If Federer wins AO08 he is the GOAT [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

If Federer wins AO08 he is the GOAT

Commander Data
01-21-2008, 07:20 AM
Hi

I really believe so and I believe it is worth to mention. Lots of people think he needs Roland carros. but in the end after some years I don't think that will be the key factor just look how the experts already talk about Fed. Sampras became GOAT without Roland carros. If he wins another Slam I think that is the tipping point that most will says Fed is. it would extend some records and put him at 13 GS with 26 years of age just one shy of Sampras. even if he would never win a GS again. He think he would still be considered GOAT cause of his dominace during the 13.GS Plus all his records for example he would stay No.1 for at least another 25 weeks or so and win Wimbledon US and AO straight for the 3rd Time in a row. Also it would be highly unlikely that he would not win just one more in the coming years (He will at least play intil wimbledon 2012). The stage is set.

It is a great moment in history guys!!!

Can Fed actually pull it off? he seems to feel the pressure as well and the competition is catching up....

Any serious arguments agains it?

KR Data

FedFan_2007
01-21-2008, 07:35 AM
Fed can lose the #1 ranking still if he doesn't get to the final. And yes he needs to win Roland Garros to be GOAT.

bokehlicious
01-21-2008, 07:39 AM
He'll never be the GOAT since he'll never win the most important tennis event called Davis cup :shrug:

GuiroNl
01-21-2008, 07:40 AM
I think he's already the GOAT (like many others), because he has played the highest level of tennis. But he's not the most succesful player of all time yet, and he also won't be if he wins the AO2008.

Commander Data
01-21-2008, 07:41 AM
Fed can lose the #1 ranking still if he doesn't get to the final.

Did I claim differently?

And yes he needs to win Roland Garros to be GOAT.

No he doesn't. maybe now you think he does. But in 20 years people will think differently. he will need it to make it pretty but he will not need it to make it.

sports freak
01-21-2008, 08:12 AM
What do you call him when he wins the Aus Open and back it up with the French??SUPERMAN or MR INVINCIBLE??

Ivanatis
01-21-2008, 08:29 AM
He'll never be the GOAT since he'll never win the most important tennis event called Davis cup :shrug:

Davis Cup? Who cares:o

French open is way more crucial for him

JediFed
01-21-2008, 08:59 AM
He'll only have 13 Grand slams. Not enough IMO yet to supplant Sampras.

To be GOAT, I think he would need this roster.

1. 15 GS, one over Sampras.
2. Roland Garros, which Sampras never won, earning him the Career grand slam.
3. 6 consecutive Year end number 1.
4. One more Wimbledon this year (breaking Borg's streak of 42), or two over his next 3 years, matching Sampras' 7 total Wimbledon titles.
5. One more USO title to match Connors and Sampras.
6. Winning the AO this year to best Agassi in consecutive AO titles and tying him for total AO titles.
7. Calendar year grand slam to best Laver.
8. 19 super nine tournaments, or whatever they decide to call them now.
9. total career win ratio of 82 percent (matching Borg). He is over 80 now.
10. 100+ tournaments altogether to match Lendl and Connors.
11. 7 years in the top 3 to match Sampras' dominance.
12. 300 weeks career total number 1.

What has he already done?

1. 200+ weeks number one consecutive (besting Connors)
2. best two, three, four and five year winning percentage (besting Lendl)
3. 4 consecutive USO titles(besting Lendl)
4. 27 consecutive USO wins (besting Lendl)
5. Longest win streak on both Grass and Hardcourts(besting Borg and Lendl)
6. 5 streaks of 20+ wins (matching Borg)
7. 10 consecutive finals (besting Laver)
8. 15 consecutive semifinals (besting Lendl)
9. 15 consecutive quarterfinals (besting Lendl)
10. Won 3 slams in 3 different years. (besting Sampras.
11. Reached the finals of every slam in 2 years (besting Laver)
12. Won 2 slams in 4 different years (besting Borg)
13. Won 10 titles in 3 years consecutively.

Commander Data
01-21-2008, 11:24 AM
What do you call him when he wins the Aus Open and back it up with the French??SUPERMAN or MR INVINCIBLE??

:retard:

Commander Data
01-21-2008, 11:25 AM
He'll only have 13 Grand slams. Not enough IMO yet to supplant Sampras.

To be GOAT, I think he would need this roster.

1. 15 GS, one over Sampras.
2. Roland Garros, which Sampras never won, earning him the Career grand slam.
3. 6 consecutive Year end number 1.
4. One more Wimbledon this year (breaking Borg's streak of 42), or two over his next 3 years, matching Sampras' 7 total Wimbledon titles.
5. One more USO title to match Connors and Sampras.
6. Winning the AO this year to best Agassi in consecutive AO titles and tying him for total AO titles.
7. Calendar year grand slam to best Laver.
8. 19 super nine tournaments, or whatever they decide to call them now.
9. total career win ratio of 82 percent (matching Borg). He is over 80 now.
10. 100+ tournaments altogether to match Lendl and Connors.
11. 7 years in the top 3 to match Sampras' dominance.
12. 300 weeks career total number 1.



:retard::retard::retard:

Chiseller
01-21-2008, 11:56 AM
tough question.

what is more important?

1) to win most slams?
2) being the most dominate player ever?
3) win on all 4 surfaces?

at the moment it looks like this

1) sampras
2) federer
3) agassi

just based on facts it is too early to tell right now.
in my personal view he's already the best man ever that has picked up a tennis racquet.

Sean
01-21-2008, 12:01 PM
Sampras is the ultimate GOAT.
Federer will overtake if he wins RG.

bokehlicious
01-21-2008, 12:03 PM
To be GOAT, I think he would need this roster.

1. 15 GS, one over Sampras.
2. Roland Garros, which Sampras never won, earning him the Career grand slam.
3. 6 consecutive Year end number 1.
4. One more Wimbledon this year (breaking Borg's streak of 42), or two over his next 3 years, matching Sampras' 7 total Wimbledon titles.
5. One more USO title to match Connors and Sampras.
6. Winning the AO this year to best Agassi in consecutive AO titles and tying him for total AO titles.
7. Calendar year grand slam to best Laver.
8. 19 super nine tournaments, or whatever they decide to call them now.
9. total career win ratio of 82 percent (matching Borg). He is over 80 now.
10. 100+ tournaments altogether to match Lendl and Connors.
11. 7 years in the top 3 to match Sampras' dominance.
12. 300 weeks career total number 1.


That definitely wouldn't be enough, add to the list:

13. Break Nicklaus golf majors record
14. 100m. world record owner
15. Win more FIFA word cups than Brazil
16. Win more Tour de France than Armstrong
17. Win more Mr Olympia than Coleman
18. Win the peace Nobel prize (optional)

scarecrows
01-21-2008, 12:10 PM
That definitely wouldn't be enough, add to the list:

13. Break Nicklaus golf majors record
14. 100m. world record owner
15. Win more FIFA word cups than Brazil
16. Win more Tour de France than Armstrong
17. Win more Mr Olympia than Coleman
18. Win the peace Nobel prize (optional)

:yeah:

you forgot
19. Win Eurovision for Switzerland
20. Win the Sauna Championship in Finland

tripb19
01-21-2008, 12:13 PM
21. Get a platinum record.

Commander Data
01-21-2008, 12:15 PM
That definitely wouldn't be enough, add to the list:

13. Break Nicklaus golf majors record
14. 100m. world record owner
15. Win more FIFA word cups than Brazil
16. Win more Tour de France than Armstrong
17. Win more Mr Olympia than Coleman
18. Win the peace Nobel prize (optional)

19. Beat Michael Jordan in one on one Basketball
20. Win first match on the moon
21. Become first non-US President of the US
22. Finish season 100:0
23. Find Osama Bin Laden
24. Cure Cancer
25. Stop global Warming
26. Bring World peace
27. Attain Enlightment

Komodo
01-21-2008, 12:26 PM
He'll only have 13 Grand slams. Not enough IMO yet to supplant Sampras.

To be GOAT, I think he would need this roster.

1. 15 GS, one over Sampras.
2. Roland Garros, which Sampras never won, earning him the Career grand slam.
3. 6 consecutive Year end number 1.
4. One more Wimbledon this year (breaking Borg's streak of 42), or two over his next 3 years, matching Sampras' 7 total Wimbledon titles.
5. One more USO title to match Connors and Sampras.
6. Winning the AO this year to best Agassi in consecutive AO titles and tying him for total AO titles.
7. Calendar year grand slam to best Laver.
8. 19 super nine tournaments, or whatever they decide to call them now.
9. total career win ratio of 82 percent (matching Borg). He is over 80 now.
10. 100+ tournaments altogether to match Lendl and Connors.
11. 7 years in the top 3 to match Sampras' dominance.
12. 300 weeks career total number 1.


Lame trolling attempt. So to be the GOAT he would need to dominate everybody in every single cathegory?

Why am I even quoting it?

To me, Federer is already the best player ever because of the way he has played tennis and the success he has had with it in dominating 4 straight years.
As someone pointed out before me, to be the most SUCCESFUL player, he'd have to top Sampras 14 Grand Slams.

And please don't ever come with the 100+ tournaments won thing again.
These tournaments were more often than not small american mickey mouse tournaments where Connors only had to win 3 matches (or less?) to take the title.
Federer doesn't even play this kind of tournament, and rightfully so. And they don't exist anymore too.

CyBorg
01-21-2008, 12:49 PM
I think that arguments can be made in favour of Roger, the strongest one being his win-loss record over a three-four year stretch. However one would also have a hard time showing that his career has been more dominant all-around than Laver. Laver was the game's top player for more years and had also won Roland Garros. The other three names to consider, in my opinion, would be Tilden, Gonzales and Borg. Gonzales had similar struggles on clay as Federer did.

I don't think the Davis Cup is as important as it used to be. I don't think it's a major factor anymore.

CyBorg
01-21-2008, 12:51 PM
To me, Federer is already the best player ever because of the way he has played tennis and the success he has had with it in dominating 4 straight years.
As someone pointed out before me, to be the most SUCCESFUL player, he'd have to top Sampras 14 Grand Slams.

1) There have been guys who dominated for four straight years before Federer. Even more than four straight years. Laver and Gonzales come to mind.

2) Sampras has never been the standard and never will be. He is a great player, but was never as dominant as Laver, Gonzales, Borg, Tilden or even Federer. Whenever someone brings up 15 majors it's a big-time moot point.

Chiseller
01-21-2008, 01:05 PM
I think that arguments can be made in favour of Roger, the strongest one being his win-loss record over a three-four year stretch. However one would also have a hard time showing that his career has been more dominant all-around than Laver. Laver was the game's top player for more years and had also won Roland Garros. .

Considering the fact that Laver didn't have to deal with 4 different surfaces i go with roger. Not to mention the change of tennis in general.

CyBorg
01-21-2008, 01:28 PM
Considering the fact that Laver didn't have to deal with 4 different surfaces i go with roger. Not to mention the change of tennis in general.

You mean hardcourts, clay, grass and carpet? Laver dominated all four. You can't say this about Federer.

scoobs
01-21-2008, 01:35 PM
If Federer wins AO08 he is the GOAT

No he isn't.

Hope that helps.

Chiseller
01-21-2008, 02:00 PM
You mean hardcourts, clay, grass and carpet? Laver dominated all four. You can't say this about Federer.

wimbledon, us open and the aussie open were on grass
french on ashes

jcempire
01-21-2008, 02:23 PM
Fed can lose the #1 ranking still if he doesn't get to the final. And yes he needs to win Roland Garros to be GOAT.

Wow

12 GS. He may get 16 GS. Does he need to win Roland Garros to be GOAT????? I don't think so. No one is better than him all the time.

CyBorg
01-21-2008, 02:37 PM
wimbledon, us open and the aussie open were on grass
french on ashes

This ignores the fact that many important tournaments were on carpet and hardcourts. In fact, until 1968 pros were not allowed to participate in grand slam events. They played in the so-called "pros", some of which were played on carpet.

Commander Data
01-21-2008, 02:37 PM
If Federer wins AO08 he is the GOAT

No he isn't.

Hope that helps.

Jup, you saved my day

Komodo
01-21-2008, 02:45 PM
1) There have been guys who dominated for four straight years before Federer. Even more than four straight years. Laver and Gonzales come to mind.

2) Sampras has never been the standard and never will be. He is a great player, but was never as dominant as Laver, Gonzales, Borg, Tilden or even Federer. Whenever someone brings up 15 majors it's a big-time moot point.

No it is not a moot point. Sampras won all his stuff in modern tennis which just is a much more competitive environment.

I wrote "with the way he plays and the success he has had with it", to distuingish between how a player plays the game and success.
The latter is just there to clarify that he is incredibly dominant as well; otherwise we could just name anybody who plays tennis in a perfect way, but I honestly can't think of someone who plays with as much style as Federer.

Can you? Name me one!

No one has ever played tennis as gracefully and beautifully as Federer, that was my point.
Don't even get me started on Laver with his hanging arms and ugly movement, that's just not even comparable to Federers perfection and everybody knows it.

That's not to take away from the SUCCESS Laver had in his era, he surely was great.

CyBorg
01-21-2008, 02:54 PM
No it is not a moot point. Sampras won all his stuff in modern tennis which just is a much more competitive environment.

I've seen this argument before and it always fails to convince. I can see someone saying that Tilden played in the gentlemen's era, but tennis was extremely deep when Laver played. The top-10 alone was by far superior to what we have today and beyond that it was nothing to sneeze at.

I wrote "with the way he plays and the success he has had with it", to distuingish between how a player plays the game and success.
The latter is just there to clarify that he is incredibly dominant as well; otherwise we could just name anybody who plays tennis in a perfect way, but I honestly can't think of someone who plays with as much style as Federer.

Can you? Name me one!

In terms of aesthetics alone I can name a lot of players. Brian Gottfried and Miroslav Mecir are guys who had quite beautiful games that I preferred to Roger's. In terms of being a complete player I would certainly take Laver over Roger. Not only was Rod every bit as good from the baseline he was the much superior volleyer. If we go a bit further back then Bill Tilden, from what I've seen of him, was an astonishingly beautiful mover; long-limbed, graceful.

But we can't always go on sheer aesthetics. If this is our criteria then Sampras is entirely out of equation. He wasn't very pretty to watch.

Don't even get me started on Laver with his hanging arms and ugly movement, that's just not even comparable to Federers perfection and everybody knows it.

Haha. That's cute. Laver may have been a bit avant-garde.

That's not to take away from the SUCCESS Laver had in his era, he surely was great.

Good to know.

Commander Data
01-21-2008, 03:01 PM
I've seen this argument before and it always fails to convince. I can see someone saying that Tilden played in the gentlemen's era, but tennis was extremely deep when Laver played. The top-10 alone was by far superior to what we have today and beyond that it was nothing to sneeze at.





This guys wouldn't stand a chance today. Sport evolves......
simple mathematics already leads to this inside. The field is so much larger today, that just by chance there would be way more good players playing today then 50 years ago. add the advance technique and traing methods plus people are in general stronger and bigger these days.

Laver would go down in flames:devil:

rofe
01-21-2008, 03:12 PM
No.

Commander Data
01-21-2008, 03:14 PM
No.

Yes :retard:

CyBorg
01-21-2008, 03:15 PM
This guys wouldn't stand a chance today. Sport evolves......
simple mathematics already leads to this inside. The field is so much larger today, that just by chance there would be way more good players playing today then 50 years ago. add the advance technique and traing methods plus people are in general stronger and bigger these days.

Laver would go down in flames:devil:

Impressive argument. Very in-depth and convincing.

Commander Data
01-21-2008, 03:27 PM
Impressive argument. Very in-depth and convincing.

lol....so you would say that the top 3 50 years ago would kick Federers, Nadals and Djokos ass?

You are one of those "Yesterday-was-everything-better" guys?

bokehlicious
01-21-2008, 03:27 PM
Cyborg is spot on... Players of the past where much much better than today's mugs.. :o

Commander Data
01-21-2008, 03:35 PM
Cyborg is spot on... Players of the past where much much better than today's mugs.. :o

Yeah you are right, the level of tennis is steadily declining. Just watch tennis for a couple of years and you will notice....Same as in other Sports like F1 and Swimming

bokehlicious
01-21-2008, 03:37 PM
CD, I was being sarcastic :o those "yesterday-was-everything-better" guys make me smile actually ;)

Commander Data
01-21-2008, 03:42 PM
CD, I was being sarcastic :o those "yesterday-was-everything-better" guys make me smile actually ;)

I know, me too;)

CyBorg
01-21-2008, 03:42 PM
lol....so you would say that the top 3 50 years ago would kick Federers, Nadals and Djokos ass?

You are one of those "Yesterday-was-everything-better" guys?

Heh .. You're right - it's an either/or scenario .. black v white .. like politics.

You internet zombies humour me.

Tennis is almost a completely different sport than it used to be. Equipment is different, styles are different, player attributes are different, required skills are different.

If you're talking about the time-machine hypothetical, whereby somehow a young Rod Laver is transported into the present then, no, I don't think he would beat Federer because he would be completely unfamiliar with graphite rackets and wouldn't able to adjust perfectly to differing court surfaces and pace of groundstokes. If somehow Roger Federer was transported to 1968 and was asked to play Rod Laver with wooden rackets he wouldn't do much better, because the strategies that he employs today simply wouldn't work.

Old school tennis was much more about touch than today. A myth still pervades today that tennis is the intellectual's game; something comparable to chess. This is no longer true. It is all about power now. There is nothing wrong with this necessarily - it is just different and this makes it harder to compare between eras, which is why most people are satisfied to compare accomplishments.

CyBorg
01-21-2008, 03:43 PM
CD, I was being sarcastic :o those "yesterday-was-everything-better" guys make me smile actually ;)

I have Federer in my top-five all-time along with Laver, Gonzales Borg and Tilden. If anything, I appreciate players from all eras.

It is certain posters here who have little to know knowledge of history who belong to the 'today-is-better' category. It is about a lack of perspective.

Ivanatis
01-21-2008, 03:44 PM
:yeah:
19. Win Eurovision for Switzerland


too simple

19. Win Eurovision for South Africa

Commander Data
01-21-2008, 03:52 PM
Heh .. You're right - it's an either/or scenario .. black v white .. like politics.

You internet zombies humour me.

Tennis is almost a completely different sport than it used to be. Equipment is different, styles are different, player attributes are different, required skills are different.

If you're talking about the time-machine hypothetical, whereby somehow a young Rod Laver is transported into the present then, no, I don't think he would beat Federer because he would be completely unfamiliar with graphite rackets and wouldn't able to adjust perfectly to differing court surfaces and pace of groundstokes. If somehow Roger Federer was transported to 1968 and was asked to play Rod Laver with wooden rackets he wouldn't do much better, because the strategies that he employs today simply wouldn't work.

Old school tennis was much more about touch than today. A myth still pervades today that tennis is the intellectual's game; something comparable to chess. This is no longer true. It is all about power now. There is nothing wrong with this necessarily - it is just different and this makes it harder to compare between eras, which is why most people are satisfied to compare accomplishments.


lol, internet zombies... You aren't in the garden listening to the birds either are you.

You got it, it is impossible to compare 1:1

One can only think in more general terms. I have a question for you:

How many Pro Players are there today and how many have there been when Laver was playing?

If you pick randomly a group of 10 people and a second group of 1000 people. Now you take the talles from group one and tallest from group two. which group would you guess is the taller guy from?

okay, now replace height with tennis talent and explain me why it is not logical to assume that todays No.1 is better then the N0.1 50 years ago!

JediFed
01-21-2008, 04:17 PM
He's not there yet.

He needs at the bare minimum 2 more slams to match Sampras, one of them being Wimbledon.

I would rank him right now as the number 4 in the open era behind only Sampras, Borg and Laver.

JediFed
01-21-2008, 04:34 PM
Lame trolling attempt. So to be the GOAT he would need to dominate everybody in every single cathegory?


Hardly. I think the calendar slam is an important part of the GOAT, and Laver did it. It's not domination to have a piece of every pie. Same with RG. Sampras didn't do it so that and the 10 wins on clay is important in arguing that he is better then Sampras.


To me, Federer is already the best player ever because of the way he has played tennis and the success he has had with it in dominating 4 straight years.


He has the best five years ever, which is an amazing stretch, but that alone doesn't make you the career GOAT. Federer's career from 2003-2007 will go down as the best to play the game ever. He's just working on the career. He has an opportunity this year to smash the streak record at Wimbledon (Borg's 42), which is something that eluded Sampras, he already smashed Lendl's record on hard. Another win at the USO this year and he will be the best hardcourt player ever.


And please don't ever come with the 100+ tournaments won thing again.


It represents longevity. Connors did it and so did Lendl. If we say it's worthless, then we diminish their accomplishments. Federer already has over 50 tournaments. It's this year and the next three that will determine where he stands.


Federer doesn't even play this kind of tournament, and rightfully so. And they don't exist anymore too.


Despite those, Federer was the first in 3 years to take 10 titles each of those years, which is something even Connors couldn't do. I'm not comfortable dropping the 100+ wins, because it is an accomplishment. You might argue the depth is different now, but if you take that argument, then he shouldn't need 14 slams because it's harder now to win Wimbledon then it was in Sampras' era.

barbadosan
01-21-2008, 04:36 PM
I've seen this argument before and it always fails to convince. I can see someone saying that Tilden played in the gentlemen's era, but tennis was extremely deep when Laver played. The top-10 alone was by far superior to what we have today and beyond that it was nothing to sneeze at.




Ironically enough, Laver doesn't seem to agree with you, since I believe it was in an interview with Charlie Rose that he said if Fed wins the GS it would be equal to his two "since the competition today is tougher"

Burrow
01-21-2008, 04:37 PM
lol....so you would say that the top 3 50 years ago would kick Federers, Nadals and Djokos ass?

You are one of those "Yesterday-was-everything-better" guys?

Did people call Ivanisevic, Ivanise?

JediFed
01-21-2008, 04:40 PM
Who has a better two year winning percentage then Federer between 2005-6?

It's not Lendl, or McEnroe.

Federer went 156-10.

McEnroe lost at least that much in 1983 alone.

FedFan_2007
01-21-2008, 04:40 PM
28. Evolve to a pure energy life form

JediFed
01-21-2008, 04:49 PM
I'm curious, I'd like to know.

I've heard the 3 and 4 year record.

Is it Connors?

CyBorg
01-21-2008, 04:50 PM
How many Pro Players are there today and how many have there been when Laver was playing?

Tennis is and has always been a priviledged sport; many can afford to play at lowers levels; not many can get beyond that. Just because you have more kids playing tennis does not mean that the influx of youngsters is that much better. If anything the high influx of tennis players has made the game more standardized and one-dimensional, rather than the more individualized and nationalized approaches to tennis in the older era.

When Laver was playing the Aussies travelled as a group and learned from each other. It was an amazing integrative experience whereby the Aussies developed a dynasty that way. When the open era came out players began to travel individually and this unravelled Australian dominance. Guys like Phil Dent never did effectively follow up Newcombe. But these changes did create a big boom in popularity throughout the world, but one would be mistaken to think that the quality of elite players changed all that much. It becomes pretty apparent when one compares matches from the early 60s with those of the early 80s for example - there are stylistic differences, but no apparent superiority.

Again, quantity doesn't trump quality. Individualized tennis wastes a lot of talent in today's game. It helps some, but hurts others. Many highly talented kids don't trascend beyond baseline bashing. If they did we would never see someone like Nikolai Davydenko crack the top five.

If you pick randomly a group of 10 people and a second group of 1000 people. Now you take the talles from group one and tallest from group two. which group would you guess is the taller guy from?

As I've mentioned there are intervening variables. The conditions are not fixed for both groups at once.

CyBorg
01-21-2008, 04:51 PM
Ironically enough, Laver doesn't seem to agree with you, since I believe it was in an interview with Charlie Rose that he said if Fed wins the GS it would be equal to his two "since the competition today is tougher"

Laver is a very nice, humble guy. Ask Jack Kramer for his opinion and he'll tell you the opposite.

CyBorg
01-21-2008, 04:56 PM
Who has a better two year winning percentage then Federer between 2005-6?

It's not Lendl, or McEnroe.

Best case for Federer, but there is one problem.

In the early days of the open era and into the 80s pros played a lot more than they do today. It wouldn't be out of the ordinary for a guy to finish a year with 150 matches. With this in mind, it is simply impossible to put up as great a record as Federer did when playing this much.

In Laver's case there were other variables. During amateur era he played his greates rivals dozens of times in a single year. Even if he dominated his next greatest opponent (let's say Rosewall) he would still lose to him in double digits, in all likelihood. So winning percentages really only apply to the last 20-25 years of tennis results. Otherwise they're not very representative of dominance.

Notice McEnroe's year in 1984. He posts an amazing winning percentage, yet the amount of matches he played is comparable to what one would see today. Had he played 120 matches his numbers would have suffered.

CyBorg
01-21-2008, 04:57 PM
I'm curious, I'd like to know.

I've heard the 3 and 4 year record.

Is it Connors?

I am pretty sure that Federer has the best winning percentage over a three-year span.

JediFed
01-21-2008, 05:04 PM
I'm talking about a two year span.

I'm pretty sure it's Federer from 2005-6.


In the early days of the open era and into the 80s pros played a lot more than they do today. It wouldn't be out of the ordinary for a guy to finish a year with 150 matches. With this in mind, it is simply impossible to put up as great a record as Federer did when playing this much.


Borg won 82 percent of his matches. All the greats (including Federer) have career winning percentages over 80 percent. I'm not convinced that this is so much a difference between the eras. Yes, they played more but the depth was not as great as now.


In Laver's case there were other variables. During amateur era he played his greates rivals dozens of times in a single year. Even if he dominated his next greatest opponent (let's say Rosewall) he would still lose to him in double digits, in all likelihood. So winning percentages really only apply to the last 20-25 years of tennis results. Otherwise they're not very representative of dominance.


Oh no, I'm not even considering the folks from before the Open Era. I don't know enough to compare them and it is difficult to come up with a metric to do so. I think Laver's accomplishments in the Open Era alone are still greater then Federer's especially when you consider that the year after he won everything he was not allowed to play in the slams the year later.


Notice McEnroe's year in 1984. He posts an amazing winning percentage, yet the amount of matches he played is comparable to what one would see today. Had he played 120 matches his numbers would have suffered.


True, it's not something we've seen in 20 years, and still, barring a 5 set loss to Fat Dave, Federer would have matched the win percentage.

cherry@cupcake
01-21-2008, 05:06 PM
This guys wouldn't stand a chance today. Sport evolves......


Using this argument, it would be impossible for there ever to be a GOAT; hypothetically, should this argument be taking place in 2025 comparing the future dominant player to past greats (including Federer), then Federer's achievements would be dismissed as occurring in the past and therefore incomparable to the 'modern' sport.

Perhaps there's no need even to identify a GOAT: surely Federer's manifold achievements stand as testament to his quality? As, incidentally, does Laver's etc.

Personally? I think he needs RG. If he's to rise above the other significant names of the professional era, then he needs to add that to his CV.

Not that it matters. He is what he is.

CyBorg
01-21-2008, 05:25 PM
I'm talking about a two year span.

I'm pretty sure it's Federer from 2005-6.

No doubt. Unless you go back to Lawrence Doherty who may have had this record, but that's ancient history.

Borg won 82 percent of his matches. All the greats (including Federer) have career winning percentages over 80 percent. I'm not convinced that this is so much a difference between the eras. Yes, they played more but the depth was not as great as now.

Borg is a bit of an exception, in the sense that he played very little for his time. He got into a great deal of trouble with the tennis bodies for taking months off for rest and this contributed to his early retirement. Not many people know this but Borg made a great contribution to the cause of the professional players, by pushing for the creation of more player-friendly standards.

I can't disagree more about the depth of Borg's era, because it was simply better than what we see today. The draws for the 1976 Wimbledon championships are astounding and those were some of the best years for clay court tennis, whereas the past few years have been some of the worst and this is undeniable.

Oh no, I'm not even considering the folks from before the Open Era. I don't know enough to compare them and it is difficult to come up with a metric to do so. I think Laver's accomplishments in the Open Era alone are still greater then Federer's especially when you consider that the year after he won everything he was not allowed to play in the slams the year later.

Laver also won a sort of a 'grand slam', if you will, in 1967 when he won each of the four key pro tournaments. In terms of pure dominance Laver is untouchable in history. Most people just don't know their history.

CyBorg
01-21-2008, 05:26 PM
Using this argument, it would be impossible for there ever to be a GOAT; hypothetically, should this argument be taking place in 2025 comparing the future dominant player to past greats (including Federer), then Federer's achievements would be dismissed as occurring in the past and therefore incomparable to the 'modern' sport.

Excellent point. Maybe the greatest ever is Jan Silva. Or some guy who isn't born yet.;)

Commander Data
01-21-2008, 05:34 PM
Tennis is and has always been a priviledged sport; many can afford to play at lowers levels; not many can get beyond that. Just because you have more kids playing tennis does not mean that the influx of youngsters is that much better. If anything the high influx of tennis players has made the game more standardized and one-dimensional, rather than the more individualized and nationalized approaches to tennis in the older era.

When Laver was playing the Aussies travelled as a group and learned from each other. It was an amazing integrative experience whereby the Aussies developed a dynasty that way. When the open era came out players began to travel individually and this unravelled Australian dominance. Guys like Phil Dent never did effectively follow up Newcombe. But these changes did create a big boom in popularity throughout the world, but one would be mistaken to think that the quality of elite players changed all that much. It becomes pretty apparent when one compares matches from the early 60s with those of the early 80s for example - there are stylistic differences, but no apparent superiority.

Again, quantity doesn't trump quality. Individualized tennis wastes a lot of talent in today's game. It helps some, but hurts others. Many highly talented kids don't trascend beyond baseline bashing. If they did we would never see someone like Nikolai Davydenko crack the top five.



As I've mentioned there are intervening variables. The conditions are not fixed for both groups at once.

Actually i think your post sounds more smart then it is. or maybe I'm too stupid...

Just for an example what do you mean by:

"The conditions are not fixed for both groups at once."?!

what exactly is your point? This is a serious question. my math is pretty good.


and you should answer my questions. Give my a number: how many pro players today and how many 50 years ago......

Concerning your argument that quality was way better 50 years ago.
that is just a statement. Can you prove it in any way?

Commander Data
01-21-2008, 05:43 PM
Using this argument, it would be impossible for there ever to be a GOAT; hypothetically, should this argument be taking place in 2025 comparing the future dominant player to past greats (including Federer), then Federer's achievements would be dismissed as occurring in the past and therefore incomparable to the 'modern' sport.

Perhaps there's no need even to identify a GOAT: surely Federer's manifold achievements stand as testament to his quality? As, incidentally, does Laver's etc.

Personally? I think he needs RG. If he's to rise above the other significant names of the professional era, then he needs to add that to his CV.

Not that it matters. He is what he is.


good points. Thats why it seems the best approach to pick some general stats like GS and weeks as No. 1 and such and basically assume the rest the be equal. which I think is pretty fair as long as the time frame is not too long ago.

Or one says that different times are impossible to compare and then stops talking about GOAT's and just says the best of 1960's was Laver best of 2000 was Fed...end of Story.

But I mean if in 60 years somebody appears and wins 20 GS and then people say. Federer was the better Player that is just: :retard:

CyBorg
01-21-2008, 05:50 PM
Just for an example what do you mean by:

"The conditions are not fixed for both groups at once."?!

Think about it. You're talking about two sample groups, but the two are not within the same environment. Both are affected by differing variables. The variables herein being contextual of the era, such methods of coaching.

and you should answer my questions. Give my a number: how many pro players today and how many 50 years ago......

I don't have these exact numbers on me. Is tennis any better if we have a dozen more Alex Bogdanoviches on tour?

Concerning your argument that quality was way better 50 years ago.
that is just a statement. Can you prove it in any way?

I didn't say that quality was way better 50 years ago. I think we have quality today and we have had quality in past years.

I did say that there is a lack of elite clay court talent, but this is cyclical and not necessarily abnormal. In the early years of this decade clay court tennis was thriving - right now it is undergoing a lull. There were similar lulls in the past - when Rod Laver was in semi-retirement and Rosewall was in his later 30s in the early-to-mid 70s there was a transitional era that was somewhat comparable to the Hewitt years of 2001-2002 when Sampras was on the downswing and Federer had not yet emerged.

I do not subscribe to the opinion that there is something wrong with Federer's era in general. His dominance is entirely legit. He has considerable opposition on grass, hardcourts and carpet.

Commander Data
01-21-2008, 06:12 PM
Think about it. You're talking about two sample groups, but the two are not within the same environment. Both are affected by differing variables. The variables herein being contextual of the era, such methods of coaching.

Well my variable was talent, which is not dependend on the context. Therefore your argument is pretty flawed I think.





I didn't say that quality was way better 50 years ago. I think we have quality today and we have had quality in past years.

You said: "...the high influx of tennis players has made the game more standardized and one-dimensional, rather than the more individualized and nationalized approaches to tennis in the older era." which implies for me the quality was better.

I did say that there is a lack of elite clay court talent, but this is cyclical and not necessarily abnormal.

Did you say that? Where? that i would agree, expect of course Nadal....


I do not subscribe to the opinion that there is something wrong with Federer's era in general. His dominance is entirely legit. He has considerable opposition on grass, hardcourts and carpet.

Good to hear. You know i think I understand you. It must be hard to see that the sport changed so much and now power and fitness has become so important. So Fed must be kind of Jesus to you. just imagine him gone. Nadal no. 1 :)

CyBorg
01-21-2008, 06:27 PM
Well my variable was talent, which is not dependend on the context. Therefore your argument is pretty flawed I think.

Depends on what you mean by talent. If you mean something tantamount to 'genius' you may mean that it is something one is born with. Whereas you could mean aptitude where one has tremendous potential which is harnessed by practice, coaching, scouting. Some would argue that Vijay Amritraj was more talented than Borg. I say who cares?

You said: "...the high influx of tennis players has made the game more standardized and one-dimensional, rather than the more individualized and nationalized approaches to tennis in the older era." which implies for me the quality was better.

It implies that tennis is played differently. This is a phenomenon where coaching 'schools' have become the norm. So if you're born into a tennis metropolis chances are that you will stylistically resemble everyone else around you after a while. This helps some players but hurts others - like Kevin Kim.

It means that taller, powerful guys rule, for the most part. While smaller guys with soft hands don't get as far as they used to. What was quality 30 years ago isn't quality anymore. And vice versa.

Did you say that? Where? that i would agree, expect of course Nadal....

In this thread somewhere.

Good to hear. You know i think I understand you. It must be hard to see that the sport changed so much and now power and fitness has become so important. So Fed must be kind of Jesus to you. just imagine him gone. Nadal no. 1 :)

I love Nadal. He has a wonderfully unique style of play - the kind that can only be developed outside of the mainstream (in his case, Mallorca). What I like a lot less is the Agassi school (take the ball on the rise and hit very flat with very little change of pace); the nightmare scenario is that everyone will wind up playing this way.

Nadal and Federer both have attributes that are unique enough to be interesting to me.

Commander Data
01-21-2008, 06:44 PM
Depends on what you mean by talent. If you mean something tantamount to 'genius' you may mean that it is something one is born with. Whereas you could mean aptitude where one has tremendous potential which is harnessed by practice, coaching, scouting. Some would argue that Vijay Amritraj was more talented than Borg. I say who cares?



It implies that tennis is played differently. This is a phenomenon where coaching 'schools' have become the norm. So if you're born into a tennis metropolis chances are that you will stylistically resemble everyone else around you after a while. This helps some players but hurts others - like Kevin Kim.

It means that taller, powerful guys rule, for the most part. While smaller guys with soft hands don't get as far as they used to. What was quality 30 years ago isn't quality anymore. And vice versa.



In this thread somewhere.



I love Nadal. He has a wonderfully unique style of play - the kind that can only be developed outside of the mainstream (in his case, Mallorca). What I like a lot less is the Agassi school (take the ball on the rise and hit very flat with very little change of pace); the nightmare scenario is that everyone will wind up playing this way.

Nadal and Federer both have attributes that are unique enough to be interesting to me.

okay i see. some good points. so i think we can agree that it is equaly hard to be the best independent of era? I agree with you about the unique styles and that most players theses days play alike with not much personality (in their Game).

Although I must say in general I think Agassis game is very interesting to watch, at least to me. Sampras was boring, don't you think? becker, I felt asleep back then...Nothing against them they are great champions but I think the matches are more interesting to watch these days.

before 1990 I can't remember;)

barbadosan
01-21-2008, 06:51 PM
Laver is a very nice, humble guy. Ask Jack Kramer for his opinion and he'll tell you the opposite.

Why should I ask Jack Kramer...it's Laver who you're suggesting is the GOAT; it's Laver that you feel had more competition, therefore surely it is reasonaqble to expect that Laver's opinion is the most pertinent.

tennischick
01-21-2008, 07:03 PM
when Federer wins Roland Garros, i will call him the GOAT. he has to earn that title. we can't just give it to him.

Dougie
01-21-2008, 07:31 PM
I´ve said it before, and I´ll say it again. Laver is the GOAT. If Fed wins RG, he´s pretty damn close, but Laver has achieved something really unique, something that is very difficult to compete with.

oz_boz
01-21-2008, 08:38 PM
1 AO does not seal his GOAT status for me.

2 more slams would though, or 1 if it were RG (I doubt he will win it, but it is obviously not necessary to achieve a career slam to earn GOAT status).

groundstroke
01-21-2008, 08:45 PM
Federer will win Aussie Open 2008 no problem, lol.

Commander Data
01-21-2008, 08:50 PM
Okay Guys; It maybe hard to beliefe but you have actually convinced me! Fed needs at least RG or 14 GS for GOAT.....

Commander Data
01-21-2008, 08:54 PM
Okay as unbelievable as it sounds: You guys have convinced me!

Fed needs at least RG or 14 GS to earn GOAT..

Commander Data
01-21-2008, 08:56 PM
Okay as unbelievable as it sounds: You guys have convinced me!

Fed needs at least RG or 14 GS to earn GOAT..

CyBorg
01-21-2008, 10:29 PM
okay i see. some good points. so i think we can agree that it is equaly hard to be the best independent of era? I agree with you about the unique styles and that most players theses days play alike with not much personality (in their Game).

Although I must say in general I think Agassis game is very interesting to watch, at least to me. Sampras was boring, don't you think? becker, I felt asleep back then...Nothing against them they are great champions but I think the matches are more interesting to watch these days.

before 1990 I can't remember;)

Agassi himself wasn't boring. What's boring is that so many players are starting to play like him.

CyBorg
01-21-2008, 10:30 PM
Why should I ask Jack Kramer...it's Laver who you're suggesting is the GOAT; it's Laver that you feel had more competition, therefore surely it is reasonaqble to expect that Laver's opinion is the most pertinent.

You could ask David Lynch about his art and he'd tell you absolutely nothing of value.

JediFed
01-21-2008, 11:11 PM
I can't disagree more about the depth of Borg's era, because it was simply better than what we see today. The draws for the 1976 Wimbledon championships are astounding and those were some of the best years for clay court tennis, whereas the past few years have been some of the worst and this is undeniable.


For sure the top 10 was better, but from 10-100? That's what I meant by depth. Yes, you end up playing more matches overall, and are more likely to lose to the top competition, but rounds 1-3 let you get tuned up.

JediFed
01-21-2008, 11:26 PM
Borg is a bit of an exception, in the sense that he played very little for his time. He got into a great deal of trouble with the tennis bodies for taking months off for rest and this contributed to his early retirement. Not many people know this but Borg made a great contribution to the cause of the professional players, by pushing for the creation of more player-friendly standards.


The only one who's come anywhere close to his performance at similar stages of his career is Federer, and he still did not have as many GS and Finals to his credit as Borg did when he retired. It's a pity he never did win the USO, and got to play in Australia for the calendar slam.

I don't think Fed will match his GS win percentage, that's probably his most spectacular stat, alongside the total dominance of clay and grass. Unlike Sampras, Borg is the only one Fed will not match no matter what.

At least McEnroe understood...

CyBorg
01-21-2008, 11:31 PM
For sure the top 10 was better, but from 10-100?

Better.

CyBorg
01-21-2008, 11:31 PM
The only one who's come anywhere close to his performance at similar stages of his career is Federer, and he still did not have as many GS and Finals to his credit as Borg did when he retired. It's a pity he never did win the USO, and got to play in Australia for the calendar slam.

I don't think Fed will match his GS win percentage, that's probably his most spectacular stat, alongside the total dominance of clay and grass. Unlike Sampras, Borg is the only one Fed will not match no matter what.

I am a huge Borg fan, but this is patently false.

steve132
01-21-2008, 11:51 PM
Why should I ask Jack Kramer...it's Laver who you're suggesting is the GOAT; it's Laver that you feel had more competition, therefore surely it is reasonaqble to expect that Laver's opinion is the most pertinent.

As a matter of interest, BOTH Kramer and Laver have stated that Federer is the most talented player they have ever seen. So have, among others, Nick Bolletieri and Cliff Drysdale, who have seen all the great players of the Open era.

I'm a huge Federer fan, but at this stage I'm not as yet inclined to crown him as the GOAT. To me that distinction still belongs to Laver, who is simply too modest to claim it for himself. Laver won a Grand Slam as an amateur, turned professional and won the pro equivalent of the Grand Slam, then when Open tennis arrived he completed the only Slam by a male player in the Open era. He dominated all his contemporaries on all surfaces, and has the most perfect resume in the history of the game.

I will say this in Federer's favor, however - he has been by far the most dominant No. 1 in the Open era. (Laver is a partial exception, because Open tennis did not arrive until he was almost 30). No one else has come close to some of Federer's achievements, such as winning 11 Slams in 4 years and reaching the finals of 10 consecutive Slams. He is still in mid-career, but has already posted the most impressive overall record since Laver.

CyBorg
01-22-2008, 12:19 AM
As a matter of interest, BOTH Kramer and Laver have stated that Federer is the most talented player they have ever seen. So have, among others, Nick Bolletieri and Cliff Drysdale, who have seen all the great players of the Open era.

Yeah, Kramer loves Federer, but his list of the best of all-time provides very even credit to great players throughout different eras, per original point.

hra87
01-22-2008, 12:21 AM
As a matter of interest, BOTH Kramer and Laver have stated that Federer is the most talented player they have ever seen. So have, among others, Nick Bolletieri and Cliff Drysdale, who have seen all the great players of the Open era.

I'm a huge Federer fan, but at this stage I'm not as yet inclined to crown him as the GOAT. To me that distinction still belongs to Laver, who is simply too modest to claim it for himself. Laver won a Grand Slam as an amateur, turned professional and won the pro equivalent of the Grand Slam, then when Open tennis arrived he completed the only Slam by a male player in the Open era. He dominated all his contemporaries on all surfaces, and has the most perfect resume in the history of the game.

I will say this in Federer's favor, however - he has been by far the most dominant No. 1 in the Open era. (Laver is a partial exception, because Open tennis did not arrive until he was almost 30). No one else has come close to some of Federer's achievements, such as winning 11 Slams in 4 years and reaching the finals of 10 consecutive Slams. He is still in mid-career, but has already posted the most impressive overall record since Laver.


That's interesting about Kramer, do you have a link? Though irrelevant, in any case.

CyBorg
01-22-2008, 12:29 AM
That's interesting about Kramer, do you have a link? Though irrelevant, in any case.

http://www.tennis.com/messageboard/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=6033&posts=71&start=1

I like Kramer. His list is very diverse and the fact that he rates Federer first says a lot about Roger's greatness.

hra87
01-22-2008, 12:37 AM
http://www.tennis.com/messageboard/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=6033&posts=71&start=1

I like Kramer. His list is very diverse and the fact that he rates Federer first says a lot about Roger's greatness.

Has he made a new list since the one he made a few decades ago?

Interesting article, I remember a few years ago Kramer was talking about all the players from his era and earlier that could take on Federer...

JediFed
01-22-2008, 12:57 AM
I am a huge Borg fan, but this is patently false.


Roger has a bit more of a chance to get 6x Wimbledon then 6x RG. ;)

Is there anything that Sampras managed to do that Federer cannot match?

Chiseller
01-22-2008, 01:52 AM
If federer had to deal with 3 grass slams and 1 on ashes he would have already won the grand slam twice.

CyBorg
01-22-2008, 02:26 AM
If federer had to deal with 3 grass slams and 1 on ashes he would have already won the grand slam twice.

Wow. Briliant comment, Mary Carillo. If three of the majors were played on grass and one was played on clay Federer would magically become better than Nadal on clay.

Thanks for enlightening everyone.

missvarsha
01-22-2008, 03:09 AM
If federer had to deal with 3 grass slams and 1 on ashes he would have already won the grand slam twice.

Sigh. Why do people do these idiotic cross generational things by changing one thing and not changing the rest ?
If three of the GS were played on grass, the so would the majority of the rest of the tour and the majority of players would KNOW how to play on grass, and not treat it as a funny little four week blip. Which is to say that Federer's level of competition on grass would be what it is on hard courts right now - he loses rarely, but he does LOSE. You are taking his record on a surface that no one else really knows how to play and falsely extrapolating it.

Its as idiotic as saying, well if Laver played today he would be blown away to smithereens. Um, if Laver played today he would have grown up in the 80s with the same level of nutritional and focussed fitness training as the rest the modern players, and with access to modern technology and an entire team of coach/trainers to scope out the opposition and plan a tactical play. In addition to his already abundant natural talent which presumably he still would have had. So yeah, its still him who would be doing the blowing away.

cherry@cupcake
01-22-2008, 06:02 AM
good points. Thats why it seems the best approach to pick some general stats like GS and weeks as No. 1 and such and basically assume the rest the be equal. which I think is pretty fair as long as the time frame is not too long ago.

Or one says that different times are impossible to compare and then stops talking about GOAT's and just says the best of 1960's was Laver best of 2000 was Fed...end of Story.


Both reasonable! If we go for the first idea then, yes, Federer needs RG to be considered GOAT, otherwise it would be fair to consider Laver for the title.

If, on the other hand, we decide to go by 'era', then RG is unnecessary. However, if I were Federer, I'd want to claim the RG trophy just so that I could futureproof my GOAT status!

Fedex
01-22-2008, 06:29 AM
Federer could win the next 10 slams and they'll never give him a trophy declaring him the GOAT.
It's all subjective anyway, but obviously Federer is in the discussion and another win here would further cement his case.

Mike473
01-22-2008, 06:35 AM
Federer does not have to top Samps 14 GS wins to be the greatest ever, nor does he have to win Roland Garros. He already is the best ever. Here is the logic to my argument.

1 - In order for most GS wins to be the major qualifier to be the best ever, I think it needs to have historically been considered a relevent point. When Sampras won his 13th Slam, many said he was the then considered the greatest of all time. Yet, the man he passed at 12Slams, who had held the record for many, many years, Roy Emerson, was never to my knowledge considered to be the best of all time. How does passing Emerson make you the best, when Emerson was not considered the greatest? Fed has dominated an era like no one else ever has. Some say Samps had greater competition. I am 34 and grew up during Sampras' prime. However, one could also argue Samps could not suppress his rivals like Fed can now.

2 - Rolland Garros. Winning one single Rolland Garros won't be the make or break for Fed when history looks back. He played in an era where each GS has its own surface. The only player who can say he won all 4, each on a different surface is Agassi. However, he can't be judged the greatest as he was clearly #2 to Samps in his own era. Winning on all 4 surfaces is impressive, but not needed to establish Fed as the greatest.


Fed has an unrivaled streak of GS finals on different surfaces. Nadal, his closest rival is clearly levels below Fed. Fed's dominance in the Grand Slams over the past several years has seen no equal. In my opinion, Fed has established himself as the greatest ever.

Mike

Fedex
01-22-2008, 06:39 AM
As a matter of interest, BOTH Kramer and Laver have stated that Federer is the most talented player they have ever seen. So have, among others, Nick Bolletieri and Cliff Drysdale, who have seen all the great players of the Open era.

I'm a huge Federer fan, but at this stage I'm not as yet inclined to crown him as the GOAT. To me that distinction still belongs to Laver, who is simply too modest to claim it for himself. Laver won a Grand Slam as an amateur, turned professional and won the pro equivalent of the Grand Slam, then when Open tennis arrived he completed the only Slam by a male player in the Open era. He dominated all his contemporaries on all surfaces, and has the most perfect resume in the history of the game.

I will say this in Federer's favor, however - he has been by far the most dominant No. 1 in the Open era. (Laver is a partial exception, because Open tennis did not arrive until he was almost 30). No one else has come close to some of Federer's achievements, such as winning 11 Slams in 4 years and reaching the finals of 10 consecutive Slams. He is still in mid-career, but has already posted the most impressive overall record since Laver.
Excellent post and I really can't find anything in there that I disagree with.

Commander Data
01-22-2008, 10:10 AM
On the other hand people should also understand that if Nadal would not be here Federer would very likely have a RG Title maybe 3! likely would have 1-2 Calander Slams! would you call him GOAT then? just because Nadal is here does that make Federer less great?

He is the same Player

~*BGT*~
01-22-2008, 10:56 AM
Who has a better two year winning percentage then Federer between 2005-6?

It's not Lendl, or McEnroe.

Federer went 156-10.

McEnroe lost at least that much in 1983 alone.

JMac also went one year just losing 3 matches.