Djokovic most stiffest competition while the lousy 90s born players who are suppose to take over the tour didn't make Djokovic break a sweat. LOL
Click to expand...
It is not true. It is your cope. Federer was not past his prime while he was 34. The same goes for 34 years old Djokovic and Nadal. There is nothing like an optimum age if the athletes move on super high level. On one side numbers are not important to you, but with age numbers are important to you haha. The reality is that results and performance matters the most. Djokovic, Nadal and Federer in their 34 are Prime and not only that, they were constantly improving their craft. This generation extended their prime. You mentally live in Borgs or Sampras era. The same in boxing. Look at Usyk's masterclass in heavyweight 38 years old and there are more examples from football etc. In fact those players improved skill through years. Btw. nice cherry pick from you with 2012 - 2014. How about 2011 - 2014 or 2011-2015. Not to mention all of big four have been in their Prime. And btw. Speaking about injuries. There is a one big difference. Djokovic did not want to go for elbow surgery because it was not connected with his believes. So he could control it, go on surgery and get AO 2017, 2018 plus Wimbledon 2017 and US Open 2017. But he deliberately did not because of his stupidity . That's a waste. Federer and Nadal did not waste. So Djokovic underachieved. Federer and Nadal always did the best to recover as fast as possible. That's the reason why they did not underachieve. Djokovic is super competitive against 16 years younger wonder kids in his age is more impressive than Federer and Nadal who are similar age like Djokovic. It is funny when you talk about Federer like about grandpa, but he is the same generation like Djokovic, Nadal. But Federer was lucky to be a little bit younger so He could get more GS in weak era. Btw. Djokovic broke a sweat against this young gen. It is just your selective coping memory that you do not see his tough matches.
 
Hitman said:
We always find ways to tear people down my friend.
Click to expand...
A mentor of mine from when I was very young once said to me: "Most people don't wish other people well."

That simple statement has stuck in my mind for decades. If you like who you are, and if you are a kind person, you always look for opportunities to make other people feel better about themselves. But people who wish to elevate other people to their higher level rather than to humiliate other people until they come down to their level are so much more rare. I don't think there are more of them today than in the past but I think we see them more often because of social media.
 
Gary Duane said:
A mentor of mine from when I was very young once said to me: "Most people don't wish other people well."

That simple statement has stuck in my mind for decades. If you like who you are, and if you are a kind person, you always look for opportunities to make other people feel better about themselves. But people who wish to elevate other people to their higher level rather than to humiliate other people until they come down to their level are so much more rare. I don't think there are more of them today than in the past but I think we see them more often because of social media.
Click to expand...

That is deep and profound, because it speaks of the realities of the dark side of human nature, a side that is all too prevalent in our interactions as a species with each other.
 
Megafanoftennis100 said:
I strongly, strongly disagree. 2003-2009, 2012, 2015, 2017, 2019 versions of Federer and 2006-2008, 2010-2011, 2018 versions of Nadal would have destroyed 2022 Djokovic, let alone freaking KYRGIOS, in a Wimbledon final without a doubt.
Click to expand...
Not a chance, only in your dreams. Federer 2004 got destroyed by Berdych on Olympics. Federer 2009 went life and death with overrated Roddick, Lost almost to Tommy Haas on French Open 2009, Federer had negative H2H against baby Murray until 2008 etc. Young Nadal got destroyed on hard courts by Youzhny and other no name players. Djokovic 2021 - 2023 with improved game under Ivanisevic beats any Federer and Nadal versions on Australian Open, is succesfull against them on Wimbledon and US Open. Only French Open would be tough obviously, because Nadal is a Claygoat.

Btw. Kyrgios had better numbers on Wimbledon 2022 than Roddick on Wimbledon 2009.

You overrate Federer and Nadal too much. Obviously nostalgy wave. Sport evolved.
 
I don't understand how we can refer to the weak era where, according to some, a post-prime Djokovic would have raged, ignoring at the same time the fact that Federer prime had much weaker competition than that of Djokovic prime.

The most classic of two different weights and measures.

Everything balances out, and Djokovic, to his great credit, has become the most successful tennis player in history, even by a margin (72 big titles vs 59 and 54, are a significant difference).
 
Gary Duane said:
Then how can you possibly argue with a man who says, "The concept of a GOAT is fundamentally flawed to begin with."

I have no argument with anyone who says that when talking about the best of the best, Djokovic belongs at the top. That means to me that no one belongs above him. I think his record has earned that respect. But there are several other players I would not put below him. Probably equal. To put one player above all others is an insult to other champions. It also is very linked to recency bias. And it brings in excuses for blind love for a favorite player without any objectivity or even respect.
Click to expand...
My logic is simple. Djokovic is the best of his generation and like he said , we can't practically compare across multiple generations.

He is possibly the GOAT but I don't mind Rod Laver getting the nod as well. Too very different scenarios.

But other than laver, I don't see anyone having a claim. Even Pete is far behind Djokovic that no one can make serious calls that he is better.
 
TMF said:
The 2000s born players(Alcaraz & Sinners ) have already achieved way more than the entire 90s born players.
5 slams > 2 slams 1
YE #1 > 0 YE #1
46 weeks #1 > 16 weeks #1
Click to expand...

So the gap between Nole and Fed is about the same as the entire 1990s- and 2000s-born players combined? When will people finally admit it? Lol. :cool:
 
I feel like suggesting a different metric. If the purpose is to look for the "greatest", rather than the most successful or the strongest, perhaps we could think of what makes someone great, memorable, legendary? One way to look at it could be to consider how many great battles a player has won, how many memorable moments he has given to the sport, how many stories will be told about him or her... granted I haven't really thought about this very much yet though but perhaps you can see what I mean
 
Drighiz said:
I feel like suggesting a different metric. If the purpose is to look for the "greatest", rather than the most successful or the strongest, perhaps we could think of what makes someone great, memorable, legendary? One way to look at it could be to consider how many great battles a player has won, how many memorable moments he has given to the sport, how many stories will be told about him or her... granted I haven't really thought about this very much yet though but perhaps you can see what I mean
Click to expand...
In that case your goat will be zverev. He has too many five set matches. So epic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

EnglishNadal
  • Locked
Stats the big 3 need to become the goat
3 4 5
Replies
223
Views
7K
mike danny
mike danny
D
Goat
Replies
1
Views
787
Djokporto fan
D
F
How does Murray qualify for GOAT/ATG status?
Replies
43
Views
2K
BGod
BGod
powerangle
What's your criteria for All-Time Great? GOAT?
2
Replies
50
Views
3K
TheLoneWolf
TheLoneWolf
M
Criteria/Accomplishments for GOAT
Replies
19
Views
2K
roysid
roysid
Back
Top