Will fed be the goat if he wins?

RalphNYC said:
Elvis Presley, Led Zeppelin, Zidane, Joe Frazier, Albert Einstein, but isn't this obvious!?
Click to expand...

I see u like just argue.

Ask ANALYSTS - once they made such an analysys and came to the conclusion that just Jackson and Beatles influeneced the humankind more than others.

Zidane compared with Brazilian Pele ? U are joking. Ask SOCCER SPECIALISTS. Between them there are many much higher than Zidane, e.g. Maradona, Kruiff, Gorincha...

Einstein compared with Newton ? U are not scientsist, for sure. Einstein is just popular because he was advertised in the 20-th century with his relativity theory which was something new. This theory of physics was built on mathematical foundation built in his order on the works of French mathematician Poincare who made great contribution to topology.

Isak Newton invented classical lows of mechanics ( 3 lows), low of gravity (physics) and invented integral and differential calculas - greatest theory which changed the world. Between him and Eisnstein there are MANY scientist. Such as Makswell ( electrodynamics low), Galua ( algebra) , and.... Ask SCIENTISTS !

By the way some years ago I met some investigation of scientists with the list of people influeneced the humankind more than others. The first was prophet Mohammed ( 1.5 billions muslims are successors), second was Newton. Jesus was not listed because in Christianity he is not considered as a man, but as the son of God.
 
Aykhan Mammadov said:
Best singer off all times is Michael Jackson, and best group is Beatles. It is recognised fact in the world based on the scale of their influence to the people.

If Federer wins RG he really becomes best player in the history of tennis based on 2 main criteria: number of major tournaments a player wins - it is number of grand slams, and the second - his ability to win all types of slams on different surfaces.

It is very simple. The notion of the GOAT can be mathematically and intelligently determined.

More simple examples - best soccer player in the history is Pele, best boxer is Muhammad Ali, best scientist is Isaak Newton and etc...
Click to expand...

OK, if we're going mathematically and based on #'s Ali is NOT the GOAT!!!! He trails Rocky Maricano, and even his prime #'s would put him behind Ray Mercer.

You forgot Jordan, who is also the GOAT. Wait, mathematically, he can do no higher than #3 if we're going by #'s.

And Patrick Roy, another one considered to be the greatest in his field. Does not even lead ONE of the major categories one would consider.

So how exactly is this "notion of the GOAT can be mathematically and intelligently determined???"
 
380pistol said:
OK, if we're going mathematically and based on #'s Ali is NOT the GOAT!!!! He trails Rocky Maricano, and even his prime #'s would put him behind Ray Mercer.

You forgot Jordan, who is also the GOAT. Wait, mathematically, he can do no higher than #3 if we're going by #'s.

And Patrick Roy, another one considered to be the greatest in his field. Does not even lead ONE of the major categories one would consider.

So how exactly is this "notion of the GOAT can be mathematically and intelligently determined???"
Click to expand...

Numbers mean different things to different sports. I will have to disagree with your Michael Jordan example. In basketball its about per game numbers and per game efficiency, not how many points etc. If you go by this (like most NBA experts and statisticians) then MJ is the GOAT.
 
Bud Collins' opinion is that players of different generations should not be compared in terms of "best". The circumstances are different. Just appreciate the tennis and the drama and stop worrying about this BS.
 
asafi2 said:
Numbers mean different things to different sports. I will have to disagree with your Michael Jordan example. In basketball its about per game numbers and per game efficiency, not how many points etc. If you go by this (like most NBA experts and statisticians) then MJ is the GOAT.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, did you miss the part of my post where I said "Jordan IS the GOAT???"

380pistol said:
You forgot Jordan, who is also the GOAT.
Click to expand...

Per game efficiency, at his best MJ does not better than 3rd in that regard. In damn near every aspect. Do you want me to break it down??? I went across the board in different sports from Ali to Roy and in only tennis it's different. It isn't my fault his theory that he considers "simple" has holes in it.
 
380pistol said:
OK, if we're going mathematically and based on #'s Ali is NOT the GOAT!!!! He trails Rocky Maricano, and even his prime #'s would put him behind Ray Mercer.

You forgot Jordan, who is also the GOAT. Wait, mathematically, he can do no higher than #3 if we're going by #'s.

And Patrick Roy, another one considered to be the greatest in his field. Does not even lead ONE of the major categories one would consider.

So how exactly is this "notion of the GOAT can be mathematically and intelligently determined???"
Click to expand...

I might not know exact numbers in boxing and exact numbers in basketball. I'm not specialist in these two. Fisrt, I didn't call Jordan, but I did call the name of Casius Clay ( Muhammed Ali). Just determine about which numbers are u talking in boxing? Just give me numbers how many times and how long was Mohammed world champ in heavy weight. If he isn't the first in numbers then FOR ME it will mean that he is not the GOAT.

Coming to tennis it is very simple mathematically. There are 3 criteria around which everybody is talking. JUST notice ALL disputes are around these three: 1 ) number of grand slams 2) number of different slams, are all 4, only 3, only 2 or only 1 type and (3) did he make Grand slam or shortly number of CONSEQUITIVE slams a player wins.

Now I give different mathematical weights to these 3 criteria: IMO 1) is the most important, second is weaker, and third is the least. I'd give coefficients ( weights) as the following: k1 = 0.5, k2 = 0.3, k3 = 0.2. No reason to complicate the task.
 
380pistol said:
I'm sorry, did you miss the part of my post where I said "Jordan IS the GOAT???"



Per game efficiency, at his best MJ does not better than 3rd in that regard. In damn near every aspect. Do you want me to break it down??? I went across the board in different sports from Ali to Roy and in only tennis it's different. It isn't my fault his theory that he considers "simple" has holes in it.
Click to expand...

O i'm not saying that you didnt call him the GOAT. I'm saying that by looking at numbers the way NBA experts do..you can call him the GOAT by numbers alone.

No need to break it down for me because I will.

MJ

6 and 0 in the NBA finals
6 finals MVP
30.12 PPG MOST EVER (woulda been higher if he didnt come back with wizards)
50% as a guard which is out of this world (again woulda been 51.5)
Had 4 years of 30+ PER (best in history, infact he had 4 31+ PER years)
Only person to ever win Defensive player of the year and the scoring title
1 of 2 people to ever have 100 blocks and 200 steals in a season (did it twice)
etc etc here I'll just give u this stat courtesy of the USA today...

Who EARNED the title of 'greatest of all time'"??
(All statistical records + playoff records + career averages + playoff averages + MVPs + Finals MVPs + Rings + All-1st teams + All-1st Defensive Teams + All-star games + All-star MVPS)
****************************** *****
NBA ALL-TIME LEADERS:
1st Place: MJ, 149 total points
2nd Place: Wilt, 124 total points
3rd Place: Bill, 118 total points
4th Place: Jabbar, 114 total points
5th Place: Magic, 102 total points
(Active Players):
1st Place: Shaq, 85 total points
2nd Place: Tim, 71 total points
3rd Place: KB, 45 total points

So yes. Judging by stats alone MJ was the GOAT. When its all said and done Fed will be the GOAT judging by stats alone.
 
btangel said:
yet you are complicating things.
Click to expand...

Why do u think so ? I understand that u are new member, anyhow I think I must explain u how diificult is the task. Imagine a player A won 3 times RG, another player B won 1 time USO and 1 time Wimbledon. How to compare them ? Or imagine a player A won 20 times Wimbledon while another B won all 4 in the same year made Grand Slam. How to compare things?

In order to compare things of different nature correctly u should involve weights ( coefficients) of importance of different criteria, shortly to agree which criterion is more important, which is less. It is not complication. It is the only method of our mind.
 
Aykhan Mammadov said:
I might not know exact numbers in boxing and exact numbers in basketball. I'm not specialist in these two. Fisrt, I didn't call Jordan, but I did call the name of Casius Clay ( Muhammed Ali). Just determine about which numbers are u talking in boxing? Just give me numbers how many times and how long was Mohammed world champ in heavy weight. If he isn't the first in numbers then FOR ME it will mean that he is not the GOAT.

Coming to tennis it is very simple mathematically. There are 3 criteria around which everybody is talking. JUST notice ALL disputes are around these three: 1 ) number of grand slams 2) number of different slams, are all 4, only 3, only 2 or only 1 type and (3) did he make Grand slam or shortly number of CONSEQUITIVE slams a player wins.

Now I give different mathematical weights to these 3 criteria: IMO 1) is the most important, second is weaker, and third is the least. I'd give coefficients ( weights) as the following: k1 = 0.5, k2 = 0.3, k3 = 0.2. No reason to complicate the task.
Click to expand...

As far as Ali. 49-0 > 56-5. So Ali starts behind the 8 ball there. He lost the heavyweight title 3 times (albeit stripped of it the 1st time). No man beat Marciano for the title, and he retired the as the champ. No one held the title longer (and/or for a consecutive stretch) than Marciano. Ho heavyweight defended the title as many times as Marciano (and he never lost a title defense).

So are you gonna tell me Ali is not the greatest???

No you didn't menion Jordan, but I chose him as he is also generally reckognized as the GOAT in his field. And aplltying you theory/premise to his career, will not give him the #1 spot?? Total pts he's 3rd (he has to look over Karl Malone's shoulder's to see Kareen Abdul Jabbar). Pts per game leads Wilt by a hair (30.12 to 30.07). each one scoring titles, but Jordan's singualr best season was 37.1, Wilt went over 40 a game 4-5 times. Jordan ever avg'd double digits in rebounds, Wilt went over 20 a game in a season, and 2nd all time in per game avg. MVP's, MJ has 5, he can go to Kareem's house to what it's like to own 6. If we talk about dominating a game in every aspect, Oscar Robertson from 1961-65 avg'd 30+ pts, 10+ rebs, 10+ asts over a five year span. Jordan can't see that in his dreams. He never avg'd double digits in anthing other than pts. Robertson once led the league in scoring and assists, did Jordan ever finish in the 10 for assists, once??? And Title which is the cue de gras, Russell won more consecutively, 8, than Jordan won period, 6. Oh did I mention that Russell also won 3 more tiles givin 11.... in a 13 yr span??

So is Jordan the GOAT???

Same with Patrick Roy. Do you want the breakdown for him???

As far as tennis it isn't that simple, as it may have more variables, than other sports.
 
This GOAT talk is getting a bit annoying,let Fed actually win FO first then discuss it.This is all still premature.
 
380pistol said:
As far as Ali. 49-0 > 56-5. So Ali starts behind the 8 ball there. He lost the heavyweight title 3 times (albeit stripped of it the 1st time). No man beat Marciano for the title, and he retired the as the champ. No one held the title longer (and/or for a consecutive stretch) than Marciano. Ho heavyweight defended the title as many times as Marciano (and he never lost a title defense).

So are you gonna tell me Ali is not the greatest???

No you didn't menion Jordan, but I chose him as he is also generally reckognized as the GOAT in his field. And aplltying you theory/premise to his career, will not give him the #1 spot?? Total pts he's 3rd (he has to look over Karl Malone's shoulder's to see Kareen Abdul Jabbar). Pts per game leads Wilt by a hair (30.12 to 30.07). each one scoring titles, but Jordan's singualr best season was 37.1, Wilt went over 40 a game 4-5 times. Jordan ever avg'd double digits in rebounds, Wilt went over 20 a game in a season, and 2nd all time in per game avg. MVP's, MJ has 5, he can go to Kareem's house to what it's like to own 6. If we talk about dominating a game in every aspect, Oscar Robertson from 1961-65 avg'd 30+ pts, 10+ rebs, 10+ asts over a five year span. Jordan can't see that in his dreams. He never avg'd double digits in anthing other than pts. Robertson once led the league in scoring and assists, did Jordan ever finish in the 10 for assists, once??? And Title which is the cue de gras, Russell won more consecutively, 8, than Jordan won period, 6. Oh did I mention that Russell also won 3 more tiles givin 11.... in a 13 yr span??

So is Jordan the GOAT???

Same with Patrick Roy. Do you want the breakdown for him???

As far as tennis it isn't that simple, as it may have more variables, than other sports.
Click to expand...

You realize Jordan got his numbers in the 80s and 90s right? The strongest and most physical defensive era right? Wilt played with very little competition. It's like saying no1 can be better than Babe Ruth because he averaged .342 while hitting 714 home runs. You should read the book on baseball stats (written by the guy who really started all this stats talk) and you'll realize that if we look at the past eras and adjust it to today the numbers would not be as impressive. Still, MJ trumps Wilt. Go look at my previous posts.

Just like in other sports, you have to adjust what people did in the old era to todays standards.
 
asafi2 said:
You realize Jordan got his numbers in the 80s and 90s right? The strongest and most physical defensive era right? Wilt played with very little competition. It's like saying no1 can be better than Babe Ruth because he averaged .342 while hitting 714 home runs. You should read the book on baseball stats (written by the guy who really started all this stats talk) and you'll realize that if we look at the past eras and adjust it to today the numbers would not be as impressive. Still, MJ trumps Wilt. Go look at my previous posts.

Just like in other sports, you have to adjust what people did in the old era to todays standards.
Click to expand...

Again. we are not cinsidering variables, as the premise that was put forth by (I forget his name). He said go based on mathematics. Yeah the 80's and 90's maybe more physical, but in this era you have big men 6'10" and up(Garnett, Duncan, Novitzki, Stojakovic) running the , floor, playing on the perimeter, and even displaying 3 point range. You have 6'8" players Lebron, McGrady playing anywere on the court from 1-4 positions. How apparanet was that in MJ's era.

Again your missing the point. I did not say Jordan wasn't the greates, but if it were based on #'s alone and the premise that was put forth by (I forget his name), that's the best he can do. he didn't say adjust, he said "go by #'s" so that's what I did. At the end of the day 5 > 4, he never said who, what or why, just 5 > 4. That's why I mentioned others genrally considered the GOAT's in their field as well, Ali and Roy.
 
Mungo73 said:
So Fed is 7-13 against nothing and he is the 2nd best after nothing....hmmm Fed is worse than nothing :lol:
Click to expand...

The only thing you people have against Federer is Nadal who does have a winning record against him but is that all you have against Federer. Maybe Andy murray but Federer is in a slight decline but besides Nadal beating Federer a couple times Federer is the GOAT. I dont care if he is 7-13, He is 5-0 or something against Del potro, never lost to davydenko, has a 16-2(something close to that) against Roddick so what can you say now. Federer has outdone everyone and there is nothing you can say about it besides him losing a couple more matches than nadal.
 
Mungo73 said:
So Fed is 7-13 against nothing and he is the 2nd best after nothing....hmmm Fed is worse than nothing :lol:
Click to expand...

Nobody is disputing that until this year Nadal has been the best on clay. They've played 11 times on clay.
What do you the head2head would be if they'd played 11 times on grass and then 11 times on hard since 2004?
 
stormholloway said:
Bud Collins' opinion is that players of different generations should not be compared in terms of "best". The circumstances are different. Just appreciate the tennis and the drama and stop worrying about this BS.
Click to expand...

Similar to what Laver says.

zagor said:
This GOAT talk is getting a bit annoying,let Fed actually win FO first then discuss it.This is all still premature.
Click to expand...

Yes I agree. I don't want to jinx Federer! (this is like the only time I'm superstitious lol)
 
Aykhan Mammadov said:
I see u like just argue.

Ask ANALYSTS - once they made such an analysys and came to the conclusion that just Jackson and Beatles influeneced the humankind more than others.

Zidane compared with Brazilian Pele ? U are joking. Ask SOCCER SPECIALISTS. Between them there are many much higher than Zidane, e.g. Maradona, Kruiff, Gorincha...

Einstein compared with Newton ? U are not scientsist, for sure. Einstein is just popular because he was advertised in the 20-th century with his relativity theory which was something new. This theory of physics was built on mathematical foundation built in his order on the works of French mathematician Poincare who made great contribution to topology.

Isak Newton invented classical lows of mechanics ( 3 lows), low of gravity (physics) and invented integral and differential calculas - greatest theory which changed the world. Between him and Eisnstein there are MANY scientist. Such as Makswell ( electrodynamics low), Galua ( algebra) , and.... Ask SCIENTISTS !

By the way some years ago I met some investigation of scientists with the list of people influeneced the humankind more than others. The first was prophet Mohammed ( 1.5 billions muslims are successors), second was Newton. Jesus was not listed because in Christianity he is not considered as a man, but as the son of God.
Click to expand...

The classical lows of mechanics, gotta love it!
 
Does he mean the "laws of mechanics"? Sergei Eisenstein or Alfred Einstein?

Is this like Bil Tillden, Born Bjorg, and Jimi Conners?
 
Fed is already the GOAT, even if he doesn't win the French this year. And to be honest from a historical perspective he has more to lose in clay court stature if he doesn't win the French without competition than he does to gain by winning, playing (again) without competition.

The funny thing about Fed being the GOAT is that he is pretty much owned by Nadal. So I guess it is a GOAT*. He would have to have a significant lifetime head to head with him to get rid of the asterisk.
 
LuckyR said:
Fed is already the GOAT, even if he doesn't win the French this year. And to be honest from a historical perspective he has more to lose in clay court stature if he doesn't win the French without competition than he does to gain by winning, playing (again) without competition.

The funny thing about Fed being the GOAT is that he is pretty much owned by Nadal. So I guess it is a GOAT*. He would have to have a significant lifetime head to head with him to get rid of the asterisk.
Click to expand...

Asterisk compared to whom? I very much buy the argument that Federer has such a bad record against Nadal because 11 of those meetings were on clay (I think it's 9-2 on that surface in favor of Nadal, isn't it?), and that Federer has actually made it far enough in clay tournaments that he actually plays Nadal (something Sampras can't really claim, since he rarely made it very deep in clay court tournaments).

Simply put, Federer has run into Nadal on clay where Nadal is quite good, perhaps the best in history. Unfortunately, because so many of their meetings have been on that surface, I think Nadal has gotten into Federer's head and it has influenced their matches on other surfaces. So, in other words, if Federer were garbage on clay (like some other GOAT candidate), he would own the head-to-head with Nadal as well.

I don't think you can come up with a top player who either had no trouble with a (or a few) younger rival after four basically uncontested years at the top, or was so good on all surfaces that he ran into the top specialty players on every surface and outplayed them on all of those surfaces. That player has never, and will never, exist.
 
^^^ Winnes or Errors... you are 100% correct, and it has been explained many times by many posters using many different wordings. But there are Nadal fans here who will never even try to understand that because they have been basking in the glow of that head2head for a long time and they don't plan on stopping any time soon due to such inconvenient things as facts. They just pretend not to understand.
 
There is no "GOAT" anyways. There is only a best of each era. Federer has to wait until Nadal retires to see if he wins the best of his era.
 
Aykhan Mammadov said:
Best singer off all times is Michael Jackson, and best group is Beatles. It is recognised fact in the world based on the scale of their influence to the people.

If Federer wins RG he really becomes best player in the history of tennis based on 2 main criteria: number of major tournaments a player wins - it is number of grand slams, and the second - his ability to win all types of slams on different surfaces.

It is very simple. The notion of the GOAT can be mathematically and intelligently determined.

More simple examples - best soccer player in the history is Pele, best boxer is Muhammad Ali, best scientist is Isaak Newton and etc...
Click to expand...


Pavarotti must be laughing his *** off in the grave with that ridiculous statement.

Argumentum ad populum (logical fallacy). Britney spears has sold more records than Aretha Franklin, therefore Spears is the better singer?
 
Well, Fed would be close to being the GOAT, but he would still need one more major to overcome Sampras' count.

It is so hard to foresee what will happen after RG. Fed's age is a major advantage, but he is surely playing sloppier than before, even though he might win RG.
 
Winners or Errors said:
Asterisk compared to whom? I very much buy the argument that Federer has such a bad record against Nadal because 11 of those meetings were on clay (I think it's 9-2 on that surface in favor of Nadal, isn't it?), and that Federer has actually made it far enough in clay tournaments that he actually plays Nadal (something Sampras can't really claim, since he rarely made it very deep in clay court tournaments).

Simply put, Federer has run into Nadal on clay where Nadal is quite good, perhaps the best in history. Unfortunately, because so many of their meetings have been on that surface, I think Nadal has gotten into Federer's head and it has influenced their matches on other surfaces. So, in other words, if Federer were garbage on clay (like some other GOAT candidate), he would own the head-to-head with Nadal as well.

I don't think you can come up with a top player who either had no trouble with a (or a few) younger rival after four basically uncontested years at the top, or was so good on all surfaces that he ran into the top specialty players on every surface and outplayed them on all of those surfaces. That player has never, and will never, exist.
Click to expand...


Well, you assume there must be a GOAT. IMO, there doesn't have to be one (there can just be many great players from different eras), so if you are going to call yourself one you are going to have to have that perfect resume', which Fed doesn't have (and arguing that Pete's is worse, doesn't make Fed's better).
 
By winning Roland Garros Fed rounds out a resume Sampras couldn't. GOAT? Any judge would rule in favor of Fed. I hope he can follow this up at Wimby and put this discussion to rest. Just ask someone who might have done it -- Borg, for instance.
 
grind said:
By winning Roland Garros Fed rounds out a resume Sampras couldn't. GOAT? Any judge would rule in favor of Fed. I hope he can follow this up at Wimby and put this discussion to rest. Just ask someone who might have done it -- Borg, for instance.
Click to expand...

Yeah if Fed wins the RG-Wimby double then he will cement his GOATness for sure.
 
Federer won 5 Wimbledon in a row AND 5 USO in a row !
Nadal couldn't even do that at the French.

He has 20 consecutive GS semifinals. Who came even close to that? Noone.

He will have 14 GS Titles and a Career GS.

Most definitely he'll be the GOAT for me when he wins the french.
 
LuckyR said:
Fed is already the GOAT, even if he doesn't win the French this year.
Click to expand...
Pretty much agree with this.
The funny thing about Fed being the GOAT is that he is pretty much owned by Nadal. So I guess it is a GOAT*. He would have to have a significant lifetime head to head with him to get rid of the asterisk.
Click to expand...
Pete Sampras, and most of the other greats, are the first to say only Grand Slams matter in the end. Pete's last slam win doesn't count any less because he was seeded 17th and hadn't won a tournament in forever and was getting beat left and right.
 
Last edited:
LuckyR said:
Well, you assume there must be a GOAT. IMO, there doesn't have to be one (there can just be many great players from different eras), so if you are going to call yourself one you are going to have to have that perfect resume', which Fed doesn't have (and arguing that Pete's is worse, doesn't make Fed's better).
Click to expand...

Where in my post does it say there has to be a GOAT? Didn't I essentially say in the last sentence that no one has a perfect resume? All I'm saying is that, yes, Federer's resume is a little better than Pete's, because he is good on all surfaces. It's simply a fact that Federer is better than Sampras was on clay. If he gets to 14 slams, he has a better resume.

I don't really get your point that Pete's being worse doesn't make Fed's better, so perhaps we'll just have to agree to disagree. Both were/are wonderful tennis talents. I don't think they can be compared with the exception of numbers, because they were/are very different. Most of the numbers seem to fall in Federer's favor.
 
If he wins this FO, Federer will be the all time GOAT.

By winning this FO, he indirectly beat Nadal and everyone else who dared to enter the tournament.
 
Aykhan Mammadov said:
If Fed wins , of course he will be GOAT in the history of tennis and in the history of the humankind. Nadal wins only 6 slams by the moment, he is in the way to Agassis achievement with 8 slams and all 4. Fed will have 14 slams and all 4 ( if he wins of course).

The head-to-head scores don't matter in the history, say Soderling defeats Nadal, and Fed will defeat Soderling. So what? Main is that all stars including Nadal, Djokovich and etc... participated in the same tournament, and even this fact plays NO role in the history. Main is the trophy.

Say u can take Sampras-Safin head-to-head score. It is 3:4 in the favour of Safin. But it doesn't mean that Safin with 2 slams greater than Sampras with 14. Fed was tired when Nadal appeared, and Nadal is becoming tired now. Sampras was old when Safin appeared in tennis.
Click to expand...

That's a pretty good post.

IMO you have the best avatar on the forums. I laugh every time I see the Eddie av.:)
 
Blade0324 said:
Sorry would not make him even close IMO. Maybe top 6-7 but not even close to GOAT.
Click to expand...
And how many of those in the Top 5-6 above Federer in your opinion have ever made 20 consecutive Grand Slam semifinals and 15 of the last 16 finals?

How about NONE!

Your obvious bias against Federer is just pathetic! Either that or you're just blind. :-?
 
Blade0324 said:
Not in order but

Laver
Tillden
Agassi
Bjorg
Conners
Click to expand...
How can Borg possibly be the GOAT? :confused: He's never won either the US Open nor the Australian Open. Federer has won 5 consecutive US Opens and 3 Australian Opens. And Connors only won Wimbledon twice and the Australian Open once, and never even made the finals of the French Open.

Oh, and please learn how to spell "Tilden", "Borg", and "Connors". :oops:
 
Sorry, it has been mentioned a million times, but how ridiculous is Feder's GS semifinal streak? It's super human. It has now been over 5 years since he wasn't in a GS semi!!!

Who is the closest to matching this streak in history? Again, sorry if this has been covered recently.
 
Blade0324 said:
Sorry would not make him even close IMO. Maybe top 6-7 but not even close to GOAT.
Click to expand...

Ok, so Federer doesn't make the cut but somehow Tilden. Connors, and Agassi do?
You might as well include Homer Simpson, Spider Man, and Stewie Griffin, if Federer isn't a top 5 GOAT.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Will Nadal be GOAT if he wins 4 slams in a row?
2
Replies
68
Views
5K
stevenwags987
stevenwags987
HAPPYforTHEvictory
If Nadal wins the Calender Year Grand Slam has he overtaken Federer already?
Replies
27
Views
2K
gj011
gj011
SamprasisGOAT
  • Poll Poll
If Djokovic Wins The French, Could He Overtake Nadal?
2
Replies
95
Views
7K
MichaelNadal
MichaelNadal
T
If Djokovic wins the 2023 USO, is he equally great as Nadal at the USO ?
Replies
37
Views
2K
mike danny
mike danny
K
Grand Slam = GOAT?
Replies
24
Views
1K
ChrisRF
C
Back
Top