The GOAT discussions Thread [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

The GOAT discussions Thread

Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

speedman
02-01-2009, 12:40 PM
Ok - this is not bandwagon jumping, but after seeing this epic final I have to hand it to Nadal. He's a superhuman dynamo, with quite possibly the best mental strength ever.

Roland Garros is a shoo-in and I fear that Federer, although capable of upsetting Nadal at Wimbledon, may be too mentally scarred to deny Rafa. He's clearly suffered a massive emotional body blow here - witness the trophy presentation.

The only problem is the US Open where Rafa will be tired and struggle with the faster surface.
It may be that Rafa eventually get's more than Fed and Pete... and surprise us all. He can only improve. Grand Slam 2009 anyone...?

I think Roger will get 15, but it'll be tough. Probably 2 more US Opens.
He may be the last of a dying breed - the traditional one-handed backhand finesse player...

alfonsojose
02-01-2009, 12:43 PM
Epic? :lol: :help: Learn tennis, speedy

born_on_clay
02-01-2009, 01:01 PM
Of course he can and he will !!!

marcRD
02-01-2009, 01:10 PM
Nadal destroyed the one handed backhand. Seriously I more and more doubt any boys or girls would take the risk of playing with a one handed backhand.

superslam77
02-01-2009, 01:14 PM
edited :devil:

buzz
02-01-2009, 01:40 PM
If he wins all four GS this year he is in the goat discussion. Otherwise he has to reach 14 GS

Doggy
02-01-2009, 01:47 PM
Yes, I need to wait until 2009 US Open to see if I can

Action Jackson
02-01-2009, 01:50 PM
Of course it's bandwagoning.

NadalSharapova
02-01-2009, 01:52 PM
He will cos we know french open is virtually a guarantee every year as long he plays to above 20% of his ability. (Thats 6 "guarantees" from now until he is 28)

However he needs to be at his best to win the other 3 majors which he will be probably the favourite for all of them.

MacTheKnife
02-01-2009, 01:54 PM
Guess I need to look up bandwagoning, and "epic".

BD006
02-01-2009, 01:55 PM
Seems kind of inevitable at this point, given his age and dominance on all surfaces.

jazar
02-01-2009, 01:57 PM
even if nadal wins more slams than any other player in history, he will never be the GOAT

NadalSharapova
02-01-2009, 01:59 PM
even if nadal wins more slams than any other player in history, he will never be the GOAT

Exactly why is that?

If he wins 10 French opens, 5 wimbledons, 3 oz opens and 1 us open (my prediction), then he will be the best player of all time by a mile.

gjr
02-01-2009, 02:00 PM
It's impossible for Roger the become the GOAT now. Rafa has beat him in 3 of the 4 slam finals where Fed so far only has the Wimbledon finals.

If Rafa beats Roger in a USO final (and avoids defeat in the FO) he will be the GOAT no matter how many slams they win.

gjr
02-01-2009, 02:01 PM
Dp

Mohammad
02-01-2009, 02:37 PM
Rafa is the greatest just now. anyway you can be patient to see such day when he will win all slams this year and the next couple of years!

cool bird1
02-01-2009, 02:37 PM
It could happen. I think Nadal will crack the Open this year Murry has only beaten him once Novak is just a mental mess same as Roger so why not.

A_Skywalker
02-01-2009, 02:45 PM
even if nadal wins more slams than any other player in history, he will never be the GOAT

This is truly hate. Im sure even if he wins 20 GS he wont be the best for you, but noone cares.

ClaudiuS
02-01-2009, 02:50 PM
If Rafa beats Roger in a USO final (and avoids defeat in the FO) he will be the GOAT no matter how many slams they win.

Nadal, The GOAT with 8 GS and not even 150 weeks as N°1? Are you kidding me?

ys
02-01-2009, 03:50 PM
If he wins all four GS this year he is in the goat discussion.

If he does? It won't be a discussion any more.

Andi-M
02-01-2009, 05:18 PM
Of couse Nadal can the guy is 22 years old. Until a true claycouter comes on tour he's guranteed to win the majority of RGs in the next 6-7 years and Im sure he'll add in the odd AO and Wimby therefore he has the potential to set new records himself.

thrust
02-01-2009, 05:43 PM
Epic? :lol: :help: Learn tennis, speedy

For the first 4 sets, I thought the quality of tennis was high. In the fifth set, Roger either just choked or was physically and mentally tired. He knows Nadal is very tough in a fifth set. As usual, Rafa regained his form after the fouth set. Roger is 27, which in today's game is the beginning of a tennis players decline. The fact is though, today, Roger would have defeated any other present day player EXCEPT NADAL.

holagirl56
02-01-2009, 05:49 PM
For the first 4 sets, I thought the quality of tennis was high. In the fifth set, Roger either just choked or was physically and mentally tired. He knows Nadal is very tough in a fifth set. As usual, Rafa regained his form after the fouth set. Roger is 27, which in today's game is the beginning of a tennis players decline. The fact is though, today, Roger would have defeated any other present day player EXCEPT NADAL.

Seriously? The match was horrible quality from beginning to end. Nadal was fatigued and hit a number of errors. Any time that Federer was the tiniest bit aggressive, he was able to win the point. It's too bad that Federer was aggressive about 1/100 times today with a horrible serve that broke down and a forehand lacking explosiveness.

It's pretty obvious what kind of quality the match is when a player wins a set serving at 37% first serves in.

thrust
02-01-2009, 05:50 PM
This is truly hate. Im sure even if he wins 20 GS he wont be the best for you, but noone cares.

SO TRUE!

Chloe le Bopper
02-01-2009, 06:39 PM
Nadal probably lacks Federer's longevity. We'll see.

This:

...Federer, although capable of upsetting Nadal at Wimbledon...

Is written correctly, but still reads funny. The thought of Federer upsetting somebody at Wimbledon... rather than the other way around.

Svetlana.
02-01-2009, 06:46 PM
6 slams in the pocket already, and 7 more to go - very achievable

zicofirol
02-01-2009, 07:04 PM
Nadal destroyed the one handed backhand. Seriously I more and more doubt any boys or girls would take the risk of playing with a one handed backhand.


:o:o:o:o, no...

Veronique
02-02-2009, 01:55 AM
I didn't think it possible until today. I'll take it 1 GS at a time though. He's young, everything is possible.

FedFan_2007
02-02-2009, 02:10 AM
Nadal's biggest legacy is that no kids will want to learn the one-handed backhand. Whether you think that's wonderful for tennis is your business.

RagingLamb
02-02-2009, 02:12 AM
Let him reach 10 before we start GOAT discussions.

swebright
02-02-2009, 02:22 AM
Let pressure Nadal with grand slam 2009 and GOAT question every chance the media get.

FedFan_2007
02-02-2009, 02:25 AM
BTW, I should mention that I do not dislike Nadal the person, I dislike his game. I think he's a fine young person with a level-head and seems to appreciate the normal things in life. I just can't appreciate his tennis style, it's too brutal for me.

star
02-02-2009, 02:31 AM
Let him reach 10 before we start GOAT discussions.

I'm pretty sure the GOAT discussions about Federer started before he won 10 slams. In fact, I think they started after he won around 4 slams. :lol:

FedFan_2007
02-02-2009, 02:33 AM
I'm pretty sure the GOAT discussions about Federer started before he won 10 slams. In fact, I think they started after he won around 4 slams. :lol:

Most of the discussions with pundits started right after he won his 6th slam at 2005 USO. So this is nothing except history repeating itself. It sort of make one wonder about the bigger thread of history...

RagingLamb
02-02-2009, 02:34 AM
I'm pretty sure the GOAT discussions about Federer started before he won 10 slams. In fact, I think they started after he won around 4 slams. :lol:

yes, I remember that. And it used to piss me off to no end.

star
02-02-2009, 02:35 AM
Nadal's biggest legacy is that no kids will want to learn the one-handed backhand. Whether you think that's wonderful for tennis is your business.

I remember people spouting that kind of nonsense when Borg and Connors were playing. And here we are three or four tennis generations later with people still sporting one handed backhands. Surely you think that the Greatest Of All Time has made some impression on young players. :lol:

FedFan_2007
02-02-2009, 02:36 AM
I remember people spouting that kind of nonsense when Borg and Connors were playing. And here we are three or four tennis generations later with people still sporting one handed backhands. Surely you think that the Greatest Of All Time has made some impression on young players. :lol:

I don't know. We live in a culture that worships at "The Church of What's Happening Now". :mad:

FedFan_2007
02-02-2009, 02:40 AM
However it's a big mistake for parents of potential tennis talents to look at Nadal and think - "oh we can make little Johnny here into another nuclear-powered Nadal-type game". Nadal is a physical outlier in the game of tennis, a freak from physical standpoint. The only next Nadal would have to be someone who had the muscles, with the speed and hand-eye coordination.

star
02-02-2009, 02:45 AM
I don't know. We live in a culture that worships at "The Church of What's Happening Now". :mad:

It's always been that way. You just like to be a doomsayer.

Igaarg
02-02-2009, 02:47 AM
Maybe one day, the world convince itself that "the goat", just "the goat" will never exist, noone NEVER will agree about thing, NEVER, even with 14GS Sampras is not consider by EVERYBODY as "the goat", Laver with his great achievement is considererd "the goat", and the list go one. The goat is a personal thing.

star
02-02-2009, 02:47 AM
However it's a big mistake for parents of potential tennis talents to look at Nadal and think - "oh we can make little Johnny here into another nuclear-powered Nadal-type game". Nadal is a physical outlier in the game of tennis, a freak from physical standpoint. The only next Nadal would have to be someone who had the muscles, with the speed and hand-eye coordination.

That's true of all great tennis players. Each of the great ones pushes tennis a little bit further and adds something new. Parent's can' take their children and mold them into a Federer either.

FedFan_2007
02-02-2009, 02:52 AM
That's true of all great tennis players. Each of the great ones pushes tennis a little bit further and adds something new. Parent's can' take their children and mold them into a Federer either.

It's a bit easier to mold a Federer then a Nadal. All you have to do is tell little Johnny he to posses the best hand-eye coordination ever, the greatest racquet head speed ever and develop footwork like a god. No biggie. :devil:

Tsonganator
02-02-2009, 03:16 AM
You forgot a weak backhand that lets you down at crucial times, a stubborn arrogance that prevents him from being the goat, and a pussy crybaby mentality taht the whole world laughed at except the fat whale mirka.

Igaarg
02-02-2009, 03:19 AM
You forgot a weak backhand that lets you down at crucial times, a stubborn arrogance that prevents him from being the goat, and a pussy crybaby mentality taht the whole world laughed at except the fat whale mirka.

:confused:

Mimi
02-02-2009, 03:19 AM
calm down, even though I am his huge fans, i would never thought he could win as much as roger's given his injury-prone body, if he could win just 2-3 mores and tie up with the great Lendi/Agassi/Connors, i would be very satisified :angel:

redreef
02-02-2009, 03:20 AM
He'll never be GOAT because French Open titles don't have the same value as Wimbledon or US Open titles.

Rafa = Fed Killa
02-02-2009, 03:32 AM
He'll never be GOAT because French Open titles don't have the same value as Wimbledon or US Open titles.

Takin idiocy to new levels

redreef
02-02-2009, 03:52 AM
Takin idiocy to new levels
Pete Sampras is most often mentioned in GOAT discussions and he never even made a French Open final. Connect the dots.

Mimi
02-02-2009, 03:54 AM
how could you know rafa will never win another wimby again?

He'll never be GOAT because French Open titles don't have the same value as Wimbledon or US Open titles.

LBrock44
02-02-2009, 04:29 AM
I love Federer, he's my favorite all-time player (of the men), but you just cannot deny that Rafa is playing masterful tennis at the AGE OF 22. It's very likely that even if Roger beats the record, and I think he will, Rafa will eventually surpass him.

I'm not a big fan of Rafa's tennis style, I love the classic, flowing style more, but that young man is one of the best athletes to ever play the game and his mental tenacity is amazing. Yeah, he could become the GOAT easily. And he'll continue to work and improve to get it. He's amazing.

MisterQ
02-02-2009, 05:08 AM
Nadal needs 8 more majors to tie Sampras' record (not that that is the only yardstick, but it seems to be a commonly-used one). He still needs to add on the entire major total of Agassi or Lendl to get there! For me, it's WAY too early to be considering this question. I felt the same way when Federer had about 7 majors, too --- he dispelled my doubts admirably. But players like McEnroe and Wilander had incredible years, got to 7 majors, and then never won another.

Nadal does not win efficiently -- he does so with great fight, physical labor, and mental strength. If he loses his edge even a little, he might not win these tight and exciting matches. On surfaces other than clay, it's not hard to see him becoming a consistent performer who regularly makes the second week of majors but is not racking up the titles.

I wish him all the best though. I find the sheer force of his will inspiring. :yeah:

redreef
02-02-2009, 05:17 AM
how could you know rafa will never win another wimby again?

He might. i just think he will end up with far more French Open titles than any others and his situation will be something like Agassi's who won eight majors but half of them were at the Australian Open. Sorry, but winning four AO titles is not as impressive as winning four Wimbledon titles. Nadal will need at least a couple Wimbledon and US Open titles to be considered one of the all time greats. I don't think he will ever be considered the GOAT, however. I think the GOAT has to be someone who has done something extraordinary, like Laver winning the Grand Slam twice or Sampras winning 14 majors. I don't see Nadal doing anything extraordinary.

rafa_maniac
02-02-2009, 06:45 AM
He might. i just think he will end up with far more French Open titles than any others and his situation will be something like Agassi's who won eight majors but half of them were at the Australian Open. Sorry, but winning four AO titles is not as impressive as winning four Wimbledon titles. Nadal will need at least a couple Wimbledon and US Open titles to be considered one of the all time greats. I don't think he will ever be considered the GOAT, however. I think the GOAT has to be someone who has done something extraordinary, like Laver winning the Grand Slam twice or Sampras winning 14 majors. I don't see Nadal doing anything extraordinary.

:retard: Firstly, the idea that a Slam such as the Oz Open is "inferior" to the others in some way is several decades out of date, but even going by this subjective theory, RG is generally regarded as the second most "prestigious" of the Slams after Wimbledon, compounding this is that RG is the slam that has eluded many of the all time greats. 5+ straight titles there would certainly be "extraordinary", so is the RG + Wimbledon double, so is the unique feat Rafa has just achieved of holding majors on all surfaces at once (+ Olympics), so would be having a Slam count in double figures which is far from improbable for Rafa. I don't expect Rafa to end his career being considered the 'GOAT', but he's already acheived extraordinary things for any tennis player :wavey:

Hola Mr. SK
02-02-2009, 08:47 AM
He'll never be GOAT because French Open titles don't have the same value as Wimbledon or US Open titles.
only because Sampras didn't win it? :haha: :silly:

Nadal will complete the golden slam and calendar year grand slam. He is the real GOAT. :)

salut235
05-05-2009, 04:24 AM
A few years ago, I was 100% sure that Roger Federer was going to become the greatest tennis champion of all-time... We all were... The way he dominated the opposition was unreal, and his tennis was so fluid and spectacular... I was even more impressed by him than Pete Sampras & Andre Agassi... To me, he was playing at totally another level! Plus, Roger was always humble and very classy! A true champion.

But oh how things can quickly change! Today, Roger Federer is struggling... He definitely still is one of the best on the tour, but a few rivals have arrived and all of a sudden he has shown weakness. The unbeatable champion all of a sudden has become VERY BEATABLE. Nadal owns a 13-6 record over him, Andy Murray has a 6-2 record over him. Even Djokovic is turning around their rivalry! He simply can't beat the elite anymore and that HURTS his legacy! Also, now that he's losing, we are starting to see very unclassy behavior from him. We see him smashing a racket (against Djokovic), or we see him not even looking at his opponent when shaking hands (against Murray) and of course we see him collapsing emotionally (against Nadal). He made Nadal almost feel bad for winning and he could barely celebrate because of Roger's behavior. I guess Roger was only humble and classy because he was winning easily all the time, but now that he's losing we are starting to see an "attitude".

Still, he's not so bad, overall his behavior is good and who knows what the future holds. In my opinion, he will never win another grandslam. He will still make good results but mentally he's FINISHED. When I see him playing against certain players, it's as if he totally loses focuse at the end and just starts dumping everything in the net or shanking the ball. He has shown that he's a very fragile champion and that as soon as a few players stepped their game up he can't fight with them. Someone like Pete Sampras was never dominated by a player, he always managed to beat his opponents and he played so many great champions. He was never as spectacular as Federer, but he proved longevity and was able to win a grandslam in a span of 12 years. Federer simply dominated for a few years but it seems that his career is all of a sudden over, when it comes to the very elite level.

Now, let me talk about Nadal. To me, he's on course of becoming the greatest champion of all-time. It's too early yet, but the potential is there. Just a few years ago, everyone was thinking "Roger Federer" but all of a sudden a young spaniard has arrived and is re-writing tennis history. He reminds me of Monica Seles on the women's side (but hopefully nothing bad will happen to Nadal that will change the course of his career). As spectacular as Roger Federer was, Nadal replies with even more spectacular shots. There is no doubt that he will win the only slam that is missing from his collection the US Open. It will probably be this year, most likely over Federer in the final. He's already at 6 slams. And if he wins a total of 10 slams including all 4, I have no problem ranking him as the greatest ever. He'd be very close to the overall grandslam record but with all 4. Pete Sampras & Federer couldn't win the French Open. But Nadal would have won all of them, including Wimbledon over Federer!

Someone might make a case for Andre Agassi, but unfortunately Andre only stopped at 8 grandslams. It's a great feat that he won all 4, but he's very far behind the all-time 14 & 13 records. Also, he has weak records against his main rivals 14-20 against Pete Sampras and 3-8 against Roger Federer, not so bad, but when you look at the grandslam meetings it is pretty bad. So he's one of the all-time greats but not at the level of Federer & Sampras. But with Nadal, he is dominating all his opposition! He's 13-6 against Federer, 13-4 against Djokovic, 7-2 against Murray, even 2-0 against Agassi... Nadal is the real deal. If he wins a few more slams, including the US Open, he will no doubt end up as the greatest of all-time.

Which brings me to a very daring prediction. In my opinion, Nadal will win the GRANDSLAM this year, baring any injury or physical problem. He already won the Australian Open & he's the clear favorite for the French Open. At Wimbledon he's the defending champion and made the final 3 years in a row, and with Federer's current mental state Nadal is definitely the favorite. And the US Open is a hardcourt tournament that Nadal can definitely conquer just like he did this Australian Open. Nadal will do an amazing thing this year and win all 4. BUT even if he doesn't, if he manages to reach 10 grandslam total with all 4, which means a high enough total but with a completed collection, added with his incredible records against his main rivals, I'd put him over anyone. We are witnessing someone truly special, and this year he will continue to prove it. And one more thing, Nadal is even more humble than anyone I've seen, he's always giving compliments and always is nice even when he loses. He is a COMPLETE champion.

JimmyV
05-05-2009, 04:32 AM
It's funny you mention that because I was just thinking to myself that, A few years ago, I was 100% sure that Roger Federer was going to become the greatest tennis champion of all-time... We all were... The way he dominated the opposition was unreal, and his tennis was so fluid and spectacular... I was even more impressed by him than Pete Sampras & Andre Agassi... To me, he was playing at totally another level! Plus, Roger was always humble and very classy! A true champion.

But oh how things can quickly change! Today, Roger Federer is struggling... He definitely still is one of the best on the tour, but a few rivals have arrived and all of a sudden he has shown weakness. The unbeatable champion all of a sudden has become VERY BEATABLE. Nadal owns a 13-6 record over him, Andy Murray has a 6-2 record over him. Even Djokovic is turning around their rivalry! He simply can't beat the elite anymore and that HURTS his legacy! Also, now that he's losing, we are starting to see very unclassy behavior from him. We see him smashing a racket (against Djokovic), or we see him not even looking at his opponent when shaking hands (against Murray) and of course we see him collapsing emotionally (against Nadal). He made Nadal almost feel bad for winning and he could barely celebrate because of Roger's behavior. I guess Roger was only humble and classy because he was winning easily all the time, but now that he's losing we are starting to see an "attitude".

Still, he's not so bad, overall his behavior is good and who knows what the future holds. In my opinion, he will never win another grandslam. He will still make good results but mentally he's FINISHED. When I see him playing against certain players, it's as if he totally loses focuse at the end and just starts dumping everything in the net or shanking the ball. He has shown that he's a very fragile champion and that as soon as a few players stepped their game up he can't fight with them. Someone like Pete Sampras was never dominated by a player, he always managed to beat his opponents and he played so many great champions. He was never as spectacular as Federer, but he proved longevity and was able to win a grandslam in a span of 12 years. Federer simply dominated for a few years but it seems that his career is all of a sudden over, when it comes to the very elite level.

Now, let me talk about Nadal. To me, he's on course of becoming the greatest champion of all-time. It's too early yet, but the potential is there. Just a few years ago, everyone was thinking "Roger Federer" but all of a sudden a young spaniard has arrived and is re-writing tennis history. He reminds me of Monica Seles on the women's side (but hopefully nothing bad will happen to Nadal that will change the course of his career). As spectacular as Roger Federer was, Nadal replies with even more spectacular shots. There is no doubt that he will win the only slam that is missing from his collection the US Open. It will probably be this year, most likely over Federer in the final. He's already at 6 slams. And if he wins a total of 10 slams including all 4, I have no problem ranking him as the greatest ever. He'd be very close to the overall grandslam record but with all 4. Pete Sampras & Federer couldn't win the French Open. But Nadal would have won all of them, including Wimbledon over Federer!

Someone might make a case for Andre Agassi, but unfortunately Andre only stopped at 8 grandslams. It's a great feat that he won all 4, but he's very far behind the all-time 14 & 13 records. Also, he has weak records against his main rivals 14-20 against Pete Sampras and 3-8 against Roger Federer, not so bad, but when you look at the grandslam meetings it is pretty bad. So he's one of the all-time greats but not at the level of Federer & Sampras. But with Nadal, he is dominating all his opposition! He's 13-6 against Federer, 13-4 against Djokovic, 7-2 against Murray, even 2-0 against Agassi... Nadal is the real deal. If he wins a few more slams, including the US Open, he will no doubt end up as the greatest of all-time.

Which brings me to a very daring prediction. In my opinion, Nadal will win the GRANDSLAM this year, baring any injury or physical problem. He already won the Australian Open & he's the clear favorite for the French Open. At Wimbledon he's the defending champion and made the final 3 years in a row, and with Federer's current mental state Nadal is definitely the favorite. And the US Open is a hardcourt tournament that Nadal can definitely conquer just like he did this Australian Open. Nadal will do an amazing thing this year and win all 4. BUT even if he doesn't, if he manages to reach 10 grandslam total with all 4, which means a high enough total but with a completed collection, added with his incredible records against his main rivals, I'd put him over anyone. We are witnessing someone truly special, and this year he will continue to prove it. And one more thing, Nadal is even more humble than anyone I've seen, he's always giving compliments and always is nice even when he loses. He is a COMPLETE champion.

Priam
05-05-2009, 04:44 AM
As you say things can change rather quickly in sports. So don't jinx nadal just yet.

rafa_maniac
05-05-2009, 04:46 AM
But oh how things can quickly change!

Please listen to your own advice.

salut235
05-05-2009, 04:49 AM
As you say things can change rather quickly in sports. So don't jinx nadal just yet.

Jinx? Yeah because me writing a post on a message board will affect nadal's career and life. Please! The bottom line is, I made a prediction or an observation... it IS a tennis forum isn't it? Of course things can change, that's why I didn't say that Nadal ALREADY is the GOAT, I said that in my opinion he's on the course of becoming it.

Frank Winkler
05-05-2009, 04:53 AM
nadal is great no doubt.
However so far he has won two grand slams other than the french.
He will allways find it a challenge to win grand slams on hard-court and grass.
I am not at all sure that he will ever win the U.S. Open.
Then there are his knees. How long will they hold? I hope forever.
Also you are too fast to write Federer off.
He was winning the Australian Open final until he started thinking about greatness and choked. Will he do that in the future??
At Wimbelton I think he is still the man to beat. Again he just barely lost to Nadal.
There are other players that Nadal has more trouble with than federer does.
And please dont forget who the present U.S. champion is.
So I think a pretty safe bet is that Federer will win at least one more Grand slam tournament.

salut235
05-05-2009, 04:58 AM
nadal is great no doubt.
However so far he has won two grand slams other than the french.
He will allways find it a challenge to win grand slams on hard-court and grass.
I am not at all sure that he will ever win the U.S. Open.
Then there are his knees. How long will they hold? I hope forever.
Also you are too fast to write Federer off.
He was winning the Australian Open final until he started thinking about greatness and choked. Will he do that in the future??
At Wimbelton I think he is still the man to beat. Again he just barely lost to Nadal.
There are other players that Nadal has more trouble with than federer does.
And please dont forget who the present U.S. champion is.
So I think a pretty safe bet is that Federer will win at least one more Grand slam tournament.

Mentally Federer is gone. Did you see the Australian Open ceremony? He's finished. That's why he hasn't won a title since and keeps losing. Btw the only reason why Federer won the US Open last year is because Nadal was upset. But Nadal is reaching his peak now and I really don't see him losing to anyone, definitely not in 5 sets at the slams.

vamosinator
05-05-2009, 05:01 AM
I was always 100% sure that Federer would never be GOAT because I knew he'd never win the French Open. And to be GOAT you must have the Career Grand Slam and also Sampras' Total Slams Record. You need both, and nobody will convince me otherwise. Nadal will get both and he will be the first conclusively declared GOAT in tennis history.

guptaji
05-05-2009, 05:06 AM
I was always 100% sure that Federer would never be GOAT because I knew he'd never win the French Open. And to be GOAT you must have the Career Grand Slam and also Sampras' Total Slams Record. You need both, and nobody will convince me otherwise. Nadal will get both and he will be the first conclusively declared GOAT in tennis history.

There is no GOAT declaration and there is no established process by which one can "conclusively" prove GOATness. And Federer can still win French Open -- this very year.. that's how unpredictable tennis can be. True Rafa fans don't believe in gloating and baseless predictions. He is just trying to be the best that he can. I am pretty sure he doesn't care about becoming the GOAT - whatever that is.

vamosinator
05-05-2009, 05:10 AM
Tennis is very predictable. It's just not predictable if you are a Federer fan.

Nadal only cares about trying his best. That is why he will be the GOAT because his best is good enough to be GOAT.

CyBorg
05-05-2009, 05:12 AM
A few years ago, I was 100% sure that Roger Federer was going to become the greatest tennis champion of all-time

You did not learn from your mistake.

vamosinator
05-05-2009, 05:20 AM
I saw Federer's career early and I knew I'd never be a fan of him, his attitude was clearly wrong from the outset. I saw Nadal's attitude from day one and new he had the right thing going. It comes down to your wisdom as to whether you support the player who goes onto be GOAT or whether you support the player who becomes the GOAT's whipping boy.

salut235
05-05-2009, 05:27 AM
I saw Federer's career early and I knew I'd never be a fan of him, his attitude was clearly wrong from the outset. I saw Nadal's attitude from day one and new he had the right thing going. It comes down to your wisdom as to whether you support the player who goes onto be GOAT or whether you support the player who becomes the GOAT's whipping boy.

Ouch! lol Yeah Federer is becoming Nadal's whipping boy... It's so stunning to watch, Federer already broke down in tears at the Australian Open, if Nadal continues beating Federer I think it could be so embarrassing, especially for a great champion like Federer who has a big ego. To realize that he's HELPLESS on the TENNIS court. Ouch.

spielmacher
05-05-2009, 05:30 AM
Why Rafa Nadal still tastes trophies?

http://www.tenisforum.cz/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=21&start=30

Farenhajt
05-05-2009, 05:31 AM
Nope, he IS and will always be PIG - Player of Immensurable Greatness

vamosinator
05-05-2009, 05:33 AM
Ouch! lol Yeah Federer is becoming Nadal's whipping boy... It's so stunning to watch, Federer already broke down in tears at the Australian Open, if Nadal continues beating Federer I think it could be so embarrassing, especially for a great champion like Federer who has a big ego. To realize that he's HELPLESS on the TENNIS court. Ouch.

Definitely the most dramatic storyline I've ever seen in sport. It has the "shock the world factor" in a very literal sense. Like a lot of people say stuff like "they shocked the world" when a basketball team wins or something, but that isn't literally shocking 'the world' its just defying the odds. Whereas this thing Nadal has done really is shocking 'the world' because 'the world' thought it was safe to call Federer the GOAT, and they were wrong. Its another guy. Shock has happened.

vamosinator
05-05-2009, 05:35 AM
Nope, he IS and will always be PIG - Player of Immensurable Greatness

:p interesting words :haha:

w78dexon_y
05-05-2009, 05:37 AM
I saw Federer's career early and I knew I'd never be a fan of him, his attitude was clearly wrong from the outset. I saw Nadal's attitude from day one and new he had the right thing going. It comes down to your wisdom as to whether you support the player who goes onto be GOAT or whether you support the player who becomes the GOAT's whipping boy.

:worship:

heya
05-05-2009, 07:24 AM
People who call you a troll are the same folks who reacted with mock outrage when Blake, Agassi and Federer were called "overrated and ungentlemanly". Shameless.

sphiie
05-05-2009, 07:47 AM
Great post. I hope you're right. Just watch and let's talk after.
We'll see if Rafael is the GREATEST champion of all the time in the tennis history...

I hope it will be RAFAEL'S YEAR. He won the AO though it is on hard which represents his "less performant surface"... If he won on hard, he should win everything. Roland Garros should be in the bag (but, we never know what can happen), he should win Wimbledon but Federer could take his revenge... and for the Us Open, if he won the AO, it automatically means that he could BE ABLE to do the grand slam and becoming A GREAT, GREAT, GREAT CHAMPION EVER.

but do not speak so fast and just... see.

Allez-Ollie
05-05-2009, 08:53 AM
Can't see Nadal winning the Grand Slam ever. I mean, with Federer, Djokovic and Murray around it would be nigh on impossible for him to win Wimbledon and then the US Open. Can't see it.

salut235
05-05-2009, 09:00 AM
Can't see Nadal winning the Grand Slam ever. I mean, with Federer, Djokovic and Murray around it would be nigh on impossible for him to win Wimbledon and then the US Open. Can't see it.


Nadal leads Federer 13-6
Nadal leads Djokovic 13-4
Nadal leads Murray 7-2

That's a total of 33-12, in other words they are his bitches. I think you should find another reason.

vamosinator
05-05-2009, 09:18 AM
Nadal leads Federer 13-6
Nadal leads Djokovic 13-4
Nadal leads Murray 7-2

That's a total of 33-12, in other words they are his bitches. I think you should find another reason.

That puts to rest the notion of Nadals dominance over Federer being just a 'matchup thing' , Federer is doing better against Nadal than the other 2 are!

Bazooka
05-05-2009, 09:25 AM
He will not be the greatest ever if he achieves what you see in my sig. He will be just a contender in tier 1 tied with Sampras, Federer, Connors, Lendl and Borg. Different achievements, but as an example ending 6 years as #1 or winning 3 slams for 3 years, or being top 3 for 12 years are feats comparable to win all four.

vamosinator
05-05-2009, 09:54 AM
He will not be the greatest ever if he achieves what you see in my sig. He will be just a contender in tier 1 tied with Sampras, Federer, Connors, Lendl and Borg. Different achievements, but as an example ending 6 years as #1 or winning 3 slams for 3 years, or being top 3 for 12 years are feats comparable to win all four.

Your sig is only about half of what he'll achieve (in terms of slams).

Bazooka
05-05-2009, 10:56 AM
Your sig is only about half of what he'll achieve (in terms of slams).

When then he would be GOAT for sure, but not very likely.

Ackms421
05-05-2009, 11:09 AM
When then he would be GOAT for sure, but not very likely.
Well obviously he wont get 20, but I do think your slam coubt is a bit conservative. Per your slam numbers, Nadal's only got a year of his best left in him. I'd say he can perform at a high level for at least 2, maybe 3 more. I mean, that would place his decline at about 26 years of age which is not even overly optimistic. I think he could easily get three Wimbledons, 7 French's and at least one more Aussie. He should win the USO at least once too.

aferlo
05-05-2009, 11:30 AM
I have never seen a player like Federer, and the way he domminated tennis for so many years was amazing. He has been unlucky to compete with probably the best player ever on clay, but for me and until now, he has been the GOAT.

Nadal can become the GOAT player, but it will be difficult because Djoko, Murray and other players, will improve and, on the other hand, he deppends a lot on his mentality and hunger of winning, and it´s complicated to maintain it for many years. But this year he has a great chance to win the Golden Slam (probably is this year or never), and if he is able to do so he will be one of the greatest even if he doesn´t win any other tournament.

Bazooka
05-05-2009, 11:53 AM
Well obviously he wont get 20, but I do think your slam coubt is a bit conservative. Per your slam numbers, Nadal's only got a year of his best left in him. I'd say he can perform at a high level for at least 2, maybe 3 more. I mean, that would place his decline at about 26 years of age which is not even overly optimistic. I think he could easily get three Wimbledons, 7 French's and at least one more Aussie. He should win the USO at least once too.

You are in the mistake of believing 3 slams per year is standard in tennis domination. Since we have modern racquets and the current surfaces in slams, only Federer has done it.

Rafa should get 2.5 slams/year for the next 3 years and be happy with it. My prediction may be surpassed by a couple, or may be short by a couple, but has been there since Rafa had 3xRG and would be pretty silly to change it every time he wins/loses a match.

I would be very happy if I was wrong, as I am a big Rafa fan, but I try to have perspective.

Jōris
05-05-2009, 11:56 AM
A few years ago, I was 100% sure that Roger Federer was going to become the greatest tennis champion of all-time... We all were... The way he dominated the opposition was unreal, and his tennis was so fluid and spectacular... I was even more impressed by him than Pete Sampras & Andre Agassi... To me, he was playing at totally another level! Plus, Roger was always humble and very classy! A true champion.

But oh how things can quickly change! Today, Roger Federer is struggling... He definitely still is one of the best on the tour, but a few rivals have arrived and all of a sudden he has shown weakness. The unbeatable champion all of a sudden has become VERY BEATABLE. Nadal owns a 13-6 record over him, Andy Murray has a 6-2 record over him. Even Djokovic is turning around their rivalry! He simply can't beat the elite anymore and that HURTS his legacy! Also, now that he's losing, we are starting to see very unclassy behavior from him. We see him smashing a racket (against Djokovic), or we see him not even looking at his opponent when shaking hands (against Murray) and of course we see him collapsing emotionally (against Nadal). He made Nadal almost feel bad for winning and he could barely celebrate because of Roger's behavior. I guess Roger was only humble and classy because he was winning easily all the time, but now that he's losing we are starting to see an "attitude".

Still, he's not so bad, overall his behavior is good and who knows what the future holds. In my opinion, he will never win another grandslam. He will still make good results but mentally he's FINISHED. When I see him playing against certain players, it's as if he totally loses focuse at the end and just starts dumping everything in the net or shanking the ball. He has shown that he's a very fragile champion and that as soon as a few players stepped their game up he can't fight with them. Someone like Pete Sampras was never dominated by a player, he always managed to beat his opponents and he played so many great champions. He was never as spectacular as Federer, but he proved longevity and was able to win a grandslam in a span of 12 years. Federer simply dominated for a few years but it seems that his career is all of a sudden over, when it comes to the very elite level.

Now, let me talk about Nadal. To me, he's on course of becoming the greatest champion of all-time. It's too early yet, but the potential is there. Just a few years ago, everyone was thinking "Roger Federer" but all of a sudden a young spaniard has arrived and is re-writing tennis history. He reminds me of Monica Seles on the women's side (but hopefully nothing bad will happen to Nadal that will change the course of his career). As spectacular as Roger Federer was, Nadal replies with even more spectacular shots. There is no doubt that he will win the only slam that is missing from his collection the US Open. It will probably be this year, most likely over Federer in the final. He's already at 6 slams. And if he wins a total of 10 slams including all 4, I have no problem ranking him as the greatest ever. He'd be very close to the overall grandslam record but with all 4. Pete Sampras & Federer couldn't win the French Open. But Nadal would have won all of them, including Wimbledon over Federer!

Someone might make a case for Andre Agassi, but unfortunately Andre only stopped at 8 grandslams. It's a great feat that he won all 4, but he's very far behind the all-time 14 & 13 records. Also, he has weak records against his main rivals 14-20 against Pete Sampras and 3-8 against Roger Federer, not so bad, but when you look at the grandslam meetings it is pretty bad. So he's one of the all-time greats but not at the level of Federer & Sampras. But with Nadal, he is dominating all his opposition! He's 13-6 against Federer, 13-4 against Djokovic, 7-2 against Murray, even 2-0 against Agassi... Nadal is the real deal. If he wins a few more slams, including the US Open, he will no doubt end up as the greatest of all-time.

Which brings me to a very daring prediction. In my opinion, Nadal will win the GRANDSLAM this year, baring any injury or physical problem. He already won the Australian Open & he's the clear favorite for the French Open. At Wimbledon he's the defending champion and made the final 3 years in a row, and with Federer's current mental state Nadal is definitely the favorite. And the US Open is a hardcourt tournament that Nadal can definitely conquer just like he did this Australian Open. Nadal will do an amazing thing this year and win all 4. BUT even if he doesn't, if he manages to reach 10 grandslam total with all 4, which means a high enough total but with a completed collection, added with his incredible records against his main rivals, I'd put him over anyone. We are witnessing someone truly special, and this year he will continue to prove it. And one more thing, Nadal is even more humble than anyone I've seen, he's always giving compliments and always is nice even when he loses. He is a COMPLETE champion.

You're thinking of Jan Silva.

vamosinator
05-05-2009, 12:01 PM
Nadal is getting the Calendar Year Grand Slam twice.

Jōris
05-05-2009, 12:05 PM
Nadal is getting the Calendar Year Grand Slam twice.

Again, it's spelled Jan Silva.

Ackms421
05-05-2009, 12:24 PM
You are in the mistake of believing 3 slams per year is standard in tennis domination. Since we have modern racquets and the current surfaces in slams, only Federer has done it.

Rafa should get 2.5 slams/year for the next 3 years and be happy with it. My prediction may be surpassed by a couple, or may be short by a couple, but has been there since Rafa had 3xRG and would be pretty silly to change it every time he wins/loses a match.

I would be very happy if I was wrong, as I am a big Rafa fan, but I try to have perspective.

:confused: You sound like you disagree, but you said he should get 2.5 slams a year for the next 3 years. Add that to his current total of 6 and you have 12-14-exactly the number that I came up with. :confused:

And, no, I don't think 3 slams a year is "standard for tennis domination." I just believe it's logical that he can pull off the French/Wimbledon double for a couple more years and add the odd hard court slam as well.

But to say he will only get 6 French Opens and 2 Wimbledons is way too conservative for me. I'll go ahead and assume he wins the French this year. If that's accurate, you predict he'll only get one more. For someone who is still improving and has not shown one iota of beginning the downswing, that is an incredibly conservative prediction. What he has done to his closest rivals on all surfaces recently has shown me that he will be around for longer than I may have initially thought. Add to that his relentless quest to improve, and I believe there are many more slams to come.

FedFan
05-05-2009, 01:10 PM
My prediction:

Federer will have more AO titles than Nadal.
Federer will have more Wimbledon titels than Nadal.
Federer will have more US Open titels than Nadal.
Federer will have more Tennis masters year end championships.
Federer will have hold the number 1 spot longer than Nadal.
Federer will have more records than Nadal.
Federer will have more grand slams than Nadal.
Federer will never win Roland Garros.

Nadal will have more French Open titels than Federer.
Nadal will have more Masters titels than Federer.
Nadal will never win the US Open.

I am pretty sure that most of my predictions will come true. But we will certain have time to discuss it later. ;)

JolánGagó
05-05-2009, 01:19 PM
My prediction:

Federer will have more AO titles than Nadal.
Federer will have more Wimbledon titels than Nadal.
Federer will have more US Open titels than Nadal.
Federer will have more Tennis masters year end championships.
Federer will have hold the number 1 spot longer than Nadal.
Federer will have more records than Nadal.
Federer will have more grand slams than Nadal.
Federer will never win Roland Garros.

Nadal will have more French Open titels than Federer.
Nadal will have more Masters titels than Federer.
Nadal will never win the US Open.

I am pretty sure that most of my predictions will come true. But we will certain have time to discuss it later. ;)


Your "predictions" are utter crap.

habibko
05-05-2009, 01:25 PM
http://www.hollow-hill.com/sabina/images/serious-cat.jpg

FedFan
05-05-2009, 01:25 PM
Your "predictions" are utter crap.

Let's wait and see. I am looking forward to discuss it in 2 or 3 years. ;)

I am pretty sure, that most of my prediction will come true, if not all of them.

Clay Death
05-05-2009, 01:35 PM
Your "predictions" are utter crap.


i think fully 99% of the hapless termites have medical condition known as the EIR syndrome (Extreme Imbecilic Ridiculosity Syndrome). its is caused by a chemical imabalance and then made worse by severe illeteracy.

Bazooka
05-05-2009, 01:39 PM
:confused: You sound like you disagree, but you said he should get 2.5 slams a year for the next 3 years. Add that to his current total of 6 and you have 12-14-exactly the number that I came up with. :confused:


My math is correct, Nadal first year of domination was 2008 with 2 slams. Imagine 3 in 2009, 2 in 2010, he would have dominated for 3 years and have 10 slams, earned during a span of 7 years. He may extend that a little more, I agree, but it's also feasible that he gets a knee injury (or mono!!!) and misses some majors, like the AO in 2007.

Nadal and Federer make winning slams looking easy. It is not, look at roger and see what happens when your level goes down just by a small notch: you're out. Check the slam winning progression of Wilander, won 3 in 1988, then never again. Look at Connors, won 3 in '74, then lost all 3 finals the next year. I can't remember a career that was predictable from beginning to end, with no sudden ups and downs.

And Nadal is good in grass but not invincible, I agree that no one in the horizon is a menace for him in clay so I may have been short in my RG prediction, but that's it, on the rest I don't think I will be missing much.

christallh24
05-05-2009, 01:59 PM
Let's wait and see. I am looking forward to discuss it in 2 or 3 years. ;)

I am pretty sure, that most of my prediction will come true, if not all of them.

And 3-4 years ago, fedfans were looking forward to Rafa not being around, for Rafa to have "burned out" or "blown out his knees", that Rafa would never win Wimbledon, Rafa would never win a hardcourt slam, but, yet, he has. At the end of the day, if he never gets more of grass or hc slams than Roger, doesn't bother me. That he, just at the age of 22, has more than proven fedtards and general naysayers wrong, is priceless!

Henry Kaspar
05-05-2009, 02:05 PM
And if he wins a total of 10 slams including all 4, I have no problem ranking him as the greatest ever.

How would this rank him above Laver?

As for Nadal: WHO KNOWS.

EnriqueIG8
05-05-2009, 02:07 PM
http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/funny-pictures-bird-cat-cage.jpg

FedFan
05-05-2009, 02:21 PM
And 3-4 years ago, fedfans were looking forward to Rafa not being around, for Rafa to have "burned out" or "blown out his knees", that Rafa would never win Wimbledon, Rafa would never win a hardcourt slam, but, yet, he has. At the end of the day, if he never gets more of grass or hc slams than Roger, doesn't bother me. That he, just at the age of 22, has more than proven fedtards and general naysayers wrong, is priceless!

The exaggerations from some Rafatards and other :retard: lately are also priceless and ridiculous. Look at the threads about Rogers demise, about how he will be remembered etc. and you will(hopefully) see the light.

My prediction list seems to be rather realistic in contrast to some prognostics of the Nadal fans, that is for sure. ;)

guptaji
05-05-2009, 02:30 PM
I am amazed how a mindless thread with redundant contents can attract so much discussion. I am a Nadal fan as well but this is just plain stupid. First, there isn't much logic to various predictions in here. And the discussion is like talking about big foot's existence -- something that'll never be either proven or disproven.. EVER.

christallh24
05-05-2009, 02:43 PM
The exaggerations from some Rafatards

What exactly did I exaggerate?

Look at the threads about Rogers demise, about how he will be remembered etc. and you will(hopefully) see the light.

And if you read any of my posts in those threads, you'd see what I think of them. Oh, and then come back in here and call me a Rafatard.

My prediction list seems to be rather realistic in contrast to some prognostics of the Nadal fans, that is for sure.

I haven't predicted a damn thing. Don't account to me threads and posts that are made by Nadaltards. But, to defend other Rafa supporters and lovers, he is winning, of course, they are proud of him.

Lets say when/if Roger should win RG or Wimbly again this year, this site will flood right back up with the likes of you and other fedtards. To to be fair, though, all the top 4 players have them in their fanbases.

FedFan
05-05-2009, 02:47 PM
What exactly did I exaggerate?



And if you read any of my posts in those threads, you'd see what I think of them. Oh, and then come back in here and call me a Rafatard.



I haven't predicted a damn thing. Don't account to me threads and posts that are made by Nadaltards. But, to defend other Rafa supporters and lovers, he is winning, of course, they are proud of him.

Lets say when/if Roger should win RG or Wimbly again this year, this site will flood right back up with the likes of you and other fedtards. To to be fair, though, all the top 4 players have them in their fanbases.


Where have I called YOU a Rafatard? :confused::rolleyes:

But as there are enough of them lately, you will know, who I mean.

Sapeod
05-05-2009, 02:50 PM
Nadal leads Federer 13-6
Nadal leads Djokovic 13-4
Nadal leads Murray 7-2

That's a total of 33-12, in other words they are his bitches. I think you should find another reason.
He will not win Wimby and US Open one after the other. Winning Wimby one year and the US Open another year, well that IS very possible.

sammy01
05-05-2009, 02:58 PM
the sad thing is both are probably the reason neither will become the GOAT. nadal has stopped federer from claiming grand slam #14 and the french open, but also federer has kept nadal from being wimbledon champion untill the year just past.

i would say had they been 5 more years between them nadal would be chasing federers tally of slam and the GOAT, but as it happens they have overlapped and subsequently probably neither will end up the GOAT.

up point, it will probably go down as one of the greatest rivalries of all time.

rafa_maniac
05-05-2009, 03:04 PM
the sad thing is both are probably the reason neither will become the GOAT. nadal has stopped federer from claiming grand slam #14 and the french open, but also federer has kept nadal from being wimbledon champion untill the year just past.

i would say had they been 5 more years between them nadal would be chasing federers tally of slam and the GOAT, but as it happens they have overlapped and subsequently probably neither will end up the GOAT.

up point, it will probably go down as one of the greatest rivalries of all time.

You could probably pick the two greatest players from ANY era and say the same thing. They're fortunate by the same token that there isn't a 3rd or 4th legend competing alongside them. :shrug:

christallh24
05-05-2009, 03:16 PM
Good repped you, Sammy. I think you said it perfectly.

Fedfan, you quoted my post and used Rafatard in your response. I just assumed that was what you were calling me. Sorry, if I got it wrong.

sammy01
05-05-2009, 03:29 PM
You could probably pick the two greatest players from ANY era and say the same thing. They're fortunate by the same token that there isn't a 3rd or 4th legend competing alongside them. :shrug:

name another generation where it looks like 2 players will be in double figures slam count wise? i can't think of any. and the main opposition to each slam they have won over the last 2 to 3 years is each other.

rafa_maniac
05-05-2009, 03:33 PM
name another generation where it looks like 2 players will be in double figures slam count wise? i can't think of any. and the main opposition to each slam they have won over the last 2 to 3 years is each other.

Borg-McEnroe.

Joao
05-05-2009, 03:50 PM
These stupid threads keep popping up like there's no tomorrow. And I feel guilty to reply and bring them back up in the front page but man you guys gotta stop.
I think the moderators should fuse all these stupid "predictions" thread about who's GOAT or who will be GOAT, in one thread.

And just for the OP, if you got it wrong (or did you?) about Federer a few years ago, common sense should tell you to wait and see. Who would have thought that after winning 3 slams in 06 and 07, Federer would be in this situation today? Yes the only thing you got right so far is that things change very quickly ...

Clay Death
05-05-2009, 03:56 PM
mods: drag this thread oustside and run a dull butcher knife through it.

sammy01
05-05-2009, 03:59 PM
Borg-McEnroe.

macenroe only won 7. i bet before fed retires nadal will have 10 slams, as i said name me another generation or time when 2 players were both playing that were into double figures in slams.

if nadal and federer both fall short of becoming the GOAT it will be because of the other.

Langers
05-05-2009, 04:04 PM
nadal is great no doubt.
However so far he has won two grand slams other than the french.
He will allways find it a challenge to win grand slams on hard-court and grass.
I am not at all sure that he will ever win the U.S. Open.
Then there are his knees. How long will they hold? I hope forever.
Also you are too fast to write Federer off.
He was winning the Australian Open final until he started thinking about greatness and choked. Will he do that in the future??
At Wimbelton I think he is still the man to beat. Again he just barely lost to Nadal.
There are other players that Nadal has more trouble with than federer does.
And please dont forget who the present U.S. champion is.
So I think a pretty safe bet is that Federer will win at least one more Grand slam tournament.
Very good post, completely agree.

rafa_maniac
05-05-2009, 04:08 PM
macenroe only won 7. i bet before fed retires nadal will have 10 slams, as i said name me another generation or time when 2 players were both playing that were into double figures in slams.

if nadal and federer both fall short of becoming the GOAT it will be because of the other.

Nadal doesn't have that many yet so this still a moot point ;) But I took it from the point of view of Borg mainly, that without McEnroe around to stop him at the US Open and eventually Wimbledon he might have been considered the clear GOAT (not that I put any real stock in such an arbitrary "achievement"). Either Lendl or Wilander would likely have had double figure slam tallies each without the presence of the other and be possible GOAT contenders. I see your point about two players competing against each other who did win 10+ slams, but I don't believe Federer has had or will have such a significant effect on Nadal, he's only stopped him twice at Slams and I'm not sure if he will do so again.

tennisfan444
05-05-2009, 05:42 PM
Not going to happen

heya
05-05-2009, 06:07 PM
Nadal is 23 next month. He will have at least 18-20 Slams. By 2011, the competition will be tougher, so he'll have 3 Slams one year, and 1 or 2 Slams per year until 2017. By then, Federer, Ljubicic, and apologists (the McEnroes, Sampras, Borg, Laver, Agassi, Murray, Roddick, the Bryans, Courier, Mary Carillo, Tracy Austin, Ivanovic, Barry MacKay, Ted Robinson, Gimelstob, Serena Williams and Blake) will be very quiet.

vamosinator
05-05-2009, 06:10 PM
Nadal is going to get much better over the next 4 years, his improvement is continual and there are a lot of areas he can improve still. I think Nadal will end up being a better grasscourter/hardcourter than claycourter, that is to say he will continue to sacrifice net clearance in favor of flat power and it wouldn't surprise me if he remodels his serve and increases the power on that.

Nadal is addicted to improvement and tinkering, so there is no limit. And we've heard that Wimbledon was the slam Nadal dreamed of as a 3-year-old and that may become the slam he really dominates into his 30s since there aren't any great grasscourters these days and the standard will only get worse as tennis tactics and techniques all tie in to hardcourt tennis.

NAdal is young enough to chase-down Sampras' Wimbledon record. Also I've got to say I'm not at all impressed with Djokovic and Murray, if they're the biggest threats I don't see anything changing for Nadal.

munZe konZa
05-05-2009, 06:31 PM
A few years ago, I was 100% sure that Roger Federer was going to become the greatest tennis champion of all-time... We all were... The way he dominated the opposition was unreal, and his tennis was so fluid and spectacular... I was even more impressed by him than Pete Sampras & Andre Agassi... To me, he was playing at totally another level! Plus, Roger was always humble and very classy! A true champion.

But oh how things can quickly change! Today, Roger Federer is struggling... He definitely still is one of the best on the tour, but a few rivals have arrived and all of a sudden he has shown weakness. The unbeatable champion all of a sudden has become VERY BEATABLE. Nadal owns a 13-6 record over him, Andy Murray has a 6-2 record over him. Even Djokovic is turning around their rivalry! He simply can't beat the elite anymore and that HURTS his legacy! Also, now that he's losing, we are starting to see very unclassy behavior from him. We see him smashing a racket (against Djokovic), or we see him not even looking at his opponent when shaking hands (against Murray) and of course we see him collapsing emotionally (against Nadal). He made Nadal almost feel bad for winning and he could barely celebrate because of Roger's behavior. I guess Roger was only humble and classy because he was winning easily all the time, but now that he's losing we are starting to see an "attitude".

Still, he's not so bad, overall his behavior is good and who knows what the future holds. In my opinion, he will never win another grandslam. He will still make good results but mentally he's FINISHED. When I see him playing against certain players, it's as if he totally loses focuse at the end and just starts dumping everything in the net or shanking the ball. He has shown that he's a very fragile champion and that as soon as a few players stepped their game up he can't fight with them. Someone like Pete Sampras was never dominated by a player, he always managed to beat his opponents and he played so many great champions. He was never as spectacular as Federer, but he proved longevity and was able to win a grandslam in a span of 12 years. Federer simply dominated for a few years but it seems that his career is all of a sudden over, when it comes to the very elite level.

Now, let me talk about Nadal. To me, he's on course of becoming the greatest champion of all-time. It's too early yet, but the potential is there. Just a few years ago, everyone was thinking "Roger Federer" but all of a sudden a young spaniard has arrived and is re-writing tennis history. He reminds me of Monica Seles on the women's side (but hopefully nothing bad will happen to Nadal that will change the course of his career). As spectacular as Roger Federer was, Nadal replies with even more spectacular shots. There is no doubt that he will win the only slam that is missing from his collection the US Open. It will probably be this year, most likely over Federer in the final. He's already at 6 slams. And if he wins a total of 10 slams including all 4, I have no problem ranking him as the greatest ever. He'd be very close to the overall grandslam record but with all 4. Pete Sampras & Federer couldn't win the French Open. But Nadal would have won all of them, including Wimbledon over Federer!

Someone might make a case for Andre Agassi, but unfortunately Andre only stopped at 8 grandslams. It's a great feat that he won all 4, but he's very far behind the all-time 14 & 13 records. Also, he has weak records against his main rivals 14-20 against Pete Sampras and 3-8 against Roger Federer, not so bad, but when you look at the grandslam meetings it is pretty bad. So he's one of the all-time greats but not at the level of Federer & Sampras. But with Nadal, he is dominating all his opposition! He's 13-6 against Federer, 13-4 against Djokovic, 7-2 against Murray, even 2-0 against Agassi... Nadal is the real deal. If he wins a few more slams, including the US Open, he will no doubt end up as the greatest of all-time.

Which brings me to a very daring prediction. In my opinion, Nadal will win the GRANDSLAM this year, baring any injury or physical problem. He already won the Australian Open & he's the clear favorite for the French Open. At Wimbledon he's the defending champion and made the final 3 years in a row, and with Federer's current mental state Nadal is definitely the favorite. And the US Open is a hardcourt tournament that Nadal can definitely conquer just like he did this Australian Open. Nadal will do an amazing thing this year and win all 4. BUT even if he doesn't, if he manages to reach 10 grandslam total with all 4, which means a high enough total but with a completed collection, added with his incredible records against his main rivals, I'd put him over anyone. We are witnessing someone truly special, and this year he will continue to prove it. And one more thing, Nadal is even more humble than anyone I've seen, he's always giving compliments and always is nice even when he loses. He is a COMPLETE champion.

and if Nole takes over Nadal next year and becomes better than both of them , will you believe that ?

guptaji
05-05-2009, 06:43 PM
and if Nole takes over Nadal next year and becomes better than both of them , will you believe that ?
That's a little too hypothetical.

munZe konZa
05-05-2009, 07:07 PM
it's very real, you can quote it. Nole is a big favourite to be next number 1 after Nadal.

Fumus
05-05-2009, 07:47 PM
You did not learn from your mistake.

Your mistake was joining MTF.

Tom_Bombadil
05-05-2009, 08:33 PM
It's simply stupid to call right now GOATness in Nadal. OK, so if you're right (I hope you are by all means), people will bump your thread and tell you how intelligent you are... :P But aside from that, Nadal right now it's not even near that status.

There are a lot of players ahead of him in History terms. Time will tell what happens, but I'm impressed at how many people (some of them with Federer on their nicknames) are right now turning on the Nadal bandwagon, this is new on MTF. Till today, people always understimate Nadal (some of the bumps demonstrate it). Don't change, maybe you jinx him :P

ORGASMATRON
05-07-2009, 12:44 AM
Nadal will become the GOAT? :haha: I can see MTF is lost without me.

kingfederer
05-07-2009, 12:47 AM
Nadal will become the GOAT? :haha: I can see MTF is lost without me.

had an enjoyable ban?

ORGASMATRON
05-07-2009, 12:51 AM
had an enjoyable ban?

I was banned for calling someone a rat bastard, as of that the worst thing someone at MTF has been called. Im thinking of reporting this because there is this mod that has a personal vendetta against me.

Btw i quoted you in my blog, awesome stuff on the Djokovic/Federer match thread. I was laughing my ass of at you. What a tool this Djokovic is!

marcRD
05-07-2009, 12:58 AM
It's simply stupid to call right now GOATness in Nadal. OK, so if you're right (I hope you are by all means), people will bump your thread and tell you how intelligent you are... :P But aside from that, Nadal right now it's not even near that status.

There are a lot of players ahead of him in History terms. Time will tell what happens, but I'm impressed at how many people (some of them with Federer on their nicknames) are right now turning on the Nadal bandwagon, this is new on MTF. Till today, people always understimate Nadal (some of the bumps demonstrate it). Don't change, maybe you jinx him :P

The last 12 months he has been playing amazing tennis and MTF always lives in the present, they cant imagine the future shaping up to be something completely different than the present. Just 12 months ago there was this Djokovic bandwagon where I said I thought Djokovic would win 2-3 slams in his whole career and people where outraged asking "who else is going to win those hardcourt slams?", I answered that we have not seen all from Federer yet and we might still see more of Murray and other young guys and people refered to Murray as a clown and Djokovics "bitch" and that I was living in the past with Federer. Well, things change all the time. Concept hard to understand for people in MTF.

If it seemed Djokovic would forever dominate Federer after that match in AO or that Murray would never be able to beat Djokovic when people lived in the 3 months after AO 2008 like it would be like that forever.

Nadal had the greatest 12 months of his career and Federer is struggling with the new guys in deciding sets. People think Federer won his last grand slam of his career last year in USOPEN 2008 and Nadal is going to win the golden slam this year and 15 slams in his career.

ORGASMATRON
05-07-2009, 01:05 AM
The last 12 months he has been playing amazing tennis and MTF always lives in the present, they cant imagine the future shaping up to be something completely different than the present. Just 12 months ago there was this Djokovic bandwagon where I said I thought Djokovic would win 2-3 slams in his whole career and people where outraged asking "who else is going to win those hardcourt slams?", I answered that we have not seen all from Federer yet and we might still see more of Murray and other young guys and people refered to Murray as a clown and Djokovics "bitch" and that I was living in the past with Federer. Well, things change all the time. Concept hard to understand for people in MTF.

If it seemed Djokovic would forever dominate Federer after that match in AO or that Murray would never be able to beat Djokovic when people lived in the 3 months after AO 2008 like it would be like that forever.

Nadal had the greatest 12 months of his career and Federer is struggling with the new guys in deciding sets. People think Federer won his last grand slam of his career last year in USOPEN 2008 and Nadal is going to win the golden slam this year and 15 slams in his career.

I know, MTF is completely short sighted. Im sure we'll come back to this thread one day and laugh at the OP.

Nadal cant be the GOAT anyway, he is just too one dimensional. He is playing in an era where tennis has become a pushfest. He would have to win about 20 slams to convince me he is better then Fed. Fed dominated in both eras, the attacking and push era. Therefor he is probably already the GOAT.

kingfederer
05-07-2009, 01:06 AM
I was banned for calling someone a rat bastard, as of that the worst thing someone at MTF has been called. Im thinking of reporting this because there is this mod that has a personal vendetta against me.

Btw i quoted you in my blog, awesome stuff on the Djokovic/Federer match thread. I was laughing my ass of at you. What a tool this Djokovic is!

hahaha yea true that.:)

ORGASMATRON
05-07-2009, 01:11 AM
Best MTF posters:

1)kingfederer
2)ORGASMATRON
3)GlenMirnyi

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1000) Habiko

Discuss.

habibko
05-07-2009, 01:21 AM
I was banned for calling someone a rat bastard, as of that the worst thing someone at MTF has been called. Im thinking of reporting this because there is this mod that has a personal vendetta against me.

:haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha:

:retard:

ORGASMATRON
05-07-2009, 01:23 AM
:haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha:

:retard:

See above edited post.

I guess this means you didnt get banned? Im definitely reporting this mod. I was defending myself against this racist hater Habibko and for that i got banned!

habibko
05-07-2009, 01:30 AM
See above edited post.

I guess this means you didnt get banned? Im definitely reporting this mod. I was defending myself against this racist hater Habibko and for that i got banned!

seeing as kingfederer and you are topping the list, it's really my honour :hatoff: not like any list or post from you can be treated with any respect :retard:

racist hater :haha: yeah right, do your best mate, but oh be careful not to get banned again :haha: :haha:

luie
05-07-2009, 01:30 AM
I'am not a fan of nadal or fakervic but fakervic has the game to stop nadal,Murray also,Nadal progress will depend on how long he can stay healthy & hold off these guys.Even on clay for some reason these guys are not afraid of nadal regardless of how much nadal beats them,I guess youth is on their side as opposed to federer.

cocrcici
05-07-2009, 01:32 AM
GOAT=fantasy

ORGASMATRON
05-07-2009, 01:35 AM
seeing as kingfederer and you are topping the list, it's really my honour :hatoff: not like any list or post from you can be treated with any respect :retard:

racist hater :haha: yeah right, do your best mate, but oh be careful not to get banned again :haha: :haha:

See what i have to deal with on this forum? A hateful mod and a hateful poster! Why is filth like this allowed to insult me yet i am the one that gets banned?! Its time i report these people with the internet authorities...

habibko
05-07-2009, 01:40 AM
See what i have to deal with on this forum? A hateful mod and a hateful poster! Why is filth like this allowed to insult me yet i am the one that gets banned?! Its time i report these people with the internet authorities...

I tell you what, start a thread where you flame and attack mods, I'm sure it will get you somewhere :yeah:

GlennMirnyi
05-07-2009, 01:45 AM
I saw Federer's career early and I knew I'd never be a fan of him, his attitude was clearly wrong from the outset. I saw Nadal's attitude from day one and new he had the right thing going. It comes down to your wisdom as to whether you support the player who goes onto be GOAT or whether you support the player who becomes the GOAT's whipping boy.

1 - It's pretty clear you started watching tennis this year, so no, you have not watched Federer's early career.

2 - This kind of post should warrant people a ban in any tennis forum. Who cares about attitude, this isn't a rock concert.

Why Rafa Nadal still tastes trophies?

http://www.tenisforum.cz/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=21&start=30

Lack of class.

ORGASMATRON
05-07-2009, 01:45 AM
I tell you what, start a thread where you flame and attack mods, I'm sure it will get you somewhere :yeah:

Keep it up.

kingfederer
05-07-2009, 01:47 AM
See what i have to deal with on this forum? A hateful mod and a hateful poster! Why is filth like this allowed to insult me yet i am the one that gets banned?! Its time i report these people with the internet authorities...

who was the mod?

ORGASMATRON
05-07-2009, 02:07 AM
who was the mod?

I sent you a PM.

ORGASMATRON
05-07-2009, 02:15 AM
1 - It's pretty clear you started watching tennis this year, so no, you have not watched Federer's early career.

2 - This kind of post should warrant people a ban in any tennis forum. Who cares about attitude, this isn't a rock concert.




Seconded. This troll the theRAFA should get banned for his hateful posts and lack of tennis knowledge.

hammett
05-07-2009, 03:10 AM
I have never seen a player like Federer, and the way he domminated tennis for so many years was amazing. He has been unlucky to compete with probably the best player ever on clay, but for me and until now, he has been the GOAT.


Nadal can become the GOAT player, but it will be difficult because Djoko, Murray and other players, will improve and, on the other hand, he deppends a lot on his mentality and hunger of winning, and it´s complicated to maintain it for many years. But this year he has a great chance to win the Golden Slam (probably is this year or never), and if he is able to do so he will be one of the greatest even if he doesn´t win any other tournament.

Mentallity and hunger of winning are innate in him he will never lose that, that will definetely not be the reason for not manteining the level he showed until now, it will probably be cause of millage (is that a word:confused:) wearing him down who knows when.

I agree with the sentiment of this thread up to this point in time. what i mean is we all thought it was sufficient to name federer the best based on just sheer talent and relentless utter domination unseen before in 3-4 years timespan when suddenly a guy completely different appears with all the characteristics of the ultimate warrior/athlete/sportman you name it challenging that amount of talent and succeeding. that's what is really shoking the world of tennis or maybe not anymore.

I won't agree with the predictions made though. We'll just have to sit and watch. It's dangerous to write off a talent of that magnitude. What we are sure of is that nadal will never back down.

Matt01
05-07-2009, 04:01 PM
yeah right, do your best mate, but oh be careful not to get banned again :haha: :haha:


If that guy doesn't change his posting style drastically, it is only matter of time anyway.

johnny_dhk
05-07-2009, 06:03 PM
Nadal is already the GOAT. Federina is the GLOAT (Greatest Loser of All Time).

Ilovetheblues_86
06-07-2009, 04:56 PM
Now Roger has all Grand Slams, all that Laver did that Roger couldn´t was winning all four grand slams in one year.

neme6
06-07-2009, 04:59 PM
I remember hearing Laver say hat federer was the best player he ever saw when he won AO in 07, if the only other contender for the GOAT question acknowledge Federer as the best, then he is the best!

Action Jackson
06-07-2009, 05:01 PM
We have about 45 threads on this topic.

Ilovetheblues_86
06-07-2009, 05:04 PM
Laver won all four tournaments in one year in 1962 and 1969.

Federer has 14 Grand Slams.

Laver could have more if the ones of the amateur era were really counted, however.

Who´s the best?

In my subjective opinion Federer has a better career while Laver is still untouchable on his skills. :p

CmonAussie
06-07-2009, 05:08 PM
...
Just my 2 bob:: LAVER is GOAT,, but history with remember Legend FED more.!!

Ilovetheblues_86
06-07-2009, 05:11 PM
We have about 45 threads on this topic.

But now everything´s changed.:cool:

Burrow
06-07-2009, 05:11 PM
Who really cares? both are great tennis players and have had great careers, it doesn't matter who's better.

Bilbo
06-07-2009, 05:12 PM
R. Federer

but better players are coming in the future

Ilovetheblues_86
06-07-2009, 05:13 PM
Who really cares? both are great tennis players and have had great careers, it doesn't matter who's better.

Just to see some reactions after today.

Jaz
06-07-2009, 05:15 PM
The problem for Laver is that 3 of the grand-slams were on Grass..

It's difficult to compare..

marcRD
06-07-2009, 05:16 PM
They are about equal, just impossible to compare.

Action Jackson
06-07-2009, 05:18 PM
Not a public poll, not good.

tennishero
06-07-2009, 05:35 PM
federer plays in a much more competitive era than laver

JolánGagó
06-07-2009, 05:37 PM
Stupid poll.

Steelq
06-07-2009, 05:39 PM
federer plays in a much more competitive era than laver

Sampras played in much more competitive era than Federer.

Ilovetheblues_86
06-07-2009, 05:41 PM
Stupid poll.

All pools are stupid, JG.
I just wanted to see public response to today.
Who´s the best, Maradona or Pele, BTW?

Rogieva
06-07-2009, 05:41 PM
We have about 45 threads on this topic.

Bitch please, shut up.

Steelq
06-07-2009, 05:42 PM
All pools are stupid, JG.
Who´s the best, Maradona or Pele, BTW?
Zidane:p

El Legenda
06-07-2009, 05:46 PM
there is no GOAT until the earth is finished, the GOAT hasnt even been born yet.

Ilovetheblues_86
06-07-2009, 05:46 PM
Good to see some people still remember Laver. I think they are the two best evers, equally great.
Soccer was more popular in the 60's so people could have made that king Pele idea, while Laver was getting old when tennis turned pro. :)

mboyle1988
06-07-2009, 05:47 PM
Sampras played in much more competitive era than Federer.

False. Nadal is going to finish, I believe, as one of the best four or five players ever. Agassi will not, nor will anyone else from Sampras' era. Sampras never dominated, and never won on clay.

Lavar didn't have a Nadal, and 3/4 slams were on grass. He's better than Sampras, but Federer is the GOAT, and will win at least four more slams to prove it.

JolánGagó
06-07-2009, 05:47 PM
All pools are stupid, JG.
I just wanted to see public response to today.
Who´s the best, Maradona or Pele, BTW?

Pele, of course.

Ilovetheblues_86
06-07-2009, 05:47 PM
there is no GOAT until the earth is finished, the GOAT hasnt even been born yet.

2012 is near :wavey:

Ilovetheblues_86
06-07-2009, 05:49 PM
Pele, of course.

So we agree that Federer > Maradona, but Laver= Pele but unfortunately media coverage made Laver< Pele so that Federer as Pele2 made Pele2>Pele1 for a lot of people?
Discuss. :D

habibko
06-07-2009, 05:51 PM
answer in my signature.

lina_seta
06-07-2009, 05:51 PM
the GOAT hasnt even been born yet.

yes, u mean roger's son?

MacTheKnife
06-07-2009, 05:52 PM
Still not undisputed obviously.

MadHatter
06-07-2009, 05:53 PM
I don't see how you can put Federer up there with Laver. The guy won the grandslam twice (amateur and open) and won the pro grand slam!

El Legenda
06-07-2009, 05:56 PM
I don't see how you can put Federer up there with Laver. The guy won the grandslam twice (amateur and open) and won the pro grand slam!

lets be real the game sucked back than...and only a few played.

CyBorg
06-07-2009, 06:14 PM
Don't forget to stop thinking and make claims based on emotional and Pavlovian reactions. This is my advice to everyone here.

CyBorg
06-07-2009, 06:15 PM
lets be real the game sucked back than...and only a few played.

Yeah - only a few. It's impressive how you just pulled that right out of your ass.

CyBorg
06-07-2009, 06:16 PM
Pele, of course.

Can't be Pele. Only a few played back then. ;)

crude oil
06-07-2009, 06:17 PM
its federer's day 2day and a day for his fans. the next time he loses to nadal, everyone will claim he's washed up and that he was never that good.

Steelq
06-07-2009, 06:18 PM
False. Nadal is going to finish, I believe, as one of the best four or five players ever. Agassi will not, nor will anyone else from Sampras' era. Sampras never dominated, and never won on clay.

Lavar didn't have a Nadal, and 3/4 slams were on grass. He's better than Sampras, but Federer is the GOAT, and will win at least four more slams to prove it.

Who were Federer rivals on hardcourts and at Wimbledon (before2006) where he won 11 of his 14 slams?

Fedex
06-07-2009, 06:23 PM
I'd still give the edge to Laver. Federer has definitely moved past Sampras though.

The only way for Fed to definitively lay claim to being the GOAT IMO is if he wins about 18-20 slams.

Rafa = Fed Killa
06-07-2009, 06:24 PM
Who were Federer rivals on hardcourts and at Wimbledon (before2006) where he won 11 of his 14 slams?

Bingo

BodyServe
06-07-2009, 06:30 PM
Where is the option:
"There is no goat because no one can beat all players from all generations."

Garson007
06-07-2009, 06:33 PM
There is no GOAT, only cheese.

Ilovetheblues_86
06-07-2009, 06:34 PM
Where is the option:
"There is no goat because no one can beat all players from all generations."

Humm, but what defines exactly a GOAT, its conquests or the skills?

DartMarcus
06-07-2009, 06:48 PM
Pete Sampras.

Fedex
06-07-2009, 06:52 PM
Sampras played in much more competitive era than Federer.

About as far from the truth as you can get.

Henry Kaspar
06-07-2009, 07:27 PM
Still Laver.

rocketassist
06-07-2009, 07:33 PM
Sampras' era was stronger than this era right now. Fed's early dominance era is probably around the same level as Sampras, as you had Hewitt, Roddick with a forehand, Safin playing great tennis and an emerging, aggressive Nadal.

Now you just have Nadal really. Fakervic and Murray are not as good as prime Safin, Hewitt, nor are they anywhere near Sampras' main rivals.

Xavidbz
06-07-2009, 08:19 PM
We have about 45 threads on this topic.

I would say 345.

DDrago2
06-07-2009, 08:34 PM
2012 is near :wavey:

Good to see someone aware of Mayan prophecies.
There is another estimation of the world-ending date: 2060. Isaac Newton worked it out somehow from byblical book of Revelation.

Back on topic: if Federer follows with a few more GS titles he will be undisputed best ever, if he isn't already

Chiseller
06-07-2009, 08:36 PM
Man, and I always thought 2003-2006 was the clown era. :scratch:

DDrago2
06-07-2009, 08:39 PM
Sampras' era was stronger than this era right now. Fed's early dominance era is probably around the same level as Sampras, as you had Hewitt, Roddick with a forehand, Safin playing great tennis and an emerging, aggressive Nadal.

Now you just have Nadal really. Fakervic and Murray are not as good as prime Safin, Hewitt, nor are they anywhere near Sampras' main rivals.

A myth difficult to prove.
There is also one overlooked fact: Federer demoralised all players of his generation. Hewitt almost quit tennis, Roddick strugles, and Nalbandian became a mediocree player

Swiss Mountain
06-07-2009, 09:19 PM
I don't know what Rog should do now to be consider the goat for some!
Genius win: career slam and equal Sampras!

P.R.I.C.E.L.E.S.S.

Chloe le Bopper
06-07-2009, 09:44 PM
Still not undisputed obviously.
True. There are always going to be people that insist on being wrong.

Chloe le Bopper
06-07-2009, 09:46 PM
A myth difficult to prove.
There is also one overlooked fact: Federer demoralised all players of his generation. Hewitt almost quit tennis, Roddick strugles, and Nalbandian became a mediocree player
And all of those things happened only because Federer demoralized them. No other reasonable explanations exist.

thrust
06-07-2009, 09:49 PM
LAVER- Much tougher competition. He also lost five years of slam competition while on tougher Pro Tour. If not for being on the Pro Tour he and Rosewall, who lost 11 years playing Slams, would have over 20 Slams

Certinfy
06-07-2009, 09:49 PM
Federer!

philosophicalarf
06-07-2009, 09:53 PM
Sampras' era was stronger than this era right now.

Sampras won 8 of his 14 slams from 1995-2000, when the competition was largely pitiful. Mal Washington in a Wimbledon final? Sheesh.

Carlos Moya was number one in 1999. It's doubtful he'd even crack the top 5 today.

DDrago2
06-07-2009, 09:54 PM
And all of those things happened only because Federer demoralized them. No other reasonable explanations exist.

Federer made them look more harmless then they actualy are and with time their's levels dropped. I'm sure all of them would play better if Fed wasn't around. Heck, Roddick would have like 5 GS titles years ago

syc23
06-07-2009, 09:56 PM
Sampras but only just - sure Fed has got the complete set but Sampras played in a more competitive era. Who was around to challenge Fed for the 5 years that he
dominated? Can't think of anyone until Nadal came along.

miura
06-07-2009, 10:00 PM
Feddie :bigwave:

thrust
06-07-2009, 10:01 PM
federer plays in a much more competitive era than laver

NONSENSE! The only other great player of the Federer Era is Nadal, who has beaten Roger in 5 of 7 Slam finals and has an overall winning H-H. Most of Roger's wins over Rafa were before Rafa reached his peak while Roger was at his peak. The other players of this era aren't even close to Roger and Rafa.

rocketassist
06-07-2009, 10:03 PM
Sampras' era was more competitive than the current era by far, but Federer's 2004 and 2005 dominant era had Hewitt, Safin, Roddick with a forehand and an emerging Nadal. That was a strong era and Fed was just unreal in his brilliance to own his rivals at that time.

Fed edges Sampras, but Laver is possibly level with him. Anyone who has seen Laver's footage on Youtube can see he's very Federer like.

rocketassist
06-07-2009, 10:06 PM
Sampras won 8 of his 14 slams from 1995-2000, when the competition was largely pitiful. Mal Washington in a Wimbledon final? Sheesh.

Carlos Moya was number one in 1999. It's doubtful he'd even crack the top 5 today.

Moya in his PRIME would. Not to mention Agassi, Rios, Courier, Becker, Bruguera and other top players in the day.

Washington making the final showed how strong Sampras' era was, not how weak.

If you think an era with Boredo 5 in the world and Simon 6 in the world is better than the 90s, then I will get your doctor to stop prescribing your tablets.

crude oil
06-07-2009, 10:12 PM
What he's done over the past five years has never, ever been done — and probably will never, ever happen again," Sampras said. "Regardless if he won there or not, he goes down as the greatest ever. This just confirms it."

On hand to give Federer the French Open trophy on Sunday was Andre Agassi, the last player to complete a career Grand Slam sweep, in 1999.

"How do you sort of argue with his numbers? It's pretty incredible," Agassi said of Federer. "A lot of people say it's better to be lucky than good. I'd rather be Roger than lucky."

For a long time, Sampras pointed to his idol Rod Laver, 11-time Grand Slam champ, as the best tennis player in history. Laver was the last man to win all four Grand Slam titles in a single season, a feat he accomplished in both 1962 and 1967.

Laver was barred from competing in those tournaments from the time he turned professional in 1963 to the start of the Open era in 1968.

Federer is now Sampras's choice for best ever.

"Now that he's won in Paris, I think it just more solidifies his place in history as the greatest player that played the game, in my opinion," said Sampras, who retired in 2002.

"I'm a huge Laver fan, and he had a few years in there where he didn't have an opportunity to win majors. But you can't compare the eras, and in this era, the competition is much more fierce than Rod's."



THREAD OVER.

Ouragan
06-07-2009, 10:23 PM
Even though both's achievements cannot be compared (competition is 100 times what it was during Laver's prime): Laver to the nostalgic old timers among us, Federer to everybody else.

Ouragan
06-07-2009, 10:25 PM
What he's done over the past five years has never, ever been done — and probably will never, ever happen again," Sampras said. "Regardless if he won there or not, he goes down as the greatest ever. This just confirms it."

On hand to give Federer the French Open trophy on Sunday was Andre Agassi, the last player to complete a career Grand Slam sweep, in 1999.

"How do you sort of argue with his numbers? It's pretty incredible," Agassi said of Federer. "A lot of people say it's better to be lucky than good. I'd rather be Roger than lucky."

For a long time, Sampras pointed to his idol Rod Laver, 11-time Grand Slam champ, as the best tennis player in history. Laver was the last man to win all four Grand Slam titles in a single season, a feat he accomplished in both 1962 and 1967.

Laver was barred from competing in those tournaments from the time he turned professional in 1963 to the start of the Open era in 1968.

Federer is now Sampras's choice for best ever.

"Now that he's won in Paris, I think it just more solidifies his place in history as the greatest player that played the game, in my opinion," said Sampras, who retired in 2002.

"I'm a huge Laver fan, and he had a few years in there where he didn't have an opportunity to win majors. But you can't compare the eras, and in this era, the competition is much more fierce than Rod's."



THREAD OVER.

Indeed, over.

"I'd rather be Roger than lucky"....awesome quote :)

goldenlox
06-07-2009, 10:32 PM
There's no realistic way to compare different eras. Pancho Gonzales couldn't play a major from 1950 to 1968. He was a great player for many years.
Borg only played the AO once and he won 11 majors before he turned 25.
Federer has been losing slam finals to Nadal. 2008 FO, Wimbledon and this AO.
That's 3 slam finals in 8 months. And no one thought Federer would beat Nadal in this FO.

Do you want to win one match on a fast court? The best ever might be Lew Hoad?
Best ever on clay? Probably Nadal
One guy on all surfaces for many years, maybe Federer or Gonzales.

Maxtour70
06-07-2009, 10:35 PM
Cant compare before Borg era.

But since then there is no doubt that Roger is the GOAT

He deserves it more than anyone else!

UncleZeke
06-07-2009, 10:41 PM
Fed gets my vote. Totally appreciate what Laver and Pete accomplished and what great sportsmen and ambassadores to the game they were. Roger ties Pete with 14 GS. He has been to 4 RG finals and has now won on all surfaces. AND, has now reached at least the Semi-Finals of Twenty ( 20 ) consecutive Grand Slams... That's enough, for me to call him the GOAT..

rubbERR
06-07-2009, 10:41 PM
Mugs talking about competition when you guys only play amateur tennis at best, we dont know nothing so stop writing crap.

FedFan_2007
06-07-2009, 10:46 PM
GOAT of Open Era - Fed
GOAT of pre-Open Era - Tilden

Laver is a strange case because 6 years he couldn't play the slams, however if you include his pro majors to slams won in Open Era he comes to 13 total, so no GOAT. Still he's my #3 behind Fed, Borg.

FedFan_2007
06-07-2009, 10:47 PM
1. Fed
2. Borg
3. Laver
4. Sampras
5. Nadal

robiht
06-07-2009, 11:17 PM
FedExpress won the Roland Garros very easily again in the final.
-
Now he has the Career Grand Slam and he has 14 GS.If he wins 3-4 more Grand Slams and he retires in 2012,then we can call him the GOAT.
-
No more pressure on him,thats for sure.He can play in the next few years totally free.Even against Nadal it will be totally diefferent, if they meet again... If he wins Wimby this year,he is one step closer to the GOAT title :)
-
Imo 95%, that he will be the GOAT in 2012.Nadal has a chance to be considered the 2nd or 3rd GOAT at the end of his career.But it will be after 2012...

Laba
06-08-2009, 12:02 AM
I think there is too much focus on GOAT talk going on from all angles and before Federer got close to winning RG, everyone was saying to wait until he has retired so his entire career can be evaluated. Guess that gets thrown away when one piece of the puzzle is captured but I think it's a useless argument overall with everyone having different opinions and points to make about achievements, eras and everything in between. It'll be a never-ending discussion right now until we wait and see what else unfolds over the next few years at least.

FedFan_2007
06-08-2009, 12:04 AM
If you can answer the question - "Would Roger Federer be the GOAT if he retired right now?" and the answer is YES.

finishingmove
06-08-2009, 12:05 AM
laver, borg
.
.
.
.
federer

FedFan_2007
06-08-2009, 12:09 AM
laver, borg
.
.
.
.
federer

LOL. Yup, keep it up. You'll do well in 2009 ACC for sure. :p:p:p

finishingmove
06-08-2009, 12:13 AM
lol im a real clown...:banghead:

fixed it now

laver, borg
sampras
.
.
.
federer

GayBury
06-08-2009, 12:16 AM
Roger :worship:

HKz
06-08-2009, 12:16 AM
As some of you have already mentioned, 3 of the slams Rod played on were on grass. Laver was a tremendous player but it is again difficult to see Laver's full potential. Because honestly, the 2 time Calender Grand Slam together is not enough of a accomplishment to outweigh Federer's statistics because Roger didn't just dominate the Grand Slam scene, he also nearly completely dominated all the other smaller tournaments in between especially during 04-07. Laver also had some horrible critics, especially Jack Kramer (who I find is an idiot) that said that Laver would have been destroyed in other eras, especially Kramer's, but then again I find that many of them were jealous of Laver because he was able to do the Calender Grand Slam twice let alone once. In my opinion, Roger is the GOAT. A semifinal, 4 consecutive finals and actually one win all at Roland Garros all should amount to something special I think. Seriously, if you can get more consecutive semifinals than the clay-GOAT Rafalafa at the French, now that is something. And don't try to say that his bad head-to-head stat against Nadal makes him not the GOAT because you and I both damn know that clay is where Rafalafa has his wins from and even then, Roger is the only person to defeat Nadal more than once on clay other than Gaston Gaudio, and this is after Rafalafa started his clay dominance.

FedFan_2007
06-08-2009, 12:17 AM
Yeah Sampras ranks above Federer with no French Open and no 20 straight slam semis streak...

Macbrother
06-08-2009, 12:19 AM
LAVER- Much tougher competition. He also lost five years of slam competition while on tougher Pro Tour. If not for being on the Pro Tour he and Rosewall, who lost 11 years playing Slams, would have over 20 Slams

haha. Yeah. 39 year old Rosewall winning slams. Incredible competition, this era.


Washington making the final showed how strong Sampras' era was, not how weak.

You don't seriously believe this, do you? Especially considering he only got there due to one of the most epic choke jobs of all time? Malivai freaking Washington making the Wimbledon final indicates the strength of an era? I've heard it all. Agassi was by far the second best player of this era and what was he doing from 96-98? If Sampras had dominated better his competition would be equally less accomplished, but he didn't.

federernadalfan
06-08-2009, 12:22 AM
laver in my opinion...two calendar year grand slams...:eek:
beyond human

1sun
06-08-2009, 12:23 AM
federer.
nadal could displace him.

CyBorg
06-08-2009, 12:28 AM
As some of you have already mentioned, 3 of the slams Rod played on were on grass. Laver was a tremendous player but it is again difficult to see Laver's full potential. Because honestly, the 2 time Calender Grand Slam together is not enough of a accomplishment to outweigh Federer's statistics because Roger didn't just dominate the Grand Slam scene, he also nearly completely dominated all the other smaller tournaments in between especially during 04-07. Laver also had some horrible critics, especially Jack Kramer (who I find is an idiot) that said that Laver would have been destroyed in other eras, especially Kramer's, but then again I find that many of them were jealous of Laver because he was able to do the Calender Grand Slam twice let alone once. In my opinion, Roger is the GOAT. A semifinal, 4 consecutive finals and actually one win all at Roland Garros all should amount to something special I think. Seriously, if you can get more consecutive semifinals than the clay-GOAT Rafalafa at the French, now that is something. And don't try to say that his bad head-to-head stat against Nadal makes him not the GOAT because you and I both damn know that clay is where Rafalafa has his wins from and even then, Roger is the only person to defeat Nadal more than once on clay other than Gaston Gaudio, and this is after Rafalafa started his clay dominance.

I keep repeating myself, but here it comes again. It's irrelevant that the grand slam was 3/4 grass, because for most of his professional career Laver played and dominated on all surfaces on the pro circuit. Grass, clay, carpet, wood, hardcourt surfaces.

Even in the open era, the so-called grand slam events were not always the biggest events. The WCT circuit in particular was huge (and was held on carpet). The Australian open and in some years the French weren't really huge events and payed the pros poorly.

It's really not hard to evaluate Laver. His results are readily available. You can buy Joe McCauley's book on pro tennis. It's all there. I don't believe any player won more overall titles than Laver. Perhaps Rosewall did.

Macbrother
06-08-2009, 12:31 AM
It's really not hard to evaluate Laver. His results are readily available. You can buy Joe McCauley's book on pro tennis. It's all there. I don't believe any player won more overall titles than Laver. Perhaps Rosewall did.

Evaluating him is not the problem, comparing his evaluation with players of today is, particularly when it comes to longevity.

CyBorg
06-08-2009, 12:34 AM
Evaluating him is not the problem, comparing his evaluation with players of today is, particularly when it comes to longevity.

I don't think it is. We can tell how dominant he was and for how long.

Macbrother
06-08-2009, 12:41 AM
I don't think it is. We can tell how dominant he was and for how long.

Yes but how much more physically demanding is the game now compared to his day? Even Agassi said going from early '90s just into the 2000's was a radical difference; playing on the tour now gives your body a beating like no other time in history, so guys back then could play and play competitively (even dominate) until they were 35 or longer, that is not the case today. Rod Laver won the grand slam when he was 31, do you see ANYONE capable of doing that now, in their 30's? In fact, Sampras got knocked out of Wimbledon in the 2nd round by a player barely in the top 100 at 31. Big, big difference.

But it's not just that. You say 3/4 slams being on grass doesn't really matter, but in fact it does. What if the 3/4 of the slams were grass in Sampras' day? How would that have affected his slam total? What if the AO was relevant in Borg's day? How would that have affected his total. There's a whole lot that has to be taken into consideration when comparing eras, it is by no means an easy task.

Everko
06-08-2009, 12:45 AM
Laver won 2 calender year GS. enough said.

HKz
06-08-2009, 12:49 AM
This is to anyone who claims competition is easier.

I'm going to take serving for an example. Roddick and Karlovic are arguably the best servers on the tour right now. Roddick currently holds the fastest serve ever and Karlovic has the most aces in one match. Records do NOT get shattered from players who are worse than the previous record holders. They get broken because they ARE better. It would be saying like you practiced all your life and hit 60 free throws in a row for the world record and I come up there and hit 61 free throws without practicing. Sure things like that do happen, but definately not for things you MUST practice for like 55 aces in a match.

And I'm just talking about serves. I mean groundstrokes are ridiculously fast now and the spin on these balls are tremendous which is why you see serve and volleys die almost instantly when the Safin/Hewitt/etc team came and totally dominated these type of players. So in turn, you HAVE to be quicker, stronger, fitter, and in the end just plain better in order to keep up. The reason why you see players like Roger or Nadal have these dominating periods starts basically with fitness. Like J-Mac said, tennis players these days hit the weights just like atheletes from other sports. This wasn't the case in Laver's day. It wasn't even much of the case in Sampras' day either. If you look at the players in this era, they are all so much more muscular and fit than all the other generations. But tennis is still in that stage where players are finding out that working out/weight lifting is a necessity from day one like other sports.

What happens is you get these players like Del Potro or a Monfils who completely dominate the junior circuit with just talent alone. When they get onto the pro tour, they realize that talent isn't getting them very far and after a few years of getting their asses handed to them, the players finally hire a good trainer and start hitting the gym. Look at Del Potro's case. When I first saw him at Wimbledon 2007 against Roger, he was virtually a string bean. And look at him now, he is a lot more muscular than he was in the past. But even then, the 27 year old Roger Federer still outlasts 20 year old Del Potro at the French Open even after his numerous 4 setters and the comeback against Haas while Del Potro only dropped one set prior to the match. This shows exactly why Roger and Rafalafa are always up there. They are faster, stronger and much fitter than the rest. The reason someone like Nadal was able to win at a younger age, is because he realize the need to working out very early compared to some of these youngings these days. If you look at his 2003-2004 videos, he too was also this young skinny boy, but boy did he quickly get big for 2005. This is also why we almost don't see any 16-20 year olds coming out and taking the world by storm like what J-Mac did, Boris Becker or Michael Chang. These players literally just used their talent to win. The closest time was when Kei Nishikori defeated James Blake last year but again, it shows that it can barely happen in the lower stages of the ATP. I mean these days seems like everyone's breakthrough year is when they are 20-24 when in the past it was almost expected that you should have a breakthrough before you are 20.

The fact is, the game is getting a lot tougher to compete in as we speak. Groundstrokes are harder, spins are becoming enormous, serves are getting more pop, players run a lot faster, players can outlast each other with fitness alone, and everyone can virtually beat everyone - no more grass/clay/etc specialists crap; everyone carries this all-round game now.

CyBorg
06-08-2009, 12:51 AM
Yes but how much more physically demanding is the game now compared to his day? Even Agassi said going from early '90s just into the 2000's was a radical difference; playing on the tour now gives your body a beating like no other time in history, so guys back then could play and play competitively (even dominate) until they were 35 or longer, that is not the case today. Rod Laver won the grand slam when he was 31, do you see ANYONE capable of doing that now, in their 30's? In fact, Sampras got knocked out of Wimbledon in the 2nd round by a player barely in the top 100 at 31. Big, big difference.

Highly debatable. Players today are pampered, rich and living in luxury. Well, the highly-rated ones at least.

You should read a bit about the pro/amateur split years - specificially, the pros like Laver, Gonzales and Rosewall competed with little rest and ridiculous schedules.

But it's not just that. You say 3/4 slams being on grass doesn't really matter, but in fact it does. What if the 3/4 of the slams were grass in Sampras' day? How would that have affected his slam total? What if the AO was relevant in Borg's day? How would that have affected his total. There's a whole lot that has to be taken into consideration when comparing eras, it is by no means an easy task.

It doesn't matter, because the majors were not always the most important events and until the open era they weren't the important events period.

Ilovetheblues_86
06-08-2009, 12:57 AM
But let´s say who had more skills? Laver or Federer?


Andh think about that: If Laver and Federer are excellent, grade A+ players, so only two or three players would be the tough competition for them. Doesn´t Laver and Federer had those players? (Rosewall,Ashe- Nadal, Murray&Djoko). So, doesn´t Laver competition is as good as Fed´ since only the best players are the competition that counts, being the others irrelevant?
Think bout that :)

Macbrother
06-08-2009, 01:05 AM
Highly debatable. Players today are pampered, rich and living in luxury. Well, the highly-rated ones at least.

You should read a bit about the pro/amateur split years - specificially, the pros like Laver, Gonzales and Rosewall competed with little rest and ridiculous schedules.

It's not debatable in the slightest. Ken Rosewall won a grand slam tournament at the age of 39. Would a professional tennis player at that age ever win a grand slam singles tournament under any circumstances today? Would a 31 year old be able to thoroughly dominate today's tour to achieve a grand slam? 31 year olds can barely compete today, the only notable exception being Agassi and he wasn't seriously playing for a significant portion of his prime.

Whether they were pampared or not is irrelevant, no doubt times were tougher back in the day but stroke for stroke and point for point the game is adding much more mileage to bodies today than it did in the 60's, it's truly shocking if you cannot acknowledge this.

It doesn't matter, because the majors were not always the most important events and until the open era they weren't the important events period.

That's right, and this only obfuscates the problem, it certainly doesn't make it any easier to judge.

RonE
06-08-2009, 01:19 AM
Stupid question. You cannot compare eras to each other especially since there so many different variables, styles of play etc. in these different eras. There is no GOAT in the true sense of the word.

CyBorg
06-08-2009, 01:20 AM
It's not debatable in the slightest. Ken Rosewall won a grand slam tournament at the age of 39. Would a professional tennis player at that age ever win a grand slam singles tournament under any circumstances today? Would a 31 year old be able to thoroughly dominate today's tour to achieve a grand slam? 31 year olds can barely compete today, the only notable exception being Agassi and he wasn't seriously playing for a significant portion of his prime.

You may want to get your facts straight first. Rosewall didn't win a major - he made two finals and lost badly. Secondly, Rosewall was a freak of nature, not unlike Jimmy Connors or Andre Agassi. It wasn't normal for a 39-year old to accomplish such feats then either.

Whether they were pampared or not is irrelevant, no doubt times were tougher back in the day but stroke for stroke and point for point the game is adding much more mileage to bodies today than it did in the 60's, it's truly shocking if you cannot acknowledge this.

I don't buy this. The game is more physical, however the standardization of the tour is catered specifically to the players' needs. Guys played twice more the amount of matches in the 1960s and that's just singles. They also played doubles and the Davis Cup, regularly. This is arguably more mileage, not less.

Add the fact that players today have access to better medical care and advanced surgery procedures and a very different conclusion could be reached than yours.

That's right, and this only obfuscates the problem, it certainly doesn't make it any easier to judge.

This is fine with me. I'm trying to spread the message that history is indeed complicated, not simple. And it should be treated as complicated and thus studied carefully.

Macbrother
06-08-2009, 01:33 AM
You may want to get your facts straight first. Rosewall didn't win a major - he made two finals and lost badly. Secondly, Rosewall was a freak of nature, not unlike Jimmy Connors or Andre Agassi. It wasn't normal for a 39-year old to accomplish such feats then either.

38. Pardon. Is Andre Agassi capable of winning a grand slam tournament at that age, or anyone else for that matter in today's game. Same question. Freak of nature, fine. Is it happening? No.

I don't buy this. The game is more physical, however the standardization of the tour is catered specifically to the players' needs. Guys played twice more the amount of matches in the 1960s and that's just singles. They also played doubles and the Davis Cup, regularly. This is arguably more mileage, not less.

Whether you want to buy it or not, the facts are in plain sight. At 31 players are retiring, not dominating the tour.

Add the fact that players today have access to better medical care and advanced surgery procedures and a very different conclusion could be reached than yours.

And a conclusion supported by what? I'll wait.

RagingLamb
06-08-2009, 08:29 AM
I will repeat my argument from another GOAT thread (one about Roger not being the goat, gotta love MTF mood swings):

I have some issues with comparing greats from different eras.

First, the most frequently sited facts are records. For example, someday, Roger will break Sampras' record. Therefore according to many, he should be called the greatest ever when this happens.
One problem I have with this, is that Sampras could not look into the future at Roger's record when he was playing, just like Roger can't look into the future at the person who will break his record. So every great aimed to break the record they were aware of at the time.

Another issue is comparing eras. Can you say that player from era A could not do well in era B? To answer this people often compare the competition from each era, or the equipment. To compare the competition, you'd have to compare all players in the greats' eras, which is an even tougher, more obscure task than just comparing the greats. So most such comparisons are just opinion.

Another matter is the that of surfaces and equipment. Could greats do well on each other's surfaces using each other's equipments? Well, the greats from each era weren't born with a certain way of playing tennis. They learned the sport in their era as well as they could (in fact most often better than anyone). So if we ask an era question such as; if Borg was playing with all the equipment and surfaces like today, would he still do well? The answer in my opinion would have to be YES. There is no reason why he wouldn't learn today's game really well, if he spent his life training with today's technology.
The same goes for asking whether Sampras or Federer would do well in the 50s , 60s etc. It's not like they were born with a nervous system that requires titanium racquets and synthetic gut strings. Had the conditions been like the olden days when they were learning to play tennis, I'm sure they would have developed a game to suit those conditions.

So overall, I don't think you can really call someone the greatest of all time. Just the greatest of their own time, or one of the greatest players of all time. Because you can't really compare different eras

Again, I think it's pointless to call a single player the greatest of all time, because it is very difficult to compare the best players from each era to each other in an objective way.

habibko
06-08-2009, 09:21 AM
I will repeat my argument from another GOAT thread (one about Roger not being the goat, gotta love MTF mood swings):

Again, I think it's pointless to call a single player the greatest of all time, because it is very difficult to compare the best players from each era to each other in an objective way.

RL, no need to trouble yourself like that, just accept JesusFed your savior for your salvation :worship:

Commander Data
06-08-2009, 09:24 AM
Stupid question. You cannot compare eras to each other especially since there so many different variables, styles of play etc. in these different eras. There is no GOAT in the true sense of the word.

I guess thats about it. Federer is the greatest of the modern era. Good enough for me.

tennisvideos
06-08-2009, 12:26 PM
False. Nadal is going to finish, I believe, as one of the best four or five players ever. Agassi will not, nor will anyone else from Sampras' era. Sampras never dominated, and never won on clay.

Lavar didn't have a Nadal, and 3/4 slams were on grass. He's better than Sampras, but Federer is the GOAT, and will win at least four more slams to prove it.

Actually Laver did have a 'Nadal'. He had the legendary Ken Rosewall as his long time rival. And their H2H at last count is 75=66 in favour of Laver. Many people think the Navratilova v Evert is the greatest rivalry in tennis history. Well it may be. But mainly because most people don't know enough about the older rivalries.

Ken Rosewall won 8 GS Singles titles despite being ineligible to play the Slams for 11 of his greatest years. Yes, that is 44 Slams he MISSED OUT ON PLAYING at his peak. How many slams could this wonder have won???? One can only guess. But just remember that he won the French, US & Aussie Opens before turning pro (in addition to making 2 x WImby finals). Then 11 years later - in his mid 30s, he wins the French, US & Aussie Opens again and was twice more a Wimbledon finalist - the last one at the age of 40. And these latter wins were all in the Open era with everyone playing. Simply phenomenal.

As for 3/4 Slams being on grass - big deal? How does that make Laver less of a champion? They didn't have hard court slams in that era, that doesn't mean he is less of a champion. :confused: :eek: The fact that Laver won the calendar GS and had winning H2H records over the legendary Gonzales and Rosewall is enough to place him as perhaps the GOAT. Perhaps. But you can't compare eras so Federer is up there with him for sure. And Rosewall must be very close to the top as well. Gonzales can't be left out. He was the champion pro for many years. In fact, Laver, Rosewall and Gonzales all won heaps of Pro Slams to prove their true championship ability and are 3 that must always be included in GOAT discussions IMO.

CyBorg
06-08-2009, 01:09 PM
38. Pardon. Is Andre Agassi capable of winning a grand slam tournament at that age, or anyone else for that matter in today's game. Same question. Freak of nature, fine. Is it happening? No.

Rosewall didn't win a grand slam tournament at 38.

Whether you want to buy it or not, the facts are in plain sight. At 31 players are retiring, not dominating the tour.

Facts are worthless without context and consideration of all variables. Have you considered how much players are making? Have you considered the fact that a senior tour exists today but didn't in the past?

And a conclusion supported by what? I'll wait.

You need information about medical advances?

tennisvideos
06-08-2009, 01:22 PM
Rosewall didn't win a grand slam tournament at 38.


Um, well he won a GS tournament in his 38th year - just as impressive!

Ken Rosewall won the French Open in 1968 as a 33yo.

He won the USO in 1970 as a 35yo.

He won the Aussie Open in 1971 as a 36yo and he won again in 1972 as a 37yo in his 38th year.

He made the Wimbledon Final in 1970 as a 35yo again in 1974 as a 39yo.

All amazing feats esp as he was ineligible to play the Slams between 1957 and 1968. 11 Years! And to think he won the French, US & Aussie titles before that 11 year break and was also twice a Wimbledon finalist before the break as well. A freak of nature. The likes the sport will never see again IMO. He was known as the Peter Pan of tennis - the man who never aged.

CyBorg
06-08-2009, 01:25 PM
Um, yes he did!

Ken Rosewall won the French Open in 1968 as a 34yo.

He won the USO in 1970 as a 36yo.

He won the Aussie Open in 1971 as a 37yo and he won again in 1972 as a 38yo.

He made the Wimbledon Final in 1970 as a 36yo again in 1974 as a 40yo.

All amazing feats esp as he was ineligible to play the Slams between 1957 and 1968. 11 Years! And to think he won the French, US & Aussie titles before that 11 year break and was also twice a Wimbledon finalist before the break as well. A freak of nature. The likes the sport will never see again IMO. He was known as the Peter Pan of tennis - the man who never aged.

I realize that I'm being somewhat anal about this, but no he didn't. Rosewall was 37 when he won that Australian. It was also not a heavily attended event.

Yes, Rosewall was a freak of nature. He was still winning events, because of his dedication to the sport.

thrust
06-08-2009, 01:46 PM
I keep repeating myself, but here it comes again. It's irrelevant that the grand slam was 3/4 grass, because for most of his professional career Laver played and dominated on all surfaces on the pro circuit. Grass, clay, carpet, wood, hardcourt surfaces.

Even in the open era, the so-called grand slam events were not always the biggest events. The WCT circuit in particular was huge (and was held on carpet). The Australian open and in some years the French weren't really huge events and payed the pros poorly.

It's really not hard to evaluate Laver. His results are readily available. You can buy Joe McCauley's book on pro tennis. It's all there. I don't believe any player won more overall titles than Laver. Perhaps Rosewall did.

Rosewall was better on clay than Laver. The two most important clay tournaments in 1968 were the British HC, the first Open Era tournament, and the FO were won by Rosewall over Laver in the finals. Laver did beat a 35 YO Kenny in the 69 FO final. Laver won 2 FO, Federer 1. Laver also reached the FO final in 68.

Macbrother
06-08-2009, 01:59 PM
Rosewall didn't win a grand slam tournament at 38.

Ok he was born in November, '34, Australian Open was held in what month of this particular year, given the date of the tournament actually fluctuated, but I know for sure it was late. In any case, the point remains. Is anyone winning a grand slam tournament at that age in today's game?


Facts are worthless without context and consideration of all variables. Have you considered how much players are making? Have you considered the fact that a senior tour exists today but didn't in the past?

That's exactly my point, Cyborg. Context. You cannot simply say Laver dominated for 7 years, Federer only 4, therefore Laver had better longevity. The physical toll on the players body's today incredibly increases the difficulty of doing so for decades span. The money and the existence of a champion's tour I do not find relevant. Firstly how much fame, glory, and money are found on the champion's tour? Ok. Secondly why did Sampras retire? Because he was financially set? Or maybe because he was nearly in tears walking off court 2 having lost to someone barely in the top 100's at his beloved Wimbledon. The vast majority of players retire because they can no longer compete like they used to, not because of their financial situation or other reasons. There are one or two notable exceptions (Borg) but the rule is there.

You need information about medical advances?

No. My point is, your conclusion, one that's "very different" isn't supported by data, but theorycraft that presumes the nature of the game hasn't changed in 40 years. Medical advances are there, the players are more cared for and careful and play less matches per year and yet they are an absolute shadow of themselves at 30 compared to what they were in their early-mid twenties.

Vida
06-08-2009, 02:21 PM
Mexican-American Pancho Gonzales is the GOAT.

a small tribute to the man:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqsswEJghTE

CyBorg
06-08-2009, 02:22 PM
Ok he was born in November, '34, Australian Open was held in what month of this particular year, given the date of the tournament actually fluctuated, but I know for sure it was late. In any case, the point remains. Is anyone winning a grand slam tournament at that age in today's game?

No, for a variety of reasons already mentioned. Including the fact that we don't see many Rosewalls around.

That's exactly my point, Cyborg. Context. You cannot simply say Laver dominated for 7 years, Federer only 4, therefore Laver had better longevity. The physical toll on the players body's today incredibly increases the difficulty of doing so for decades span. The money and the existence of a champion's tour I do not find relevant. Firstly how much fame, glory, and money are found on the champion's tour?

Guys love playing and that's why they return to competitive tennis. In the 1960s, Pancho Gonzales made several comebacks to the tour, because he needed to play. He did not have a senior tour options. Today he does. As for the physical toll, you really cannot demonstrate that there is more physical toll on players today than in the 1960s. Adding up all the variables, I see players of those years dealing with a very grinding tour.

This being said, when I speak of longevity I am not talking about Rosewall winning something in his late 30s. What I am really interested in are the peak years. Does it really matter that much to me that Connors made the US Open semifinal at 39? Not that much. The game meant that much for him to stay for that long. A lot like Rosewall, but the reasons were a bit different.

What I'm really interested in is the longevity and the quality of the peak. I don't see any reason to suggest that Laver's great peak years of 1964-1970 are somehow impossible today. Rather, Laver just dealt with changes in competition better than Federer. It has nothing to do with this red herring that you're presenting here.

Ok. Secondly why did Sampras retire? Because he was financially set? Or maybe because he was nearly in tears walking off court 2 having lost to someone barely in the top 100's at his beloved Wimbledon. The vast majority of players retire because they can no longer compete like they used to, not because of their financial situation or other reasons. There are one or two notable exceptions (Borg) but the rule is there.

What's important is that Sampras retired at least a couple of years removed from his peak. At a different time he would have kept playing until his late 30s, probably winning some events, but really doing nothing to change his all-time standing as a great.

No. My point is, your conclusion, one that's "very different" isn't supported by data, but theorycraft that presumes the nature of the game hasn't changed in 40 years. Medical advances are there, the players are more cared for and careful and play less matches per year and yet they are an absolute shadow of themselves at 30 compared to what they were in their early-mid twenties.

I do believe that the game has changed. However, the true nature of a great player's domination and his ability to adjust to his competition really hasn't. This is what I look for when I compare players.

The special thing about Laver's longevity isn't that he was playing competitively in the mid-70s. It's the fact that he was a dominant player for an extended period of time on two distinct tours and basically two generations of opponents.

This is what Federer is trying to do now. He has already proven himself as a dominant player in his peak years. Now he's dealing with a younger batch of players and trying to negotiate his place near the top.

As for "data" - I don't see you using any to support your claims. It is easy to say that guys today are retiring because of some physical tolls on their bodies. However, I see this as a profound misunderstanding of the true changes in tennis. The real changes are commercial - this involves finances and the general dynamics of open era tennis. It's very hard to pin down.

Players like Connors have already shown that one can stay on the tour into one's 40s. Why are there fewer guys like Connors? It mostly has to do with financial security and multiple other options for players to compete. While the increased commercialism is a great challenge, it is somewhat offset by the added comforts of the tour.

Looking at all of this, I see no reason to give contemporary players a 'break', while simply assuming that guys 40 years "had it easier". Based on what? Having read lots of literature on Laver's era, I can say with a great degree of confidence that those guys had it tough.

Macbrother
06-08-2009, 02:51 PM
Guys love playing and that's why they return to competitive tennis. In the 1960s, Pancho Gonzales made several comebacks to the tour, because he needed to play. He did not have a senior tour options. Today he does. As for the physical toll, you really cannot demonstrate that there is more physical toll on players today than in the 1960s. Adding up all the variables, I see players of those years dealing with a very grinding tour.

This being said, when I speak of longevity I am not talking about Rosewall winning something in his late 30s. What I am really interested in are the peak years. Does it really matter that much to me that Connors made the US Open semifinal at 39? Not that much. The game meant that much for him to stay for that long. A lot like Rosewall, but the reasons were a bit different.

What I'm really interested in is the longevity and the quality of the peak. I don't see any reason to suggest that Laver's great peak years of 1964-1970 are somehow impossible today. Rather, Laver just dealt with changes in competition better than Federer. It has nothing to do with this red herring that you're presenting here.

It is easily demonstrated by simply looking at the average age of grand slam finalists and comparing them to the age in Laver's day, particularly with his late run of dominance as that's the most relevant to this discussion. It's very simple. Do you really see someone completing a calendar grand slam in today's game at the age of 31. Think about that for a second. It's not just playing the game, it's the fame, the glory, the lifestyle. If players could be winning Wimbledon at 40, they would. It's not physically possible however, the tennis of today ages you quicker than arguably any other major sport. Again, guys aren't retiring at 32 because they're satisfied.

Federer is indeed attempting to begin a second dominant run which would certainly cement his legacy, but he's doing it at 27. He wouldn't have a chance of doing it at 31 like Laver. Try and keep in mind this has nothing to do with how "tough" players had it then, or how "easy" they have it now, whatever you take or want that to mean. It's the matches themselves that do the damage.

Clay Death
06-08-2009, 02:55 PM
We have about 45 threads on this topic.


i thought it was like 45,000 or better.

there is no such thing as goat. you can never compare eras of the distant past with modern eras. its all RELATIVE.


mods: drag this thread outside and run a dull butcher knife through it.

Kolya
06-08-2009, 02:57 PM
Tiger Woods.

CyBorg
06-08-2009, 02:58 PM
It is easily demonstrated by simply looking at the average age of grand slam finalists and comparing them to the age in Laver's day, particularly with his late run of dominance as that's the most relevant to this discussion. It's very simple. Do you really see someone completing a calendar grand slam in today's game at the age of 31. Think about that for a second. It's not just playing the game, it's the fame, the glory, the lifestyle. If players could be winning Wimbledon at 40, they would. It's not physically possible however, the tennis of today ages you quicker than arguably any other major sport. Again, guys aren't retiring at 32 because they're satisfied.

Whenever someone says "it's very simple" I cannot help but laugh.

I very much doubt you have compared average ages of grand slam finalists and even if you did you would not arrive at a representative number due to the pro/amateur splits. That being said, Rosewall was a grand slam finalist and perhaps winner (I'd have to check) in his teens.

Also, nobody was winning Wimbledon in their 40s. By exagerrating you do not support your point. You simply caricature it.

Federer is indeed attempting to begin a second dominant run which would certainly cement his legacy, but he's doing it at 27. He wouldn't have a chance of doing it at 31 like Laver. Try and keep in mind this has nothing to do with how "tough" players had it then, or how "easy" they have it now, whatever you take or want that to mean. It's the matches themselves that do the damage.

What matters is not the age aspect, but the mileage aspect. Guys are becoming pros so much earlier in today's game - this partly explains why they leave the game earlier as well.

Laver was amateur in his early 20s, but entered the pros later, effectively starting his peak at a later age. He had much less mileage on him at 25 than Borg did at the same age.

What happens here is a basic and logical shift in what a tennis player's peak age is. For early bloomers now, it's sometimes 20! It's largely because they turn pro so soon. But 40 years ago, you may not turn pro until 25 and then the grind begins.

This is precisely the kind of context that matters. What doesn't change in all of this is the most important point - how does the player perform in his peak, and how long does he maintain his standing as the #1 in the world, or perhaps #2 or #3 in the world. This is what I am really interested in.

The idea that players 40 or 50 years ago really had more longevity is an illusion. It looks that way, partly because they turned pro later and partly because they stayed active until a later age. However, if you study the peak years they are very similar. In fact, Pancho Gonzales's career is a virtual mirror of Pete Sampras's - the biggest difference is the fact that Pancho made comebacks to the tour and played into his 40s due to financial problems.

Henry Kaspar
06-08-2009, 03:09 PM
Statements like "X who played 40 years ago would have beaten Y if he played today" are of course nonsensical. I have no clue how good Laver would be under current conditions, as little as I have a clue whether Federer and Nadal would do well with wooden rackets and low-pressure strings.

The only meaningful way how players be compared across eras is by how much they distinguished themselves relative to their competitors. And here I would argue that Laver -- with his 1969 calendar season slam and a similarly dominating year on the pro tour in 1967 -- still has the edge over Federer.

CyBorg
06-08-2009, 03:11 PM
Yeah, when Federer wins all the important events in one year then an argument can be made that he was on Laver's level. Laver did this twice. Rosewall did it once too. I also rate him ahead of Federer.