GOAT Thread 2018

[britbox]

Everyone loves a GOAT thread no?

Here are my revised Top 10 picks after this years majors...


1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Laver
4. Djokovic
5. Sampras
6. Borg
7. Pancho Gonzalez
8. Connors
9. Lendl
10. McEnroe

8,9,10 are almost a wash... and I'd include Rosewall in that group from the old timers.

Give us your Top 10.

 

[monfed]

1) Federer
2) Laver
3) Borg
4) Rosewall
5) Sampras
6) Djokovic
7) Nadal
8) Mcenroe
9) Lendl
10) Agassi

 

[lob]

Monfed, I wasn't expecting to see RN on your list. What happened?

1) Federer
2) Laver
3) Borg
4) Rosewall
5) Sampras
6) Djokovic
7) Nadal
8) Mcenroe
9) Lendl
10) Agassi

Sent from my 6045O using Tapatalk

 

[lob]

1) Federer
2) Laver
3) Borg
4) Rosewall
5) Sampras
6) Djokovic
7) Nadal
8) Mcenroe
9) Lendl
10) Agassi

Level 1
Laver, Borg, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic

Level 2
Sampras, Rosewall

Level 3
Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Agassi

I can't order within levels. I don't know much about Rosewall but I put him in 2 as I don't quite see him in 1 or 3.

Within level one, if we use the 'spirit and beauty' of tennis and not just the sport of tennis, to break the tie:
Federer, Laver, Borg, Djokovic, Nadal

If we use the competitiveness, heart, mind and heroism of tennis, then my order is:
Nadal, Djokovic, Laver, Borg, Federer



Sent from my 6045O using Tapatalk

 

[monfed]

Monfed, I wasn't expecting to see RN on your list. What happened?

Just giving credit where credit is due

 

[atttomole]

Level 1
Laver, Borg, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic

Level 2
Sampras, Rosewall

Level 3
Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Agassi

I can't order within levels. I don't know much about Rosewall but I put him in 2 as I don't quite see him in 1 or 3.

Within level one, if we use the 'spirit and beauty' of tennis and not just the sport of tennis, to break the tie:
Federer, Laver, Borg, Djokovic, Nadal

If we use the competitiveness, heart, mind and heroism of tennis, then my order is:
Nadal, Djokovic, Laver, Borg, Federer



Sent from my 6045O using Tapatalk

Sampras could be on level 1 as well.

 

[lob]

Sampras could be on level 1 as well.

You are right. I struggled with that but of course Sampras goes into Level 1. There's not much separating those guys.

Of course, if Sampras played today, he'd struggle to stay in the top 10, let alone all time greatness.

Sent from my 6045O using Tapatalk

 

[Moxie]

Just giving credit where credit is due

Well, sort of. And in that spirit, though, credit for not being a completely fanboy and leaving him off completely, but behind Djokovic? I don't think a "Nole Slam" makes up for 3 Majors.

 

[monfed]

Well, sort of. And in that spirit, though, credit for not being a completely fanboy and leaving him off completely, but behind Djokovic? I don't think a "Nole Slam" makes up for 3 Majors.

I think Nadal, Djokovic and Sampras are interchangeable. But I can't place any of them at/above Fed/Laver/Borg level.

 

[atttomole]

How can Laver/Borg be above Sampras, Nadal and Djokovic?

 

[Moxie]

I think Nadal, Djokovic and Sampras are interchangeable. But I can't place any of them at/above Fed/Laver/Borg level.

I don't really see how Nadal hasn't jumped above Djokovic/Sampras, though I know there's an effort to put in their dominant years/time at #1, when no one was challenging them. Still, 3 Majors over...3 Majors alone puts you in the Hall of Fame. You really can't discount them.

As to Borg; much as I was a Borg fan, I do have to wonder at the romanticizing of his career. 11 Majors in 8 years is a good clip. But do we give Borg the nod for the career percentage, for style points, or for dying young and leaving a good-looking corpse? By the same token, do we give Rosewall points for being long-lived in a mostly country-club style era? We already give Laver a big nod because of what he did, even though he didn't have the same competition, for a lot of it.

 

[Mastoor]

There was a comment by a Serbian fan the other day who said, imagine the day when Nole wins his 21st slam. It will be the same day they will have the record number of broken mobile phones and computer keyboards.

 

[Moxie]

There was a comment by a Serbian fan the other day who said, imagine the day when Nole wins his 21st slam. It will be the same day they will have the record number of broken mobile phones and computer keyboards.

I know you Serbians are really fanatical, but 7 more Majors? Really hard to picture.

 

[lob]

As to Borg; much as I was a Borg fan, I do have to wonder at the romanticizing of his career. 11 Majors in 8 years is a good clip. But do we give Borg the nod for the career percentage, for style points, or for dying young and leaving a good-looking corpse? By the same token, do we give Rosewall points for being long-lived in a mostly country-club style era? We already give Laver a big nod because of what he did, even though he didn't have the same competition, for a lot of it.

As to Borg, he was playing in a quite competitive era, even it was not as intense as today. His greatest accomplishment is back to back 3+3 RG + Wimbledon. This is when RG and Wimbledon were nothing like each other, rackets were wooden and topspin strings were 25 years away. Did anyone else before 2000 do it even once? In their entire careers? Not even special players like Connors, Lendl, McEnroe. Agassi did it and it was special. Post 2000 it became a lot more doable.

Also, unless extreme, lower tour competitiveness doesn't make accomplishments necessarily inferior. Borg too would have benefitted from competition. Those weren't the days of tennis dads and moms. So those who played professional tennis independently chose that path. Retiring early is not a plus but the sport wasn't as lucrative.

Sent from my 6045O using Tapatalk

 

[Ricardo]

Sampras could be on level 1 as well.

Nah, wasn’t close to being good on clay. Being fast court specialist isn’t enough when we are talking the greatest overall.

 

[Ricardo]

How can Laver/Borg be above Sampras, Nadal and Djokovic?

The competition generally improves over time, so competition now also trumps Sampras’ comp 20 years ago. Based on that the later it is, the higher one should be ranked?

 

[atttomole]

The competition generally improves over time, so competition now also trumps Sampras’ comp 20 years ago. Based on that the later it is, the higher one should be ranked?

Which is why I am saying that Laver and Borg can not be above Nadal and Djokovic. I agree that Sampras on level 1 is a bit of stretch because he was weak on clay. He played when the surfaces were still specialized.
If the surfaces were still as specialized as they were in the past, Roger would be ahead by some margin.

 

[monfed]

I don't really see how Nadal hasn't jumped above Djokovic/Sampras, though I know there's an effort to put in their dominant years/time at #1, when no one was challenging them. Still, 3 Majors over...3 Majors alone puts you in the Hall of Fame. You really can't discount them.

As to Borg; much as I was a Borg fan, I do have to wonder at the romanticizing of his career. 11 Majors in 8 years is a good clip. But do we give Borg the nod for the career percentage, for style points, or for dying young and leaving a good-looking corpse? By the same token, do we give Rosewall points for being long-lived in a mostly country-club style era? We already give Laver a big nod because of what he did, even though he didn't have the same competition, for a lot of it.

Those are good questions that may never be answered. The reason why I put Borg above those great players is because he would change his playing style from clay to grass, he would actually S&V on grass and play pure baseline tennis on clay, something I haven't seen Sampras/Djoko/Nadal do with any level of success.

I put a lot of emphasis on playing ability, versatility in the GOAT equation.

 

[Moxie]

As to Borg, he was playing in a quite competitive era, even it was not as intense as today. His greatest accomplishment is back to back 3+3 RG + Wimbledon. This is when RG and Wimbledon were nothing like each other, rackets were wooden and topspin strings were 25 years away. Did anyone else before 2000 do it even once? In their entire careers? Not even special players like Connors, Lendl, McEnroe. Agassi did it and it was special. Post 2000 it became a lot more doable.

Also, unless extreme, lower tour competitiveness doesn't make accomplishments necessarily inferior. Borg too would have benefitted from competition. Those weren't the days of tennis dads and moms. So those who played professional tennis independently chose that path. Retiring early is not a plus but the sport wasn't as lucrative.

Sent from my 6045O using Tapatalk

I get the 3X Channel Slam and the quick-change adaptation to surface. He never won the USO, though, and he tried hard. I realize that not everyone went to Australia back then. Borg was the player that made me a tennis fan, and I'm not hear to demean his legacy. He was a fantastic player and a phenomenal athlete. But he was also tennis's first Superstar, so it's not like there wasn't money to be made. And he quit when there was a great rivalry with McEnroe. I'm just saying that I think gets bonus points for mystique. He burned early, bright and fast, and then burned out. Overall, and I'd say rightly, in the GOAT list we take with some grain of salt that Laver and Rosewall played in the non-Open era, too. We consider competition, all-surface successes and longevity. I think it's also fair to dock Borg a bit for quitting early.

 

[El Dude]

Well, sort of. And in that spirit, though, credit for not being a completely fanboy and leaving him off completely, but behind Djokovic? I don't think a "Nole Slam" makes up for 3 Majors.

Slams aren't everything, especially when assessing greatness. They might be the biggest prize, but we can't assess greatness on Slam trophies alone.

When looking at a player's total resume, I'd say Slam titles should account for something like 50-60% of total greatness, with the other 40-50% being rankings--especially weeks at #1 and YE1s--but also other titles, tour finals, Masters, Slam results other than wins (F, SF, QF), etc.

I see Novak and Rafa as neck and neck at this point, with very little difference between the two. If held at gun point I'd probably give the edge to Rafa, but it is closer than the Slam count entails. Novak has more weeks at #1, more YE1s, a bunch of tour finals, etc. All other things being equal, I see the tipping point being somewhere between 1 and 3 Slam difference. With Rafa at +3, I give him a slight edge--especially with his added weeks at #1. with Rafa at +1 I'd give it to Novak; at +2 it is too close to call.