The ultimate tennis player(would people undeniably admit it?) [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

The ultimate tennis player(would people undeniably admit it?)

denisgiann
07-18-2009, 04:16 PM
There are endeless debates about who is better or worse and why...they are comparing eras...bla bla bla.Lets assume that comes a player who in every aspect of his game is indistractable.Moving perfectly huge serve lethal from both wings and destroys the competition in virtually every tournament he enters and competition like nadal fed djoko Sampras Agassi etc at their very best.His game is beautiful and effective he is strong good looking....salt of the earth kinda guy...lololololol(he basically has everything).Do you really believe that even he would be accepted as the best ever or that the same excuses would apply even for him?
1)He played in a mug era cause for example...fed nadal and the others couldnt win against him.He can never be THAT good.All the others must be THAT bad.

2)He is to smug to be the best..cause the best ever must be king of sportsmanship as well(And if you are winning all the time we cant possibly know....so we prefer to call you smug)

3)The competition are chokers(imagine nadal for example without a French open but still playing exactly the same) they dont have the winning mentality and they pretty much hare handing him the trophies left and right.

4)Anything else you can think of.

My point is simple:Even if a human moving wall appears in the other side of the court will people ever accept him as the best ever or would they use the same excuses over and over again.My guess is that they will do exactly the same all over again...what do you think?:cool:

MacTheKnife
07-18-2009, 04:42 PM
My guess is that they will do exactly the same all over again...what do you think?

I think you learn fast.

Goldenoldie
07-18-2009, 05:04 PM
I think it would be the end of tennis as we know it, and probably the end of the world as well.

Action Jackson
07-18-2009, 05:06 PM
No, it doesn't or ever will exist.

Julio
07-18-2009, 05:09 PM
Wtf is that thread. This guy would be a robot, nothing more.

oranges
07-18-2009, 05:09 PM
Federer is that guy already. Happy?

Action Jackson
07-18-2009, 05:10 PM
Federer is that guy already. Happy?

No, it's Nadal

Vamos

FiBeR
07-18-2009, 05:15 PM
the king, for sure

denisgiann
07-18-2009, 05:31 PM
My point is that even if a player like that appears and even if he has opponents that play like nadal or fed at their best but still lose to him....poeple will bring up the same excuses to deny his...goatness...and say that those players are mugs.

HattonWBA
07-18-2009, 05:39 PM
Serve - Karlovic
Forehand - Federer and Nadal
Backhand (Double Hander - Murray/Nalbandian), single hander - Gasquet
Movement - Nadal
Heart - Nadal

oranges
07-18-2009, 05:48 PM
My point is that even if a player like that appears and even if he has opponents that play like nadal or fed at their best but still lose to him....poeple will bring up the same excuses to deny his...goatness...and say that those players are mugs.

Obviously, the fact that some of the candidates were not able to compete in slams for a while if they wanted to be pro is utter nonsense people make up just to deny The One the indisputable goatness. Same goes for anything else that actually makes sense.

We must have an undeniable GOAT or we shall perish.

FiBeR
07-18-2009, 08:55 PM
Serve - Karlovic
Forehand - Federer and Nadal
Backhand (Double Hander - Murray/Nalbandian), single hander - Gasquet
Movement - Nadal
Heart - Nadal

your player doesnt volley, right?

oliverbwfc
07-18-2009, 09:42 PM
your player doesnt volley, right?

Rally dosen't last long enough against this guy

Smoke944
07-19-2009, 01:41 AM
Rally dosen't last long enough against this guy

Not sure how long you've had it for, but I just noticed your sig. Solid stuff :lol: :yeah:

lessthanjake
07-19-2009, 02:26 AM
This is the point. The idea of a GOAT is counterintuitive. In order to be considered the best, one must dominate one's era. However, in dominating one's era, that means that by definition, other players can't achieve much. People will then say those players just sucked, and that's why the player dominated.

The only possible scenario I can think of is if a few players won a bunch of slams AND THEN a GOAT came around and dominated THEM. Those other players would clearly be good and have had achievements, but still wouldve been dominated. But even that would be problematic, because people would just say that those players declined and were clearly not good anymore.

It's impossible. But let's be honest. Logically, tennis pros should be BETTER nowadays. The game has been internationalized and is more lucrative than ever before. This means that there is a larger talent pool for players to come from, and more money means you lure more of the best athletes in the world to tennis than you otherwise would.

Logically, this should mean that the average tennis pro is better nowadays than before. However, that logic does not cover whether the top 10 players are better than ever because the quality of the VERY top talent is such a small sample size that it is certainly possible for the top people in the past to simply have deviated from the mean more than the top now, thus still being better than today's top 10 despite the average player being better now.

Regardless, though, that is speculation. Logic would say that players are best now, meaning that dominating today's game is more impressive than dominating the game decades ago. This is why I believe Federer to be the GOAT.

Serenidad
07-19-2009, 02:35 AM
This is the point. The idea of a GOAT is counterintuitive. In order to be considered the best, one must dominate one's era. However, in dominating one's era, that means that by definition, other players can't achieve much. People will then say those players just sucked, and that's why the player dominated.

Yep. There will always be an excuse. I wasn't around on these boards, clearly, when Sampras was what Federer is today but I often wonder if there was this much resentment/contempt.

There's always arguments against every player for being the GOAT. It's just so dumb to even keep having this discussion.

lessthanjake
07-19-2009, 02:44 AM
I think the best way to be considered GOAT is to have a lot of longevity and clearly be the best player in the world for a while but not dominate. This way, one can rack up as many achievements as someone who dominates just by virtue of being around longer. However, by not dominating, it makes one's opponent's look better. As long as the GOAT candidate is still clearly the best player in the world for a while, then other players looking good just makes it seem like he played in a good era.

I think this is how it was for Sampras.

MacTheKnife
07-19-2009, 03:00 AM
Yep. There will always be an excuse. I wasn't around on these boards, clearly, when Sampras was what Federer is today but I often wonder if there was this much resentment/contempt.

There's always arguments against every player for being the GOAT. It's just so dumb to even keep having this discussion.

I can't see there ever being an "undisputed" GOAT in this sport. There are plenty of other sports without the historical issues that tennis has, and they can't determine an undisputed GOAT. It will continue to be a point of discussion with pros/cons for a number of players.

HKz
07-19-2009, 06:04 AM
The fact is we humans are stubborn. People can't accept someone as GOAT because probably there lies inside a crying little kid thinking "I wish I could of played on the ATP, so since I can't, I'll try to take everyone down with me." The fact is no matter what, people will always find excuses probably even if this ridiculous sort of player came onto the ATP and won the Calender Grand Slam 5 years in a row.

1). Since they obviously will be unable to find someone who has a better stat than this God-like-tennis-player, the first thing they will turn to say is that "his competitors are terrible, where are all the different Grand Slam winners?" which is an excuse that MANY use to dismiss someone like Federer. It is LUDICROUS to be able to say an era is better or worse just because of more or less different Grand Slam winners, because it is already difficult to judge champions of different eras alone. I mean what the fuck do they expect? For someone like Roger to win 15 out of the last 25 majors while at the same time have as many different Grand Slam winners as Sampras' generation? How the fuck does that work? When a player dominates, he infact dominates. When you win everything, how can other people win too? I thought that was common sense. Look I understand when people can't say who is the GOAT when trying to compare everything from gameplay and such, but when they dismiss superior statistical facts players have over other players, that is stupid. Then what the hell were numbers invented for? Obviously not as a fashion statement. Back as cavemen, if I had 3 sheep and you had 1 sheep, I obviously had more sheep. I just hate it when people dismiss statistics a player has from any era by saying that their competitors were trash, or whatever. The FACT and statistical evidence is that the game is changing every decade. Players are getting taller, heavier, faster and the balls are flying faster and spinning harder. That IS a fact. Are you seriously going to deny that 6'1" 192 LBS Rafael Nadal is not physically superior than 5'8" god knows how light he was Rod Laver or 5'11" 160 LBS Bjorn Borg? Roger and Rafael are only 6'1" in a field of top players who are 6'4" +++... Even these tall lanky players run faster than players in the past. Just look at some matches from the 70s 80s and even 90s. You see players having trouble reaching a lot of balls that top 200 players these days can get to with ease.

2). Look, I NEVER cared about how a player acts. While I do enjoy watching reserved tennis players on the court, I also loved the outbursts of McEnroe and the fiery heart of Hewitt. But I never used their attitude on or off the court to judge where they stood as a tennis player. If that was the case, I'm pretty sure there are a lot of people who would have taken McEnroe off the list of top 100 players of all time even, but the fact is, he is a top 10 or 20 player of all time and he is righteously there. If this Grand Slam dominating player existed with the worst attitude on court by cursing at his opponent, the crowd and umpire, never allowing interviews and led a turbulent lifestyle, many people would also instill a sense of hatred for the guy and probably lower their thoughts on where he stood in the debate of GOAT which is ridiculous to do. Sure it is nice to see good sportsmanship by players and such, but we are watching a sport not a teaparty. And this is one of the most mentally excruciating games in the world that has little room for error a lot of time while at the same time, it is head to head like boxing and nearly feels like you are in the ring trying to kick your opponent's ass from a physical aspect of the game. The truth is, we are here to watch tennis happen, not attitude. Or else we would be telling people that we are watching an attitude match and not a tennis match.

3). The mental part of tennis is part of the game just as a forehand, backhand, serve, volley, footspeed, and footwork all are. EVERY match has a winner and loser. A 6/0, 6/0, 6/0 or 7/6, 7/6, 6/7, 6/7, 18/20 match just means that one player was mentally superior than the other player for the match. A player's forehand being in the zone or a player's volley was terrible all comes from the mental game and I think people forget that. People only talk about mental issues when they see someone choke or whatever. Winning a game without facing any break points and winning a game facing 20 break points has nothing rarely anything to do with luck, it means that the player who won it was mentally superior. Even if the case was the player who was facing break points clipped the net on all break points and won the point from the ball landing short because the returner could have tried to make a return winner but he was obviously not mentally strong enough to go for it.

The fact is, it is very difficult for humans to accept that someone is the best or whatever, because it is in our human nature to feel jealous or angry that it isn't us that is up there. After a great champion, I'd give it 20-30 years until most of that anger and hatred for that player (or death for that matter, Bud Collins) is gone and we just see the statistics and the tennis that were involved.

FedFan_2007
07-19-2009, 06:11 AM
Yes I'm afraid it will take 70-80 million years before the world accepts Federer was the GOAT. By then the seas will have boiled off and humanity will be long extinct. But how AI descendants will be arguing/trolling the point...

Rafa = Fed Killa
07-19-2009, 04:52 PM
So do the opponents of this ultimate player choke in tie breakers after being up or does he really beat them.

If he plays non chokers he is the GOAT.

If he is losing and gets lucky because the other guy is brain dead he is not the GOAT.

P.S. Does this ultimate player get owned by his main rival.

If no then GOAT, If yes then GOAT

Conculsion: Federer not this ultimate player ie. not GOAT

The light can save you lowly Fedtards, gain some logic.

luie
07-19-2009, 11:23 PM
The ultimate player, GOAT can never be proven. It's a term "pushed" by the media & sponsors for commercial purposes.
Federer has made his claim to be among the best the history of tennis has produced & I think he is happy to be in that company.

lessthanjake
07-20-2009, 12:31 AM
I think Federer is unique in that no one has been among the best on hard, clay, and grass, while also being as dominant and consistent as him overall.

- Agassi was among the best on every surface, but he was not consistent or dominant.
- Sampras was not among the best on clay.
- Laver never played on hard, so its a silly comparison, but it's still true.
- Connors was very consistent, and dominant for a year, but he was not among the best on red clay, though he won a slam on har tru.
- Borg was good on hard courts but it was a weakness, and he never won a slam on it.
- Similarly, McEnroe was dominant at one point, but still couldn't be weasel out a title at RG.
- Wilander was among the best on every surface IMO (though he had bad results at Wimbledon, he won two AOs on grass), and he had a year where he won 3 grand slams, but he just wasn't consistently great slam to slam and year to year.
- Nadal is among the best on every surface, and he is quite consistent. He is certainly dominant on clay, but overall the fact that he is weakest on hard courts, which is the most common surface, stops him from being dominant overall.
- Lendl was consistent and somewhat dominant, but he could never quite figure out grass.
- Becker was not among the best clay court players
- Edberg was not among the best clay court players either

In my eyes, Federer is unique, then. He is by far the greatest hard and grass court player of his era. He is also without a doubt, the second best clay court player, having won something like 93% of his clay court matches against those not named Nadal since 2004, and having taken a title at Roland Garros. He plays consistently at that high level slam after slam and year after year as exemplified by the 21 straight semifinals. He has also been extremely dominant, as shown by the 15 slams in 7 years. No one else has had that combination of consistency, overall dominance, and greatness on all three surfaces.

fedfannnnnnn
07-20-2009, 12:34 AM
Federer-he has the slams to prove it. He won slams on 4 surfaces (rebound ace). But mainly because he is so consistant with all the slam semis. I doubt that record will ever be broken.