D
Deleted member 742196
Guest
Because both camps know that if Djokovic hadn’t had Murray in his way he’d already have the most slams.
Why do people care about the slam count?
- Thread starter JackGates
- Start date
Because both camps know that if Djokovic hadn’t had Murray in his way he’d already have the most slams.
ScentOfDefeat
G.O.A.T.
My favourites are Edberg and Rafter.
Project your anxieties/obsessions on someone else, why don't you.
letstakeourshirtsoff
Professional
because 20 > 16
--> fedr goat.
--> fedr goat.
letstakeourshirtsoff
Professional
trololololol. what's next? want to open a thread about how judy murray is the sexiest woman in tennis?
The first claim is largely a straw man: "Fans" will never agree, so what's the point?! In fact, with proper historical perspective, I think most people DO achieve a consensus when the objective data are compelling. Day-to-day fights in a tennis forum do not represent the long-term, considered opinions of the bulk of tennis enthusiasts.
I think your second claim is just wrong. The players clearly value the slams more highly than anything else, including the No. 1 ranking. Just about everyone would rather be a slam winner who misses the top ranking than a slamless No. 1. I don't see how it is possible to watch tennis closely yet misperceive that reality.
D
Deleted member 742196
Guest
She’s alright. Not really my type but hey, whatever works for people. If you like her why would I have an issue?
letstakeourshirtsoff
Professional
hi Judy
fedtennisphan
Hall of Fame
If that’s the case, you wouldn’t be constantly moaning when other players achieving greatness. By the way, Federer will probably win the Stefan Edberg Sportsmanship Award again this year. His former coach Stefan Edberg will be proud.
ScentOfDefeat
G.O.A.T.
I'm not.
And good for him.
Although I respectfully disagree with what the award has become.
You're just here to get a rise out of people, but unfortunately I won't give you what you want.
fedtennisphan
Hall of Fame
Ahhh...Look at you. Just another hypocrite. That can’t tell the truth.
tacou
G.O.A.T.
you are asking two different questions. the goat debate is indeed pointless and will never end. counting majors, on the other hand -- they are the biggest prize in the sport, why would we not keep track of who has achieved them and how many times?
BeatlesFan
Bionic Poster
I shouldn't even bother responding to such epic idiocy, but will take this troll's bait.
Every serious tennis fan cares about how many majors a player wins because it is the accepted measuring stick of their greatness. Borg is almost universally accepted as the greater player than Lendl, Agassi and Connors because he retired with 11 slams and they have 8.
If you don't think slams are the overwhelmingly determinate of tennis greatness, then you're a new fan or playing the fool to garner scraps of attention. Ask Pete, Lendl or Fed, who all said in the twilight of their respective careers, "slams are the reason we play."
letstakeourshirtsoff
Professional
everybody knows how to get teh chicks:
- win slam
- take off shirt
- win slam
- take off shirt
the green god
Professional
It was clay, nobody cared. Real tennis started in June.
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
Roy Emerson was different. His time was pre open era and he won Australian Opens consisting of mostly Aussies. Now we have people from Serbia, Croatia, and Uzbekistan etc... all competing at the AO for example. Plus, Laver won 11 with 2 CYGS and we all know he would've won more than 12 if he wasn't barred for a long period of time.
But when Sampras had the record he was the best. Guys like Borg, Connors, McEnroe and Lendl all knew which tournaments were most important as well.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
And if Fed didn't have Delpo in his way, he would already have the most USO's.
Shaolin
G.O.A.T.
Slams have the biggest draws, most money, points and prestige.
Slams are what the general public know as well. Even people that don't play or have interest will know Wimbledon and US Open.
I know absolutely nothing about golf, nor will I ever learn probably, but for some reason I know that Justin Leonard won the British Open in 1997. Im sure that there are people that only know who Delpo is because of his USO win. If he won every tournament in the calendar other than a slam they still wouldn't know who he is.
Slams are what the general public know as well. Even people that don't play or have interest will know Wimbledon and US Open.
I know absolutely nothing about golf, nor will I ever learn probably, but for some reason I know that Justin Leonard won the British Open in 1997. Im sure that there are people that only know who Delpo is because of his USO win. If he won every tournament in the calendar other than a slam they still wouldn't know who he is.
3 words: "Nice call, buddy."
I personally thought it was hilarious and also good to see a bit of fire from Federer, but a highly visible moment like that may come into play when the Edberg award is considered for this year.
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
No it won't. It never does. Federer won it in 2009 when he raged at the ump in the 2009 USO Final. He also won it in 2011 when we whined about Djokovic hitting that "lucky" shot in the USO SF.
The award is a farce these days. It's not a sportsmanship award, it's a popularity contest, and Federer will always win those. For context, It's gone to Federer every year since 2004, except 2010 when Nadal won it.
I'm backing the Tank Engine FTW. Removing himself from the tour in favour of a reality TV spot, to let players who actually give a **** have his draw spots, is the most sportsmanlike act of recent times.
Or maybe Fed and Nadal can go H2H throughout 2018 to see who can rack up the most media reports of texting each other after injuries or wins? 2018 H2H is currently at 1-1 AFAIK but we could be in for an epic battle.
captainbryce
Hall of Fame
I hear what you’re saying, but the fact of the matter is, when it comes to the two biggest factors determining greatness (number of slams and weeks at #1) Sampras still leads Djokovic in both. In addition, he was the year end #1 for six consecutive years (a feat that no other player has ever matched). That means that he dominated for a longer stretch than Djokovic has (so far).
I do believe that Djokovic could eventually surpass Sampras, but I don’t think he’s there yet. The lone French Open advantage he has over Sampras isn’t enough to do it for me by itself. He really needs more year end #1, more weeks at #1, or at least 2 more GS titles. If he can match Sampras in number of slams won, THEN I’d consider Djokovic greater (because of the French Open title). But until he accomplishes that Sampras is still #3 in my book.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
Fine, but who you are a fan of has nothing to do with greatness.
fedtennisphan
Hall of Fame
It was a dig that lying poster who is a fan Edberg and Rafter who is always moaning when Federer achieves something like their fav won’t be considered great anymore. Federer isn’t going to lose the award because of that.
justasport
Professional
Because the slams and year end championship is the biggest titles in our sport. We are extremely lucky to be watching this race between Roger and Rafa unfolding right before our eyes!
Well, this is correct - now. Of course, these discussions would be somewhat different if players had have cared about the Aus Open before the late 80s! If McEnroe or Borg or Connors had have played more than 1 or 2 times each - one of them could have been very dominant there - which could have had flow-on effects we'll never know about - and there'd be another "Laver like problem" in the mix. In fact one could guess that if even one of those three players had have regularly taken the AO seriously, the other two would have followed and all of the records could look very different now!
AiRFederer
Hall of Fame
Irrelevant. Aussie greats in the past are still seen as greats today,most of them won a number of Aussie open titles. Skipping AO wasnt really the norm tbh, rather a number of big name players skipped them and it was over sensationalized.
AO is a slam, period. If those who skipped it could have won more, then those who won it before, should be much lesser then. That discussion is futile. It is what it is.
Goosehead
Legend
arf arf arf
reminds of what vilas said to Kuerten after frenchopen97 *now it will rain women onto your lap" Kuerten couldn't stop laughing.
Backspin1183
Talk Tennis Guru
What are you on about? No Rafa fan, other than trolls, put Rafa ahead of Federer in the GOAT debate. We just think he has the potential to be as great as Federer, if not greater if he could match or surpass Federer's Slam count.
I have been a Nadal fan since Wimbledon 2006 final when I had no idea that he would even be in GOAT conversation one day. He will always remain my most favourite player across all sports. I also like Federer but I like some other players from other sports more than him.
Not true that it wasn't the norm at the time to skip it. Top 5 for 1980 and the number of times in their career that they headed to the AO:
Borg - 1/9 years
McEnroe - 5/14 years
Connors - 2/23 years
G. Mayer - 0/9 years
Vilas - 5/18 years
Conversely, when you look at who won the aussie in the late 70's, while Borg and Connors were the equivalent of Federer and Nadal and McEnroe was on the rise... you have a 2 players seen as greats and a group of players who all took it as their only slam. Remember too that the AO was grass for this period. Further, contrary to what you suggest, it wasn't just won by Aussies at this time - just a bunch of players who took their only ever slam win.
75 - Newcombe - 2 AO wins, 7 slams
76 - Edmonson - 1 AO win, only slam win
77 - Tanner - 1 AO win, only slam win
78 - Gerulaitis - 1 AO win, only slam win
79 - Vilas - 2 AO wins, 4 slams
80 - Teacher - 1 AO win, only slam win
81&82 - Kriek - 2 AO wins, only slam wins
Most discussions that don't involve CPR are futile in one way or another, including ultimately every discussion about tennis. When a thread discusses career slam count, I think remembering that history plays a big role here is indeed relevant.
(Not that it's relevant, but I'm an Aussie. I'm well aware that it's a slam. I've been to it more than a dozen times... I just know its place in history started to change in the early 80s, and then changed monumentally in 1988 when it went to hardcourt at the new facilities)
AiRFederer
Hall of Fame
History can only say so much though. The fact of the matter is those select players chose not to go due to their own reasons, but it doesnt mean they should get automatic "what if slams" because thats just not how tennis works.
Also, we highly regard the greats of the 50s-70s today thus it is counterintuitive to assume the otherwise. I see it no different than a random slam that is riddled with injuries, you cant demerit the winning player in ATG debates because X and Y didnt attend, you play who you face. Unless of course the majority have annually skipped it, which is obviously not the case.
titoelcolombiano
Legend
I think we care because this is a once in a lifetime situation. You have Fed, Nadal and Djoker currently active who are all at the pointy end of the record books pushing each other. There are rivalries in every generation but this has an added touch of history to it. It it exciting.
letstakeourshirtsoff
Professional
distance between #1 in slamcount is larger than distance between #2 and #3 with djoker not even at #3 so they are hardly all at the 'pointy end' of the record books. Rafa might get there though, but I have my doubts.
titoelcolombiano
Legend
The game is well over 100 years old. The open era began in 1968. There have been tens if not hundreds of thousands of players.
Fed is currently 1st
Rafa is currently 2nd
Djoker is currently 4th
This is the top 0.01% of players - if that is not the pointy end of the record books, then I don't know what is.
Your post does nothing to actually contradict why people care about slams and slam count. At best, your claim is that people dont' consider slam count as part of deciding who is GOAT. Assuming for the sake of the argument this claim is true, there could still be many different reasons why people consider slam counts, other than deciding who is GOAT. They may consider slam count to slot players in tiers. They may consider slam count to decide which players are legendary across eras. They may consider slam counts while deciding who they want to support.
In addition, your claim is also incorrect, because it assumes that there are only 2 options. You ONLY consider slam count to decide who is GOAT, or you don't consider slam count at all. It ignores the reality, which is most people consider slam count very strongly, but not as the only criteria for determining the GOAT. It's probably the heaviest weighted criteria, but not the only one. For example, if Federer had actually won 20 slams, but all on grass at Wimbledon, while flaming out in the 1st rounds of the USO, AO and FO, almost certainly most people would consider him grass GOAT, but very few would consider him GOAT, because his performances on non grass surfaces had been subpar.
smoledman
G.O.A.T.
True Federer is #1 or tied for #1 at 3/4 slams. That + #1 at YEC + most weeks ranked #1 is enough for me to say he's GOAT!
Sentinel
Bionic Poster
GOAT is subjective IMO.
We have slam count, masters count, weeks at #1, and various other achievements.
You can put whatever weightage you want to them.
Usually we decide the definition of GOAT so that our player can be it.
smoledman
G.O.A.T.
Don't we have a GOAT calculator thread on this forum which has Fed #1 based on all the weightings of all the big titles?
BGod
G.O.A.T.
Honestly on a global scale Federer is quite a ways ahead of Nadal. Since the hype of their finals it's been about Fed doing what he's doing at his age more than anything.
Nadal fans whine about how it's not prime but that doesn't really matter. Fed won the Aussie Final and a lot of people heard of Miami & Shanghai. Listen, I've seen this before and let me tell you how far down Nadal will fall.
Him winning last year's USO was a big short term boost but given Kevin Anderson it will be forgotten.
20 years from now Nadal will be far lesser known than Federer. Marketing matters. The comparison would be Deigo Maradonna & Lothar Matthäus. Tennis fans will know but causally he'll be lost in time.
And part of it is the Slam count but another part is the spread. Clay ain't getting a renaissance anytime soon.
Nadal fans whine about how it's not prime but that doesn't really matter. Fed won the Aussie Final and a lot of people heard of Miami & Shanghai. Listen, I've seen this before and let me tell you how far down Nadal will fall.
Him winning last year's USO was a big short term boost but given Kevin Anderson it will be forgotten.
20 years from now Nadal will be far lesser known than Federer. Marketing matters. The comparison would be Deigo Maradonna & Lothar Matthäus. Tennis fans will know but causally he'll be lost in time.
And part of it is the Slam count but another part is the spread. Clay ain't getting a renaissance anytime soon.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
A lot of people on here need help.
Dr Phil!!??
Dr Phil!!??
Sentinel
Bionic Poster
From waht i recall, the GOAT calculator was invented by Sir Sobad and it gives Safin as GOAT due to his love for the sea, edging out Gulbis, Donskoy, Rublev, Bogolomolov and Korolev.
Federer was at the bottom of the list.
smoledman
G.O.A.T.
I got this rat—this gnawing, cheese-eating, ****ing rat—and it brings up questions.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
letstakeourshirtsoff
Professional
Similar threads
