Mens Tennis Forums banner
81 - 100 of 119 Posts

·
Premium Member
The best is yet to come
Joined
·
31,266 Posts
He needs 2 CYGS and 1 singles gold to stop the debate. To be in the conversation 1 CYGS and 1 gold.
In other words, neither Laver nor Nadal/Murray could be GOATs. Laver missing the Olympic gold... as Nadal/Murray lack the CYGS.
Thanks for the confirmation, buddy. We always count on your disqualifying tennis knowledge. Disqualifying your heroes from the GOAT debate, that is. :bolt:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,864 Posts
IF Federer was in decline after 09 then how come he has dominated Nadal since 17 and still made Wimbledon and USO final till 19 and the only person who could beat him in those finals was Djokovic?
slams won between wimbledon ´03 and wimbledon ´09: 15
slams won between USO ´09 and USO ´16: 2

That´s only 2 slams in almost 8 years when he was used to win 2 or 3 slams a year.

Somehow he woke up after AO17 for a short time but beating post prime Nadal outside clay is not a good gauge, even if he got motivated again and he played in good form, his physical and consequently health decline was evident, if anything, it was a sign of how weak the field was in the period in which Novak dominated.

We may be getting used to players like Federer and Djokovic dominating at older age now, but not long ago in 2016 it would have been unimaginable to think someone after 34 or 35 y.o. could reach the #1
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,084 Posts
Delete.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,084 Posts
In other words, neither Laver nor Nadal/Murray could be GOATs. Laver missing the Olympic gold... as Nadal/Murray lack the CYGS.
Thanks for the confirmation, buddy. We always count on your disqualifying tennis knowledge. Disqualifying your heroes from the GOAT debate, that is. :bolt:
You cannot play tournaments that didn't exist, I'm frankly shocked I have to explain this to you. Laver's 200 titles and Calendar Year Grand Slams are the reason he's undisputed GOAT. I think the word you were looking for is "discerning" by the way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,163 Posts
You cannot play tournaments that didn't exist, I'm frankly shocked I have to explain this to you. Laver's 200 titles and Calendar Year Grand Slams are the reason he's undisputed GOAT. I think the word you were looking for is "discerning" by the way.
If Laver was that big of a player then tennis would have been included to OG during his career
But apparently no one was impressed by a weak era clown vulturing Slams in amateur fields :grin::smash:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,084 Posts
If Laver was that big of a player then tennis would have been included to OG during his career
But apparently no one was impressed by a weak era clown vulturing Slams in amateur fields :grin::smash:
No, it was all about CYGS as it still is today. GOAT debate ended in Laver's favour in New York. The field has never been weaker than 2014-2021.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JosGros

·
Premium Member
The best is yet to come
Joined
·
31,266 Posts
You cannot play tournaments that didn't exist, I'm frankly shocked I have to explain this to you. Laver's 200 titles and Calendar Year Grand Slams are the reason he's undisputed GOAT. I think the word you were looking for is "discerning" by the way.
Still Nadal or Murray don't have the calendar grand slam... but they had ample opportunities to win it.
What gives? Just back down from your ridiculous claim... what was true till 1988, it hasn't been since. That is: either are Rosset, Agassi, Kafelnikov, Massu, Nadal and Murray pretenders or your theory is only a theory. No tennis historian pays any serious attention to it.

No, it was all about CYGS as it still is today. GOAT debate ended in Laver's favour in New York. The field has never been weaker than 2014-2021.
Nahhh, you just cannot "I WON a single Masters 1000 as highest level tourney all my career" Ljubicic being at #3 or "I beat Ferrer, Ancic and Stepanek for my single Masters, because Fedal withdrew due to fatigue and Djokovic didn't even enter" Robredo at #5.
Cut this condescending trashtalk about the current era. It is weak for sure, but not as weak as you would make it out to be or you would like in your pipe dream..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,084 Posts
Still Nadal or Murray don't have the calendar grand slam... but they had ample opportunities to win it.
What gives? Just back down from your ridiculous claim... what was true till 1988, it hasn't been since. That is: either are Rosset, Agassi, Kafelnikov, Massu, Nadal and Murray pretenders or your theory is only a theory. No tennis historian pays any serious attention to it.
Nadal and Murray aren't GOAT contenders. Back in the day Davis Cup was huge - now it's the Olympics. It will become bigger and bigger unless the ATP proscribe it again to protect their own brand. This will be difficult to achieve due to modern players attitudes to it. Pandora's box has been opened. It is easier to keep a genie in a lamp and not let it out than to put one back in.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,103 Posts
"I WON a single Masters 1000 as highest level tourney all my career"
Ljubicic being at #3 or "I beat Ferrer, Ancic and Stepanek for my single Masters
Ljubicic just beat ... Djokovic, Nadal and Roddick (who will win Miami, after) at IW 2010

Finals8Andy RoddickW763 765
Semi-Finals3Rafael NadalW36 64 761
Quarter-Finals27Juan MonacoW46 62 61
Round of 162Novak DjokovicW75 63

Ferrer has already beaten Djokovic .. and will beat him again, he did the same with Nadal.

Robredo's last big win vs top 10 is against ..

Djokovic number one.

Rectangle Font Parallel Screenshot Pattern


Strange choice to say the least ... whereas if you absolutely want a "weak" year where Federer and Nadal win slams to relieve you (but not Djokovic of course), you have Bercy 2017 and Sock at your disposal.

Don't be surprised that I'm "picky" and "disturb" you after that. 😅
 

·
Premium Member
The best is yet to come
Joined
·
31,266 Posts
Ljubicic just beat ... Djokovic, Nadal and Roddick (who will win Miami, after) at IW 2010

Finals8Andy RoddickW763 765
Semi-Finals3Rafael NadalW36 64 761
Quarter-Finals27Juan MonacoW46 62 61
Round of 162Novak DjokovicW75 63

Ferrer has already beaten Djokovic .. and will beat him again, he did the same with Nadal.

Robredo's last big win vs top 10 is against ..

Djokovic number one.

View attachment 372581

Strange choice to say the least ... whereas if you absolutely want a "weak" year where Federer and Nadal win slams to relieve you (but not Djokovic of course), you have Bercy 2017 and Sock at your disposal.

Don't be surprised that I'm "picky" and "disturb" you after that. 😅
These are laughable... in how many attempts they beat Djokovic or Top 10? There you have your real weak era.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,103 Posts
These are laughable... in how many attempts they beat Djokovic or Top 10? There you have your real weak era.
I'm not sure that it's ... so laughable for you.

The point is that Robredo has beaten 22 top 10 and....2 numbers1 during his career 11 years apart.

Long before and especially... long after its 2006 peak


5no 31 Roland-Garros2003Terre battue Lleyton Hewittno 11/164-6, 1-6, 6-3, 6-2, 6-3

22no 20 Cincinnati2014Dur Novak Djokovicno 11/87-66, 7-5




Let's admit Hewitt to RG because Robredo is essentially a clay player, but also "goat of hard" ... on hard. :)

These players were not ranked top 10 by chance.

Moreover, lowering Ljubicic's performance at IW 2010 would be the same as lowering that of JWT at Canada 2014 or Nalbandian Madrid-Bercy 2007 says more about your futile quest for a "weak era" than on the laughable side (or not) of this "postulate". 😌
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
856 Posts
Oh, please...First of all who is Graff??? It's Graf...very easy to remember.

Second thing, line call and the crowd didn't prevent Hingis to play well and get to the point to serve for the match, but she still couldn't win. Not to blame the umpire and the crowd for the defeat.

Thirdly, we are talking here about probabilities in tennis and that nothing could be taken for granted, no matter how much one was dominant at some point.
We all know very well that a certain moment in a tennis match can turn the whole situation. I don't care if Hingis could have won or not - I care about the disgusting crowd because it does matter in a battle of that sort. About your statement - the probabilities - the probabilities are always there and that's why Graf's record is with a question mark - because of the very big probability that Monica Seles could have prevented her from winning here and there. That will stay in history of tennis forever.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
240 Posts
slams won between wimbledon ´03 and wimbledon ´09: 15
slams won between USO ´09 and USO ´16: 2

That´s only 2 slams in almost 8 years when he was used to win 2 or 3 slams a year.

Somehow he woke up after AO17 for a short time but beating post prime Nadal outside clay is not a good gauge, even if he got motivated again and he played in good form, his physical and consequently health decline was evident, if anything, it was a sign of how weak the field was in the period in which Novak dominated.

We may be getting used to players like Federer and Djokovic dominating at older age now, but not long ago in 2016 it would have been unimaginable to think someone after 34 or 35 y.o. could reach the #1
Yes I think this is partly due to weaker competition, if 34 old Djokovic would have played in 2008-2016 Golden era against peak Murray, peak Nadal, peak Wawrinka and peak Federer (assuming Djoko and Fed exchanges their birthdays) he would have not won what he won in our reality.

But partly is due to them being insanely good and well trained, able to reinvent their tennis to stay at the top. Like, Borg, McEnroe, Sampras etc. were all done at not due to competition but due to them declining physically and mentally much more than Fed and Djok, or also good old Rafito.

The fact 35yo Fed beat 30yo Rafa is good btw for his resume, I'll not belittle his win in AO17 like that. Rafa was not in his peak but still a prime level version for sure.

Also the timing of the comparisons is important: Fed dominated between 2004 and 2007 (11 slams). Since when the others started peaking (and Fed was still young, 26-30/31) let's say from 2008 to 2012 (from when Rafa won outside clay and Djoko and Murray had their breaktrought) Fed won 5 slams in 5 years and 2 WTFs out of 5, so he defended himself well against growing opposition.
In 2003-2007 the field was also easier even for him, it's not like Novak has been the only one to benefit from "weaker" eras.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
317 Posts
We all know very well that a certain moment in a tennis match can turn the whole situation. I don't care if Hingis could have won or not - I care about the disgusting crowd because it does matter in a battle of that sort. About your statement - the probabilities - the probabilities are always there and that's why Graf's record is with a question mark - because of the very big probability that Monica Seles could have prevented her from winning here and there. That will stay in history of tennis forever.
The point was that probability in tennis is never certainty...and the case with Hingis was used just an example of that, what might have been, as the probabilities were very high, but just didn't happen...nothing more, nothing less.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
856 Posts
The point was that probability in tennis is never certainty...and the case with Hingis was used just an example of that, what might have been, as the probabilities were very high, but just didn't happen...nothing more, nothing less.
Hingis's case is at a lot different than Seles's. Two factors: 1. Tennis evolving in a more raw powerful game with women - starting from 1998 - Davenport and Williams sisters and others. Hingis had 3 Grand Slams in 1997 and that was her peak year. After that she won AO 1998 and AO 1999 (obviously her favorite tournament) and that's it. She was never as dominant as her 1997 and 1998-1999 marked her gradual decline; 2. On the contrary - Seles's career at the moment of her stabbing was on the rise - she started to dominate the game - the probability was taken away not from an injury or natural decline but from an act of violence which ended something abruptly at its rising trajectory. She had won 7 of the last 8 GS - that is a huge dominance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
86 Posts
No, it was all about CYGS as it still is today. GOAT debate ended in Laver's favour in New York. The field has never been weaker than 2014-2021.
That is objectively false. At the very least that 2000-2002 period can't hold a candle to any of those years. Djokovic, Nadal, Murray, Federer (especially 2015 and 2017 Fed) would all dominate during that period and peak Stanimal would likely decimate most on his path other than wimbledon. On top of that you have Thiem, Zverev and Medvedev at various portions of the last 3-4 years that can put up a huge fight. 2010-2013 is likely the most dominant period of tennis and the hardest for a player to dominate. Nadal and Djokovic did in 2 of those years but 2012-2013 was just insane.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,038 Posts
Of course it's reasonable to think that Graf benefited from the Seles incident. But the only thing that matters is that Graf did win all those events, did dominate, and did establish herself as the best. Meanwhile, people talk about what Seles might've done. Huge difference. This is something very obvious, yet it gets lost easily in this MTF world of fantasy, asterisking and excuse-making.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
210 Posts
What happened to Seles was tragic, but to use it to diminish Graff's career is disgusting. A lot of revisionism going on there. And you can use hypotheticals with any player to diminish another player's achievements.
This isn't a usual hypothetical like "If only player A didn't get injured" that you can use with any player.

Seles was stabbed by a Graff fan, on court, with a butcher knife, with the intent to render her unable to play tennis and compete with Graff for major titles (which she did up until then). With what other player can we use similar hypothetical?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
86 Posts
Of course it's reasonable to think that Graf benefited from the Seles incident. But the only thing that matters is that Graf did win all those events, did dominate, and did establish herself as the best. Meanwhile, people talk about what Seles might've done. Huge difference. This is something very obvious, yet it gets lost easily in this MTF world of fantasy, asterisking and excuse-making.
If somebody stabbed Rafa in 2011 and Novak won 7-8 RG titles after that, would you really be saying the same thing and calling Novak the clay GOAT as he would have more clay slams than anyone? It would immediately become the biggest what if scenario and overtake the Seles situation.
 
81 - 100 of 119 Posts
Top