Psychological effects of losing a slam final

On fanbases.

Before Nadal's loss to Djokovic:

July 21, 2018
The GOAT can be defined under an ubjective criterion: Number of Grand Slams.
July 7, 2017
Roger Federer is undoubtedly the GOAT.
After Nadal's devastating loss to Djokovic on Jan. 27, 2019:

Jan. 31, 2019
Nope. There will never be a tennis GOAT.

The Grand Slam count is irrelevant
:)
 
Last edited:

BGod

Legend
I thought this was about players. There's only been two guys in the modern era who lost 4 consecutive finals. Lendl and Murray. Take from that what you will.
 

itrium84

Semi-Pro
Fun fact - In F1, if you don't win all 21 races during the season, you're not a true champion. It's like in tennis, if you don't win CYGS during the season, you cannot be best player of that season. ;)

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk
 

Sport

Legend
Who doesn't change his mind? People who don't keep rethinking their assumed convictions. It is a good sign to assume the mistakes and change convictions. Imagine if racists never changed their minds for example.

I recently realized that 2 of 4 Grand Slams (50%) are on hard courts. Thus, the Grand Slam count only reflects which player is greater on hard courts, not overall. If 2 of 4 Grand Slams were on grass Federer could have 23 GS or more, and if 2 of 4 GS were on clay Nadal could have 30 GS.

The Grand count can only determine GOATNESS if a player has the most Grand Slams counting only one Grand Slam on hard courts (either AO or USO) . For example:

Hypothetical scenario A:

Grand Slams without the US Open:

Djokovic 16
Federer 15
Nadal 14

In this hypothetical scenario, Djokovic would be the GOAT since we are considering 33% of GS on hard, 33% of GS on grass and 33% of GS on clay.

If Djokovic only surpasses Fedal's GS count when considering both GS on hard, then he is only greater on hard courts, not overall.
 

itrium84

Semi-Pro
Michael Schumacher F1 GOAT:
Championship title record: 7
Consecutive championship titles record: 5
Races win record: 91
Most races won in a season record: 13/18
Most podium finishes record: 155
Most fastest laps record: 77
Most fastest laps in a season record: 10

According to @Sport, Schumacher can't be GOAT, since Senna is better on the Monaco GP surface (6>5) and Hamilton is better on Silverstone surface (5>3).

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk
 

MeatTornado

Legend
Who doesn't change his mind? People who don't keep rethinking their assumed convictions. It is a good sign to assume the mistakes and change convictions. Imagine if racists never changed their minds for example.

I recently realized that 2 of 4 Grand Slams (50%) are on hard courts. Thus, the Grand Slam count only reflects which player is greater on hard courts, not overall. If 2 of 4 Grand Slams were on grass Federer could have 23 GS or more, and if 2 of 4 GS were on clay Nadal could have 30 GS.

The Grand count can only determine GOATNESS if a player has the most Grand Slams counting only one Grand Slam on hard courts (either AO or USO) . For example:

Hypothetical scenario A:

Grand Slams without the US Open:

Djokovic 16
Federer 15
Nadal 14

In this hypothetical scenario, Djokovic would be the GOAT since we are considering 33% of GS on hard, 33% of GS on grass and 33% of GS on clay.

If Djokovic only surpasses Fedal's GS count when considering both GS on hard, then he is only greater on hard courts, not overall.
This is a master class in damage control.
 

augustobt

Legend
Michael Schumacher F1 GOAT:
Championship title record: 7
Consecutive championship titles record: 5
Races win record: 91
Most races won in a season record: 13/18
Most podium finishes record: 155
Most fastest laps record: 77
Most fastest laps in a season record: 10

According to @Sport, Schumacher can't be GOAT, since Senna is better on the Monaco GP surface (6>5) and Hamilton is better on Silverstone surface (5>3).

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk
Senna is the GOAT for other reasons - don't make me remember that he literally died before Schumacher lifted his first trophy.
 

augustobt

Legend
Who doesn't change his mind? People who don't keep rethinking their assumed convictions. It is a good sign to assume the mistakes and change convictions. Imagine if racists never changed their minds for example.

I recently realized that 2 of 4 Grand Slams (50%) are on hard courts. Thus, the Grand Slam count only reflects which player is greater on hard courts, not overall. If 2 of 4 Grand Slams were on grass Federer could have 23 GS or more, and if 2 of 4 GS were on clay Nadal could have 30 GS.

The Grand count can only determine GOATNESS if a player has the most Grand Slams counting only one Grand Slam on hard courts (either AO or USO) . For example:

Hypothetical scenario A:

Grand Slams without the US Open:

Djokovic 16
Federer 15
Nadal 14

In this hypothetical scenario, Djokovic would be the GOAT since we are considering 33% of GS on hard, 33% of GS on grass and 33% of GS on clay.

If Djokovic only surpasses Fedal's GS count when considering both GS on hard, then he is only greater on hard courts, not overall.
I guess in my time reading this message board this is one of the worse posts I can even think of.

For someone who (allegedly) watches tennis for 'a long time' you only realized NOW that half of the majors are played on Hard Courts? It's been like that for almost 40 years If I'm not mistaken - long before I was born and surely you.

Let me remind you of something: 3 of 4 GSs were played on grass! It's not a question of ridiculous "ifs" like the ones you even had the courage to type - like creating a scenario without US Open. I'm talking about what really happened. True facts, per se.

What you're calling "change of mind" I usually call "horse crap" or "moving the goal post".
 

Sport

Legend
I guess in my time reading this message board this is one of the worse posts I can even think of.

For someone who (allegedly) watches tennis for 'a long time' you only realized NOW that half of the majors are played on Hard Courts? It's been like that for almost 40 years If I'm not mistaken - long before I was born and surely you.

Let me remind you of something: 3 of 4 GSs were played on grass! It's not a question of ridiculous "ifs" like the ones you even had the courage to type - like creating a scenario without US Open. I'm talking about what really happened. True facts, per se.

What you're calling "change of mind" I usually call "horse crap" or "moving the goal post".
It's not a question of "if". It's a matter of fact. The Grand Slam count only reflects which player is greater on hard courts, not which player is greater overall since 50% of Grand Slams are on hard courts.

You would be the first to complain in case 2 of 4 GS were on clay or grass, because in that case Nadal could have 30 GS or Federer 23 GS.

I am not saying you should totally ignore the Grand Slam count. As I said, you can make comparisons between the Big 3 as long as you don't include one of the GS on hard.

Hypothetical case:

Grand Slams without the US Open

Djokovic 16
Federer 15
Nadal 14

In this hypothetical scenario, you can say Djokovic is better than Federer and Nadal, since we are considering 33% of GS on hard, 33% of GS on clay and 33% of GS grass. If Djokovic only surpasses Fedal's Grand Slam count when considering the 2 GS on hard, then he is only greater on hard courts, not overall.
 

augustobt

Legend
It's not a question of "if". It's a matter of fact. The Grand Slam count only reflects which player is greater on hard courts, not which player is greater overall since 50% of Grand Slams are on hard courts.

You would be the first to complain in case 2 of 4 GS were on clay or grass, because in that case Nadal could have 30 GS or Federer 23 GS.

I am not saying you should totally ignore the Grand Slam count. As I said, you can make comparisons between the Big 3 as long as you don't include one of the GS on hard.

Hypothetical case:

Grand Slams without the US Open

Djokovic 16
Federer 15
Nadal 14

In this hypothetical scenario, you can say Djokovic is better than Federer and Nadal, since we are considering 33% of GS on hard, 33% of GS on clay and 33% of GS grass. If Djokovic only surpasses Fedal's Grand Slam count when considering the 2 GS on hard, then he is only greater on hard courts, not overall.
Dude, repeating a bullcrap don't make it legit.
 
Senna is the GOAT for other reasons - don't make me remember that he literally died before Schumacher lifted his first trophy.
No clear greatest in F1 :mad:
Fangio, Clark, Senna and Schumacher should be together at the top of the crop.

Remarkably, the 'slamless goat' - the best of the non-champions - hasn't been in question for over 50 years, as no one comes close to Sir Stirling Moss.
 

falstaff78

Hall of Fame
Who doesn't change his mind? People who don't keep rethinking their assumed convictions. It is a good sign to assume the mistakes and change convictions. Imagine if racists never changed their minds for example.

I recently realized that 2 of 4 Grand Slams (50%) are on hard courts. Thus, the Grand Slam count only reflects which player is greater on hard courts, not overall. If 2 of 4 Grand Slams were on grass Federer could have 23 GS or more, and if 2 of 4 GS were on clay Nadal could have 30 GS.

The Grand count can only determine GOATNESS if a player has the most Grand Slams counting only one Grand Slam on hard courts (either AO or USO) . For example:

Hypothetical scenario A:

Grand Slams without the US Open:

Djokovic 16
Federer 15
Nadal 14

In this hypothetical scenario, Djokovic would be the GOAT since we are considering 33% of GS on hard, 33% of GS on grass and 33% of GS on clay.

If Djokovic only surpasses Fedal's GS count when considering both GS on hard, then he is only greater on hard courts, not overall.
It's a lot less arbitrary than you make it seem.

The distribution of grand slams is known and unchanged in a generation. Players develop their games accordingly.

If there were 2 grass majors, more players would develop grass specific games, and Federer would likely not have a large pile of extra titles.
 

tennisfan2015

Hall of Fame
@Sport,

just admit it, mate. The more you type, the more people laugh. It is not about who would win what but your recent realisation that 2 out of 4 courts are hard. Make sure that you know there are 4 GS per year, not 5 or 3. Trust me, if you say, I fcuked up people will usually say "yeah OK" but there will be those who would laugh even then :)
 
Last edited:

Djokodalerer31

Hall of Fame
Slam race facts.

1 Fed
2 Nadal
third place guy
Yeah right...some "third place guy" with 15 grand slams, who just surpassed Sampras' slam tally record (something that a decade ago one would consider an impossible feat tennis, right before Federer did it back in 2009!...) and who is trailing mister Nadal with a mere 2 grand slams and who leads both mister Federer and mister Nadal in h2h and who beat both of them at each four of grand slams at least once...some third place guy he is...LOL
 

True Fanerer

G.O.A.T.
Yeah right...some "third place guy" with 15 grand slams, who just surpassed Sampras' slam tally record (something that a decade ago one would consider an impossible feat tennis, right before Federer did it back in 2009!...) and who is trailing mister Nadal with a mere 2 grand slams and who leads both mister Federer and mister Nadal in h2h and who beat both of them at each four of grand slams at least once...some third place guy he is...LOL
3rd place nonetheless.
 

tennisfan2015

Hall of Fame
3rd place or not, he is not "some guy"...he earned his right long time ago to be called Federer and Nadal's equal, even if it means they are by a small margin greater than him (now as it currently stands...) Now Murray on another hand...
Mate, he (they) know. He did it intentionally just to make people like yourself jump, scream, react. He is rubbin' it in. Even if he isn't one cannot make everyone recognise others in the same way as the one would want them.

Whois "the third place guy" anyway? :)
 

augustobt

Legend
No clear greatest in F1 :mad:
Fangio, Clark, Senna and Schumacher should be together at the top of the crop.

Remarkably, the 'slamless goat' - the best of the non-champions - hasn't been in question for over 50 years, as no one comes close to Sir Stirling Moss.
I strongly agree with almost everything! But Rubens Barrichello comes second (lol) in that second list!
 
More gems just a week apart. I have a feeling we'll be hearing "The Grand Slam count is irrelevant, since 2 of the 4 Grand Slams are on hard courts." a lot more from now on.

Jan 25
The number of Grand Slams is the most relevant all-time great criterion. Other criteria are tie-breakers, if and only if, two players are tied in Grand Slams.
Feb 1
the Grand Slam race is utterly irrelevant since it gives advantage to the hard court specialists, not the overall most accomplished player.
 

TheIntrovert

Hall of Fame
Michael Schumacher F1 GOAT:
Championship title record: 7
Consecutive championship titles record: 5
Races win record: 91
Most races won in a season record: 13/18
Most podium finishes record: 155
Most fastest laps record: 77
Most fastest laps in a season record: 10

According to @Sport, Schumacher can't be GOAT, since Senna is better on the Monaco GP surface (6>5) and Hamilton is better on Silverstone surface (5>3).

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk
Hate to be that guy, but Schumacher is regarded as one of the best drivers in F1. But it’s uncommon for someone to say he’s the best outright. Drivers like Senna and Clark are more popular picks
 

Spencer Gore

Professional
It's not a question of "if". It's a matter of fact. The Grand Slam count only reflects which player is greater on hard courts, not which player is greater overall since 50% of Grand Slams are on hard courts.

You would be the first to complain in case 2 of 4 GS were on clay or grass, because in that case Nadal could have 30 GS or Federer 23 GS.

I am not saying you should totally ignore the Grand Slam count. As I said, you can make comparisons between the Big 3 as long as you don't include one of the GS on hard.

Hypothetical case:

Grand Slams without the US Open

Djokovic 16
Federer 15
Nadal 14

In this hypothetical scenario, you can say Djokovic is better than Federer and Nadal, since we are considering 33% of GS on hard, 33% of GS on clay and 33% of GS grass. If Djokovic only surpasses Fedal's Grand Slam count when considering the 2 GS on hard, then he is only greater on hard courts, not overall.
The slam count reflects a core ability but also reflects an uneven surface distribution and differing standards of opposition.

All must be taken into account.

No one thought Roy Emerson was the greatest of all time when he held the slam record. It was understand he had gained many of the titles against inferior opposition.

The same truth applies to Federer. He did well to sweep up so many slams against inferior opposition, but his slam gathering decreased dramatically when other ATGs entered the scene.

None of which changes the fact that in decades to come he will be remembered as one of the greatest ever. Definite Top Ten of all-time.
 

Nole_King

Rookie
Who doesn't change his mind? People who don't keep rethinking their assumed convictions. It is a good sign to assume the mistakes and change convictions. Imagine if racists never changed their minds for example.

I recently realized that 2 of 4 Grand Slams (50%) are on hard courts. Thus, the Grand Slam count only reflects which player is greater on hard courts, not overall. If 2 of 4 Grand Slams were on grass Federer could have 23 GS or more, and if 2 of 4 GS were on clay Nadal could have 30 GS.

The Grand count can only determine GOATNESS if a player has the most Grand Slams counting only one Grand Slam on hard courts (either AO or USO) . For example:

Hypothetical scenario A:

Grand Slams without the US Open:

Djokovic 16
Federer 15
Nadal 14

In this hypothetical scenario, Djokovic would be the GOAT since we are considering 33% of GS on hard, 33% of GS on grass and 33% of GS on clay.

If Djokovic only surpasses Fedal's GS count when considering both GS on hard, then he is only greater on hard courts, not overall.
Changing the mind after one game? Thats pretty quick.

And I saw in one other thread where how your were arguing on who female goat is. Kind of double standards where you don't find GOAT a valid concept in men's tennis but find it quite acceptable in women's.
 

Nole_King

Rookie
And you just realized this now?

This has been the surface distribution for decades, long before Nadal first picked up a racquet and decided to become a clay court specialist
Actually it now that the Nadal fans realize that there guy's GOAT race is all but derailed with Novak starting to sweep now.
 

RaulRamirez

Hall of Fame
I thought this thread would be about the players' reactions; I should've known better.

I wish more posters would keep in mind that:

a. We don't represent our favorite players here, and the players would probably laugh at those who act like they do.
b. Not all self-described Fed, Rafa, or Novak fans think alike. I only represent myself here.
c. Groupthink can, and does, get ugly. Quickly.
 

Zardoz7/12

Professional
I echo the comment from the person above me, I'm looking through the thread and there's nothing about players reactions to losing in a slam final.

I really want to know the psychological impact of losing a slam final.
 

itrium84

Semi-Pro
Senna is the GOAT for other reasons - don't make me remember that he literally died before Schumacher lifted his first trophy.
Senna is my most favourite racer ever. He is BOAT. Many concider him as BOAT.
It's like with (my favourite) Djokovic BOAT and Federer GOAT situation.

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk
 

DSH

Hall of Fame
come on stop the nonsense.
is nadal fault not win classic matches as those two (ao 2017 and wimbledon 2018).
if he had won them, right now he would be called the goat but you know what? the Spanish failed in a resounding manner and his chances of reaching the Swiss have been reduced exponentially.
zero excuses!
 
D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
The slam count reflects a core ability but also reflects an uneven surface distribution and differing standards of opposition.

All must be taken into account.

No one thought Roy Emerson was the greatest of all time when he held the slam record. It was understand he had gained many of the titles against inferior opposition.

The same truth applies to Federer. He did well to sweep up so many slams against inferior opposition, but his slam gathering decreased dramatically when other ATGs entered the scene.

None of which changes the fact that in decades to come he will be remembered as one of the greatest ever. Definite Top Ten of all-time.
The part in bold...what world are you living in? The majority of this world see Federer as the greatest. There is a reason why Nadal and Djokovic are hell bent to get to that slam record, because if they get it, then they will be seen as the greatest. If he isn't the greatest, why are they chasing that record so passionately? You may not think he is, and that is fine, but, and it is a big but...the general consensus around the world is that if there is a GOAT, it is Federer.
 

Rago

Hall of Fame
After all the years of crapping on Fed for his performance in the RG'08 final, I wonder what it feels like to be a Vamos Brigadier general that has to eat humble pie in this lifetime. 2019's Australian Open final is bound to leave some deep scars and I haven't seen too many active little bulls post on the player discussion forums for a couple of weeks.

It's also interesting to note that the one person who has been known to be arguably the toughest mentally has now been constantly at the receiving end of quite a few close encounters in big matches since 2017; what a dramatic turn of events it has been for Nadal.
 
Top