To be a GOAT, i think one needs 5+ majors on 2 surfaces ?

tennisaddict

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
How can some people claim Nadal is GOAT or will be the GOAT if he gets to 15 majors is not clear to me .

He does not even have 5+ majors on 2 surfaces.

Federer has. Sampras has. Borg has.

Tennis is a multi surface sport and one cannot claim to be the greatest when your accomplishment is mainly restricted to one surface alone.
 
Nadal is only 2 off 5 slams on hardcourts. Better change it to 5+ majors at 2 different slams ;)
 
Nadal has 3x the slams on his worst surface (having to beat the best on those surfaces) than Federer has on his worst surface (not having to beat the best on that surface)!

thanks for playing...
 
DRII said:
Nadal has 3x the slams on his worst surface (having to beat the best on those surfaces) than Federer has on his worst surface (not having to beat the best on that surface)!

thanks for playing...
Click to expand...

why this twisted logic as to how you perform on your worst ?

Why not straight forward logic - perform well on at least 2 out of 3 surfaces ?
 
To be the GOAT, in addition to number of majors won, I think a person has to dominate their main rivals and the level of competition that they played.

Hey, I like this game.

Everyone has different criteria for what the GOAT means to them.
 
TheTruth said:
To be the GOAT, in addition to number of majors won, I think a person has to dominate their main rivals and the level of competition that they played.

Hey, I like this game.

Everyone has different criteria for what the GOAT means to them.
Click to expand...

How do we define main rival ?

Is Federer the main rival for Nadal or is it Novak ?
Is Murray the main rival for Novak or is it Nadal ?
Who is the main rival for Sampras ?

the main rival is a 'qualitative' attribute and not a measurable 'quantitative' attribute.

To be objective, we need 'quantitative' attributes. qualitative attributes are subjective and vary from person to person.
 
tennisaddict said:
several players have achieved 2 majors on each surface and is not 'elite'.

One needs greatness on 2 out of 3 surfaces. Not just mastery on 1 and sampling on the rest.
Click to expand...

Lol, you're just saying two out of three because that's what Fed has. Sure, let's just give him a pass for performing comparatively poorly on the other one.
 
Crisstti said:
Lol, you're just saying two out of three because that's what Fed has. Sure, let's just give him a pass for performing comparatively poorly on the other one.
Click to expand...

I didnt say Fed alone. I included Sampras and Borg as well. I think that is what makes them special.
 
Crisstti said:
Lol, you're just saying two out of three because that's what Fed has. Sure, let's just give him a pass for performing comparatively poorly on the other one.
Click to expand...

If a Player X had 5 majors on 3 surfaces , I would rate that person over Federer at 17 majors. No questions about it.
 
Crisstti said:
Lol, you're just saying two out of three because that's what Fed has. Sure, let's just give him a pass for performing comparatively poorly on the other one.
Click to expand...

tennisaddict is a troll but to be fair to Federer 5 finals and a title is better than Nadal has done at the AO for example. Federer has one shot at a clay major every year and Nadal has 2. Considering he's been stopped multiple times by the greatest clay courter ever I wouldn't say his failures are necessary his fault...

The AO and USO are both hardcourts but they play quite differently. I don't think it's right to lump together and count them as the same.
 
tennisaddict said:
How do we define main rival ?

Is Federer the main rival for Nadal or is it Novak ?
Is Murray the main rival for Novak or is it Nadal ?
Who is the main rival for Sampras ?

the main rival is a 'qualitative' attribute and not a measurable 'quantitative' attribute.

To be objective, we need 'quantitative' attributes. qualitative attributes are subjective and vary from person to person.
Click to expand...

Players you've played most often and on the biggest stages?.

It's main rivalS anyway.
 
NatF said:
tennisaddict is a troll but to be fair to Federer 5 finals and a title is better than Nadal has done at the AO for example. Federer has one shot at a clay major every year and Nadal has 2. Considering he's been stopped multiple times by the greatest clay courter ever I wouldn't say his failures are necessary his fault...

The AO and USO are both hardcourts but they play quite differently. I don't think it's right to lump together and count them as the same.
Click to expand...

They're not exactly the same but they're both hc and one has to consider that. They don't play that different either. Just look at players' results there, they do pretty similar at both.
 
Crisstti said:
They're not exactly the same but they're both hc and one has to consider that. They don't play that different either. Just look at players' results there, they do pretty similar at both.
Click to expand...

Maybe they don't play that different anymore but the USO used to be alot faster. Serve and volley players used to do very well at the USO compared to Australia. One was fast the other was slow. Now one's very slow the other is medium slow.

When there was a more pronounced difference the results at the AO and the USO used to be quite different. Perhaps the difference between multiple finals of one and multiple titles at another.
 
Last edited:
NatF said:
tennisaddict is a troll but to be fair to Federer 5 finals and a title is better than Nadal has done at the AO for example. Federer has one shot at a clay major every year and Nadal has 2. Considering he's been stopped multiple times by the greatest clay courter ever I wouldn't say his failures are necessary his fault...

The AO and USO are both hardcourts but they play quite differently. I don't think it's right to lump together and count them as the same.
Click to expand...

Doesnt matter you call me a troll, I am not even going into the performance at the worst slam.

I know Nadal fans will jump to say 'No points for second prize'.

All I want to emphasize is 'you need to be one of the great on 2 out of 3 surfaces to be considered as the greatest'.
 
tennisaddict said:
several players have achieved 2 majors on each surface and is not 'elite'.

One needs greatness on 2 out of 3 surfaces. Not just mastery on 1 and sampling on the rest.
Click to expand...

"sampling on the rest" lol
Nadal outside clay won 5 grand slams, nearly as many as Djokovic's total GS right now, don't you realize or are you blind ? :shock:
 
tennisaddict said:
How can some people claim Nadal is GOAT or will be the GOAT if he gets to 15 majors is not clear to me .

He does not even have 5+ majors on 2 surfaces.

Federer has. Sampras has. Borg has.

Tennis is a multi surface sport and one cannot claim to be the greatest when your accomplishment is mainly restricted to one surface alone.
Click to expand...

Or multiple slams on all three surfaces...
Nadal has. Federer ha....Oh wait. Nevermind.
 
tipsa...don'tlikehim! said:
"sampling on the rest" lol
Nadal outside clay won 5 grand slams, nearly as many as Djokovic's total GS right now, don't you realize or are you blind ? :shock:
Click to expand...

the question is not how many slams outside of clay. The question is how many on a second surface.

3 other players have achieved that , so it is not unchartered territory. How do we call someone as great when there are 3 other players who have achieved multi surface mastery.
 
NatF said:
tennisaddict is a troll but to be fair to Federer 5 finals and a title is better than Nadal has done at the AO for example. Federer has one shot at a clay major every year and Nadal has 2. Considering he's been stopped multiple times by the greatest clay courter ever I wouldn't say his failures are necessary his fault...

The AO and USO are both hardcourts but they play quite differently. I don't think it's right to lump together and count them as the same.
Click to expand...

NatF is a troll but thinks she is not. What a way to put a spin on it. Nadal has just 1 shot on his favourable surface and Federer has 2. That has a huge bearing on him having 17 titles, which is what put him in this discussion in the first place. Nice try.
 
chandu612 said:
NatF is a troll but thinks she is not. What a way to put a spin on it. Nadal has just 1 shot on his favourable surface and Federer has 2. That has a huge bearing on him having 17 titles, which is what put him in this discussion in the first place. Nice try.
Click to expand...

The discussion is not on how well you do at your favorite surface or on your worst surface.

The point is how well you play on multiple surfaces.

Tennis is not a one surface sport.
 
tennisaddict said:
7 - there are only 3 who have even achieved 7 on 1 surface.

3 - is too less a number when combining AO and USO. Several players have won 3 majors on 2 surfaces. We are talking about 'greatest' of the sport.
Click to expand...

be honest with yourself at least, please.
the reason why you chose 5 and not 3 is because you don't want Nadal to be in that list :lol:
 
chandu612 said:
NatF is a troll but thinks she is not. What a way to put a spin on it. Nadal has just 1 shot on his favourable surface and Federer has 2. That has a huge bearing on him having 17 titles, which is what put him in this discussion in the first place. Nice try.
Click to expand...

Grass is Federer's favorite surface. Followed by fast hardcourt. I'm a bloke FYI.
 
tipsa...don'tlikehim! said:
be honest with yourself at least, please.
the reason why you chose 5 and not 3 is because you don't want Nadal to be in that list :lol:
Click to expand...

Did i not include Sampras and Borg ?

I am not even splitting AO and USO and saying you need 4+ majors on 3 majors. I am being lenient.

I am not trying to make up a new 'landmark' based on what Fed has achieved.

Borg achieved 35 years back.
 
tennisaddict said:
How do we define main rival ?

Is Federer the main rival for Nadal or is it Novak ?
Is Murray the main rival for Novak or is it Nadal ?
Who is the main rival for Sampras ?

the main rival is a 'qualitative' attribute and not a measurable 'quantitative' attribute.

To be objective, we need 'quantitative' attributes. qualitative attributes are subjective and vary from person to person.
Click to expand...

Nadal because of his early blossoming has the distinction of having both Federer, Djokovic, and Murray as his peers and rivals.

Nadal has both quantitative and qualitative rivals. Quantitative because of the number of greats that he has had to battle throughout his career, Federer, a 17 major champ and Novak a 6 time major champ. In addition to Murray who is only getting started. That takes care of the quantity of peers, not scrubs that he's had to deal with, along with an emerging del Potro.

Qualitatively, he is dealing with a would be GOAT, a GOAT in training, and a potential all time great in both Murray and possibly del Potro.

So, Nadal has it sewn up on both counts, both quantitatively and qualitatively.

I don't think anyone can question Federer, Novak, Murray, and del Potro as subjectively great.
 
tennisaddict said:
Did i not include Sampras and Borg ?

I am not even splitting AO and USO and saying you need 4+ majors on 3 majors. I am being lenient.

I am not trying to make up a new 'landmark' based on what Fed has achieved.

Borg achieved 35 years back.
Click to expand...

If Nadal wins 2 more AO you'll say he only won 2 GS on grass which is not enough to be considered as GOAT
 
How many players have multiple majors on all surfaces?.

Also, Fed is not the only player to have 5+ majors on 2 surfaces.
 
Crisstti said:
Players you've played most often and on the biggest stages?.

It's main rivalS anyway.
Click to expand...

Nevertheless, it is subjective.

Nadal has several things going in his favor when you consider 'intangible' attributes. No doubts about that.

But this is the biggest 'gap' that he has over Federer. The gap is further exacerbated by Federer's mastery on 3 out of 4 majors.
 
NatF said:
Grass is Federer's favorite surface. Followed by fast hardcourt. I'm a bloke FYI.
Click to expand...

I said favourable. Ok so Federer has 3 slams to rake up slams. Like I said nice way to put a spin on it.
 
tennisaddict said:
Did i not include Sampras and Borg ?

I am not even splitting AO and USO and saying you need 4+ majors on 3 majors. I am being lenient.

I am not trying to make up a new 'landmark' based on what Fed has achieved.

Borg achieved 35 years back.
Click to expand...

What about leading your main rivals? Borg and Sampras did. That's part of what made them great.
 
Crisstti said:
How many players have multiple majors on all surfaces?.

Also, Fed is not the only player to have 5+ majors on 2 surfaces.
Click to expand...

Several players have multiple majors on multiple surfaces ( 2 out of 3 surfaces). We are talking about the 'greatest' here and hence the number 5.

5 is again not an arbitrary number, not just one that Fed achieved.

Borg achieved it 35 years back and Sampras several years ago in what people claim were far more different surfaces and different playing field.
 
tennisaddict said:
Nevertheless, it is subjective.

Nadal has several things going in his favor when you consider 'intangible' attributes. No doubts about that.

But this is the biggest 'gap' that he has over Federer. The gap is further exacerbated by Federer's mastery on 3 out of 4 majors.
Click to expand...

I'll say Nadal is/was the biggest rival of Federer because of the multiple grand slams finals they play against each other

And I'll say Novak is the biggest rival of Nadal. Because they played many grand slams against each other as well, and Novak is causing him big problems.
 
TheTruth said:
What about leading your main rivals? Borg and Sampras did. That's part of what made them great.
Click to expand...

leading main rivals is a good attribute, but does not define the greatest. I may have unbeaten records against the top 10, but if i dont win a major or just a few majors, how does it help ?
 
I'm seriously getting tired of all these GOAT-threads.

Look, what are you trying to achieve here? Convince non-believers that Fed is the GOAT and/or that Nadal can not be the GOAT?

You won't convince anyone, because let's face it, you can use stats in favor of either Nadal or Fed.

You picked 5 on at least 2 different surfaces because that leaves out Nadal and leaves in Fed, simply as that. And that's fine by me.
Likewise, we could use "at least 2 on each surface" to leave out Fed and leave in Nadal. Also fine by me.

You can use WTF wins (Fed), consecutive years with GS win (Nadal), YE#1s (Fed), H2H (Nadal), etc....All metrics defendable.

The point is, and will always be, that the GOAT-discussion can not be 'won' by anyone and is subjective anyway.

/thread

PS: For what it's worth, I do agree with you that Nadal can really not be called GOAT already with only 15 GS titles....but hey, also just my opinion :)
 
tipsa...don'tlikehim! said:
I'll say Nadal is/was the biggest rival of Federer because of the multiple grand slams finals they play against each other

And I'll say Novak is the biggest rival of Nadal. Because they played many grand slams against each other as well, and Novak is causing him big problems.
Click to expand...

I agree, but at the end of the day and in terms of history, you are rated by "how much you won".
 
chandu612 said:
I said favourable. Ok so Federer has 3 slams to rake up slams. Like I said nice way to put a spin on it.
Click to expand...

Surely Nadal having less favourable surfaces than Federer means he can't be better...

There is no spin. For starters outdoor hardcourts especially slow ones have never been a bad surface for Nadal. Secondly if we're comparing achievements on worst surfaces than how is it 'spinning' to point out Federer has less opportunities to prove himself on his worst? And finally no one mentioned the total slam count anyway.
 
tipsa...don'tlikehim! said:
Since Federer and Nadal's career are similar in term of achivements, it helps.
Click to expand...

They are not similar is the precise point of this thread.

If i were to stretch this argument, I can make a case for mastery on 3 of 4 majors, I dont want that.

But i think , to be considered greatest it is fair and a minimum to say you excelled on 2 of 3 surfaces.
 
tennisaddict said:
leading main rivals is a good attribute, but does not define the greatest. I may have unbeaten records against the top 10, but if i dont win a major or just a few majors, how does it help ?
Click to expand...

Ah, but we're not talking about those who haven't won majors.

We're talking about accomplished players who have won multiple, and in some cases double digit majors and what will separate them legacy wise, depending on the end numbers.

Then, you have to have other attributes and that's where how you did against your main rivals will count.

At least that's what the experts say. They all stress beating your main rivals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

tennisaddict
Objective method considering all surfaces to determine GOAT
Replies
40
Views
3K
firepanda
firepanda
P
Nadal's Multiple Majors on all Surfaces will never be repeated
2
Replies
99
Views
4K
Pantera
P
kandamrgam
Criteria for Most Even Share of Titles Won Across Majors
Replies
14
Views
1K
Flash O'Groove
Flash O'Groove
F
Is it possible to be the GOAT without winning the Australian Open?
2
Replies
83
Views
2K
Beckerserve
Beckerserve
C
Federer: 16 Grand Slams on FIVE surfaces: undisputed GOAT
Replies
35
Views
4K
hoodjem
hoodjem
Back
Top