Tennis GOAT Debate Not worth in the first place

[ND-13]

The Rally: Is tennis' GOAT debate worth having in the first place? | Tennis.com

Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer did fans a favor by tamping down the talk on Sunday, but that talk will return eventually.

www.tennis.com

It is a good article. Sums up exactly why some of us don't subscribe to a single greatest of all time.


I’m also tired of the assertion that if you gave an older player today’s equipment, surely he or she would be just as great—and that a contemporary player with a wood racquet would be worse. Who knows? How would that player’s entire technique be different? Must we aid the old and take away from the new? Why can’t people see that this desire is so emotionally-laden—the desire for our heroes to endure—that it’s hard to see the topic clearly? It’s science fiction.


To close with Federer, Nadal and Djokovic: Three titans, each worthy of praise and, sports being sports, culture being culture, advocacy. I love hearing fans talk about what they value in each—shots, tactics, personalities, personal interactions and so much more. The more, the merrier. As far as I’m concerned, there’s no need to pit them against one another to determine something as narrow as a single best-ever. I feel the same way about Bill Russell, Jordan and LeBron. But I see how binary, zero-sum nature of sports makes it very different than the arts. When it comes to the evaluation of a movie, there is no winner or loser—just the story of the movie. I propose we continue to merely explore and celebrate the story of tennis.

 

[Deleted member 748597]

Laver is TIGER.

The weak era fraud, the 7-time Real Slam champion and the overrated, inflated Tier 2 ATG can have their farm animal status.

 

[USO]

The Rally: Is tennis' GOAT debate worth having in the first place? | Tennis.com

Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer did fans a favor by tamping down the talk on Sunday, but that talk will return eventually.

www.tennis.com

It is a good article. Sums up exactly why some of us don't subscribe to a single greatest of all time.


I’m also tired of the assertion that if you gave an older player today’s equipment, surely he or she would be just as great—and that a contemporary player with a wood racquet would be worse. Who knows? How would that player’s entire technique be different? Must we aid the old and take away from the new? Why can’t people see that this desire is so emotionally-laden—the desire for our heroes to endure—that it’s hard to see the topic clearly? It’s science fiction.


To close with Federer, Nadal and Djokovic: Three titans, each worthy of praise and, sports being sports, culture being culture, advocacy. I love hearing fans talk about what they value in each—shots, tactics, personalities, personal interactions and so much more. The more, the merrier. As far as I’m concerned, there’s no need to pit them against one another to determine something as narrow as a single best-ever. I feel the same way about Bill Russell, Jordan and LeBron. But I see how binary, zero-sum nature of sports makes it very different than the arts. When it comes to the evaluation of a movie, there is no winner or loser—just the story of the movie. I propose we continue to merely explore and celebrate the story of tennis.

I don’t think you can put Djokovic in the same category as Fedal as he trails them by 3 slams (full all-time great Murray career).

 

[GabeT]

I don’t think you can put Djokovic in the same category as Fedal as he trails them by 3 slams (full Murray career).

Novak is actually tied with Federer at the same age. So we’ll have to see what else happens

and I read posters saying that the difference in weeks at #1 between Nadal and Federer is not relevant so why would the difference in slams be? Federer has 48% more weeks at number 1 than Nadal. Novak has 39% more (and rising). Nadal and Federer only have 18% more slams than Novak

 

[Nadal_Django]

Media going extra mile with the Fedal narrative since the last Sunday. I mean the narrative in which Federer the hero Batman and Nadal the sidekick Robin form this dynamic duo was already quite strong for years now, but since last Sunday the establishment took that story on a completely another level. Feels like Nadal didn't win alone the FO, but Federer did it also. Pathetic and sad by the pro establishment media.

 

[clayqueen]

With the Victor/Victrix Ludorum, the criteria is well established but this GOAT thing has always been very subjective. I always thought it's all about Federer and I think I've been proved right. His number of slams and weeks at #1 were thought to be the holy grail and they never thought, in their wildest dreams, that anyone would get close to them. No surprises that they are now pulling back from it. Up until Sunday, Federer has always been referred to as the greatest player of all time even though he hasn't deserved it for at least a decade.

Let's wait and see if Federer gets to 21. I'm sure they will start believing in the GOAT again.

 

[RaulRamirez]

The Rally: Is tennis' GOAT debate worth having in the first place? | Tennis.com

Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer did fans a favor by tamping down the talk on Sunday, but that talk will return eventually.

www.tennis.com

It is a good article. Sums up exactly why some of us don't subscribe to a single greatest of all time.


I’m also tired of the assertion that if you gave an older player today’s equipment, surely he or she would be just as great—and that a contemporary player with a wood racquet would be worse. Who knows? How would that player’s entire technique be different? Must we aid the old and take away from the new? Why can’t people see that this desire is so emotionally-laden—the desire for our heroes to endure—that it’s hard to see the topic clearly? It’s science fiction.


To close with Federer, Nadal and Djokovic: Three titans, each worthy of praise and, sports being sports, culture being culture, advocacy. I love hearing fans talk about what they value in each—shots, tactics, personalities, personal interactions and so much more. The more, the merrier. As far as I’m concerned, there’s no need to pit them against one another to determine something as narrow as a single best-ever. I feel the same way about Bill Russell, Jordan and LeBron. But I see how binary, zero-sum nature of sports makes it very different than the arts. When it comes to the evaluation of a movie, there is no winner or loser—just the story of the movie. I propose we continue to merely explore and celebrate the story of tennis.

You should put quotation marks around that whole passage, which I believe was from Joel Drucker, in his conversation with Steve Tignor.

I agree with Tignor that it is almost a compulsion to rate and rank people, places and things in all realms (my wording) but Drucker emphasized that the "world should be wide enough" (Hamilton reference) to appreciate all of them.

 

[Lleytonstation]

@Yugram now we will never know who should be on the mountain.

I had a great comeback too waiting for you. You got lucky.

 

[Yugram]

@Yugram now we will never know who should be on the mountain.

I had a great comeback too waiting for you. You got lucky.

So 7 matches or 7 years? What cluelessness pill you take in the end?

 

[Lleytonstation]

So 7 matches or 7 years? What cluelessness pill you take in the end?

Okay so it is technically 6 and 6 but 7 and 7 sounds better.

A walk-over counts in my books. Rafa knew the outcome.

 

[Yugram]

Okay so it is technically 6 and 6 but 7 and 7 sounds better.

A walk-over counts in my books. Rafa knew the outcome.

It doesn’t matter what counts in your books. In my books Federer has 0 Slams.

And do tell me how Federer dominated Nadal off clay in 2016, 2018, 2020 with a grand total of 0 matches. I’m excited to hear. That must be some new-found mental-winning strategy.

 

[Red Rick]

I think GOAT talk has gotten seriously out of hand because there's not much ELSE to talk about in tennis. Almost noone else was winning Slams.

 

[Lleytonstation]

It doesn’t matter what counts in your books. In my books Federer has 0 Slams.

And do tell me how Federer dominated Nadal off clay in 2016, 2018, 2020 with a grand total of 0 matches. I’m excited to hear. That must be some new-found mental-winning strategy.

Zero slams? He beat Rafa in a slam final just 3 years ago? That didn't count? Plus, he beat Cilic twice. That should be at least 3.

 

[Lleytonstation]

I think GOAT talk has gotten seriously out of hand because there's not much ELSE to talk about in tennis. Almost noone else was winning Slams.

TIGER.

 

[Neat Pete]

Zero slams? He beat Rafa in a slam final just 3 years ago? That didn't count? Plus, he beat Cilic twice. That should be at least 3.

Cilic was weeping from literal injury in one of those finals though, so no dice.

 

[Lleytonstation]

Cilic was weeping from literal injury in one of those finals though, so no dice.

Fine, I will take WC19.

 

[Neat Pete]

Fine, I will take WC19.

For your sportsmanship you get a cookie. In other words, Wimbledon 2012.

 

[King No1e]

I don’t think you can put Djokovic in the same category as Fedal as he trails them by 3 slams (full all-time great Murray career).

Djokovic has an NCYGS and Fedal don't. That alone puts him within their tier. It's the greatest single achievement of the open era: 4 Slams on 3 surfaces, and a YEC title to go along.

 

[Lleytonstation]

For your sportsmanship you get a cookie. In other words, Wimbledon 2012.

Yay! Fed has won two slams, Fed has two slams!!! In your face @Yugram

 

[Neat Pete]

Media going extra mile with the Fedal narrative since the last Sunday. I mean the narrative in which Federer the hero Batman and Nadal the sidekick Robin form this dynamic duo was already quite strong for years now, but since last Sunday the establishment took that story on a completely another level. Feels like Nadal didn't win alone the FO, but Federer did it also. Pathetic and sad by the pro establishment media.

Are you surprised?

 

[USO]

Djokovic has an NCYGS and Fedal don't. That alone puts him within their tier. It's the greatest single achievement of the open era: 4 Slams on 3 surfaces, and a YEC title to go along.

It would mean so much more if he beat Nadal in that FO final so there was nothing impressive about it. Federer would have had 3 calendar grand slams If he didn’t meet Nadal in those FO finals. Djokovic was just lucky. Also calender grand slam is much more important.

 

[King No1e]

It would mean so much more if he beat Nadal in that FO final so there was nothing impressive about it. Federer would have had 3 calendar grand slams If he didn’t meet Nadal in those FO finals. Djokovic was just lucky. Also calender grand slam is much more important.

Doesn't matter whom you beat. Fed never beat Nadal at RG, does that invalidate his Career Slam?

And besides, Djokovic dethroned Nadal the previous year anyway.

 

[USO]

Doesn't matter whom you beat. Fed never beat Nadal at RG, does that invalidate his Career Slam?

And besides, Djokovic dethroned Nadal the previous year anyway.

Serena Williams has two NCYGS yet people still talk about how she didn’t win the CYGS and use it against her. People can’t all of a sudden make it special just for Djokovic but never give credit to Serena. But the point is that it had more to do with luck for Djokovic because he didn’t get to meet Nadal in the final like Federer had to. It’s more about luck. The 2015 QF is not the same thing at all.

 

[King No1e]

Serena Williams has two NCYGS yet people still talk about how she didn’t win the CYGS and use it against her. People can’t all of a sudden make it special just for Djokovic but never give credit to Serena. But the point is that it had more to do with luck for Djokovic because he didn’t get to meet Nadal in the final like Federer had to. The 2015 QF is not the same thing at all.

Who gives Serena zero credit for the NCYGS? Sure, it's not an actual CYGS but it's still a GOAT-worthy achievement. All-surface mastery, consistency, sustained dominance, not to mention the intense pressure of trying to get that elusive 4th Slam. It automatically puts anyone in the GOAT conversation.

Call me back when Nadal or Federer win a NCYGS. I won't hold my breath.

 

[USO]

Who gives Serena zero credit for the NCYGS? Sure, it's not an actual CYGS but it's still a GOAT-worthy achievement. All-surface mastery, consistency, sustained dominance, not to mention the intense pressure of trying to get that elusive 4th Slam. It automatically puts anyone in the GOAT conversation.

Call me back when Nadal or Federer win a NCYGS. I won't hold my breath.

Call me when Djokovic wins 13 FO.

Call me when Djokovic wins 5 consecutive USO and 5 consecutive Wimbledon.

 

[BeatlesFan]

Call me when Djokovic wins 13 FO.

Call me when Djokovic wins 5 consecutive USO and 5 consecutive Wimbledon.

Call everyone when he (or Nadal) do what Fed has done: win three of the four majors 5+ times.

 

[killerboss]

Yep either there is no GOAT or it's Nadal. This nonsense going around that Federer or Djokovic are GOAT is beyond absurd now. No GOAT lets player of same era best them in slam count and slam head to head LMAO.

 

[Backspin1183]

Call everyone when he (or Nadal) do what Fed has done: win three of the four majors 5+ times.

He will never do that just like how Federer could never dominate any tournament like Rafa does RG. So, they all have unique records of their own. Fed and Nadal tied for now with a slight edge to Roger.

 

[UnforcedTerror]

Djokovic has an NCYGS and Fedal don't. That alone puts him within their tier. It's the greatest single achievement of the open era: 4 Slams on 3 surfaces, and a YEC title to go along.

Nole Slam is one of the biggest achievement in the open era for sure but for me Djokovic's greatest achievement is this

 

[socallefty]

My view all along is that picking a player as GOAT in any sport is completely subjective and it is impossible to compare players from different eras. Everyone cherrypicks criteria and accomplishments to justify selecting as the GOAT the ATG player they like the best. In many cases, they became a fan of a player early long before his career accomplishments justified him being in a GOAT discussion due to aesthetic/personality/club-region-nation loyalty/playing style/off-court politics reasons and now they just want to justify that ‘their guy’ is the best ever.

In tennis discussions, so many people would argue with me during the last decade and say that this might be true in general, but in tennis the GOAT was clearly Federer. They mostly used the Slam count and weeks at #1 to justify “objectively“ in their mind why he was the GOAT. Now that both records are in danger of being broken, they are trying to find reasons to either justify why he is still the GOAT (most beloved, most popular, most natural talent, most beautiful style) or they are now starting to say that there can never be one indisputable GOAT. It will happen in basketball too with the Jordan backers for GOAT if LeBron ever gets to 6 championships. Looks like many in the media fall in the second category and don’t seem to realize that their hypocrisy is so blatantly obvious.

 

[Start da Game]

there is no GOAT........there is no definitive way to compare players across generations.........different times, conditions, situations, training methods, technology etc........we can only have best of the generation BOTG........

 

[Phoenix1983]

Laver is TIGER.

The weak era fraud, the 7-time Real Slam champion and the overrated, inflated Tier 2 ATG can have their farm animal status.

When did you give @Lleytonstation your password?

 

[UnderratedSlam]

The Rally: Is tennis' GOAT debate worth having in the first place? | Tennis.com

Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer did fans a favor by tamping down the talk on Sunday, but that talk will return eventually.

www.tennis.com

It is a good article. Sums up exactly why some of us don't subscribe to a single greatest of all time.


I’m also tired of the assertion that if you gave an older player today’s equipment, surely he or she would be just as great—and that a contemporary player with a wood racquet would be worse. Who knows? How would that player’s entire technique be different? Must we aid the old and take away from the new? Why can’t people see that this desire is so emotionally-laden—the desire for our heroes to endure—that it’s hard to see the topic clearly? It’s science fiction.


To close with Federer, Nadal and Djokovic: Three titans, each worthy of praise and, sports being sports, culture being culture, advocacy. I love hearing fans talk about what they value in each—shots, tactics, personalities, personal interactions and so much more. The more, the merrier. As far as I’m concerned, there’s no need to pit them against one another to determine something as narrow as a single best-ever. I feel the same way about Bill Russell, Jordan and LeBron. But I see how binary, zero-sum nature of sports makes it very different than the arts. When it comes to the evaluation of a movie, there is no winner or loser—just the story of the movie. I propose we continue to merely explore and celebrate the story of tennis.

Yes, but... ballerina tennis.

RF GOAT coz elegant and stuff.

 

[Lleytonstation]

When did you give @Lleytonstation your password?

He steals it all the time and logs in and post Djoker propaganda.

 

[Lleytonstation]

Yes, but... ballerina tennis.

RF GOAT coz elegant and stuff.

 

[Beckerserve]

By the rules set out by the media about slams being the be all and end all Nadal is GOAT by their logic as he is tied with Federer but the h2h is so one sided it has to go to Nadal. Media got the karma they asked for.
Had they been more neutral i think people would not be now so partisan. They wanted to sell publications and create tension. It has come back to bite them. The pundits looked crestfallen when Nadal won on sunday. A friend of mine said Mark Petchey looked almost like he was going to cry.

 

[DSH]

My view all along is that picking a player as GOAT in any sport is completely subjective and it is impossible to compare players from different eras. Everyone cherrypicks criteria and accomplishments to justify selecting as the GOAT the ATG player they like the best. In many cases, they became a fan of a player early long before his career accomplishments justified him being in a GOAT discussion due to aesthetic/personality/club-region-nation loyalty/playing style/off-court politics reasons and now they just want to justify that ‘their guy’ is the best ever.

In tennis discussions, so many people would argue with me during the last decade and say that this might be true in general, but in tennis the GOAT was clearly Federer. They mostly used the Slam count and weeks at #1 to justify “objectively“ in their mind why he was the GOAT. Now that both records are in danger of being broken, they are trying to find reasons to either justify why he is still the GOAT (most beloved, most popular, most natural talent, most beautiful style) or they are now starting to say that there can never be one indisputable GOAT. It will happen in basketball too with the Jordan backers for GOAT if LeBron ever gets to 6 championships. Looks like many in the media fall in the second category and don’t seem to realize that their hypocrisy is so blatantly obvious.

The elitist narrative will always be subject to surreptitious interests prevailing in a large sector of the population with high purchasing power, little adept at admitting that the disruptive threatens the classic, for which they cling to nostalgia with a popular adage: "Good old times".

 

[TennisProExpert]

Some people are desperate to win internet arguments, and live vicariously through their idols.