Universally accepted GOAT is a term that always struck me as odd. Sure there are great players with tremendous records that can be qualified to be in the running when you discuss the best players ever but universally accepted it is a bad term.
The reason why I write that is that it seems to me that the current best player, if he or she has had a few good years is often called the universally accepted GOAT or at least words to that effect. The current player so often seems to be call the GOAT and it may be true but I would tend to think that usually it is not true if you go by accomplishments. People and experts get exciting when they see an exceptional match or matches and emotionally think, "Wow, this person has to be the greatest."
I've seen it with Laver, Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Sampras, Federer and now if Nadal has a couple of more good years they will say it about Nadal. Some are already calling Nadal the GOAT which I think is very premature. In the past it was Tilden, Budge, Kramer, Gonzalez, Vines, Perry, Cochet, HL Doherty.
My point is that how can a person be called the GOAT every other year. To be honest some of the so called GOAT candidates are very lacking in one important area---accomplishments. What they had at the moment was that people saw them in that moment and people remember what they have seen last so many would think, this person has to be the GOAT. They were impressive at that moment.
With the Women's side, players that have been called GOATs have been in the Open Era alone, Court, King, Evert, Navratilova, Graf, Seles, Serena Williams. That's a lot of so called GOATs.
