[SetSampras]

At least among the general world public. Just like it did in 2009. Sampras was majority deemed the GOAT by most of the community and everyone made a huge deal when Fed passed it and the festivities. Its going to come down to who wins the most slams out of the Big 3. Not "uhhhh Wait.. he won 4 here. Oh he needs to win 4 there" They all got the Career slam. Now its just who wins the most slams. You don't hear any talk about "surface distribution wins" anywhere at any time outside of the Cherry Picking Tennis Analyst message boards of the die hard fans

 

[Dull]

It's very simple. Fedophiles always insisted that Slam count was the most important thing, since they didn't want to account for H2H, which makes Fed look bad. Now that Dull has caught up with Fed, they will change tack and insist that it is about weeks at #1. As soon as Faker catches Fed in that stat, they will say it is all about YECs + Slam count, in order to exclude both Dull and Faker. This is already happening, go look at any of the other threads from today. Same old dishonest crap. Similarly Dullards will put extra emphasis on Olympic Gold, and "2 Slams on each surface", while No-vaxxers will go on and on about NCYGS, and "Golden Masters" (why tf are they golden? makes no sense, Faker doesn't have any gold).

People will always pick the criteria that favours their guy, and insist those criteria are universal.

 

[BodyServe]

It's very simple. Fedophiles always insisted that Slam count was the most important thing, since they didn't want to account for H2H, which makes Fed look bad. Now that Dull has caught up with Fed, they will change tack and insist that it is about weeks at #1. As soon as Faker catches Fed in that stat, they will say it is all about YECs + Slam count, in order to exclude both Dull and Faker. This is already happening, go look at any of the other threads from today. Same old dishonest crap. People will always pick the criteria that favours their guy, and insist those criteria are universal.

I have only seen new Nadal fans today, no Federer fans to be seen anymore. They all jumped ship like a bunch of cowards.

 

[Claybot]

Now that Dull has caught up with Fed, they will change tack and insist that it is about weeks at #1.

Would you be so kind in showing us a Fed Fan claiming exactly this?

 

[Claybot]

I have only seen new Nadal fans today, no Federer fans to be seen anymore. They all jumped ship like a bunch of cowards.

Many of them around, some even cheering for Nadal (me included).

 

[alypen]

Well, if it does, that would be very foolish (as I've been trying to point out on here since oh, 2013, I think, just in case anyone tries to claim this is a change of tack!). I mean, imagine the potential scenario: 10 years hence, with none of the Big Three still playing, and the standard of men's tennis having dropped somewhat, along comes someone whose level is, say, sub-peak Murray, so he's significantly better than the other players without being as good as Fedalovic. With no real competition, he could theoretically outdo whoever-it-is's Slam/Masters/whatever else total within about six years. Would you therefore claim he was the GOAT?

(And I still don't really believe in GOAThood, anyway)

 

[Hamdam]

getting most slams is nice but you must do it with style in order to become Goat: equal the record in nice numbered year(2020 20 slams), and broke it with same ending number year(2021, 21 slams). and you know that he's closing in!

 

[Fargif]

At the end of the day your right. You ask former players and when it comes down to is slams. Because weeks at number one while an important stat its just that.
So this guy needs this and that guy needs that is garbage.

 

[no_signal]

Well, if it does, that would be very foolish (as I've been trying to point out on here since oh, 2013, I think, just in case anyone tries to claim this is a change of tack!). I mean, imagine the potential scenario: 10 years hence, with none of the Big Three still playing, and the standard of men's tennis having dropped somewhat, along comes someone whose level is, say, sub-peak Murray, so he's significantly better than the other players without being as good as Fedalovic. With no real competition, he could theoretically outdo whoever-it-is's Slam/Masters/whatever else total within about six years. Would you therefore claim he was the GOAT?

(And I still don't really believe in GOAThood, anyway)

You mean like Federer 2003-2007?

 

[MalwareDie]

Personally, I won't consider Nadal the GOAT unless he has 3 more Grand Slams than Federer given Federer has 6 ATP Finals victories, many more weeks at #1, and a much more balanced resume. I'd say that Nadal also needs to lead Djokovic by 3 Slams to be the GOAT for the same reason that he needs to lead Federer by that amount. As of now, I have Federer in the lead, followed by Nadal in 2nd place in the GOAT race, narrowly leading Djokovic as the third greatest of all time. I didn't just recently think this. I've thought this was the case as recently as 2015 when it seemed like Nadal's Slam winning days were over, so it's not like I thought anyone would approach Federer's records anytime soon.

People who dismiss the ATP Finals because Nadal hasn't won it are not making Nadal look too good given that great champions such as Bjorn Borg and Gustavo Kuerten could win the tournament even though there were many better players on the surface. Borg and Kuerten also never complained about the ATP Finals always being on indoor hard courts, suggesting that it should be played on clay like Nadal has. They showed up and did their best to win. Winning the ATP Finals shows that you can actually beat the best players on the tour instead of facing lower-ranked players for most of a Grand Slam run. I'm not arguing that winning an ATP Finals is comparable to winning a Grand Slam, but it is the second most prestigious event in tennis, and the ATP clearly recognizes it as so with the point distribution. Having to face top players throughout your run makes it a unique challenge that no other event presents. Nadal not participating this year would be a cowardly move given he isn't injured. He probably doesn't want to give other players a psychological advantage over him by losing to them.

I have only seen new Nadal fans today, no Federer fans to be seen anymore. They all jumped ship like a bunch of cowards.

I am still here. I'm just not that active of a poster anymore because I spend most of my time doing other things these days unlike in the past. I also will never root for Nadal even if it looks like Federer will end up the third greatest all time, and if Djokovic ends up as the Slam leader or co-Slam leader, I will readily accept that Djokovic is the greatest. Nadal, on the other hand, I will only accept if he leads Federer and Djokovic by 3 Grand Slam titles.

 

[BodyServe]

I am still here. I'm just not that active of a poster anymore because I spend most of my time doing other things these days unlike in the past. I also will never root for Nadal even if it looks like Federer will end up the third greatest all time, and if Djokovic ends up as the Slam leader or co-Slam leader, I will readily accept that Djokovic is the greatest. Nadal, on the other hand, I will only accept if he leads Federer and Djokovic by 3 Grand Slam titles.

That's fine I have said it on another thread, today is a big day because of the numbers but in reality it doesn't change much if anything, everyone know Nadal is the best on clay. It could have changed Djokovic legacy but he was a lot further away from the required level than i and many other thought he was. His clay season was just a smokescreen in the end. Probably only Dominic Thiem firing on all cylinders could have beaten Nadal.

I still think there is a problem and it was Wimbledon getting cancelled where Djokovic was certainly the favorite in Federer absence, his serve/return combo is just far above anyone else.

I am glad you aren't like most Federer fans i have seen tonight (and even Federer himself) who heavily supported Nadal.

 

[Fp87]

In my humble opinion, numbers alone are cold. Fed has 20 slams, but 15 of them came from 2003-2009. A much weaker era. Novak and Rafa played against better competition, so i consider them better. For me Fed is out of the conversation. Lost too many times to his biggest rivals on the biggest occasions.

 

[smithy]

It's very simple. Fedophiles always insisted that Slam count was the most important thing, since they didn't want to account for H2H, which makes Fed look bad. Now that Dull has caught up with Fed, they will change tack and insist that it is about weeks at #1. As soon as Faker catches Fed in that stat, they will say it is all about YECs + Slam count, in order to exclude both Dull and Faker. This is already happening, go look at any of the other threads from today. Same old dishonest crap. Similarly Dullards will put extra emphasis on Olympic Gold, and "2 Slams on each surface", while No-vaxxers will go on and on about NCYGS, and "Golden Masters" (why tf are they golden? makes no sense, Faker doesn't have any gold).

People will always pick the criteria that favours their guy, and insist those criteria are universal.

Good post that accurately sums up the fanbases.

I feel that the only way we'll ever get a consensus or perhaps even acceptance of a GOAT is if Djokovic becomes a co-leader in slam count given all his other achievements. Even then Federer fans might pull the beauty of his game and popularity card as reasons why he will always be the GOAT.

 

[Servebots=GOAT]

It's very simple. Fedophiles always insisted that Slam count was the most important thing, since they didn't want to account for H2H, which makes Fed look bad. Now that Dull has caught up with Fed, they will change tack and insist that it is about weeks at #1. As soon as Faker catches Fed in that stat, they will say it is all about YECs + Slam count, in order to exclude both Dull and Faker. This is already happening, go look at any of the other threads from today. Same old dishonest crap. Similarly Dullards will put extra emphasis on Olympic Gold, and "2 Slams on each surface", while No-vaxxers will go on and on about NCYGS, and "Golden Masters" (why tf are they golden? makes no sense, Faker doesn't have any gold).

People will always pick the criteria that favours their guy, and insist those criteria are universal.

Gotta agree with you there dawg. I do this shit all the time myself 😂.

 

[Tennis cognoscenti king]

The opening poster has to be very clear what he means by "universal" GOAT. At the moment Margaret Court stands way above anyone else winning 24 singles slams out of the 48 tournaments she entered. As well as this she was the first women to win the calendar slam in the Open Era whilst only being active between 59-75. Furthermore, she won 40 doubles slams. Her resume is untouchable and surely fits in with the "universal" moniker?

Rod Laver has 19 slams on three different surfaces, and has done the hardest thing in tennis, the Calendar Year grand Slam , not once but twice. In my view, if you haven't won at least one Calendar Grand Slam you can't be in the GOAT debate - you haven't proved that you could better your own contemporaries over a calendar year on all the surfaces, never mind those from different era. The NCYGS is a modern contrivance that has been created as a balm for players who can't achieve this phenomenal feat. It has no historical antecedents and is thus rendered irrelevant in this debate.

Last but not least we have the Olympic GOAT. The Olympics has quickly become the main goal of players over the last 12-16 years. The fact that Murray won two of them gives him a huge bump in the GOAT contention stakes, and knocks the likes of the big three down the list considerably. No CYGS and no Olympic domination is hugely damaging for the big threes prospects.

 

[phase3]

It's very simple. Fedophiles always insisted that Slam count was the most important thing, since they didn't want to account for H2H, which makes Fed look bad. Now that Dull has caught up with Fed, they will change tack and insist that it is about weeks at #1. As soon as Faker catches Fed in that stat, they will say it is all about YECs + Slam count, in order to exclude both Dull and Faker. This is already happening, go look at any of the other threads from today. Same old dishonest crap. Similarly Dullards will put extra emphasis on Olympic Gold, and "2 Slams on each surface", while No-vaxxers will go on and on about NCYGS, and "Golden

Masters" (why tf are they golden? makes no sense, Faker doesn't have any gold).

People will always pick the criteria that favours their guy, and insist those criteria are universal.

Exactly. But then where does that leave us? BACK AT THE SLAM COUNT. So basically the first man to 21 is the GOAT. no matter what the other numbers say. Djokovic for example will have more weeks as world number 1 next year than Federer at nearly 6 years younger.

He already has more masters. And will eventually have similar or better numbers in all the other areas that count. But unless he at least matches 20. He cant be considered GOAT. So anyway you spin it. Its always gonna come down to SLAM COUNT. To the uneducated indifferent masses anyway.