Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 20 of 28 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,311 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I have been thinking about this a lot. Let's say someone like Wawrinka or Murray. They have no chance of reaching 17 slams. In light of that, what else could they do to be considered a GOAT candidate?

2 straight calendar year Grand slams ( 8 more majors)?
2 or 3 undefeated years? Let's say 65-0 or 70-0
Winning every masters event in one year?

This is assuming these guys won't get past 10 slams. Is there anything they could possibly do to be a part of the conversation? Just curious what you guys think
 

·
Your visions will happen
Joined
·
47,129 Posts
One CYGS and 14-15 slams could trump Fed's 17

With 10 slams, no way, maybe 8 straight slams like you said, but even still they'd be 7 slams short
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,311 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
One CYGS and 14-15 slams could trump Fed's 17

With 10 slams, no way, maybe 8 straight slams like you said, but even still they'd be 7 slams short
2 Undefeated years including 8 slams? I think that's better than 17 slams to be honest. I mean harder to do not necessarily better.
 

·
Your visions will happen
Joined
·
47,129 Posts
an undefeated year would be the best season of all time, yes, but not necessarily the best career.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,226 Posts
Winning two consecutive CYGS would ensure either of them be mentioned along with the other greats Laver, Borg, Sampras, Nadal and Federer.

But if either were to do this, the amount of "weak era" complaints would be sooooo tedious I would have to give up the internet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,311 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Winning two consecutive CYGS would ensure either of them be mentioned along with the other greats Laver, Borg, Sampras, Nadal and Federer.

But if either were to do this, the amount of "weak era" complaints would be sooooo tedious I would have to give up the internet.
That's true. But that would die down after a while. Could Laver win two CYGS today with this field? I doubt it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,009 Posts
Chuckled at the thought of Murray going 2 years undefeated.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,311 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Chuckled at the thought of Murray going 2 years undefeated.
I was just making an example... haha. If I just mentioned Wawrinka, trolls would bring bandwagon comments and derail the thread :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,009 Posts
But to answer your question: 2 CYGS in a row would be GOAT without a doubt in my mind.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,795 Posts
How would this hypothetical (short) career rank?

11 slams
1 WTF title
152 weeks at no. 1
Double career slam
CYGS

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,311 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
But to answer your question: 2 CYGS in a row would be GOAT without a doubt in my mind.
I personally think two undefeated years which includes 8 slams and 65+ wins makes you the GOAT. I don't care what era, anyone has a let down, even in weak eras. Heck, even Serena who has owned all her competitors has not achieved that. In fact one undefeated year with 4 slams and all the masters, would be right up there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,009 Posts
I personally think two undefeated years which includes 8 slams and 65+ wins makes you the GOAT. I don't care what era, anyone has a let down, even in weak eras. Heck, even Serena who has owned all her competitors has not achieved that. In fact one undefeated year with 4 slams and all the masters, would be right up there.
Not even undefeated seasons. Simply winning 8 Slams in a row would be dominance of an unprecedented scale. Nobody in the Open Era has even come close to doing this and if anyone did it in the super-professionalised modern game it would be just about the most impressive feat in all of modern sport, let alone tennis.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,311 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
If they were all given wooden racquets to play with: yep.
Well, that wouldn't be fair unless you let people like Federer or Nadal grow up with those racquets. Let's face it, Laver for all his amazing talent did not exactly do the impossible in his era. There is a good reason it's so tough to pull it off these days, and it's not because all the players are bum or worse than Laver. Federer and Nadal are two of the greatest of all time, and Nole is an amazing talent himself.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,311 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
Not even undefeated seasons. Simply winning 8 Slams in a row would be dominance of an unprecedented scale. Nobody in the Open Era has even come close to doing this and if anyone did it in the super-professionalised modern game it would be just about the most impressive feat in all of modern sport, let alone tennis.
The New England Patriots almost pulled it off in NFL and people said that was impressive. 8 slams in a row is not that impossible in a weak era, but in this era (which some still call weak), very very tough. Heck, Roger could not win 4 in a row even before Rafa showed up.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
6,072 Posts
I suppose this just highlights that while we are obsessed with ranking players, seasons and other things in ordered lists, the reality is these things aren't on some scale that makes ranking one above the other all that meaningful. Instead, each tournament, season or career tells a story of some sort. The career that has 17 slams spread pretty evenly over the course of 10 years is the story of someone at the top of the game for a long time, able to average multiple slams per year for several years - the career with 8 slams in 2 calendar years is the story of someone who completely dominated the top of the sport for a significant amount of time, but then failed to achieve longevity beyond that. Which one ranks above the other in a list is just a matter of which quality in a story makes it the story of a better player to the list maker.

I think things like a CYGS (or NCYGS), an undefeated season (assuming all GS and almost all Masters are played) or some other feat like that certainly would put a player in the discussion for greatest of all time, because they will have good a good claim for having been the greatest player ever, if only for a shorter period of time (and they will have tangible evidence, unlike subjective opinions of viewers trying to rate individual performances). Even if someone had more tournament wins over a career, that only shows that they were "good for longer", which is not necessarily the same as "greater", or else then Robredo could build a career that makes him greater than Del Potro by reaching a plethora of slam QFs without ever coming close to a win.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,311 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
I suppose this just highlights that while we are obsessed with ranking players, seasons and other things in ordered lists, the reality is these things aren't on some scale that makes ranking one above the other all that meaningful. Instead, each tournament, season or career tells a story of some sort. The career that has 17 slams spread pretty evenly over the course of 10 years is the story of someone at the top of the game for a long time, able to average multiple slams per year for several years - the career with 8 slams in 2 calendar years is the story of someone who completely dominated the top of the sport for a significant amount of time, but then failed to achieve longevity beyond that. Which one ranks above the other in a list is just a matter of which quality in a story makes it the story of a better player to the list maker.

I think things like a CYGS (or NCYGS), an undefeated season (assuming all GS and almost all Masters are played) or some other feat like that certainly would put a player in the discussion for greatest of all time, because they will have good a good claim for having been the greatest player ever, if only for a shorter period of time (and they will have tangible evidence, unlike subjective opinions of viewers trying to rate individual performances). Even if someone had more tournament wins over a career, that only shows that they were "good for longer", which is not necessarily the same as "greater", or else then Robredo could build a career that makes him greater than Del Potro by reaching a plethora of slam QFs without ever coming close to a win.
I think an undefeated year with all the slams and a good number of masters, lets say 6, and 70+ matches won ... that is so mind boggling... But if you do it for one year, it could technically be a fluke or excuses can be made. But if you do it twice, I have a hard time imagining someone topping that. 17 slams or 24 slams are great. They are amazing accomplishments. But greatest achievement of all time? That's debatable.

The question is ... if someone goes undefeated for a year ... he might retire just trying to preserve that. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,311 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
1 - 20 of 28 Posts
Top