Time to crown Novak the GOAT?

[the AntiPusher]

If even two slams were on clay, who knows what the totals might look like? The USO flirted with clay for two years in the mid-70's, and I often think of how unlucky it was for Borg in the late-70's when he peaked, an unparalleled 3 Channel Slams in a row, but the USO went to an alien surface, from his perspective, in 1978. Had it remained on clay, it's not difficult to imagine Bjorn heading even once on a long slow boat trip to Australia, to try complete his destiny.

But a slight caveat on the grass surfaces back then - they each had subtle differences, which were big enough to influence things. We saw Mats Wilander win 2 Australian Opens in 1983 and 1984 on grass, beating McEnroe in 4 sets in the 1983 semi, but we know that Mats never got beyond the quarters at Wimbledon, and John McEnroe is considered to be among the very best who ever played on grass. Its probably analogous to the difference between the HC at Melbourne, and NYC. It still favours HC players, but the differences are evident in the results..

83 AO on grass. That's wild and seems like so long ago

 

[BratSrbin]

yea i mean who can go against the highly intelligent and mighty 'el dude'

no wonder this tennis forum hasn't grown...The Napoleonic complex is hard to miss, it's like one big circle jerk in here.

Anywho ontopic, it's between Fed and Laver as it's always been since the get go. For me it's Fed but then again I haven't lived through Laver's prime so I'm not qualified to assess him properly. I do think the grand slam is the greatest accomplishment in tennis and that was confirmed last week and the player who has it should automatically get GOAT status.

‎How can only one criterion be important for deciding on something that contains a large number of achievements?‎

 

[Moxie]

I love Mac and his hyperbole. He changes his choice for GOAT with every Slam match, it seems.

And he's not the only one, (by which I do NOT mean you.) Tennis commentators fill a lot of air time with hyperbole, and they are heavily invested in the GOAT race. They have flat-out referred to all 3 of them as the GOAT at one time or another.

 

[Moxie]

This is an argument for the @nehmeth concept of GOTE: Great Of Their Era, which I’ve always thought was a wise way of looking at things, considering all of the variables throughout the decades.

I do think this is a more reasonable concept. At least you rather more compare apples to apples, within the extent possible, but even reading some of the historical points people are making about Hoad and Rosewall, on this and the Djokovic v. Medvedev thread, we see how many factors can come into it. To that point, I don't think you're ever going to get to at Greatest of this particular Era. I have been saying this for a quite some time. I don't see how you can ever speak of this era without speaking of all 3. It's not like one will clearly rise to the top, and the other 2 will fall into obscurity. And not just because of committed fan bases and forums like ours. The powers that be have been heavily invested in the Federer/Nadal rivalry for years, because it made them a LOT of money. As has adding Djokovic into the mix. The only thing that I can see that could happen to make the tennis cognoscenti crown one GOAT would be if Federer were to win 3 more majors and Rafa and Novak none. I always believed that they wanted Roger to be IT. But since that's unlikely to happen, I believe the debate will go on forever, for this era.

 

[tented]

I do think this is a more reasonable concept. At least you rather more compare apples to apples, within the extent possible, but even reading some of the historical points people are making about Hoad and Rosewall, on this and the Djokovic v. Medvedev thread, we see how many factors can come into it. To that point, I don't think you're ever going to get to at Greatest of this particular Era. I have been saying this for a quite some time. I don't see how you can ever speak of this era without speaking of all 3. It's not like one will clearly rise to the top, and the other 2 will fall into obscurity. And not just because of committed fan bases and forums like ours. The powers that be have been heavily invested in the Federer/Nadal rivalry for years, because it made them a LOT of money. As has adding Djokovic into the mix. The only thing that I can see that could happen to make the tennis cognoscenti crown one GOAT would be if Federer were to win 3 more majors and Rafa and Novak none. I always believed that they wanted Roger to be IT. But since that's unlikely to happen, I believe the debate will go on forever, for this era.

“Their” doesn’t have to be singular. We could state, “In the time of Emerson, Laver, Newcombe, Rosewall, and others, Laver was the greatest of their era.”

We could also state, “Djokovic, Federer, and Nadal [in alphabetical order] are the greatest of their era.”

 

[Kieran]

This era has been so defined by extraordinary records and feats that may take a long time for us to place it in context. And how will we manage that? That’s a big question. Because it’s as if a bunch of athletes came along who not only ran twice as fast as everyone ever had, and smashed every record to smithereens but hardly ever lost a race. Will this become the new normal, for men’s tennis? Or will it always be extraordinary?

If it becomes the new normal, and after the transition we get another Big 2 or 3 racing towards twenty slams and leaving the others grinning for the camera like stunned seals, then we might find it easier to figure out how this happened, what it’s ingredients are, and how tennis changed from what it was before, but imagine if tennis goes back to the old normal, where, between Borg and Sampras, 8 slams was the next best, how will we be able to place this era in any context? Will we still be too dizzy to try?

 

[Ricardo]

‎No. It is just my look at the facts.

You obviously don’t know what an opinion is.

 

[Kieran]

Ultimate Tennis Statistics - GOAT List

Open Era GOAT List (a.k.a. GOATometer) compares tennis player career achievements expressed by GOAT Points

www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com

Andy Murray is not the 13th greatest tennis player to ever play the game..

 

[tented]

This era has been so defined by extraordinary records and feats that may take a long time for us to place it in context. And how will we manage that? That’s a big question. Because it’s as if a bunch of athletes came along who not only ran twice as fast as everyone ever had, and smashed every record to smithereens but hardly ever lost a race. Will this become the new normal, for men’s tennis? Or will it always be extraordinary?

If it becomes the new normal, and after the transition we get another Big 2 or 3 racing towards twenty slams and leaving the others grinning for the camera like stunned seals, then we might find it easier to figure out how this happened, what it’s ingredients are, and how tennis changed from what it was before, but imagine if tennis goes back to the old normal, where, between Borg and Sampras, 8 slams was the next best, how will we be able to place this era in any context? Will we still be too dizzy to try?

Exactly. It’s an era without precedent, ultimately impossible to define correctly since we’re still in it. Once the Big 3 have retired, and a few years have passed, we’ll have a better feel for what will happen in their wake, and how much what we’re now in the midst of is as aberrant as it seems, or the new normal.

There’s an American question-and-answer game show called “Jeopardy!” To win, a contestant needs to have knowledge of an array of categories. A couple of years ago, a guy named James Holzhauer played it in a manner no one ever had before. He typically bet everything when he had the opportunity, accumulating huge amounts of money. It was a new way of playing the game, showing everyone a path to success no one had ever tried. As it was happening, I was convinced everyone who would be on the show after he finally lost would use his methods as a template to succeed, but that didn’t happen at all. Everything went back to normal. I’m wondering if Rafa, Roger, and Novak are going to be the James Holzhauer of tennis: everything will go back to a series of average accomplishments, even though the Big 3 have shown what’s needed to win. My guess is that’s exactly what’s going to happen, given the paltry number of significant wins from players much younger than the Big 3.

 

[tented]

Andy Murray is not the 13th greatest tennis player to ever play the game..

After the first three entries, the list falls apart. Agassi above Laver? Lendl above Sampras?

 

[Kieran]

After the first three entries, the list falls apart. Agassi above Laver? Lendl above Sampras?

Connors above Sampras? Hilarious list...

 

[Kieran]

Exactly. It’s an era without precedent, ultimately impossible to define correctly since we’re still in it. Once the Big 3 have retired, and a few years have passed, we’ll have a better feel for what will happen in their wake, and how much what we’re now in the midst of is as aberrant as it seems, or the new normal.

There’s an American question-and-answer game show called “Jeopardy!” To win, a contestant needs to have knowledge of an array of categories. A couple of years ago, a guy named James Holzhauer played it in a manner no one ever had before. He typically bet everything when he had the opportunity, accumulating huge amounts of money. It was a new way of playing the game, showing everyone a path to success no one had ever tried. As it was happening, I was convinced everyone who would be on the show after he finally lost would use his methods as a template to succeed, but that didn’t happen at all. Everything went back to normal. I’m wondering if Rafa, Roger, and Novak are going to be the James Holzhauer of tennis: everything will go back to a series of average accomplishments, even though the Big 3 have shown what’s needed to win. My guess is that’s exactly what’s going to happen, given the paltry number of significant wins from players much younger than the Big 3.

Well, I think that a large part of "what's needed to win" at their level is another great rival or two to push you to extremes. They've hauled each other along in a helter skelter dash to break records, and I don't think we've seen that before. Aided and abetted - I insist - by a compliant and largely star-struck and gormless field, but even still, the magic ingredient might be having strong rivalries. When Borg retired, it had an instant effect on McEnroe's motivation in 1982. It also energised Jimmy Connors. I'd swear on a stack of World of Tennis Yearbooks that Sampras would have benefitted from being harassed by a Rafa. It's the law of the jungle, applied to a sophisticated world...

 

[Fiero425]

Well, I think that a large part of "what's needed to win" at their level is another great rival or two to push you to extremes. They've hauled each other along in a helter skelter dash to break records, and I don't think we've seen that before. Aided and abetted - I insist - by a compliant and largely star-struck and gormless field, but even still, the magic ingredient might be having strong rivalries. When Borg retired, it had an instant effect on McEnroe's motivation in 1982. It also energised Jimmy Connors. I'd swear on a stack of World of Tennis Yearbooks that Sampras would have benefitted from being harassed by a Rafa. It's the law of the jungle, applied to a sophisticated world...

It's happened with the ladies as well! Chris Evert was bored with success and seemed ready to retire, marry John Lloyd, & have his kids! Martina turned her career around in '81 which got Evert's juices going again! She hung with Martina for a couple years, then Navratilova started blowing her away; even on clay! Like Fed, Evert kept at it until she had an opening in the mid-80's and won 2 more FO's! The end has to come sometime and I think "it's knocking on Fed;s door!" The thing is will Fed's leaving the game affect Rafa who was his main rival or will Nole keep him motivated enough to continue for a few more years?

 

[Andy22]

But…all of Emersons slams were won against amateurs. The best players of the time were absent. There’s absolutely no way they can compare favourably against Federer’s achievements. This isn’t a subjective feeling I’ve got here, it’s a definite fact..

Stop respecting pre open era players they beat the best they could at the time with smaller Racquets worst technology health care ect. And yes I would have Roy.Emserson slams over Federer 100% he did with way less than that Federer had who played against mugs. and it's definitely not a fact Federer or others players had tougher path to slams it just you showing you know nothing about tennis and pre open era. I also dont care that you say this is Opinion and unfortunately for you it's not changing.

 

[Andy22]

Does the tennis Goat Djokovic go 3-6 on his Favourite surface in finals us open? Most likely not. as both Nadal, Federer have winning record's on their favourite surfaces. Nadal even has more slams on hard court Goat Djokovic favourite surface 4-3 us open titles. embarrassing for so-called Goat for rival to have more than you on your favourite surface Nadal. Also does a tennis Goat win slams in such weak era like Djokovic who's the new Federer in terms of weak mug era. Of course not Nadal has the hardest majors Adjusted by difficulty at single slam 14.09, Djokovic is 10.00 with his 9 Australian Opens.

 

[Kieran]

Stop respecting pre open era players they beat the best they could at the time with smaller Racquets worst technology health care ect. And yes I would have Roy.Emserson slams over Federer 100% he did with way less than that Federer had who played against mugs. and it's definitely not a fact Federer or others players had tougher path to slams it just you showing you know nothing about tennis and pre open era. I also dont care that you say this is Opinion and unfortunately for you it's not changing.

You mean, unfortunately for you it’s not changing..

 

[Fiero425]

Well the BS started years ago, now Nadal's going to make his contribution to the PILE! In TennisWorldUSA he said, "In the future I don't want to be remembered as a tennis player with numerous titles but as the one who left a good example for boys and girls; he is my only target. If there is one thing I would like to be able to say that I did well, it is that I have transmitted positive things on and off the pitch, which makes me very satisfied,” concludes the Spaniard."

 

[Andy22]

You mean, unfortunately for you it’s not changing..

That do you mean I'm Nadal fan not Laver or Emerson I don't really care that you think about them honestly. But Laver is the Goat with Djokovic-Nadal until they pass him.

 

[Andy22]

Well the BS started years ago, now Nadal's going to make his contribution to the PILE! In TennisWorldUSA he said, "In the future I don't want to be remembered as a tennis player with numerous titles but as the one who left a good example for boys and girls; he is my only target. If there is one thing I would like to be able to say that I did well, it is that I have transmitted positive things on and off the pitch, which makes me very satisfied,” concludes the Spaniard."

That the hell are you on about? We all know Nadal very humble and classy role model hero ect. That's why he says this stuff because he's a really good person off the court. On the court Nadal has more majors than Djokovic on hard courts us open 4-3 embarrassing for hard court Goat.

 

[Kieran]

That do you mean I'm Nadal fan not Laver or Emerson I don't really care that you think about them honestly. But Laver is the Goat with Djokovic-Nadal until they pass him.

No, you’re problem is that your opinion carries a fatal contradiction. You say that I should “Stop [dis]respecting pre open era players they beat the best they could at the time with smaller Racquets worst technology health care ect,” but this isn’t true of Emerson at all. He could have become a pro and chose to face the easier path by beating lesser players. The best players in the world were all professionals.

But in your next sentence you say that “Federer played against mugs.”

Rafa’s not a mug, nor is Novak, and all the rest of the players Federer faced were at least the best in the world, no matter how we may rate the field. This is tennis at the highest available today - Emerson avoided that in his day. Seriously, there’s no argument for Emerson as one of the greatest ever, and certainly no argument to place him above the Pistol, or Federer..