Do you agree with McEnroe/Wilander on Nadal needing 15 slams to surpass Federer?

[brokenshoelace]

I can appreciate what general masterclass is saying. he says it what he says only because he cares about this forum.

both he and I have shown a great deal of care and concern for this forum. we have also managed to bring this forum to the attention of many others.


we have both seen how things can get out of hand at mtf. normal discussions are allowed to degenerate to bitter attacks and insults time and again.

Appreciated. I think however, this forum would operate a lot better if people didn't overreact and expressed "concern" for its future due to an inevitable Nadal vs. Federer discussion that is impossible to avoid as tennis fans.

 

[Kieran]

Talking about Gonzalez, Hoad, Rosewell and even Laver in the same sentence with Sampras, Federer and now Rafa it's an insult to intelligence and lazy approach to discussing the topic at hand.

You don't compare the telegraph to the telephone, there is no comparison. Bringing up names before the open era, an era marked by country club tennis and a very selective pool of people it's blasphemous.

Take a look at who played basketball in the 1930s and 1940s........take a look a now. In tennis, technology, academia, nutrition, talent pool, accessibility, athlete evolution and the evolution of the game itself has pushed the boundaries to a whole new territory that makes any comparison impossible since it's not even the same sport.

I don't know if Laver was born in this era; could he even mustered top 20? his body and mind was never submitted to the demands tennis place today on the modern athlete.

So please, stop the nonsense ………..when we are talking about GOAT, we are clearly talking about Federer and the only player that at the moment could challenge his spot at the top of the mountain. Nadal already left Sampras in the dust; if you can’t play on clay you can’t play tennis to its fullest capacity. Clay it’s the traditional surface and preferred surface for the rest of the world outside US. Enough said!

Actually, there's a basic contradiction in this post. If Gonzales can't be straight-forward compared to this generation because he played in black & white and smoked Cubans on the change of ends, etc, then by the same reasoning, the current bunch won't be comparable to the great players forty years from now.

So how can Federer or Nadal be GOAT, if GOAT stands for Greatest of ALL Time - which includes the future? :huh:

 

[Mog]

This GOAT discussion will go on for ever.
I don't think it is possible to come to any conclusion about
"THE GREATEST OF ALL TIME".
There are greatest of different ERAS.

 

[El Dude]

Huntingyou, your reading comprehension is severely lacking, which you turn into outright insults rather than trying to better understand the subtleties at work.

To be honest, I don't think you get it. Its not about comparing whether Federer was better than Gonzales - that's impossible to know and Federer has an advantage because he grew up with 50 years of development. Its about how great a player was or is relative to his peers and extrapolating from that how great they are historically.

Gonzales is comparable to Sampras to and Federer because like those two, he was the dominant player in the game for an entire decade (1950s). "All-time greatness" is extrapolated from how great a player was relative to his context.

By your logic Babe Ruth is, historically, a mediocre player because he played during the 1920s and 1930s and clearly not as good as, say, Miguel Cabrera or Mike Trout. But relative to his contemporaries Ruth was probably the greatest baseball player of all time.

The irony is that, as far as I can tell, you are the only person that is directly comparing Gonzales and Federer!

 

[brokenshoelace]

OK, to avoid stopping on technicalities, how about we just refer to it as "greatest player to date?" In order to avoid cop-outs I mean.

 

[Kieran]

OK, to avoid stopping on technicalities, how about we just refer to it as "greatest player to date?" In order to avoid cop-outs I mean.

It's as impossible to measure as GOAT. But it isn't copping out to point the mistake in Hunting You's thinking. By his measure, JJ is greater than Gonzales, which is plainly wrong thinking...

 

[brokenshoelace]

OK, to avoid stopping on technicalities, how about we just refer to it as "greatest player to date?" In order to avoid cop-outs I mean.

It's as impossible to measure as GOAT. But it isn't copping out to point the mistake in Hunting You's thinking. By his measure, JJ is greater than Gonzales, which is plainly wrong thinking...

Sure, but it at least removes the "how can you predict the future" arguments and makes the matter slightly less complicated (but still pretty damn complicated).

 

[Kieran]

OK, to avoid stopping on technicalities, how about we just refer to it as "greatest player to date?" In order to avoid cop-outs I mean.

It's as impossible to measure as GOAT. But it isn't copping out to point the mistake in Hunting You's thinking. By his measure, JJ is greater than Gonzales, which is plainly wrong thinking...

Sure, but it at least removes the "how can you predict the future" arguments and makes the matter slightly less complicated (but still pretty damn complicated).

Except that using Hunting You's method of calculation we can predict that forty years from now Federer will not be in the discussion for GOAT. He disposes of everything that's not current... :snigger

 

[huntingyou]

Huntingyou, your reading comprehension is severely lacking, which you turn into outright insults rather than trying to better understand the subtleties at work.

You are the one who is mistaken since it was you who first introduce the relics from the past into this discussion.

You don't understand my logic; it's actually a straight up statement with no deep soul finding epiphany. There is no comparison, it's a different sport. It doesn't matter what Gonzalez did against his small town (tennis scene at the time)

It's actually easier if you keep it to Open Era, in which in that case you can include Laver if you want to get cute.

Regarding you ruth comments, he was a fat man, I think in today's era he would be on a diet and perhaps make the team for the DC Nationals. I really could care less about nostalgic crap.

For those who insist that 40 years from now, it will Federer the one who is a relic, think about it twice. There is a point where progress it's limited by hard physical realities.....no human being no matter how hard it trains, will be able to run 100m in 5 secs.....impossible. Are we there yet with tennis? How much can you improve technology? Those are good questions that need further investigation. Don't avoid the argument at hand with "well if Gonzalez is not good today then Federer will be not good tomorrow" its logical fallacy BTW.

Sports it's about results, not theory and cute thinking......absolute values trumps eveything. Maybe you guys should open a phylosophy forum and argue who would have the tactical advantage given similar armies between Hanibal and Saddam.

 

[huntingyou]

OK, to avoid stopping on technicalities, how about we just refer to it as "greatest player to date?" In order to avoid cop-outs I mean.

It's as impossible to measure as GOAT. But it isn't copping out to point the mistake in Hunting You's thinking. By his measure, JJ is greater than Gonzales, which is plainly wrong thinking...

Sure, but it at least removes the "how can you predict the future" arguments and makes the matter slightly less complicated (but still pretty damn complicated).

Except that using Hunting You's method of calculation we can predict that forty years from now Federer will not be in the discussion for GOAT. He disposes of everything that's not current... :snigger

you are not using my method.......could care less what you think if you are going to misrepresent what I said and instead play kids game.

We don't know what tennis will look like 40 years from now, maybe remains the same maybe it doesn't. We do know how tennis looks today and how it look when it was played in black and white.

 

[Kieran]

It won't be the same! It's not the same now from any previous time! It escalates, speeds up, becomes zoomer, larger, bonker!

 

[tented]

Telephone IS better than telegraph, but does that make Graham Bell or Antonio Meucci a better scientist than Pavel Schilling ? Or Newton? They worked with what they had in their time. That's why the term GOAT is problematic. Greatest in ones own era is a better gauge IMHO.

True. I'm guessing Saddam Hussein's tanks would have blown away Hannibal's elephants, but it doesn't make him a better historical general.

Try telling him that. Oh, wait ...

 

[Moxie]

I can appreciate what general masterclass is saying. he says it what he says only because he cares about this forum.

both he and I have shown a great deal of care and concern for this forum. we have also managed to bring this forum to the attention of many others.


we have both seen how things can get out of hand at mtf. normal discussions are allowed to degenerate to bitter attacks and insults time and again.

Appreciated. I think however, this forum would operate a lot better if people didn't overreact and expressed "concern" for its future due to an inevitable Nadal vs. Federer discussion that is impossible to avoid as tennis fans.

I just wanted to respond to this part of the thread before it moves on too far. I also appreciate the concern, and masterclass's considered post just earlier. But the solution is not limiting discussion, but moderating the discourse, and I believe our members contribute as much to that as the moderators.

As is clear by the fact that this thread is already at 10-11 pages, the Federer/Nadal discussion will probably never end. But it is why we have forums like this...to comb over the minutiae of records and stats, and debate their relative importance. It's where we have our best fun! :clap

 

[El Dude]

Kieran...I believe the technical term is "boinkier."

Huntingyou...oh, never mind.

 

[Didi]

I still rank Pete above Nadal (slightly), but how did he have a "significantly better" career? He never won on clay. Never won the FO. Surely that cancels out the fact that he dominated two slams, vis-a-vis Nadal.

Nadal has won way more Masters 1000 events too, which should cancel out the YEC.

My point is, the above argument seems a touch selective, since I can easily claim that "Nadal has had a way better career" because he won a career slam, was excellent on all surfaces, has won way more Masters 1000 events, and an Olympic gold medal.

I apologize for my late respond. I bookmarked this thread but somehow your reply got lost. It just re-surfaced now when I clicked back through the pages. As for my argumentation being a touch selective, I totally admit that it is indeed selective, but it's impossible to be 100 % objective when you compare your favorite player with another one rivaling his place in history. You always end up putting more emphasis and highlights on different things as masterclass pointed out before.

The reason why I think that Pete still has a significantly greater career, is because he excelled (in my opinion) in the two most important factors. First, he dominated 3 of the 5 biggest events this sport has. The YEC, Wimbledon and the US Open. He won them a combined 17 times which is incredible. The second factor is that he finished 6 straight seasons as the #1. A record for the ages likely to never be broken again. In my humble and totally irrelevant opinion nothing Rafa has achieved comes close to it except for winning Paris 8 times.

Your counterarguments were that Nadal has the masters record, olympic gold and the career slam. First of all keep in mind that the masters events in Pete's era were totally different compared to now. It was a different structure, far less prestige and importance. Top players were not committed to play them the way they are today, not even close. Back then many of the top players skipped them routinely to peak for the slams or just entered other events.

Pete never really cared about masters tournaments and happened to play most of them just when it suited him for his preparation, to find his feet after a break, to get match fitness etc. For example, in those 6 straight seasons he finished #1, he just won a paltry 8 masters events combined. That alone shows how irrelevant they have been for his rankings success and for his entire career.

Today it is a whole different story with top players being committed to feature in at least 8 of them and the events in general becoming imperative for the rankings. Had Pete been committed like today's top players, I dare to claim he would have won 20+ of them and would have been eager to do so. Agassi suddenly started to care for them and won 8 of his 17 shields in the 2000s when the masters series got a new face lifting and became much more relevant.

Don't get me wrong, Nadal's masters record is a great and important one within his own generation but I don't think it's fair to use it as a stick against Sampras or older generations. And I also don't think that his record or a single gold medal can seriously cancel out 5 YECs which is historically the most important tournament after the Slams. Just because Nadal is flat out bad Indoors doesn't make it a less important part of the season or the sport of tennis in general.

As for Nadal having the career slam, you remember this discussion we had some time ago? I don't think I changed your opinion or your mine, let's agree to disagree. I still think Nadal won his career slam in heavily favored circumstances. I also believe that Pete being poor on clay is the equivalent of Nadal being poor Indoors. Where is the difference?

Indoor tennis is and has always been an important part of the sport of tennis. Huntingyou said that Nadal already left Sampras in the dust; if you can’t play on clay you can’t play tennis to its fullest capacity. I might just as well say the very same about Nadal. He doesn't belong in any GOAT conversation because he never excelled in attacking tennis Indoors where ALL the greats excelled at. Every single one of them. Again, where is the difference? To be honest it's just as much selective to highlight Nadal's career slam but to ignore his total inability and failure under the roof.

 

[Kieran]

Good post, Didi, especially a good point on the value of MS titles in Pete's day. Also, Pete chose to ditch the two-hander so he could dominate on faster surfaces. This is how it was. If he were growing in the modern culture, he'd have kept the two-hander and played as players do now.

Except most likely a lot better than most...

 

[huntingyou]

The reason why I think that Pete still has a significantly greater career, is because he excelled (in my opinion) in the two most important factors. First, he dominated 3 of the 5 biggest events this sport has. The YEC, Wimbledon and the US Open.

Pete never really cared about masters tournaments and happened to play most of them just when it suited him for his preparation, to find his feet after a break, to get match fitness etc.

I still think Nadal won his career slam in heavily favored circumstances. I also believe that Pete being poor on clay is the equivalent of Nadal being poor Indoors. Where is the difference?

Indoor tennis is and has always been an important part of the sport of tennis. Huntingyou said that Nadal already left Sampras in the dust; if you can’t play on clay you can’t play tennis to its fullest capacity. I might just as well say the very same about Nadal. He doesn't belong in any GOAT conversation because he never excelled in attacking tennis Indoors

The reason Pete had a greater career it's because you FEEL like it. You provided no conjecture evidence but an extremely emotional opinion that nobody can't follow but yourself.

The YEC it's not suddenly a big tournament, not enough to put next to the slams...it belongs more closely with the Master series events (ahead of course). It's a 3 set format where the winner it's allow to lose one match and still get to the promise land. Most players are burn or injury and that has been the case even for Federer when he lost to Nalby.

Because you FEEL Pete never cared about MS events it doesn't excuse the FACT that Rafa has dominated this arena of BIG tournaments with unprecedented success and it's one of his bullet proof points when comparing him directly to Pete.

Why if I said Nadal never really cared much for indoor tennis, the indoor season takes place after the UO at at time when Rafa it's basically calling the dogs home? The indoor tennis during Roger's era has lost traction and prestige, there are only two mandatory tournaments that are indoor; Paris and WTF but by that time....a guy like Rafa has already made history during the season with two slams and 5 shields in his bank account.

The fact is, Pete FAILED ON CLAY, the only surface in some parts of the world where tennis it's play exclusively. Indoor it's a condition of having a roof over your head.......not a major surface and no slam it's play indoor (unless it rains).....the French Open (look up its history) it's play on clay of course.

The biggest joke you wrote in your large emotional post it's your PERCEIVED observation that Rafa won his career slam in heavily favored circumstances. :laydownlaughing:laydownlaughing Did the ATP gave Rafa a gift to make that so? You don't understand, Rafa BUILT his game to succeed in this era; it's no the other way around so your take that obscure circumstances favored him but not the other 1000 ATP players it's ludicrous.

The only reason Kieran likes your post btw, it's because he is a Pete fanatic...... yes he has enduring "love" for Rafa....the man who he placed his hopes many years ago to stop Roger from leaving dear Pete in the dust. The beautiful thing is; it's Rafa's turn now to leave dear Pete behind in the dust as well.

 

[huntingyou]

Kieran...I believe the technical term is "boinkier."

Huntingyou...oh, never mind.

this is easy

Open Era and whatever was before the Open Era. There is a clear demarcation for a reason, stick to that and you will do ok when discussing the GOAT thing.

Don't talk about Gonzalez and company unless you want to talk about who were the best players back then. If you read the thread topic, it's very clear......basically what Rafa needs to do to pass the current "GOAT" Federer. There is a legit claim to place Pete ahead of Rafa still.....that can be debated as well. What we can't debate it's how Gonzalez compares to Rafa or Rosewell or Emerson or even Laver. Can't be done.

I think you can manage that.

 

[Kieran]

The only reason Kieran likes your post btw, it's because he is a Pete fanatic...... yes he has enduring "love" for Rafa....the man who he placed his hopes many years ago to stop Roger from leaving dear Pete in the dust. The beautiful thing is; it's Rafa's turn now to leave dear Pete behind in the dust as well.

Not true, actually. I like it because it makes sense.

And I don't like Rafa as a stop-Roger initiative. That's silly. How can me liking Rafa influence the course of the sport? Remember, I'm the one who scoffs at fans congratulating other fans when their favourite wins.

I liked Rafa back in 2004, when I watched him beat Roger in Dubai, and Carlos Moya earmarked him as potentially the greatest of them all. I looked him up and liked his fierce idiosyncratic contrariness, his angular rough-hewn game, the Harrison Ford stare, his blatant alpha-ness, even when facing the metro-sexual media darling. I didn't mind Federer then, but I knew I'd never warm to him because I saw he was a narcissist, the opposite to the players I traditionally fell for: Borg, Wilander, Sampras and then Rafa. All tennis pragmatists who played with immense heart and little fuss...

 

[Kieran]

Kieran...I believe the technical term is "boinkier."

Huntingyou...oh, never mind.

this is easy

Open Era and whatever was before the Open Era. There is a clear demarcation for a reason, stick to that and you will do ok when discussing the GOAT thing.

Don't talk about Gonzalez and company unless you want to talk about who were the best players back then. If you read the thread topic, it's very clear......basically what Rafa needs to do to pass the current "GOAT" Federer. There is a legit claim to place Pete ahead of Rafa still.....that can be debated as well. What we can't debate it's how Gonzalez compares to Rafa or Rosewell or Emerson or even Laver. Can't be done.

I think you can manage that.

This is just silly. If it can't be done, then how can you claim Roger is GOAT? You just said the comparison can't be done! :s