Really? If I'm so partisan, why did I start this thread? I think you're just annoyed because I'm not arguing for your guy. Come on, AP, who is being partisan? I mean, you're not on the monfed/Nadalfan2013/nadalgoat level of partisanship, but you're still pretty hotly for your guy. I never see you argue against him, unlike the person you're calling partisan.
El Dude ..think about what Kieran posted earlier.. Also, just try to be more transparent..if Rafa is the GOAT of one surface as you say ..No other player could make such a claim. That alone would place him at least above Roger.
Did I doze off and miss something? Had I asked for players to be credited for what they should/could have done? Aren’t they all still on 20? One is on 20/60 (or one third), another is on 20/65 and another is on 20/72 (I’m hopeless at fractions once they go beyond a certain point).
Roy. Emerson won 20 plus major titles he's clearly one of greatest of all time.
Huh? Rafa = single surface GOAT, therefore he's above Roger? That doesn't make sense. At all. Yes, Rafa is better on clay than any player has been on any surface, but that doesn't make him the GOAT. You have to weigh all surfaces. Or if we use Ultimate Tennis Statistics "GOAT Points," we get:
A few things. One, there are tournaments other than Slams. Two, H2H means something, but is a secondary factor because different players match up against each other differently. Thirdly, Rafa started 5-0 at Slams vs. Novak, but since 2011 it has been 7-5. From 2006-10, Rafa as far more advanced, and Novak didn't really come into his own until 2011. Since then, he's had the edge at Slams, and elsewhere.
Are you a H2H absolutist, Fiero? Say it ain't so!Nadal's above Federer already with the H2H in the Spaniards favor; mostly on clay of course! Now there would be more of a question with Djokovic who now has 6 Wimbledons to Roger's 8, but again the H2H overall is in Nole's favor, but even more so on grass with Roger dropping 3 finals to the Serb!
Kieran! So nice to see you back!! I just loved the bolded above, because. And thanks for taking up Rafa's case so eloquently, and statistically. I know @El Dude, would have him in the pack of 3 headed GOAT, which is fair. But it's good to keep things clear, as even the Dude would slip Nadal lower, based on his reasons. But that misses other context. As soon as one decides what are the most important criteria, one put's the finger on the scale. To your point above, about Nadal being the first and best rival to Federer, in his prime, and then basically sandwiched in between the two of them, even El Dude has copped to that.Don’t forget that this “surface goat” is one of only 3 players to have 2 slams on each of the surfaces. That’s diversity Hollywood would be proud of.
And give the chap his propers. He was Rogers only rival when he was still only a bairn, and Novak was crying off injured with SARS, and then he was Novak’s only rival when ol’ Gerontius was nibbling hay in a field and wondering what he could do to get to 2017 earlier. Rafa’s been constantly battling the two others since he was 17. He’s had no easy field in between. And he’s played fewer slams for a reason, but with a greater rate of accumulation. I wouldn’t think of him as the lesser of them if I was having the most negative of my tennis thoughts, and I doubt they would either…
You certainly told @Fiero425, in terms of "race to 20," in terms of "fastest." And no, I didn't read you pretending Majors that would have been won. Rafa does have the best win percentage at Majors. I'll address the injury issue separately with the Dude. And etc. It can be like jumping it at double-dutch to catch up with some of these threads, when they get this fun.
I disagree that a player has "some say" about injury "over the course of time," as you say. I think this idea comes from the perceived wisdom, over the last 12 years, that Nadal, above all, was going to burn out his body, because of his style of play. At 35, and still winning Majors, he has made a certain mockery of that. People that got roped into the notion of "it's your own fault" would be Murray, who folks like to say ruined his hips trying to reach for #1 in late 2016. This is utter crap, IMO. Because we also hold up the saintly, and snake-bit Juan Martin del Potro as just having enormous bad luck, (which he has.) They are athletes. Their bodies are their main equipment. I think it's wrong to blame them when it breaks down.
Yes, it is a great album, but I kind of prefer the trippier stuff like Meddle. Most of my favorite PF songs are scattered throughout different albums, but I haven't listened to them much since high school.Another thing I wanted to say is that you, @El Dude are correct about @monfed's fannishness and lack of subjectivity. Just because a person likes a style, and believes in a GOATness, deep in their hearts, it doesn't make it so. I want to point out what monfed said about Pink Floyd and "Dark Side of the Moon." It sort of tells exactly how much he can't distinguish his own personal opinion from an objective reality. He says that there is no question that DSOTM is the greatest album of all time. I will NOT derail this thread to talk about greatest albums, and we have a music thread, https://www.tennisfrontier.com/threads/the-music-box.1326/page-124, but I actually think he made the best argument as to why there is no one GOAT. Too many variables, and too much personal opinion involved. Not that I don't love that album, but you get my point. I know you have said that it is Novak who will likely buff up his resume, going forward, but you also have to think, will that count as much, if his 2 great rivals are not as available? I know we tread on tricky ground, the notion of the whispered "weak era." But seriously, unless there is a big step up-to-the-plate from the Next and Next Next Gen, would Novak NOT just be buffing up the resume, if Rafa and Roger are not there to stop him?
They're all still playing, so it is still a work-in-progress, And I love Dark Side of the Moon, btw.
Good Grief Man. Do you hear yourself. "Novak didn't really come into his own 2011". That's the basic premise of what I have been saying ( I can't speak for others).. Rafa's numbers were at the top of the game and his was the player who had a winning H2H vs the top 20 every year during Roger's prime years yet you penalized him because Novak's game was still getting dismantling by the other Big Two. Yet , you based your argument on the past ten years. It's almost like Roger and Rafa were fluffiers (Don't make me explain but google HBO Real Sports episode on the studs of horse racing).
Hm, interesting. Tell me baseball players that have control over their injuries or get accused of causing injuries, based on playing style.. That doesn't even sound familiar to me, and I do follow baseball. It cannot have escaped your notice that that has been the trope about Nadal since forever, though. Even Rafa hasn't missed it, and addresses it regularly. TBH, even HE says he's surprised he's still playing. LOL. I don't see you "harshing" on del Potro. My point is that no one does. He's seen as a victim of bad luck. You misunderstood me. He's my poster boy for the guy that no one blames for his bad injury luck. However, some folks DO blame Murray, and they do blame Rafa. I'm just saying (maybe to the general forum here) that it's not really fair to blame players for injury. Not citing you, though responding to you.
I really think it has escaped your notice that real Nadal fans, and plenty of people on these forums, over the years, don't believe in a GOAT. The deep investment in the GOAT has come from the Federer fans, and, of late, from Djokovic himself, and so his fans. I agree with your basic philosophy that this will be the era of 3 all-time greats. In the end, I don't think they can be separated, historically. (And you're a great historian of tennis.) Because they are so close in age/era, what they did together will always be looked at as an amazing era of dominance. I understand why the Federer fans hold him so high, which has also to do with the loveliness of his rather classic style. Don't think I don't appreciate it. But I do think that, as you have said, about the 3 goats of this era, I honestly think we'll never disentangle them from each other. That will be this era. Now, maybe Novak will keep going, Rafa and Roger will fade, and Novak will keep dominating even this Gen. Will it make him the GOAT of forever? Well, it will make him the GOAT of now.
Already answered that, bro. I don’t think you remember me ever outlining a case for a single goat, because I don’t believe in one. But a quintingle headed goat? Players of different eras pursuing completely different ideals of greatness, which is what the history of tennis is made of?
He won 12, and he’s clearly the cautionary tale against being too reliant on numbers, and less reliant on detail. There’s no criteria that can place Emerson as a greater player than Pete Sampras or Roger Federer. As I said above, he’s not even at the same table as John Newcombe. He was good, but only up to a point. That point was the point where great players step in. Little surprise that Emerson stopped winning slams as soon as the sport went professional…
