Federer, Nadal, and the question of GOATness in general...

[GameSetAndMath]

I think it's separated a bit, our complaints last year are more akin to Rafa fans complaining about his schedule over the years. For Roger I'd say Montreal last year was the one totally idiotic decision he's made with his schedule. I mean he was gunning hard for #1 despite having no points to defend the rest of the year and knowing in his sleep he could and would outplay Rafa in the Fall. And the last major was two weeks away. His goal was to win Montreal and immediately go to Cincy and win that. Even if he had done that and not hurt himself I think it'd have been a negative for his chances at USO.

So part of it is that it was simply out of character for Roger and that's why you see us mention it quite a bit. All I say about USO is that Roger would've been the clear favorite if Montreal didn't happen. And aside from really, really biased Nadal fans I'd say that assertion is reasonable. That's not the same as saying he definitely wins of course.

Apart from simply playing in Montreal, he made the mistake of playing straightaway in the tourney after a vacation with Mirka and without bringing himself into proper condition and that was the reason why his back went away.

But, of course with competition being so terrible, it looked like a low hanging fruit.

However, I would give Roger a pass as in general he is master of not only tennis, but also of his scheduling. That was an isolated bad move. Rafa on the other hand messes up his schedule more often than not.

 

[monfed]

Well, CLEARLY and INDISPUTABLY Roger is the GOAT. It's just that those pesky Nadal fans still cling to the belief that it could ever, on planet earth, off clay, be Nadal. Hence the infinite discussion. We gave them clay...and yet they want the whole enchilada (pun not intended)...with extra cheese and extra sauce...

Look everyone can't be Fed. They don't wanna accept the facts because they're just jealous of Fed's talent.

 

[monfed]

I don't. I write poetry, fairy-tales, short stories & books. I sing. I read poetry, classic books & books about history, horses & other animals as well as other things. I sew pictures & jam jar lids. I make table mats & paint them. I paint pictures, fences, walls & white china owl soap dispensers & white china ornaments. I cook, bake & make jam & do lots of other things. How do I make time to do all these things you may ask. Simple. I don't watch much T.V. Besides it's not really any of your business what I do & it's you who has too much time on your hands with some of the comments you make. You were more-or-less judging everyone because of what they spoke about. That's why I asked what you wanted everyone to talk about. You were still judging others. That's why I said what I said & asked questions.

LOL...Can I see your pic?

 

[Horsa]

LOL...Can I see your pic?

Which pic? I've got lots. I know why you're using a troll toy as an avi now & I've thought this for a while. You have a troll toy as an avi because you are a troll. I don't have to explain myself to you. You didn't even try to answer my questions. You're not admin so I don't have to explain myself to you if I don't want to. Most people here are old friends who enjoy a laugh & bit of banter.

 

[Federberg]

Are we still talking about Fedal or have we gone completely off tangent?

 

[Horsa]

Are we still talking about Fedal or have we gone completely off tangent?

Everyone was talking about Fedal until Monfed said "so much discussion over something that can be just seen LOL" then I thought I'd ask him what he'd rather talk about & things escalated. I'm very sorry for bringing things off topic & spoiling your conversation.

 

[Federberg]

What he said was perfectly valid. Whether you agree with his point of view or even understand where he's coming from is more your issue. Or so it seems to me. If I might translate for you... @monfed believes that Federer's actual achievements are vastly superior to anyone else. They are fact and not subjective. Perhaps you should express your opinion on the thread and worry less about how people choose to express their views? If you disagree with him tell us why

 

[brokenshoelace]

What he said was perfectly valid. Whether you agree with his point of view or even understand where he's coming from is more your issue. Or so it seems to me. If I might translate for you... @monfed believes that Federer's actual achievements are vastly superior to anyone else. They are fact and not subjective. Perhaps you should express your opinion on the thread and worry less about how people choose to express their views? If you disagree with him tell us why

This isn't a thread about who's the most accomplished tennis player b/c that's pretty boring and not up for debate. If Monfed had bothered reading the OP, and bothered being a little less simplistic in his approach, then maybe he would have added something valuable to the conversation. So no, I don't think what he said is very valid IF he's referring to accomplishments alone. The whole point of the thread is to go beyond pure numbers. However, if he meant we can just SEE Roger's game and deduce that he's the GOAT by watching him, then I actually agree, but then, that warrants a conversation and can't be just reduced to dogmatic statements.

 

[Horsa]

What he said was perfectly valid. Whether you agree with his point of view or even understand where he's coming from is more your issue. Or so it seems to me. If I might translate for you... @monfed believes that Federer's actual achievements are vastly superior to anyone else. They are fact and not subjective. Perhaps you should express your opinion on the thread and worry less about how people choose to express their views? If you disagree with him tell us why

I thought that although his views were completely valid he was judging everyone else on what they said which I thought was wrong. Of course I understand where he's coming from. I agree that my disagreement with someone else or their disagreement with me is either my problem or it's partially my job to sort them out but it should be a private affair & not aired in public. Also if he's judging everyone else it's not only my job to tell him but everyone else's & I'm no one's spokesperson but my own. I agree that he has a right to express his opinion as well as everyone else. I'm not worried about how other people decide to express their views. I don't disagree with him but with how he's judging others on what they say.

 

[Federberg]

This isn't a thread about who's the most accomplished tennis player b/c that's pretty boring and not up for debate. If Monfed had bothered reading the OP, and bothered being a little less simplistic in his approach, then maybe he would have added something valuable to the conversation. So no, I don't think what he said is very valid IF he's referring to accomplishments alone. The whole point of the thread is to go beyond pure numbers. However, if he meant we can just SEE Roger's game and deduce that he's the GOAT by watching him, then I actually agree, but then, that warrants a conversation and can't be just reduced to dogmatic statements.

I'm not saying I even agree with his statement, I think it's fairly well established that I don't think much of the concept of goathood. His view point is a valid contribution to the thread whether it's right or wrong. And should definitely be challenged on the basis you've just done. I just think we're all a little bit too long in the tooth to be policed by someone who is not actually contributing a view to the thread. It's rather like being moderated and I left one forum because of shite like that. As much as I loathed posters like Nekro I always tangled with them on the basis of their views. I never challenged their basic right to express their views about a thread topic. There's a distinction

 

[Horsa]

I'm not saying I even agree with his statement, I think it's fairly well established that I don't think much of the concept of goathood. His view point is a valid contribution to the thread whether it's right or wrong. And should definitely be challenged on the basis you've just done. I just think we're all a little bit too long in the tooth to be policed by someone who is not actually contributing a view to the thread. It's rather like being moderated and I left one forum because of shite like that. As much as I loathed posters like Nekro I always tangled with them on the basis of their views. I never challenged their basic right to express their views about a thread topic. There's a distinction

I agree that he has a right to have & air an opinion like everyone else does & I respect that. I only air views poetically or else I stick to facts or just have normal chats. I'm not authoritative or bossy & I'm very sorry if you think that I came across that way. I didn't mean to. I'm just like most people here. I know there's a difference between disagreeing with views & disagreeing with people expressing their opinions. I didn't have a problem with him having & expressing his opinion but how he appeared to judge everyone else.

 

[monfed]

Which pic? I've got lots. I know why you're using a troll toy as an avi now & I've thought this for a while. You have a troll toy as an avi because you are a troll. I don't have to explain myself to you. You didn't even try to answer my questions. You're not admin so I don't have to explain myself to you if I don't want to. Most people here are old friends who enjoy a laugh & bit of banter.

Getting back to my original point, a simple eye test is enough to say that Federer is the GOAT. Now you can deny it ofcourse, freedom of expression and what not, for example I can reject that Nadal is the GOAT on clay because all he does is stand in a corner and moonballs away to opponent's BH so he doesn't have to put in any REAL effort as he's never truly challenged. Now you can feel offended about it but this it still a POV and believe it or not it's shared by many including the french who booed him in almost every match at RG specially in his early years.

Funny thing is Fed has gone above and beyond an eye test when he's equal or better than anyone in history in 3 out of 4 slams. That's just pure numbers. When you combine that with his flawless playing style and zero cheating(which Nadal unfortunately still does) and zero grunting, what you have is a gold certified GOAT.

 

[monfed]

Also another thing that often gets missed with Federer is that he's one of the very few sportsmen who utilised their talent almost 80 to 90%. I still feel Fed should be sitting at 25 slams right now but OK 20 is still pretty good. That's often not the case with naturally talented players, take Safin or Rios for example, they could've won more slams but didn't do much although Safin won a decent amount. Nalbandian another example of talent going wasted. So it's not just talent, seems like most Fed haters gripe with this but they fail to realise that Fed put in the effort to convert his talent into something special.

 

[Horsa]

Getting back to my original point, a simple eye test is enough to say that Federer is the GOAT. Now you can deny it ofcourse, freedom of expression and what not, for example I can reject that Nadal is the GOAT on clay because all he does is stand in a corner and moonballs away to opponent's BH so he doesn't have to put in any REAL effort as he's never truly challenged. Now you can feel offended about it but this it still a POV and believe it or not it's shared by many including the french who booed him in almost every match at RG specially in his early years.

Funny thing is Fed has gone above and beyond an eye test when he's equal or better than anyone in history in 3 out of 4 slams. That's just pure numbers. When you combine that with his flawless playing style and zero cheating(which Nadal unfortunately still does) and zero grunting, what you have is a gold certified GOAT.

O.K. I'm sorry. I don't agree with what you say but I don't disagree with it either because I think you've got to look at all the facts & statistics of all tennis players of all time to decide & that would be a very difficult & time-consuming job so you might be right but on the other hand you might be wrong. I'm not offended by what you've said & realise that it is your opinion & I respect your right to have & air 1. I just disagreed with that 1 comment because I thought you were judging everyone by 1 discussion which I thought was wrong. I'm very sorry if I upset or offended you but I did & said what I thought was right at the time though thinking about it now there were better ways of saying & doing what I said & did.

 

[Federberg]

I agree that he has a right to have & air an opinion like everyone else does & I respect that. I only air views poetically or else I stick to facts or just have normal chats. I'm not authoritative or bossy & I'm very sorry if you think that I came across that way. I didn't mean to. I'm just like most people here. I know there's a difference between disagreeing with views & disagreeing with people expressing their opinions. I didn't have a problem with him having & expressing his opinion but how he appeared to judge everyone else.

Fair enough. All I ask is that you tell us what you think about the topic at hand. And less about how you think others are expressing themselves. Do you have a view on Fedal and goatness?

 

[Horsa]

Fair enough. All I ask is that you tell us what you think about the topic at hand. And less about how you think others are expressing themselves. Do you have a view on Fedal and goatness?

O.K. I think it's all a matter of opinion because to really find out who the greatest of all times really is we'd also have to look at all the historical facts & statistics as well as new ones & put them all together & consider them so unless anyone does that no one will ever know. Questions need to be asked. How do we know whether our players today are better than historic players like Fred Perry & slightly more up-to-date John McEnroe & Andre Agassi for example? As a lot of them aren't alive now so they can't reasonably be asked to play each other to find out how would we determine who would be the greatest of all time? Would it be statistical analyses then put into a table or spreadsheet then made into a graph of some kind? Obviously doing it on an excel spreadsheet then made into a graph would be quicker & easier as you only have to type the data onto an excel spreadsheet & tell excel what type of graph you want & excel does everything else for you.

 

[Federberg]

^Good questions. Personally I reject the concept of goatness. If it's based on achievement then what achievements should be given primacy? Were those achievements considered a priority on previous eras? In 20 years time folks might consider masters series title accumulation to be more important that slams (I don't think so, but you get my point). The point is that definitions of greatness seem to be fluid. All I can say is that having watched tennis for 40 years Federer is the most complete, dominant and aesthetically pleasing player I've ever seen.

 

[Horsa]

^Good questions. Personally I reject the concept of goatness. If it's based on achievement then what achievements should be given primacy? Were those achievements considered a priority on previous eras? In 20 years time folks might consider masters series title accumulation to be more important that slams (I don't think so, but you get my point). The point is that definitions of greatness seem to be fluid. All I can say is that having watched tennis for 40 years Federer is the most complete, dominant and aesthetically pleasing player I've ever seen.

Thank you very much. Me too. Exactly. Also it's the same game the main difference is the calibre of other players. Who is to say that 1 set of games is harder than another? For example, if 1 championship has better calibre players than another is the other seen as lower ranking even though the quality of play or calibre of players is better? I guess the same goes for slams. How can the playing fields be made even across eras? I get your point. Also going back to the question of considering history, I don't know who exactly invented tennis but it was in existence during the time of Henry V at least according to Shakespeare at least because you can find the quote "tennis balls, my Liege" in Shakespeare's Henry V, (Please don't ask me what act, scene & line because I'm citing from memory & I've forgotten, I just know that was the response Henry V. got when he asked what present he received from the French if I remember rightly) how could you find information about this to take into account? Mary, Queen of Scots was also reported to have played. Their courts were different of course as there was only real tennis then. Lawn tennis came afterwards.

 

[britbox]

^ I think it's safe to say Federer has a stronger claim than Mary Queen of Scots.

 

[Horsa]

Definitely. I think Henry V would have too. Lol. I was just remarking that to find out who the greatest of all time is we have to look at all historical accounts & statistics & it would be nigh on impossible to do this & stating that it was about at that time so we can't know for sure so it's a matter of opinion any way you look at it.

^ I think it's safe to say Federer has a stronger claim than Mary Queen of Scots.