ATP GOAT Conversation

[brokenshoelace]

I would love to see another RG final between Novak and Rafa! I seriously doubt Novak could do the calendar slam, but career slam would be good to see. Still it does show what a clay beast Rafa is, and how impressive Roger has been to contest Rafa at RG so many times. Am I right in thinking Novak has only been in one RG final so far? Wow...

2012 and 2014, that's two. But in truth, it's a technicality. He and Nadal played in the semis in 2013 due to Rafa's ranking after returning from injury, so Novak would have almost certainly reached the finals 3 years in a row had it not been for that.

 

[El Dude]

Interesting thought about 2015 possibly resolving the GOAT. While I like to think of "Fedal" as the GOAT, if we have to pick then I'd still give Roger the edge. But that could change this year, but as I see it Rafa really has to equal Roger's Slam count to equal Roger. They have quite different records and Roger has some edges that Rafa simply can't match: a stronger, more consistent peak and the weeks at #1 in particular, but also the more rounded Slam record. Rafa needs to win at least one more non-clay Slams to be considered the GOAT, in my opinion.

As I see it, you have a few possibilities:

*Roger wins one more, Rafa wins none - Roger solidifies his GOAT status while Rafa shows that he's seriously slipping and probably can't make up ground.

*Roger doesn't win one, Rafa wins one - Rafa keeps creaping closer, the question remains open. If the one is Roland Garros, the question remains dicey as Rafa would then have twice as many Roland Garros titles as all of his other Slams combined. If it becomes 12 and 5 before he retires, there will always be a question mark, for some at least.

*Roger doesn't win one, Rafa wins two - Rafa jumps to one behind Roger making the likelihood that he at least equals Roger in Slam count seem like a foregone conclusion. At this point we need to talk about their GOAT status as being very similar.

*Roger doesn't win one, Rafa wins three - Rafa ties Roger and now has to be considered to have the edge in the GOAT discussion because of the likelihood that he can win at least one more. He'd have 10 RG titles and 7 non-clay titles, which is balanced enough to be considered the GOAT.

*Novak wins all four - And suddenly enters the conversation. This would give him 11 Slams, tied with Borg, and in the inner circle with a chance of being the GOAT. Anything less than all four and we have to wait a couple more years before serious consideration; without the Calendar Slam I think he needs at least 15 to be a serious candidate.

Of course all of this focuses almost entirely on Slam count, which is clearly the most important factor. But we must also consider weeks at #1, World Tour Finals, Masters, total titles, court distribution, etc. But as far as Rafa vs. Roger goes I think Slam count decides it, unless Rafa doesn't win any more off clay. I have a hard time calling him the GOAT if he ends up with, say, 13 clay Slam titles and 5 non-clay titles. But that would mean he won Roland Garros four more times without winning anything else, and I can't see that happening. I think he wins 1-3 more at Roland Garros and 0-2 more elsewhere, giving him a likely spread of 1-5 more Slams (or 15-19 total).

And yes, I am over-thinking this

 

[GameSetAndMath]

The last year of GOAT was 2003 and that is when Fed won his first slam. Would not it be
fitting if he wins the last slam in the current year of GOAT?

 

[Kirijax]

The last year of GOAT was 2003 and that is when Fed won his first slam. Would not it be
fitting if he wins the last slam in the current year of GOAT?

dang...I suddenly understand your avatar. Why did it take me so long? opps I missed that one. uzzled :snicker

 

[Great Hands]

Here's my own GOAT List:

1. Roger Federer
2. Rafael Nadal
3. Pete Sampras
4. Rod Laver
5. Bjorn Borg
6. Jimmy Connors
7. Novak Djokovic
8. Ivan Lendl
9. Pancho Gonzalez
10=. Ken Rosewall
10=. John McEnroe

I like your list, although I think Bill Tilden should be in the mix. But it really depends upon the era. I tend to think that tennis history has three broad eras:

Early Years ("Amateur Era"): 1877 to 1925 - begins with first Wimbledon
Middle Years ("Pro Slam Era"): 1926 to 1968 - begins with professional tour
Recent Years ("Open Era"): 1968 to present.

Of course there's overlap, but one way is to break down the players by era, so something like this:

Early Years
1. Bill Tilden
2. William Renshaw
3. William Larned
4. Anthony Wilding
5. Laurence Doherty
Also: Reggie Doherty, Bill Johnston, Joshua Pim, Norman Brookes, etc

Middle Years
1. Rod Laver
2. Ken Rosewall
3. Pancho Gonzales
4. Don Budge
5. Fred Perry
6. Jack Kramer
7. Ellsworth Vines
Also: Henri Cochet, Rene Lacoste, Bobby Riggs, Jack Crawford, Lew Hoad, Roy Emerson, Frank Sedgman, Pancho Segura, etc

Open Era
1. Roger Federer
2. Rafael Nadal
3. Pete Sampras
4. Bjorn Borg
5. Novak Djokovic
6. Jimmy Connors
7. Ivan Lendl
8. John McEnroe
9. Andre Agassi
10. Tie: Newcombe, Wilander, Edberg, Becker
Also: Ilie Nastase, Stan Smith, Guillermo Vilas, Jim Courier, Gustavo Kuerten, Andy Murray, etc

Or something like that.

I really like your lists here, El Dude. It's a really good overview!

 

[Great Hands]

If it's about accomplishments then it's difficult to understand why there's much of a discussion. Just about the only significant record Federer doesn't own is total number of titles. You have to really clutch at straws, or come up with zany definitions of greatness not to pick him.

You don't have to clutch at straws or be zany. There's still a discussion because of Rod Laver, who has 11 grand slams despite not being allowed to play in them for 5 years. He won 6 majors, including the calendar year slam, before his forced hiatus from 21 MAJORS in his prime (from age 23-28), and 5 majors, including another calendar year slam, after it, and was the most successful player on the professional tour for all the 5 years he was unable to play the amateur slams, winning 8 pro slams, including the calendar year pro slam, during this period. So even if we're talking 'accomplishments', there's still a GOAT discussion to be had. Federer may still come out on top in that discussion, because the pro-am split diluted both fields, but it's certainly at least debatable - and Rod did win 5 majors, including the calendar year slam, in the open era when the fields were combined.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I cannot remember anyone mentioning this in any thread. Last month the European edition of Newsweek featured Federer on its cover and had an article describing as the greatest athlete of the last decade considering all the different sports.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I cannot remember anyone mentioning this in any thread. Last month the European edition of Newsweek featured Federer on its cover and had an article describing as the greatest athlete of the last decade considering all the different sports.

Sounds about right.

 

[Obsi]

GOATs (NOT in order)

Jack Kramer
Pete Sampras
Don Budge
Bjorn Borg
Bill Tilden
Roger Federer
Pancho Gonzales
Novak Djokovic
Rod Laver
Rafael Nadal

 

[El Dude]

Obsi, not sure how you can't have Ken Rosewall on that list. He has more major titles (23) than anyone, among other things.

 

[Obsi]

Obsi, not sure how you can't have Ken Rosewall on that list. He has more major titles (23) than anyone, among other things.

He was only once clearly the best player (in 1963).

 

[Fiero425]

Obsi, not sure how you can't have Ken Rosewall on that list. He has more major titles (23) than anyone, among other things.

Funny, I was listening, watching, and reading about all majors and the "PRO" events before '68 were never mentioned! It was always Emerson at the top of the list before Sampras took over in 2002! Bud Collins and Vic Braeden were the earliest commentators and I just never got an inkling there was another list around until these last several years trying to justify the admittance of Rosewall to the conversation concerning the GOAT! :cover uzzled :nono :angel:

 

[brokenshoelace]

Honestly, the only two who have a legitimate case are Federer and Laver. I'm not even sure why we're bothering with anyone else.

And, I personally discount Laver completely from this conversation but that's just me, and I understand why others would mention him, which why I stated the above. But if you ask me, no person who competed in that era could be considered GOAT.