"Five Minutes Before the F-ing Match!"

[Front242]

Thing is, best of their own time or all time is still the same guy currently going by many, many records and they may well be added to tomorrow

 

[Kieran]

I think that "five minutes before the ****ing match" somebody told Murray that Roger was a goat and he got into a terrible row with them... :laydownlaughing

 

[El Dude]

Kieran, you don't even want to hear what I'm saying but keep repeating your own biased perspective on what you think I'm saying. That's how conversations reach an impasse, when one or the other of those involved refuses to (or is incapable of) actually hear what the other is saying. So we're at an impasse.

One of the things you just don't get is that I'm not interested in fighting the Fedal Battle. I'm not out to prove that Roger is the GOAT, but I do find the question interesting. You might have selectively forgotten, but I've even said that I think Rafa has a good chance of surpassing Roger before all is through, and I'm fine with that. I think perhaps because you are so identified with your guy and want him to be the best you assume that everyone feels the same. I understand that most fans of both parties want their guy to be the best, and certainly I hope that Roger wins another Slam or two. But I'm not trying to "win one for Roger" or spin anything. Get that through your thick skull, buddy. Quit projecting that onto me and look to your own spin.

Man, the Fedal Battle is like a whirlpool that everyone gets pulled into. So tiresome.

 

[Fiero425]

Kieran, you don't even want to hear what I'm saying but keep repeating your own biased perspective on what you think I'm saying. That's how conversations reach an impasse, when one or the other of those involved refuses to (or is incapable of) actually hear what the other is saying. So we're at an impasse.

One of the things you just don't get is that I'm not interested in fighting the Fedal Battle. I'm not out to prove that Roger is the GOAT, but I do find the question interesting. You might have selectively forgotten, but I've even said that I think Rafa has a good chance of surpassing Roger before all is through, and I'm fine with that. I think perhaps because you are so identified with your guy and want him to be the best you assume that everyone feels the same. I understand that most fans of both parties want their guy to be the best, and certainly I hope that Roger wins another Slam or two. But I'm not trying to "win one for Roger" or spin anything. Get that through your thick skull, buddy. Quit projecting that onto me and look to your own spin.

Man, the Fedal Battle is like a whirlpool that everyone gets pulled into. So tiresome.

Numbers don't lie when it comes to Roger! He has so many records that have little chance of being broken! His number of majors right now is in jeopardy, but the rest having to do with his consistency over the years is unmatched; even before "Open Tennis!" Same with my other faves; Martina Navratilova and Hingis! In my lifetime, you might as well chisel it in stone! :clap

 

[Kieran]

El Dude, calm yourself.

And read carefully: I've told you several times in this thread that Rafa is NOT the Goat - because there is no goat.

Rafa is not the goat. There, I've said it yet again. Read it very slowly.

And think before you write about people projecting onto others: I've told you several times this, and several times you've said, oh Kieran, you just keep saying Rafa is the best.

Then you accuse me of not listening to you.

Seriously, give it a rest.

And when you get frustrated with somebody, it doesn't look good for your argument when you reduce yourself to cheap shots and name-calling...

 

[Fiero425]

El Dude, calm yourself. And read carefully: I've told you several times in this thread that Rafa is NOT the Goat, because there is no goat.

Rafa is not the goat.

That can be etched in stone as well! :lolz: :clap :angel:

 

[El Dude]

El Dude, calm yourself.

More projection. How do you know I'm not calm?

As for the rest, OK - let's give it a rest.

p.s. Everyone projects onto everyone else, so it isn't name-calling or a cheap-shot. Actually, it is more common and frequent than most think! At least in my opinion. And yes, that means I'm projecting onto you as well.

 

[Kieran]

When you go round insulting people, I project a loss of calm on you, buddy. It's not normally your style.

Enjoy the game tomorrow, it might be one for the ages...

 

[El Dude]

Numbers don't lie when it comes to Roger! He has so many records that have little chance of being broken! His number of majors right now is in jeopardy, but the rest having to do with his consistency over the years is unmatched; even before "Open Tennis!" Same with my other faves; Martina Navratilova and Hingis! In my lifetime, you might as well chisel it in stone! :clap

Roger's numbers are, overall, the best of the Open Era - but Rafa is closing the gap.

As for before the Open Era, you have to consider four players: Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales, and Tilden. It is too hard to compare, especially with Pro Slams. How do they compare to current Grand Slams?

Hingis?! Off the top of my head, here are women that are better: Graf, Natratilova, Court, Evert, King, Seles, Henin, both Williams sisters. After that it get's dicey and there are some players that are probably on a similar level as Hingis--like Mandlikova, Vicario, Capriati, etc--but those nine were all clearly better players.

 

[Fiero425]

Numbers don't lie when it comes to Roger! He has so many records that have little chance of being broken! His number of majors right now is in jeopardy, but the rest having to do with his consistency over the years is unmatched; even before "Open Tennis!" Same with my other faves; Martina Navratilova and Hingis! In my lifetime, you might as well chisel it in stone! :clap

Roger's numbers are, overall, the best of the Open Era - but Rafa is closing the gap.

As for before the Open Era, you have to consider four players: Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales, and Tilden. It is too hard to compare, especially with Pro Slams. How do they compare to current Grand Slams?

Hingis?! Off the top of my head, here are women that are better: Graf, Natratilova, Court, Evert, King, Seles, Henin, both Williams sisters. After that it get's dicey and there are some players that are probably on a similar level as Hingis--like Mandlikova, Vicario, Capriati, etc--but those nine were all clearly better players.

I never said Hingis was better, but she has a ton of records due to her tender age of winning! Those may never be broken; that's what I was referencing! When are you guys going to learn? Forty plus years in the game, I know a little bit of something and make "some" good points; I have to! :nono uzzled :clap :lolz: :angel:

 

[El Dude]

It is crazy to think that Hingis is only 33 years old but her last Slam win was 15 years ago, in the 20th century - and in the Clinton administration! Man, she peaked young.

 

[El Dude]

As a side note, I'm guessing Martina Hingis is the only player--male or female--to win multiple Slams in her teen years but none after. I know Michael Chang won his sole Slam as a teenager, and possibly someone else (a female) but I'm guessing no other multi-Slam winners.

 

[Fiero425]

As a side note, I'm guessing Martina Hingis is the only player--male or female--to win multiple Slams in her teen years but none after. I know Michael Chang won his sole Slam as a teenager, and possibly someone else (a female) but I'm guessing no other multi-Slam winners.

Not that I can think of; how old was Graf in '88? Little Mo and others in the amateur game maybe!

 

[El Dude]

Steffi was 19 in '88 and won 6 Slams before turning 20, but of course she won 16 after!

 

[DarthFed]

Yeah Martina Hingis is not going to be on a short list of best female players I will see yet she will always be one of the most memorable. Awesome all around game and it had to be because even then she was too easily overpowered by a lot of the tour. And she still is a total babe!

 

[britbox]

There is never going to be an official GOAT and never a full consensus... but obviously people will hold their own opinion.

As it stands right now, the general majority of people who like the GOAT concept seem to lean toward Roger Federer, the most succesful player in the history of the sport.

There is a strange oxymoron where some people cannot grasp the concept of others having a GOAT opinion but understand the concept perfectly when it relates to being the greatest on a certain surface (i.e. Clay)

 

[Moxie]

There is never going to be an official GOAT and never a full consensus... but obviously people will hold their own opinion.


As it stands right now, the general majority of people who like the GOAT concept seem to lean toward Roger Federer, the most succesful player in the history of the sport.

There is a strange oxymoron where some people cannot grasp the concept of others having a GOAT opinion but understand the concept perfectly when it relates to being the greatest on a certain surface (i.e. Clay)

You are right to say that there will never be an official GOAT. It will always be debated. Also correct that those that lean towards it are are Fed fans, as of course his record is amazing, his successes beyond dispute. (His failings, few as they are, are the dispute.) But the Federer fans are much more heavily invested in the notion of one absolute GOAT, as you say. I really think that's because folks were trying to make Pete the Greatest of All Time. Then Roger came along, and his fan base campaigned for him. Since then, we've realized that it's all more subtle than that, once again.

Where you're not quite fair is in that everyone proclaims Nadal the GOAT on clay, even when Nadal fans will say, (I have,) that you'll never be able to put prime Borg and prime Nadal on the same court, with the same equipment. And if "everyone" says Nadal is the GOAT on clay, how much to you expect Nadal fans to protest against it? I would say the onus is on those who aren't fans, and they've all given over. Anyway, single surface…clay or grass…is much easier, if imperfect, for a GOAT conversation. GOAT on hards, in the modern era, or overall, is much more difficult, even to approximate.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Since there is so much talk about goat, I would like to remind you about the thread
"Another look at Most Dominant Player" that we had in this forum in Feb.
Note: MDP is a politically correct term for GOATSF.

Recall the article

http://regressing.deadspin.com/which-tennis-player-was-really-the-most-dominant-in-maj-1507503924

I am keeping a tab on the metric used in the article. Rafa's dominant period is still
continuing. It will end, if he plays and does not reach the final in USO this Sep.
Then we can compare the stats. The stats in the article for Rafa are "ongoing".

I should also point out that this is not a "propaganda". Rafa has a chance to
beat Fed as per the metric mentioned in the article as well.

 

[britbox]

There is never going to be an official GOAT and never a full consensus... but obviously people will hold their own opinion.


As it stands right now, the general majority of people who like the GOAT concept seem to lean toward Roger Federer, the most succesful player in the history of the sport.

There is a strange oxymoron where some people cannot grasp the concept of others having a GOAT opinion but understand the concept perfectly when it relates to being the greatest on a certain surface (i.e. Clay)

You are right to say that there will never be an official GOAT. It will always be debated. Also correct that those that lean towards it are are Fed fans, as of course his record is amazing, his successes beyond dispute. (His failings, few as they are, are the dispute.) But the Federer fans are much more heavily invested in the notion of one absolute GOAT, as you say. I really think that's because folks were trying to make Pete the Greatest of All Time. Then Roger came along, and his fan base campaigned for him. Since then, we've realized that it's all more subtle than that, once again.

Where you're not quite fair is in that everyone proclaims Nadal the GOAT on clay, even when Nadal fans will say, (I have,) that you'll never be able to put prime Borg and prime Nadal on the same court, with the same equipment. And if "everyone" says Nadal is the GOAT on clay, how much to you expect Nadal fans to protest against it? I would say the onus is on those who aren't fans, and they've all given over. Anyway, single surface…clay or grass…is much easier, if imperfect, for a GOAT conversation. GOAT on hards, in the modern era, or overall, is much more difficult, even to approximate.

No, I disagree. The concept of a GOAT is not a "Fed fans" creation or exclusive subject. You see it across all sports. We have basketball GOATs, football GOATs, hockey GOATs. Hey, we even discuss the greatest films, actors, actresses etc... It's something that's discussed all over on a daily basis in some form or another.

So the concept is definitely not tribal.

If you agree with the concept of a GOAT or are prepared to discuss it for fun (or otherwise) then defining who it is can lead to the tribal divides.

A lot of it is media driven and I agree with that point. GOATs in tennis weren't really talked about until Sampras approached Emerson's major tally. (That in itself is laughable as nobody in their right mind would have had Roy pegged as the GOAT).

In the modern era it seems everything has to be given a "Greatest" tag to sell the spectacle. The media, particularly guys who should know a little better like McEnroe are continually harping on.. "must be the greatest backhand ever" "that guy has just had the greatest season ever"... "you may have just witnessed the greatest game ever" ... etc etc.

So, no... look beyond Fed fans... it's a modern day phenomenon across the board.

 

[Moxie]

There is never going to be an official GOAT and never a full consensus... but obviously people will hold their own opinion.


As it stands right now, the general majority of people who like the GOAT concept seem to lean toward Roger Federer, the most succesful player in the history of the sport.

There is a strange oxymoron where some people cannot grasp the concept of others having a GOAT opinion but understand the concept perfectly when it relates to being the greatest on a certain surface (i.e. Clay)

You are right to say that there will never be an official GOAT. It will always be debated. Also correct that those that lean towards it are are Fed fans, as of course his record is amazing, his successes beyond dispute. (His failings, few as they are, are the dispute.) But the Federer fans are much more heavily invested in the notion of one absolute GOAT, as you say. I really think that's because folks were trying to make Pete the Greatest of All Time. Then Roger came along, and his fan base campaigned for him. Since then, we've realized that it's all more subtle than that, once again.

Where you're not quite fair is in that everyone proclaims Nadal the GOAT on clay, even when Nadal fans will say, (I have,) that you'll never be able to put prime Borg and prime Nadal on the same court, with the same equipment. And if "everyone" says Nadal is the GOAT on clay, how much to you expect Nadal fans to protest against it? I would say the onus is on those who aren't fans, and they've all given over. Anyway, single surface…clay or grass…is much easier, if imperfect, for a GOAT conversation. GOAT on hards, in the modern era, or overall, is much more difficult, even to approximate.

No, I disagree. The concept of a GOAT is not a "Fed fans" creation or exclusive subject. You see it across all sports. We have basketball GOATs, football GOATs, hockey GOATs. Hey, we even discuss the greatest films, actors, actresses etc... It's something that's discussed all over on a daily basis in some form or another.

So the concept is definitely not tribal.

If you agree with the concept of a GOAT or are prepared to discuss it for fun (or otherwise) then defining who it is can lead to the tribal divides.

A lot of it is media driven and I agree with that point. GOATs in tennis weren't really talked about until Sampras approached Emerson's major tally. (That in itself is laughable as nobody in their right mind would have had Roy pegged as the GOAT).

In the modern era it seems everything has to be given a "Greatest" tag to sell the spectacle. The media, particularly guys who should know a little better like McEnroe are continually harping on.. "must be the greatest backhand ever" "that guy has just had the greatest season ever"... "you may have just witnessed the greatest game ever" ... etc etc.

So, no... look beyond Fed fans... it's a modern day phenomenon across the board.

I was only reiterating you as to Fed fans, and I think we're saying the same thing. And you draw an excellent overview, as to it all. I actually intimated that it started with Sampras in tennis. I think it might have started overall with Michael Jordan, tailing closely with Gretzky, and then, certainly, the internet era. There would never have been such a heated Pete v. Rog debate had there been no internet. They didn't play in the same era. The Federer v. Nadal one will always have legs, however, because they have.

I agree that we all like lists, but sports are particularly susceptible to comparing stats. And, again, I think in the age of the internet, international news access and the 24-hour news cycle, we love a 10-best, etc.

Sports are particularly tribal. I didn't say that it started with Fed fans…I said it started with Pete fans, and the internet. As to the GOAT and Fed, you said this: "As it stands right now, the general majority of people who like the GOAT concept seem to lean toward Roger Federer, the most succesful player in the history of the sport." I merely agreed with that.