The G.O.A.T. Discussion

[DoubleHanded&LovinIt]

Federer is clearly one of the most talented players to ever play the game and has a great chance to eclipse Pete's grand slam record--and I hope he does! However, I think Pete Sampras and Rod Laver have both talked about how the GOAT discussion is a difficult one because it's hard to compare players from different eras--instead, all you can ask from a great player is to beat all of the guys around him consistently.

Even if Federer gets 15+ Grand Slams, he either has to win the French Open or drastically turn around his career record against Rafael in order to be considered the GOAT. Winning the French Open along with 10+ majors might make him the GOAT; however if he has 15+ majors, doesn't win the French, and doesn't drastically turn around his record against Nadal then he will not be the GOAT. That is because he wouldn't have beaten all the guys around him.

It'll be interesting to see how today's loss, and indeed all his losses to Nadal, affects Federer when he plays Nadal on hardcourts. Rafa acknowledges that it'll take him a few years before he plays well and goes deep in grass court tournaments--by the time he's doing that, Federer will be close to 30! So Roger will never be able to pound Rafa on grass. This puts a lot of pressure on him to beat Rafa on hardcourts. For the sake of tennis, let's hope that Rafa quickly learns to play well on grass so him and Roger can face each other at Wimbledon soon, and that these two terrific players consistently play in finals against one another during the hardcourt season. By the end of the year, we'll have a clear indication what kind of rivalry this is. Even after his loss, Federer talked about Nadal as being a great claycourter--and I guess Federer's right, because Nadal has a lot more to prove on hardcourts. But something tells me Nadal is well on his way to being a competitive hardcourt player.

Just my 2 cents. I'm wondering what you guys are thinking.

 

[chaognosis]

For me it's a question that has three components: (1) is the player complete--i.e., can he play any style and produce any stroke with effectiveness and skill; (2) is the player universal--i.e., can he win on any surface under any conditions; (3) can the player exhibit appreciable longevity, performing at a high level over a long period of time? The five players most often considered by experts to be in the running for the "G.O.A.T." title are Tilden, Budge, Laver, Borg, and Sampras. Of these five, only Tilden and Laver pass all three tests with high marks. Budge was complete and universal, but he lacked longevity (his career was unfortunately interrupted by WWII, and during his training he suffered an injury that affected his game for the rest of his life). Borg lacked both longevity and completeness (he was only a competent net player), but he was the very model of universality. Sampras had completeness and longevity, but he never reached the highest level of achievement of clay.

Laver's resume is more complete than Tilden's, but this is not entirely Tilden's fault; though Tilden was an excellent clay-court player, there was no French "Open" during Tilden's peak years. Still, I think Laver has the title sealed on account of his two Grand Slams. That is the greatest record in tennis, one of the greatest in sports, and it is unlikely ever to be broken. Laver is the G.O.A.T.

 

[mJeez4293]

whats a g.o.a.t?

 

[Eviscerator]

Rafa acknowledges that it'll take him a few years before he plays well and goes deep in grass court tournaments--by the time he's doing that, Federer will be close to 30! So Roger will never be able to pound Rafa on grass. This puts a lot of pressure on him to beat Rafa on hardcourts.

Huh?

Since when does a player dictate when he will be ready to compete on a surface and the determination of who can pound who must wait until that point
Roger can and will "pound" Nadal on grass today or any other day in the coming years. Likewise he will "pound" on indoor carpet as well. The only other surface Nadal can hope to win on with his style of play is a slow hard court.

Regardless of that, it is way too soon to even mention "GOAT" and Federer together having nothing to do with Nadal.

 

[urban]

I agree with chaognosis here. You have 5-6 players in history, who really were dominant in their time for at least 4-5 years, brought tennis to a new level, and transcended their time frame, with Tilden the great pioneer and single most influential player, and Laver maybe the true universal player, with the allround game, the strokes, the mentality and the fighting spirit. Federer isn't yet on this level. One should simply wait out his career. All this talk about goat, records and Grand Slam is crap, and it is getting into the head of the players themselves. Federer should not glow in all these accolades, the press and fans are giving him, but humbly concentrate on his obvious weaknesses: Backhand, volley game, and for the last year, his serve, which he should really improve.

 

[jackson vile]

I say let history decide

 

[federerhoogenbandfan]

Rafa acknowledges that it'll take him a few years before he plays well and goes deep in grass court tournaments--by the time he's doing that, Federer will be close to 30! So Roger will never be able to pound Rafa on grass.

Actually in a few years roger would only be 27. If Nadal miracaleously improves enough on grass to play Federer at 27 he would get pounded.

 

[fastdunn]

My bet is that Federer won't better Sampras or Laver.
His backhand is a problem. He has some net game but
it's not stout enough. He is balanced in terms of defense
and offense. But he is by no means an all couter.
IMHO, his caliber appears to be a notch below Laver and Sampras.

 

[federerhoogenbandfan]

Federer says he is playing until he is 31. If he does he will win 4 or 5 of the next 7 Wimbledons, and 3 or 4 of the next 7 U.S Opens. That would give him equal or better then Sampras's accomplishments at those two events. In Australia he has already matched him with 2 titles, he will probably win 1 or 2 more anyway. At the French he has already made a final bettering Pete's best showing. So atleast in accomplishments I would be very surprised if he does not match or better Pete's.

 

[fastdunn]

There's a reason why you need an all court game like Sampras
or Laver who Sampras exactly model his game after.

When you're king of baseline game, it's fine. But if a guy like
Nadal comes, you need other options. Federer may improve but
I doubt he has that other strong options like net games.

I doubt Federer with questionable backhand and net game
go ahead and become G.O.A.T.

 

[federerhoogenbandfan]

There's a reason why you need an all court game like Sampras
or Laver who Sampras exactly model his game after.

When you're king of baseline game, it's fine. But if a guy like
Nadal comes, you need other options. Federer may improve but
I doubt he has that other strong options like net games.

I doubt Federer with questionable backhand and net game
go ahead and become G.O.A.T.

Like I said Roger has already matched Pete's slow court accomplishements, so even if he wins less on slow courts, especialy on clay, he does not lack by comparision to Sampras on slow court accomplishements already. Nadal certainly does not have the fast court abilty to stop Federer from winning 7 or 8 Wimbledons, and probably not even to stop him from winning 5 or 6 U.S Opens, which would surpass or equal Sampras at those two events as well. I still would be very surprised to see him not equal or better Pete atleast in career achievement. How people subjectively compare them is another matter.

 

[skip1969]

i don't usually get caught up in "greatest of all time" discussions because there is always a degree of subjectivity involved. but i agree with chaognosis and urban. there are usually a few players in every sport that stand out as being individuals who truly changed the game, for varying reasons. and their accomplishments withstand the test of time. like jackson said, history will be the ultimate barometer of who's who in our game.

urban said, "One should simply wait out his career. All this talk about goat, records and Grand Slam is crap, and it is getting into the head of the players themselves. Federer should not glow in all these accolades, the press and fans are giving him, but humbly concentrate on his obvious weaknesses: Backhand, volley game, and for the last year, his serve, which he should really improve." couldn't have said it any better.

having said that, and ackowledging federer's many achievements, i do agree that it is still too early to tell. i know people like to think that they are witnessing "history in the making." and i know the media/tv networks/the tours like to add to the hype. but their reasons may be more self-serving than anything else. i think it's easier to judge after the fact, when all the hopla and the bias and emotion and subjectivity has died down. once a player's career is over (or winding down), or once the next era begins, it may be easier to reflect and say with more certainty who truly were the "greatest."

 

[Saito]

whats a g.o.a.t?

Gayest
Of
All
Time

:lol: j/k

Greatest
Of
All
Time

 

[jhhachamp]

For me it's a question that has three components: (1) is the player complete--i.e., can he play any style and produce any stroke with effectiveness and skill; (2) is the player universal--i.e., can he win on any surface under any conditions; (3) can the player exhibit appreciable longevity, performing at a high level over a long period of time? The five players most often considered by experts to be in the running for the "G.O.A.T." title are Tilden, Budge, Laver, Borg, and Sampras. Of these five, only Tilden and Laver pass all three tests with high marks. Budge was complete and universal, but he lacked longevity (his career was unfortunately interrupted by WWII, and during his training he suffered an injury that affected his game for the rest of his life). Borg lacked both longevity and completeness (he was only a competent net player), but he was the very model of universality. Sampras had completeness and longevity, but he never reached the highest level of achievement of clay.

Laver's resume is more complete than Tilden's, but this is not entirely Tilden's fault; though Tilden was an excellent clay-court player, there was no French "Open" during Tilden's peak years. Still, I think Laver has the title sealed on account of his two Grand Slams. That is the greatest record in tennis, one of the greatest in sports, and it is unlikely ever to be broken. Laver is the G.O.A.T.

I am just curious why you did not consider Kramer and Gonzalez as potential GOATs. I'm not sure Kramer deserves consideration since he really didn't play very long, but Gonzalez was dominant for a number of years and had perhaps greater longevity than anyone.

 

[federerhoogenbandfan]

I am just curious why you did not consider Kramer and Gonzalez as potential GOATs. I'm not sure Kramer deserves consideration since he really didn't play very long, but Gonzalez was dominant for a number of years and had perhaps greater longevity than anyone.

Kramer was unbeatable on his own pro tour for more then 8 years after retiring from then "amateur" tennis. He beat many of the greats in head to head series.

 

[fastdunn]

Like I said Roger has already matched Pete's slow court accomplishements, so even if he wins less on slow courts, especialy on clay, he does not lack by comparision to Sampras on slow court accomplishements already. Nadal certainly does not have the fast court abilty to stop Federer from winning 7 or 8 Wimbledons, and probably not even to stop him from winning 5 or 6 U.S Opens, which would surpass or equal Sampras at those two events as well. I still would be very surprised to see him not equal or better Pete atleast in career achievement. How people subjectively compare them is another matter.

Yeah, that's where we differ. I agree that he appears to in his
way to be labled as GOAT.
But my bet is he won't last as long as Sampras'
years with slams. History says you need an all court game to last long.

But I'm sure Federer is much better slow court player than Sampras(or Laver)
and will win 1 or more French Open and do better than Agassi in terms
of achievements...

I know not many people think that way. Lots of people even including
experts like McEnroe think he'll the G.O.A.T. I just don't agree with it.
Let's wait couple of more years until near the end of Federer's career.

 

[federerhoogenbandfan]

Yeah, that's where we differ. I agree that he appears to in his
way to be labled as GOAT.
But my bet is he won't last as long as Sampras'
years with slams. History says you need an all court game to last long.

But I'm sure Federer is much better slow court player than Sampras(or Laver)
and will win 1 or more French Open and do better than Agassi in terms
of achievements...

I know not many people think that way. Lots of people even including
experts like McEnroe think he'll the G.O.A.T. I just don't agree with it.
Let's wait couple of more years until near the end of Federer's career.

So you are saying he wont last playing at the top level until he is 30 or 31 even if he wins most of the Wimbledons and U.S Opens while he is at that top level? Fine I could see that view. We will have to wait and see I guess.

 

[andfor]

All this talk about Fed's backhand not being that good is a little off the mark. Comparing him to Sampras, Pete had a better Serve. Roger moves better. Pete's forehand is about equal to Fed's, give the edge to Fed, Fed's backhand is better than Pete's, Pete's' net play is a little better than Fed but then you have to go back to the serve equation. Fed is better than Pete on Clay, Pete is ahead of Fed on grass to date. You may be able to go on and on with the comparisons.

At this point it's just a guessing game to figure how good Fed will go down in history. I say give it time. We've got about 6 or 7 more good years of Fed/Nadal baring something unforeseen. Fed's awful darn close to a GOAT at this stage in his career if it was to end today.

 

[federerhoogenbandfan]

All this talk about Fed's backhand not being that good is a little off the mark. Comparing him to Sampras, Pete had a better Serve. Roger moves better. Pete's forehand is about equal to Fed's, give the edge to Fed, Fed's backhand is better than Pete's, Pete's' net play is a little better than Fed but then you have to go back to the serve equation. Fed is better than Pete on Clay, Pete is ahead of Fed on grass to date. You may be able to go on and on with the comparisons.

At this point it's just a guessing game to figure how good Fed will go down in history. I say give it time. We've got about 6 or 7 more good years of Fed/Nadal baring something unforeseen. Fed's awful darn close to a GOAT at this stage in his career if it was to end today.

I agree with all that but I now think Pete was mentaly the tougher of the two. Roger is tough mentaly but falls short of somebody like Nadal in that category and probably would vs Pete as well.

 

[fastdunn]

As a tennis player, you know it's truely hard to be good
both at the net and baseline. It's partly because of different
mind set.

As Mat Wilander said today, Federer is going to
get out of his comfort zone and come into net.
He is apparently reluctant to do so.
(In fact, Mat Wilander himself tried it and failed it
basically bringing down near the end of his career).

It's his delema. He is comfortable at the baseline now
but I'm siure he's going to need it on all surface in the
future. Let's see how he does in the future.

 

[federerhoogenbandfan]

As a tennis player, you know it's truely hard to be good
both at the net and baseline. It's partly because of different
mind set.

As Mat Wilander said today, Federer is going to
get out of his comfort zone and come into net.
He is apparently reluctant to do so.
(In fact, Mat Wilander himself tried it and failed it
basically bringing down near the end of his career).

It's his delema. He is comfortable at the baseline now
but I'm siure he's going to need it on all surface in the
future. Let's see how he does in the future.

Even if you are right that he doesnt have a solid net game, which I disagree with, he wont need it at Wimbledon, or probably the U.S Open for atleast another 3 or 4 years.

 

[chaognosis]

I am just curious why you did not consider Kramer and Gonzalez as potential GOATs. I'm not sure Kramer deserves consideration since he really didn't play very long, but Gonzalez was dominant for a number of years and had perhaps greater longevity than anyone.

Both Kramer and Gonzalez do place high on the lists of many experts, as both were quite dominant on the pro tours for a time. The success of both, however, was mostly limited to faster surfaces, and they suffer somewhat from a lack of data. Even during his peak, Kramer played his matches most selectively, especially after taking over as promoter. And the fact that Gonzalez never won Wimbledon -- though his turning pro so young may to some be a sufficient excuse -- remains a pretty glaring hole. I do put both high on the list of all-time greats, just a tier lower than the five I mentioned, for whom, at the very least, I feel there is more data by which to judge.

 

[Eviscerator]

But I'm sure Federer is much better slow court player than Sampras(or Laver)
and will win 1 or more French Open and do better than Agassi in terms
of achievements...

Did you ever see Laver play on clay

Federer must win at least two FO before anyone can say he was better on clay than Laver, not to mention that Laver won other big tourneys on clay, like the Italian & Hamburg.

 

[simi]

I am just curious why you did not consider Kramer and Gonzalez as potential GOATs. I'm not sure Kramer deserves consideration since he really didn't play very long, but Gonzalez was dominant for a number of years and had perhaps greater longevity than anyone.

I've often wondered that about Pancho also. His name never seems to come up when talking about the GOAT.

 

[Brad Smith]

Federer is already an all-court player who is very comfortable coming into the net. He's also the second best clay court player in the world behind a guy who has the potential to be one of the best clay courters of all time. While it's premature to call him the GOAT, it's also premature to write him off because of today's match and to say that unless he wins the French he can't be the GOAT. If he wins 2 majors a year for the next 5 years and stays at #1 the whole time how could he not be the GOAT?

 

[armand]

I don't know who runs this site, but it's already updated for today's match.
http://www.tennis28.com/studies/Federer_Sampras.html

telling stat: Sampras at age 24 was 19-7 in 5 setters while Federer is 9-10:shock:
This tells me 2 things: That Sampras' competition was tougher because he was forced to the 5th set more often, but once there, he'd pull through(while Federer has an actual losing record in 5 setters).

 

[Ray Wong]

Federer says he is playing until he is 31. If he does he will win 4 or 5 of the next 7 Wimbledons, and 3 or 4 of the next 7 U.S Opens. That would give him equal or better then Sampras's accomplishments at those two events. In Australia he has already matched him with 2 titles, he will probably win 1 or 2 more anyway. At the French he has already made a final bettering Pete's best showing. So atleast in accomplishments I would be very surprised if he does not match or better Pete's.

Do you know which team is the champion of the 2006 world cup? the runner-up?? the semi finalist???

there may be Roger No.2,3,4... or Nadal No.2,3,4... coming in following years.

Life is uncertain! Future, who know???

 

[TahoeTennis]

VAMOS the debate never ends!

 

[MasterZeb]

I would say something, but I’m not going waste my time arguing with someone whose brain seems to be stuck in the last decade