Joined
·
32 Posts
Once the dust all settles assuming there is no tie and nothing astronomical happens like someone coming from no where winning 20+ slams in the next 6 years.
Will you accept the member of the big 3 that emerges with the most slams as your GOAT?
1 - 20 of 31 Posts
Joined
·
2,380 Posts
Well, objective goat will probably always be a myth, but in general slams are a major factor but not the sole factor.
Having said that, MY goat will probably always be Federer, but I interpret my goat as being a lot more subjective and am guessing your aiming for objectivity.
Having said that, MY goat will probably always be Federer, but I interpret my goat as being a lot more subjective and am guessing your aiming for objectivity.
Joined
·
3,157 Posts
Would've I considered Sampras the GOAT if he held slam record? Most certainly not, comparing his game to some players I like, there are many factors that are important for me. It comes down to a personal preference as far as I am concerned. Slam race is just one component of it all. On the other hand, numbers don't lie, and we will have to accept a player for being the most successful in slams, or masters, or Olympics or any other respective category.
Joined
·
985 Posts
I actually think Djokovic is the best tennis player of all time, but Nadal will end up with the most slams and Federer will still be widely seen as the GOAT.
Of course it's all subjective and everyone will see it differently. For me Dull has too many of his numbers slanted by clay and hasn't ever owned an era. Federer was owned by Dull for a majority of his career. Djokovic has dominated an era which included peak Dull and close to peak Fed (my opinion only). He's also got the most complete resume.
Of course it's all subjective and everyone will see it differently. For me Dull has too many of his numbers slanted by clay and hasn't ever owned an era. Federer was owned by Dull for a majority of his career. Djokovic has dominated an era which included peak Dull and close to peak Fed (my opinion only). He's also got the most complete resume.
Joined
·
2,450 Posts
Statistically it doesn't matter what will we think.For ex. Nole can end with the most slams,masters and weeks.And he will be legitimate goat.But ofc for each fan base their idol will be the goat,because u have to think that in an era of 3 equal ATG to call someone UNDISPUTED goat a bit....Stupid 
I said it before - for me the GOAT should be a player who dominated ALL surfaces equally.None of them could,but Nole came close to it
I said it before - for me the GOAT should be a player who dominated ALL surfaces equally.None of them could,but Nole came close to it
Joined
·
3,032 Posts
I can answer this with a definite "no", because I think Steffi Graf is the female GOAT.
Joined
·
288 Posts
No, as I don’t think anyone can stand out clearly enough to deserve that title. Besides, Say what you want about their unprecedented collective level but the fact that 3 players shattered the slam record in the same era casts some doubt on the validity of that measure across generations. 3 players with as many slams as Borg and Connors combined make zero sense.
Joined
·
7,194 Posts
The tennis establishment has been calling Fed GOAT for over ten years so the discussion is highly distorted.
The Fed fans on forums doing the same, trashing Nadal etc. not accepting his or Djok accomplishment's as equivalent.
So we don't enter an even or fair discussion. This discussion has been extremely corrupt.
So: In an ideal where this didn't happen my position on GOAT would have been slams alone is not the measure, but a main measure; then factors in 1000s, Olympics, WTF, H2Hs, weeks at #1, times they went back to #1 etc. etc. etc. Then there are intangibles--like who best represented the sport, brought most fans to the sport, was the best sportsman etc. Again, tennis establishment chose Fed way way way too early on these last counts, so much distortion.
In an ideal world where the Fed bias didn't occur I would say that the three are so close to one another in acheivements, and with differents kinds of acheivement, that i would say NO SINGLE GOAT. A GOAT is someone who has no close Second in what they do.
BUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! In this world, where I have had to listen to Fed GOAT propaganda for over ten years, and take all this shit on the forums, Slam counts and H2Hs and Masters then factor in strength of opponent against which slams were won, weakere baby, suck it up!) and Fed is already in 3rd place.
The Fed fans on forums doing the same, trashing Nadal etc. not accepting his or Djok accomplishment's as equivalent.
So we don't enter an even or fair discussion. This discussion has been extremely corrupt.
So: In an ideal where this didn't happen my position on GOAT would have been slams alone is not the measure, but a main measure; then factors in 1000s, Olympics, WTF, H2Hs, weeks at #1, times they went back to #1 etc. etc. etc. Then there are intangibles--like who best represented the sport, brought most fans to the sport, was the best sportsman etc. Again, tennis establishment chose Fed way way way too early on these last counts, so much distortion.
In an ideal world where the Fed bias didn't occur I would say that the three are so close to one another in acheivements, and with differents kinds of acheivement, that i would say NO SINGLE GOAT. A GOAT is someone who has no close Second in what they do.
BUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! In this world, where I have had to listen to Fed GOAT propaganda for over ten years, and take all this shit on the forums, Slam counts and H2Hs and Masters then factor in strength of opponent against which slams were won, weakere baby, suck it up!) and Fed is already in 3rd place.
Joined
·
10,845 Posts
While I accept that there's a GOAT debate, I don't accept that there is a GOAT or will be, ever. Being an ATG is the highest recognition I will give.
Joined
·
21,526 Posts
With her main rival literally stabbed in the back, don't think she can claim that.
Joined
·
16,774 Posts
No one knows what would have happened if not for that tragic and disgraceful incident but one thing I'm sure of is it was not Steffi's fault.
Joined
·
3,032 Posts
She didn't claim it; I did.
The Seles stabbing casts a shadow over Graf's career, no question. But the action of that madman cannot invalidate her career, and certainly not the many astounding things she achieved before Seles even appeared on the scene.
To me, Graf's 1988 was the pinnacle of tennis achievement to date, and it was only possible because of her excellence on all surfaces and in all conditions.
Other opinions are permitted, other favourites are legitimate.
But Steffi did what she did through her own genius and talent. Her reputation is not contingent on the actions of that mental patient who attacked Seles.
Joined
·
5,793 Posts
As extremely disgraceful as it was for tennis (let alone for Seles herself) reality is what it is: 22 vs. 9 slams. What woulda, coulda, shoulda is only that: speculation.
So yes, Steffi has a very legitimate claim to that.
Joined
·
10,778 Posts
Dull fans and Djoko fans will never accept whatever happens, especially if their men fall short.
Generally a generation is going to be dominant for about 5 years, we could have expected a run of a couple years in 2004 and 2005 from Federer, and nobody would have blinked an eye if Nadal took over in 2006.
But that's not what happened. Say the Federer era lasted until 2005, and Nadal/Djokovic lasted 2006 to the end of 2010. That would have been a normal generation. Nadal would have had 9 slams (a respectable total), and Federer would have had 6 slams. Djokovic would have had 4.
What has happened is that from 2012 on, there have been no challengers. The 1989s were 22 in 2012. Every other generation has made at least an impact at this point. Now they are 30, and still have had zero impact. that is 8 years of slams at 32 slams. With this year's AO that represents 29, and depending on if they win another one that would be 33. That's over 11 apiece that get distributed between the three of them.
That puts Federer on 17, Nadal on 20, and Djokovic on 15. Fed has taken another 3 from this pool, so that would give us 20, 18 and 14.
8 years represents the entirety of Generation useless's 20 slam expected wins, meaning that of 60 slams (20 from Fed's generation, 20 from Nadal/Djokovic and 20 from Generation useless, that there were 60 slams up for grabs.
That adds onto 3/5ths of Next Generation's output too, or another 12 slams. That is 72 slams, or 24 apiece from 2001 to 2009. And now they've taken another one, number 13 of the 20 allocated to Generation next.
That's why the discreprency. Also, Australia. Also, Borg's retirement. Also you have to include McEnroe and Lendl to get a true picture of that era. Evan so it doesn't match the ridiculousness of the Fed era + Nadal Djokovic era.
Especially when you consider that coming up on 2004, Federer had never been number 1, was already 23, and had only one slam, while his peer Hewitt had been number one for over a year, and Safin had won a slam more than 3 years previous.
Generally a generation is going to be dominant for about 5 years, we could have expected a run of a couple years in 2004 and 2005 from Federer, and nobody would have blinked an eye if Nadal took over in 2006.
But that's not what happened. Say the Federer era lasted until 2005, and Nadal/Djokovic lasted 2006 to the end of 2010. That would have been a normal generation. Nadal would have had 9 slams (a respectable total), and Federer would have had 6 slams. Djokovic would have had 4.
What has happened is that from 2012 on, there have been no challengers. The 1989s were 22 in 2012. Every other generation has made at least an impact at this point. Now they are 30, and still have had zero impact. that is 8 years of slams at 32 slams. With this year's AO that represents 29, and depending on if they win another one that would be 33. That's over 11 apiece that get distributed between the three of them.
That puts Federer on 17, Nadal on 20, and Djokovic on 15. Fed has taken another 3 from this pool, so that would give us 20, 18 and 14.
8 years represents the entirety of Generation useless's 20 slam expected wins, meaning that of 60 slams (20 from Fed's generation, 20 from Nadal/Djokovic and 20 from Generation useless, that there were 60 slams up for grabs.
That adds onto 3/5ths of Next Generation's output too, or another 12 slams. That is 72 slams, or 24 apiece from 2001 to 2009. And now they've taken another one, number 13 of the 20 allocated to Generation next.
That's why the discreprency. Also, Australia. Also, Borg's retirement. Also you have to include McEnroe and Lendl to get a true picture of that era. Evan so it doesn't match the ridiculousness of the Fed era + Nadal Djokovic era.
Joined
·
10,778 Posts
One other thing of the Next Gen, Tsitsipas, (1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998), is on the tail end of it and is the only player on a 'Federer pace of development'. Zverev is behind. Shapovalov is still on the pace (Federer was at 14 at the age of 21. FAA is quite a bit ahead. Fed was at 18 at 19 years and 10 months, so Felix is about 4 months ahead of him.
Joined
·
3,256 Posts
meaning when all of them were retired and there would be leader in the slam count?
yes of course, that's what numbers are all about after all. would be a different story in the unlikely event all of them were tied tho, the debate then gonna be a mess of the most epic proportions... ^^
yes of course, that's what numbers are all about after all. would be a different story in the unlikely event all of them were tied tho, the debate then gonna be a mess of the most epic proportions... ^^
1 - 20 of 31 Posts
Join the discussion
Join now to ask and comment!