GOAT Thread 2018

[britbox]

1. Nadal - 17 strong era slams, Olympics gold, La Undecima, 9-3 and 9-5 in slams vs his 2 biggest rivals, at least 2 slams on each surface, 10 consecutive years with a slam title, masters 1000 titles record, 4 davis cups, has never broken a racket, etc. etc.
2. Federer - 20 slams but at least 10 of them in a weak transitional era, Olympics silver, 3-9 and 6-9 in slams vs his 2 biggest rivals, only 1 clay slam out of 20 total, many weeks at no.1 (but a lot when Nadal was injured), consecutive SF record, wtf titles
3. Djokovic - 14 slams, Olympics bronze, 5-9 and 9-6 in slams vs his 2 biggest rivals, doesn't have much over Federer who basically covers him everywhere
4. Sampras - 14 slams, no clay slam and therefore no career slam, but clearly dominant in his era
5. Borg - 11 slams, great career but not enough slams to rank higher
6. Laver - 11 slams, great career but dinosaur era with much less competition, he's overall overrated but deserves to be in the Top 10 due to his calendar grandslam
7. Lendl
8. Connors
9. Agassi
10. McEnroe

I think Mac should be above Agassi. Andre was never really a dominant #1. Mac was. Sure, Andre has an extra major but Mac rarely bothered with the AO and has a better all round resume outside that.

 

[mrzz]

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

Extremely unfair and prejudiced from you to say that Serbians are fanatical... just because all Serbians we have here are fanatical....

 

[Moxie]

I think Mac should be above Agassi. Andre was never really a dominant #1. Mac was. Sure, Andre has an extra major but Mac rarely bothered with the AO and has a better all round resume outside that.

Andre doesn't just have an extra Major...he has the career Slam and the Golden one. I know there's a lot of enthusiasm around here for dominant #1's, but shouldn't you draw the line at some point? I also think that context is useful.

 

[britbox]

Andre doesn't just have an extra Major...he has the career Slam and the Golden one. I know there's a lot of enthusiasm around here for dominant #1's, but shouldn't you draw the line at some point? I also think that context is useful.

Context is useful which is why I mentioned that Mac barely bothered with the AO. He was never going to win a career slam or a golden one. The Olympics only appeared as an exhibition event in 84 and it was barely on the radar as being anything other than a glorified exhibition for years after. McEnroe's 84 season was one of the best in history.

 

[El Dude]

I agree with @britbox that Mac should rank higher than Andre, for the reasons stated.

The biggest problem with such rankings is ow to compare across era? We're already struggling to compare Mac's and Andre's resumes, and they actually overlapped. What about Federer and Laver? Etc.

Rankings translate across era. The #1 player in 1972 was the best in the world, same as today. We don't have ATP rankings before 1973, but we do have writers rankings and other sites with formulas. But at the least, we can compare the Open Era.

In the end, though, it is a judgement call. I would like, though, if we came up with some basic agreements. For instance, are we looking at Open Era only? And with players like Rosewall and Laver, are we looking at their entire careers--including pro tour--or just amateur and Open Era? Etc. A player like Pancho Gonzales is most effected by such questions, because he was the best player of the 50s but played most of it on the pro tour.

Anyhow, I'd offer two lists:

All-time
1. Laver
2. Federer
3. Tilden
4. Nadal
5. Djokovic
6. Sampras
7. Gonzales
8. Rosewall
9. Borg
10. Wilding

I'm really not sure about the top 3 - I think there is an argument for all of them. Tilden is particularly historically underrated. But I give Laver the edge over Roger both to (over?) compensate for my own bias, but also because I think Laver had a longer "peak dominance" than Roger. Laver was the best player in the sport for almost ten years and was only surpassed when he was 32ish, whereas Roger was the best in the sport for about four years and was surpassed when he was 26-27 (2008 Wimbledon being the passing of the baton).

Open Era only
1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Djokovic
4. Sampras
5. Borg
6. Lendl
7. McEnroe
8. Connors
9. Laver
10. Agassi

Or something like that. This one feels easier. I know there are plenty of debates to be had, but unlike the previous list I feel comfortable with the order. I think the only real question going forward is how 1-3 will look in a few years. It could be the same or it could be reversed.

 

[Moxie]

Context is useful which is why I mentioned that Mac barely bothered with the AO. He was never going to win a career slam or a golden one. The Olympics only appeared as an exhibition event in 84 and it was barely on the radar as being anything other than a glorified exhibition for years after. McEnroe's 84 season was one of the best in history.

McEnroe was within touching distance of the career slam, but I take the rest of your points. I like McEnroe and I'm happy to support him on the list. But the dominance thing that you guys like to tout always makes me cringe a bit.

 

[Jelenafan]

Way too much excuses for some with the “ slowing down of courts” ; in most sports playing conditions and equipment evolve with time and the best competitors adapt to what’s the playing field. The Pros of 1968 wouldn’t recognize the game of today.

The pros in the 50’s and 60’s played in indoor carpets and wood surfaces more often then not, the grass with its bad and inconsistent bounces was also part of the game. Clay was even slower, especially with not being able to power your way through rallies. Was it better or worse than today? All we can say is that it was definitely different. Take into account also equipment, the strings and racket technology today allow 135 mph bombs for serves and lightning fast ROS and again it’s a different animal. With today’s tech and yesteryears grass it would be 1 or 2 points and done on grass.

At best you can say who was probably the best in AN era, and of course even that is arguable. Every mono and illness and mental blip qualifies a fans player’s losses it seems.

For sheer dominamce? I’d pick Pancho Gonzalez , only 2 Majors but was the top pro for 8 or so consecutive years, then Laver, Tilden. They beat all comers at their best consistently for years. Doubt any of them had losing head2head records with their top rivals. If you want to pick apart their dominance it’s easy to do so, which unfortunately a lot of GOAT discussions revolve on how someone doesn’t qualify per their weaknesses, which lets face it, even the Greats all had/have some.

 

[El Dude]

McEnroe was within touching distance of the career slam, but I take the rest of your points. I like McEnroe and I'm happy to support him on the list. But the dominance thing that you guys like to tout always makes me cringe a bit.

Why? I mean, there are two extremes: focus on longevity and total career accomplishments or focus on peak dominance. I think a balance is the best route.

 

[Moxie]

Why? I mean, there are two extremes: focus on longevity and total career accomplishments or focus on peak dominance. I think a balance is the best route.

Well, tbh, it's such a testosterone-laden term, but that's just me being a girl on a sports forum. But also because I don't see it applied fairly around here in terms of this era. Naturally, it's Nadal-related. One of the knocks on him always seems to be the fewer weeks at #1. It doesn't ever seem to take into consideration his long dominance over the other Big 4. There are still only about 2 players who have a winning H2H over him, and the other one is Dustin Brown. He has the highest W/L pct. after Borg, and only just slipped below him recently. (That's longevity.) And while everyone gives him his due as to dominance on clay, it also gets used against him to claim he has an "unbalanced resume." So I take "dominance" claims with a grain of salt.

 

[Fiero425]

Why? I mean, there are two extremes: focus on longevity and total career accomplishments or focus on peak dominance. I think a balance is the best route.

I can't handle Connors on any top 10 list even with his majors and the men's record for singles titles! He had too many weakness and too many players that eventually owned him! He never played a FO final, maybe made 1 semi's, actually dropping it to Vitas Gerulaitis of all players; someone he had beaten at least 16 straight times! Those final years were so sad with him actually getting to a final of a small tourney, but dropped it to player barely ranked in the top 100 like Christo Van Rensberg of So. Africa!

 

[El Dude]

I can't handle Connors on any top 10 list even with his majors and the men's record for singles titles! He had too many weakness and too many players that eventually owned him! He never played a FO final, maybe made 1 semi's, actually dropping it to Vitas Gerulaitis of all players; someone he had beaten at least 16 straight times! Those final years were so sad with him actually getting to a final of a small tourney, but dropped it to player barely ranked in the top 100 like Christo Van Rensberg of So. Africa!

I hear you, which is why I rank him lower than most - below Mac and Lendl. I still rank him above Agassi, though, as he had a sustained period of dominance that Agassi didn't have. On the other hand, it would be easy to go too far the other way, as I think you do. In the end, he was a top 10 player for longer than just about anyone else, and he did win 8 majors and 109 titles, even if a ton of them were basically bloated challengers.

 

[El Dude]

Well, tbh, it's such a testosterone-laden term, but that's just me being a girl on a sports forum. But also because I don't see it applied fairly around here in terms of this era. Naturally, it's Nadal-related. One of the knocks on him always seems to be the fewer weeks at #1. It doesn't ever seem to take into consideration his long dominance over the other Big 4. There are still only about 2 players who have a winning H2H over him, and the other one is Dustin Brown. He has the highest W/L pct. after Borg, and only just slipped below him recently. (That's longevity.) And while everyone gives him his due as to dominance on clay, it also gets used against him to claim he has an "unbalanced resume." So I take "dominance" claims with a grain of salt.

Doesn't it get tiring, though, Moxie? The endless back and forth, fighting along partisan lines? Furthermore, you aren't going to get Nadal his just due by ignoring those areas that he's comparatively weak on. Let's look at the whole picture and--I know its a crazy idea, but bear with me--try to be as objective as possible, without our number one goal being to prop up our favorite player.

Roger is my favorite player and I hope he ends up with more Slams than anyone else, but for me truth is more important than my favorite "winning" the GOAT title. I will always go with what I believe to be true rather than try to spin it to support what I want to believe, and am very wary of when bias inevitably creeps in. To vary an old saying, being truthful is more important (to me) than being "right" (that is, winning the debate, or as is the case on the internet, believing one won a debate!).

In the end, it doesn't really matter who ends up with more Slam titles or is crowned GOAT. Roger, Rafa, and Novak are arguably the three greatest players in tennis history, and inarguably three of the five or six greatest. If Roger ends up with one or two fewer Slams than Rafa or Novak I'll probably think, "Oh well, too bad - but life goes on. Even the greatest players are inevitably surpassed."

This endless debate becomes an almost desperate attempt for our favorite to end up on top, as if by doing so we too are "the best."

 

[Fiero425]

I just feel tons of guilt back just 15 years ago anointing Sampras as the GOAT; sans FO finals! He led the way with 14 Majors at the time, surpassing Emo by 2 titles and we were glad to fudge the record to feel "we were there when" concerning the player we thought would hold the top spot for quite a while! Now there are 3 players that have "zoomed" by him so soon! I think of Fed as the GOAT officially, but again we have to squint and not see that he's been owned of late by 2 other players who are quickly catching up to him! I'm hoping Roger can hold them off because of his overall skill and not needing the homogenized courts to achieve his great record!

 

[Moxie]

Doesn't it get tiring, though, Moxie? The endless back and forth, fighting along partisan lines? Furthermore, you aren't going to get Nadal his just due by ignoring those areas that he's comparatively weak on. Let's look at the whole picture and--I know its a crazy idea, but bear with me--try to be as objective as possible, without our number one goal being to prop up our favorite player.

Roger is my favorite player and I hope he ends up with more Slams than anyone else, but for me truth is more important than my favorite "winning" the GOAT title. I will always go with what I believe to be true rather than try to spin it to support what I want to believe, and am very wary of when bias inevitably creeps in. To vary an old saying, being truthful is more important (to me) than being "right" (that is, winning the debate, or as is the case on the internet, believing one won a debate!).

In the end, it doesn't really matter who ends up with more Slam titles or is crowned GOAT. Roger, Rafa, and Novak are arguably the three greatest players in tennis history, and inarguably three of the five or six greatest. If Roger ends up with one or two fewer Slams than Rafa or Novak I'll probably think, "Oh well, too bad - but life goes on. Even the greatest players are inevitably surpassed."

This endless debate becomes an almost desperate attempt for our favorite to end up on top, as if by doing so we too are "the best."

Forgive me, but did you just ignore my post and give me a condescending pat on the head? The vaguest whiff of an acknowledgement was to remind me of the "comparatively" weak parts of Nadal's resume. I actually made other points about his dominance. Either respond to my points or don't, but spare me the lecture on non-partisanship, thanks.

 

[El Dude]

Forgive me, but did you just ignore my post and give me a condescending pat on the head? The vaguest whiff of an acknowledgement was to remind me of the "comparatively" weak parts of Nadal's resume. I actually made other points about his dominance. Either respond to my points or don't, but spare me the lecture on non-partisanship, thanks.

Sorry, not interested - find someone else to squabble with. There are plenty of willing candidates .

 

[Moxie]

Sorry, not interested - find someone else to squabble with. There are plenty of willing candidates .

You asked me a question and I answered it. Obviously, you didn't like the answer and chose not to take on my points. Fine, but you could pass without comment, and surely without the condescension. I don't believe I said anything so egregious.