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

[brokenshoelace]

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.

I wouldn't mention the YEC in the same breath as slams. It's a remarkable achievement, don't get me wrong, but saying "he dominated 3 of the 5 biggest events" is almost like equating the YEC with slams. There are the FOUR biggest events, and then the fifth. I wouldn't group all 5 together. It's important to note that while Pete's dominance at two slams was incredible, his record at the French Open (one semi final appearance) was abysmal, and I mean REALLY bad, for a player of his caliber. This, forever, will (rightly) be held against him. Different conditions or not, one semi final appearance is just bad.

Finishing 6 years straight as the number 1 is the main (and probably only) reason why I still rank Sampras slightly above Nadal. That showed a unique level of dominance.

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.

Well then, the YEC now isn't nearly as prestigious as it was then. I'm not saying this to be a smartass. If anything, I'm agreeing that the standards and criteria have changed, but implying that one player had "a significantly" better career than the other is unfair.

As far as top players skipping them, a quick look at Sampras' statistics shows that he had mainly skipped the clay masters on occasions (I doubt he would have added to his tally there). Yeah, there were other tournaments he missed, but it's not really all that different to Nadal missing his fair share of Masters 1000 events due to injuries.

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.

Given that he won 11 and played 8 other finals, I'd be surprised if he didn't care. Except on clay of course, where he was mainly dreadful. And with all due respect, history doesn't care about why exactly he was playing them or if he cared, we just care about results. If Nadal can win slams year after year, AND put pressure on himself by caring about Masters and playing at a high level there, then that's actually a testament to Nadal and a knock on Sampras by comparison. Since, with that logic, Nadal is playing with higher intensity all year, instead of taking virtual breaks by not caring.

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.

With respect to Pete, I doubt he would have ever won 26, considering he currently stands at 11.

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.

I didn't say a gold medal cancels out 5 YEC (if I did, I really didn't mean it literally). I just said it's a different thing to look at. And again, I can easily claim that YEC doesn't have the same importance now, so it's unfair to hold it against Nadal (selective criteria and all, and an argument I wouldn't agree with, to be clear). And Nadal is no worse on indoors than Sampras was on clay, and I can't stress this enough, but this is a huge knock on someone who set such lofty standards, that, no matter which way people look, you just can't get past his shortcomings on the surface (a surface that holds more value than indoors simply because a slam is played there).

I also believe that Pete being poor on clay is the equivalent of Nadal being poor Indoors. Where is the difference?

Difference? Roland Garros isn't played indoors. Sampras' shortcomings on clay meant he was a non-factor at a Major. That's a HUGE difference. Unless you want to blame whoever is in charge for not holding a major indoor (and hey, that's fine), but I don't think that's a valid argument when comparing two careers.

Also, please take a look at the amount of YEC's Nadal has missed since becoming a top 8 player (meaning the moment he was qualified to play in them): 2005, 2008 and 2012. So he played in 2006, 2007, 2009 (where he had returned from injury and was awful), 2010 (reached the final), and 2011. He played the tournament five times only. I won't debate that Nadal isn't poor indoors (by his standards, he is), but equating that to Sampras' failures on clay, and particularly, the French Open, is a tad rich.

I still think Nadal won his career slam in heavily favored circumstances.

This argument would hold weight in general, but not vis-a-vis the Sampras discussion. You can argue that Nadal wouldn't have won Wimbledon in the 90's (debatable, since Agassi did), but I feel safe in claiming Sampras wouldn't have won the French Open anytime, anywhere, in any era. That's the main disconnect.

The "heavily favored circumstances" argument is hyperbolic. Yes, Wimbledon has been slowed down. However, AO and the US Open really don't play all that different to before (there is no proof of slowing down. Hell commentators used to argue -- dubiously -- that the US Open plays faster than Wimbledon). The reason it's easier to excel on all surfaces today is due to the dominance of baseline tennis, more so than the homogenization of the surfaces, and that can't be held against Nadal, since these are not "circumstances," this is just the state of the game.

Let me ask you something about the "heavily favorite circumstances": Would Sampras win a career slam in these favored circumstances? Sure, he grew up crafting his game to different circumstances, but I think we'll both agree it would be a major stretch to theorize that Sampras, even with a pure baseline game and a double handed backhand would have won on clay.

Keep in mind, I'm not making a case for Nadal over Sampras (though I think he'll eclipse him once he ties his Major total). I'm just showing you that there is no realistic case for one having "left the other in the dust" or "having a significantly better career" (both sides are wrong in claiming one or the other, IMO), since much of these arguments are highly arbitrary. What is tangible and concrete are the numbers: And they're quite similar in many ways.

Otherwise, it'd be easy to claim that Sampras never had to contend with someone like Federer as far as consistency goes, whereas Nadal did, and therefore, finished as #2 in the world for lord knows how many years in a row, as opposed to finishing number 1 and tying Sampars' record, or at least coming close to it (don't forget the insane Djokovic year in 2011). I'd even say that players allegedly putting more emphasis on Masters tourneys now makes it MORE difficult to finish as world number 1 since so many different tournaments come into play where your competition can rack up points. I don't however, think any of this last paragraph is relevant to the discussion. What is relevant is career achievements, and at this moment, I think Pete's are slightly ahead of Nadal, which is why he's had the slightly better career.

And keep in mind, as you said, neither of us is going to change the other's opinion, sure. But, I don't think that's why we're debating tennis. I'm not here to convince anyone of anything. Just sharing my views.

 

[Didi]

Hunting, I won't even bother replying to you. We can talk again when you have learnt to discuss and behave in a respectful and civilized manner instead of acting like a petulant child. I have absolutely no interest to be involved in a childish and pathetic contest with you. As EL Dude already pointed out, your reading comprehension is severely lacking, which you turn into outright insults by trying to ridicule other posters rather than trying to respect and better understand them. I simply can't take you seriously anymore, I'm afraid.

 

[Didi]

Thanks for your reply, Broken. It was worth a read and interesting to see your take on it. I guess we have to agree to disagree here due to the problem that we simply value Indoor tennis, the YEC, clay tennis and masters tournaments fundamentally different. I'm fine with it because at least it's always fun and worth debating with you. Cheers.

 

[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.

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

don't play silly games bro.

There is no comparison, that's the whole point.

if you want to compare, I say it can't be done.

Roger is the "GOAT"............I would like you to state a case saying otherwise while bringing up a name of somebody who would better carry that title.

 

[huntingyou]

Hunting, I won't even bother replying to you. We can talk again when you have learnt to discuss and behave in a respectful and civilized manner instead of acting like a petulant child. I have absolutely no interest to be involved in a childish and pathetic contest with you. As EL Dude already pointed out, your reading comprehension is severely lacking, which you turn into outright insults by trying to ridicule other posters rather than trying to respect and better understand them. I simply can't take you seriously anymore, I'm afraid.

your last post was pathetic, what you want me to say? I'm not here to make friends, make a valid point and I will tell you so......say things like Pete never cared for MS events or his failure on clay equals Nadal's failure indoors and you will get the right response.

 

[Kieran]

don't play silly games bro.

There is no comparison, that's the whole point.

if you want to compare, I say it can't be done.

Roger is the "GOAT"............I would like you to state a case saying otherwise while bringing up a name of somebody who would better carry that title.

I may have to be slightly pedantic here, and definitely very patient, but you know what the initials GOAT stand for, don't you? Greatest Of All Time.

Now, you say we can't compare with past times, and we obviously can't predict future times, so why not drop the GOAT pretense and use another term? Such as, Roger is the Greatest of His Time - except when his time is shared on court with Rafa?

 

[huntingyou]

don't play silly games bro.

There is no comparison, that's the whole point.

if you want to compare, I say it can't be done.

Roger is the "GOAT"............I would like you to state a case saying otherwise while bringing up a name of somebody who would better carry that title.

I may have to be slightly pedantic here, and definitely very patient, but you know what the initials GOAT stand for, don't you? Greatest Of All Time.

Now, you say we can't compare with past times, and we obviously can't predict future times, so why not drop the GOAT pretense and use another term? Such as, Roger is the Greatest of His Time - except when his time is shared on court with Rafa?

I think BS addressed this issue with you already.

Using semantics it's fine, especially when "talking" with the opposite sex if you know what I mean but I think you know what I mean by the expression "Roger GOAT"

We, meaning humans like to think of ourselves as greater than life...living in the moment, this is our time. I know you have observed similar talks in the movie industry, music, arts, etc. We say things like "Best Ever" when we truly mean the best we have witnessed so far.......we are all going to die and eventually the best we witnessed will be just a footnote in the history of human exaggerated blunders and overzealous claims.

 

[Kieran]

I think BS addressed this issue with you already.

Really? I've forgotten it! Do you remember my reply?

Using semantics it's fine, especially when "talking" with the opposite sex if you know what I mean but I think you know what I mean by the expression "Roger GOAT"

We, meaning humans like to think of ourselves as greater than life...living in the moment, this is our time. I know you have observed similar talks in the movie industry, music, arts, etc. We say things like "Best Ever" when we truly mean the best we have witnessed so far.......

Ah right - we're prone to suspicious hyperbole, is that it?

I understand - but isn't it better to try resist these lower urges? You don't find it more satisfying to be exact, no? Do you not prefer to be right, rather than just swinging in the wind with the rest of the dying-off detritus of humanity?

Why not get your terms correct, in other words, then work from there?

 

[huntingyou]

I think BS addressed this issue with you already.

Really? I've forgotten it! Do you remember my reply?

Using semantics it's fine, especially when "talking" with the opposite sex if you know what I mean but I think you know what I mean by the expression "Roger GOAT"

We, meaning humans like to think of ourselves as greater than life...living in the moment, this is our time. I know you have observed similar talks in the movie industry, music, arts, etc. We say things like "Best Ever" when we truly mean the best we have witnessed so far.......

Ah right - we're prone to suspicious hyperbole, is that it?

I understand - but isn't it better to try resist these lower urges? You don't find it more satisfying to be exact, no? Do you not prefer to be right, rather than just swinging in the wind with the rest of the dying-off detritus of humanity?

Why not get your terms correct, in other words, then work from there?

I'm human sir, with all the shortcoming we are so fond off.....I love to say I witnessed the Greatest basketball player ever in MJ.......I love to say I get to watch Peyton Manning, the greatest QB in history......I love to say I witnessed Greg Maddux, such a masterful painter; and I'm definitely happy to indulge myself that I have witnessed players like Sampras, Federer, and Nadal.........and I want to call one of them the greatest ever and so far is Roger but I like my boy chances.

I think the tennis world agree with me, or it's just me that use the term GOAT?

 

[El Dude]

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.

I agree that there is a (relatively) clear demarcation at the Open Era. That said, as I said here Pancho Gonzales held his own against the stars of the early Open Era while he was in his 40s and semi-retired. To put that in context, that would be like as if Sampras and Agassi had stuck around through the 00s, playing the occasional tournament, and then held their own against the top players in matches over the last few years.

In other words, its not so simple - as you imply - that there's a sharp demarcation at the Open Era, nor is it clearly the case that more recent players are inherently better than older players. Certainly styles change, and the new style tends to be at least sub-consciously designed to dominate the old style (e.g. Nadal and Federer). I even agree that there is some trajectory of development, but it isn't so simple as you say - more on that in a moment.

Don't talk about Gonzalez and company unless you want to talk about who were the best players back then.

But I do! That's the point, actually - that by comparing how dominant players were in the era they played in, and against their contemporaries - we can get a sense of "relative dominance" in the larger history of tennis.

Pancho Gonzales was the #1 player in the world for eight years - longer than Tilden and Laver (7), Rosewall and Sampras (6), Federer (5), and certainly Nadal (2+). That's the quick-and-easy way of getting a sense of how consistently dominant he was overall, even if a Lew Hoad could beat him while playing his very best.

I completely agree that it is meaningless to say "X Player from the 50s was better (or worse) than Y player from the 00s" - for many reasons that we've already discussed. I also agree that tennis overall improves in the same way that, say, Olympic runners gradually break new records. Watching the US Open Final I couldn't help but think, "This is as good as any two players have ever been." But we also cannot deny or disprove the contrary: that a Pancho Gonzales or Bill Tilden playing today wouldn't have been great. They would have developed relative to today's standards, using modern training techniques, aware of and learning the game as it is currently played. I'd like to assume that a player like Gonzales - who was the best overall player of 50s to a similar level of dominance that Laver was in the 60s, Connors in the mid-70s, Borg in the late 70s, McEnroe in the early 80s, Sampras in the 90s, and Federer in the 00s - would have the innate tennis talent to develop within the context of today's game. But we'll never know - and I'm OK with that.

The only thing we can get a sense of with some degree of certainty is how dominant a player was during their own era, and from that extrapolate how relatively great a player was in the broader context of tennis history.

When I discuss the "GOAT" I think we have to think in terms of the entirety of tennis - or at least going back to the beginnings of the professional tour - with the caveat that there are distinct eras, and it is very, very difficult to compare players across those eras. I'd say there are at least the following eras:

"Prehistory" - up until the mid-19th century, the medieval "real tennis"
"Early Years" - 1877 (first Wimbledon) - either 1913, the formation of the first tennis federation, or 1926, the beginning of the pro tour; the developmental years of "lawn tennis"
"Golden Era" - 1913/1926 - 1968 - the early professional tour, sometimes called the "Golden Era" of tennis
"Open Era" - 1968 - present

Even thought its difficult to compare players from different eras, we can at least establish some degree of relative dominance - especially with the two most recent eras. I tend to stay away from anything before the pro tour era.

l 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.

I can agree with the fact that it is much easier to compare Open Era players, especially Sampras, Federer, and Nadal - the three best players of the Open Era (with Borg a not-so-distant 4th and then probably Lendl) - but I disagree that "we can't debate" cross-era comparisons, as I discussed at length above. I'm perfectly happy to keep the conversation to the "GOTOE" (Greatest Of The Open Era) - but let's just not all it GOAT, because that implies the entirety of at least professional tennis up until this point. But if we want to discuss the GOAT, let's at least take it back to the beginnings of the pro tour. Can you manage that?

 

[huntingyou]

I will ask you this Dude, tell me what Gonzalez did in the 50s to earn him top dog ranking for 8 years. At least give me the tournaments he won, how big was the draw and the quantity of events he played per year. Also, tell me who was his rival in the GS finals or whatever event was consider BIG back then.

I'm serious

 

[Kieran]

I think the tennis world agree with me, or it's just me that use the term GOAT?

No, you're not the only one who's wrong. You're just one of the loudest...

 

[huntingyou]

I think the tennis world agree with me, or it's just me that use the term GOAT?

No, you're not the only one who's wrong. You're just one of the loudest...

I'm wrong? Says the inquisitor..........such claims were made by other in all parts of human endeavor. You want to debate on semantics or want to stay close to OUR reality.

When looking for the mythical "GOAT" what player can carry than mantel better than Federer?

silence..................................................................................................................................

 

[Kieran]

I think the tennis world agree with me, or it's just me that use the term GOAT?

No, you're not the only one who's wrong. You're just one of the loudest...

I'm wrong? Says the inquisitor..........such claims were made by other in all parts of human endeavor. You want to debate on semantics or want to stay close to OUR reality.

When looking for the mythical "GOAT" what player can carry than mantel better than Federer?

silence..................................................................................................................................

Silence from you, hopefully.

Your terminology is deficient. You haven't even tried to defend it. You just claim it's right because lazy media led folks fall back on it to entertain themselves when the game of charades has become boring...

 

[huntingyou]

I think the tennis world agree with me, or it's just me that use the term GOAT?

No, you're not the only one who's wrong. You're just one of the loudest...

I'm wrong? Says the inquisitor..........such claims were made by other in all parts of human endeavor. You want to debate on semantics or want to stay close to OUR reality.

When looking for the mythical "GOAT" what player can carry than mantel better than Federer?

silence..................................................................................................................................

Silence from you, hopefully.

Your terminology is deficient. You haven't even tried to defend it. You just claim it's right because lazy media led folks fall back on it to entertain themselves when the game of charades has become boring...

No, I asked you if not Federer then can carry the title of GOAT.

The word GOAT exists, it's not make believe....so the silence it's yours.

ROGER IS THE GREATEST PLAYERS OF ALL TIME (up to date, calm down).........debate against this claim.

 

[El Dude]

Gonzales dominated the Pro Slams. You can see his record here. He won 15 of 25 that he played from 1950 to 1961. Remember, at the time professionals couldn't play in the Grand Slam tournaments, and most of the best players went pro because they wanted to make money. Roy Emerson was a good player but his 11 Grand Slams are somewhat of a joke. In the larger context of tennis history he's probably more of a Vilas/Courier 4-Slam type. He won most of those when the two best players in the game, Rod Laver and Ken Rosewall, were on the pro tour (although he did beat in two Slam finals in 1961, then lost the next three in Laver's historic 1962 season).

Back to Pancho. His 15 Pro Slam victories are against players like Pancho Segura, Jack Kramer, Don Budge, Frank Sedgman, Lew Hoad, and Ken Rosewall - a who's who of the best players of the 40s and 50s.

His best year was 1956 when he won three of four Pro Slams, losing in the final of the fourth. Back then players would play a ton of matches against each other. Against the great Ken Rosewall, another under-appreciated GOAT candidate, who was also six years younger than Gonzales, Pancho was 107-75. He didn't fare as well against Rod Laver, who was 38-21 against Gonzales, but remember that Laver was 10 years young - that's the difference between Sampras and Federer.

Again, to be clear: I'm not saying that Gonzales IS the GOAT, but that he's a candidate. As is Bill Tilden, Ken Rosewall, Rod Laver, Pete Sampras, Roger Federer, and Rafael Nadal. Those, in my mind, are the seven greatest players in the history of professional tennis. After that you've got Borg, Budge, Lendl, etc, but it gets murky.

 

[Kieran]

The word GOAT exists, it's not make believe....so the silence it's yours.

Let's slice it and dice it.

GOAT = Greatest of ALL Time?

But you said you can't compare the players of the past, like Gonzales and Laver. So you exclude a large chunk of time, right?

So what period are you talking about? Open era only? El Dude has shown how problematical this is. And Connors did say that Gonzales was the best he'd faced - and he said this after he'd faced Sampras and Agassi.

If you want to argue that a player is the greatest of their own era - the GOTE - then this becomes problematical unless you accept that Roger's era isn't totally Rafa's. He started earlier. Most likely, luckily for him...

 

[El Dude]

One more thing. A couple pages back I posted a tentative top 10ish GOAT list, which I'll reproduce here for your enjoyment:

1. Federer
2. Laver
3. Gonzales
4. Rosewall
5. Sampras
6. Nadal
7. Borg
8. Tilden
9. Budge
10. Lendl
11. McEnroe
12. Connors
13. Agassi...

I'm not comfortable with some of those choices - like Tilden behind Borg, or excluding Jack Kramer, or even McEnroe ahead of Connors and Agassi, though I like McEnroe's incredible peak better than the longevity of Connors and Agassi. But the basic gist is there.

I agree that, all things tolled, Federer deserves the GOAT crown - but it is close. Nadal only needs one more Slam to equal or even slightly edge Sampras, but then he needs another two or three to pass the rest. I'd give Rafa the GOAT title if he accomplishes any of the following:

*Wins more Slams than Roger (presumably 18)
*Wins the same amount of Slams as Roger and is year-end #1 again and/or wins the WTF and/or is #1 for another 50 weeks or so
*Wins one less than Roger and accomplishes at least two of the above
*Wins two less than Roger and accomplishes all of the above, plus winning the AO another time getting 2+ titles at each Slam

 

[Kieran]

It gets complicated, doesn't it!

But I actually agree about McEnroe over Connors and Lendl. He was a tennis genius, the most naturally gifted I ever saw, but he was blown out by the age of 25, more or less. He didn't adapt, whereas Lendl and Connors had more engine power. But for sheer heights? McEnroe. Which adds further problems to the discussion, and creates a Best v Greatest scenario, that's like an MTV Deathmatch beerfest thingy...

 

[huntingyou]

Gonzales dominated the Pro Slams. You can see his record here. He won 15 of 25 that he played from 1950 to 1961. Remember, at the time professionals couldn't play in the Grand Slam tournaments, and most of the best players went pro because they wanted to make money. Roy Emerson was a good player but his 11 Grand Slams are somewhat of a joke. In the larger context of tennis history he's probably more of a Vilas/Courier 4-Slam type. He won most of those when the two best players in the game, Rod Laver and Ken Rosewall, were on the pro tour (although he did beat in two Slam finals in 1961, then lost the next three in Laver's historic 1962 season).

Back to Pancho. His 15 Pro Slam victories are against players like Pancho Segura, Jack Kramer, Don Budge, Frank Sedgman, Lew Hoad, and Ken Rosewall - a who's who of the best players of the 40s and 50s.

His best year was 1956 when he won three of four Pro Slams, losing in the final of the fourth. Back then players would play a ton of matches against each other. Against the great Ken Rosewall, another under-appreciated GOAT candidate, who was also six years younger than Gonzales, Pancho was 107-75. He didn't fare as well against Rod Laver, who was 38-21 against Gonzales, but remember that Laver was 10 years young - that's the difference between Sampras and Federer.

Again, to be clear: I'm not saying that Gonzales IS the GOAT, but that he's a candidate. As is Bill Tilden, Ken Rosewall, Rod Laver, Pete Sampras, Roger Federer, and Rafael Nadal. Those, in my mind, are the seven greatest players in the history of professional tennis. After that you've got Borg, Budge, Lendl, etc, but it gets murky.

That's the crux of the matter in bold. Can you imagine Novak-Rafa playing 100 plus matches?

What does that indicates? Sometime, to win a slam you only had to beat one player since you had a ticket to the final while being the champion. The fact that Gonzalez play in an era were there was a distinction between amateurs and pro further dilutes the talent pool available at the time which was minimum given the social affairs of the time.

They were basically playing against their "backyard" pals and call it "world" championship when the truth couldn't be any further. Gonzalez himself faced discrimination for being from Mexican descent.

Today, you have people from he Stans playing at the pro level, South American, Africa, Asia, Russia.......it's not just white western Europe (England), Australia and US.

I understand your point but that's why I disagree, Gonzalez is not a candidate to "GOAT" discussion, he wasn't playing the sport that's being play a little bit after the open era.

This is something kieran fails to grasp; modern players>>>>>>>>>>>>>before the open era players and that's why it can't be compare. It's an insults to today's professionals. They are better by default.