Will Nadal be GOAT if he wins 4 slams in a row?
- Thread starter Shady_Sawyer
- Start date
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
I'm the same, I like looking at all tier 1 events and different types of records. I also value versatility vs total #. For instance I would place a player with all 4 slams above a player with just 2 or 3 even if that player didn't have quite as many slams total.
I suspect there will never be a consensus about GOAT: too many possible parameters but to me a GOAT should have excellent records in terms of longevity (# of seasons at winning major events) , domination over 1 season or over 1 surface AND multi surface accomplishments.
I'm surprised at your requirements for Rafa to become the GOAT though. He's already won the Olympics, why would he have to do it twice?
I don't think he'd need ALL the masters either. The record right now is 7 out of the 9 (Agassi). If Rafa won 1 more (like Miami for instance), he would have 7 as well + record for total # of masters + record for most consecutive at 1 title (Monte-Carlo), likely to have absolute record as well if he wins 1 more Monte-Carlo which I assume he will.
All of that would be more than enough for a GOAT regardless of slams.
IMO what he needs is WTF, not necessarily this year but one year anyway (then he would have most important titles on every surface) and sure 4 slams in a row would be as historically massive as getting total # of slams record. I'd still say a GOAT needs slams in double digits no matter what, which Nadal will have anyway if he wins AO.
Last edited:
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
For Ralph to be a top tier champion (with Laver, Sampras, Borg, Federer and Gonzalez), he has to hang on to his #1 ranking for an extended period (biggest hole in his resume so far), win a lot more titles and a few more majors. For now, he's second tier with Mac, Connors, Lendl, Agassi, Newcombe, Rosewall, Emerson, et al.
That's just like your opinion man.
All slams are more or less equal. If nadal gets to 17 slams in the way you mention, that's too bad for federer. If they are tied well then maybe you have a case for looking at the distributions and favoring the guy with the more even distribution. But if they are tied then all sorts of other things will come into play as well, like h-h, years no. 1, no of masters, no. of titles etc.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
Who is Ralph? His name is Rafa or Rafael, thanks.
Your definition for top tier is way too restrictive. If you want to go this route, I might as well declare that Sampras, Borg and Gonzalez are tier 2 because they haven't won the 4 slams.
There is no way Nadal is tier 2 with already 9 slams, the golden slam, DC and Olympic titles and 18 masters, sorry.
He's already had 2 year ends at #1. I'd agree he needs his weeks at #1 to be in the 3 digits (100+) which is most likely to happen next June or July anyway.
Last edited:
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
My definition of a first tier champion is one for whom a reasonable argument can be made that they were the best player who ever lived. Laver, Federer, Sampras, Borg and Gonzales all arguably measure up. Ralph just isn't at that level by any measure. He doesn't have enough total titles, he hasn't been #1 for long enough, and he doesn't have enough major titles to be considered the best player who ever lived. And, on an absolute basis, I don't think Ralph's level of play measures up to that of these great champions in their primes.
Last edited:
TennisFan3
Talk Tennis Guru
Good post. Nadal is still NOT in the top tier which has Laver, Sampras, Gonzales, Borg and Federer (strictly in that ORDER).
Nadal is 24 and still might have an opportunity to get to the Top Tier. I guess we'll have to wait, but it seems unlikely given his numerous injuries.
All that said, Nadal will still go down as the great player, just perhaps not as the top 5 who EVER played the game.
MyHeroRafael
Banned
Nadal turned to be GOAT when he was 14.
I agree. I think Nadal's career will be kind of like Borg's. Except he already has won all the Grand Slams. He probably won't catch Federer, but if you look at what he has accomplished, its just as impressive. Considering that he is 24, its astounding. Just like Borg.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
Your criteria are not universal and can be challenged. As I see it, no player is a contender for GOAT without winning all 4 slams, most or all masters + WTF + Olympics + DC.
Total # of titles matter of course but very relatively since 250 usually have weak competition. # of tier 1 events won is much more relevant. (+ a combination of longevity/domination and surface versatility as I explained in my former post).
I have nothing against Sampras at all but he'll never be a contender because his resume on 1 of the surfaces (clay) is too weak. He will always be "one of the best" and as I wrote as well maybe that's as far as we can go. There is a group of tennis greats, a group. They're complementary, not mutually exclusive and they all bring some records to the plate.
stevenwags987
Rookie
That's just like your opinion man.
All slams are more or less equal. If nadal gets to 17 slams in the way you mention, that's too bad for federer. If they are tied well then maybe you have a case for looking at the distributions and favoring the guy with the more even distribution. But if they are tied then all sorts of other things will come into play as well, like h-h, years no. 1, no of masters, no. of titles etc.
So your saying that if a new comer comes on to the tour and wins 20 RG's in his career and doesn't get past the first round of any of the other 3 slams that he would be considered the GOAT if he had the most slams?
I find that hard to believe.....
The GOAT has to be able to play on every surface just like Federer can.
Im not saying Nadal wont be the GOAT because he is playing very well on all the courts, im just saying he's going to have to keep it up on the hardcourts to be in the discussion of GOAT
S
Serendipitous
Guest
I cannot like this Nadal because of the crimes he committed during the third round of the Wimbledons.
kishnabe
Talk Tennis Guru
WOW Serendiptous...you're starting to show you're troll colours!
Sentinel
Bionic Poster
There, corrected that for you. Now you get back to yore homeowke.
The game is set early on, everyone knows the criteria for winning, which is total slams. How you get there is your business. If you want to do it with 20 slams on one surface go right ahead. It's a pretty big risk to go that route to achieving 20 slams, but if that's your strategy and you pull it off, Kudos to Ralph.
Notice that when people put up GS stats. on the screen, there is not even a hint that the distribution matters, most likely because everyone thinks each of the GS is worth an equal amount. Personally I am probably like you, I prefer more of a distribution across the slams, but that's just my preference and I recognize it as such. But Imo not having an distribution requirement makes it more fair for the clay courters because growing up on clay and developing a clay court style is not conducive to other surfaces. In the all slams are equal and it doesn't matter how you get your GS total world clay courters can specialize and reap the rewards from specialization while at the same time forgoing their chances at 2 other slams. The risk/reward is built into this game of achieving the most slams. Look at federer, currently federer is the master at no slam (at best he is tied with two others at the USO) yet fed managed to get to the top by doing very well on 3 different surfaces. But at the same time fed's lack of dominance came close to hurting him and that's the risk he took with a game that worked well on many surfaces.
Getting away from your great on every surface to be GOAT requirement, if nadal starts approaching federer's GS totals, he will have already satisfied matching federer's worst result at a GS. Federer only has 1 FO and nadal already has at least 1 tournament win at each of the 4 slams.
Last edited:
PrinceMoron
Legend
I think he needs to remember where he left his forehand first
stevenwags987
Rookie
The game is set early on, everyone knows the criteria for winning, which is total slams. How you get there is your business. If you want to do it with 20 slams on one surface go right ahead. It's a pretty big risk to go that route to achieving 20 slams, but if that's your strategy and you pull it off, Kudos to Ralph.
Personally I am probably like you, I prefer more of a distribution across the slams, but that's just my preference and I recognize it as such. But Imo not having an distribution requirement makes it more fair for the clay courters because growing up on clay and developing a clay court style is not conducive to other surfaces. In the all slams are equal and it doesn't matter how you get your GS total world clay courters can specialize and reap the rewards from specialization while at the same time forgoing their chances at 2 other slams. The risk/reward is built into this game of achieving the most slams. Look at federer, currently federer is the master at no slam (at best he is tied with two others at the USO) yet fed managed to get to the top by doing very well on 3 different surfaces. But at the same time fed's lack of dominance came close to hurting him and that's the risk he took with a game that worked well on many surfaces.
Getting away from your great on every surface to be GOAT requirement, if nadal starts approaching federer's GS totals, he will have already satisfied matching federer's worst result at a GS. Federer only has 1 FO and nadal already has at least 1 tournament win at each of the 4 slams.
Fair enough...I dont see us agreeing on this hahaha.
But I understand your point and im sure you understand mine.
Both fed and nadal will prob be 1 and 2 best players of all time when all is said and done....in what order will be found out later on.
Fun debate though....
And yes, my avatar is a bit "ugly" but comeon man, its Fed
-Steven
Similar threads
