Time to crown Novak the GOAT?

[Andy22]

I think you did not read El Dude previous post to you.So I will again repeat....Emerson won 12 GS singles as a AMATEUR.You cannot compare that to Borg full stop who played on the professional tour.

No I read El dude post I just don't about his opinion or yours Amateur does not mean bad players little boy. I will compare anyone I want to fool so for me. even Ken.Rosewell/Roy.Emserson is above Borg. The all Australian greats who won 10 plus majors are above borg. We go Aound with this all day it's going go end with me saying Ken.rosewell, Roy.Emserson are better than Borg.

 

[El Dude]

It does not matter laver above them both anyway But personally I would take ken.rosewell, Roy.Emserson both over borg. Also none of the stuff you said puts him above Emerson.

This is silly.

 

[El Dude]

It says right there on Wikipedia place in history ranks Roy.Emserson 11th all time. Also don't care that you think I rank Roy.Emserson there I want to that era of players was really elite players. By the UTS.COM do in fact rank Roy.Emserson 13th all time on Goat points.

This is sillier.

 

[El Dude]

No I read El dude post I just don't about his opinion or yours Amateur does not mean bad players little boy. I will compare anyone I want to fool so for me. even Ken.Rosewell/Roy.Emserson is above Borg. The all Australian greats who won 10 plus majors are above borg. We go Aound with this all day it's going go end with me saying Ken.rosewell, Roy.Emserson are better than Borg.

Boy oh boy.

Emerson was a very good player, but he was no Laver or Rosewall or Borg. Saying that he was better than Borg is like saying that Andy Murray was better than Jack Kramer. Andy Murray was very good, underrated even, but he was the 4th best player of his era. Jack Kramer was the best player of his era, though the records don't adequately reflect that due to the nature of the tour in the 1940s.

Emerson did beat Laver in two amateur Slam finals in 1961, but then lost to him in three the following year, as Laver found his peak form.

After winning his first CYGS in 1962, Laver went pro, and Emerson was left without the top two players in the sport--Laver and Rosewall--to compete with in the amateur Slams. Here are his opponents in the remaining ten finals he won:

Ken Fletcher
Pierre Darmon
Fred Stolle x5
Arthur Ashe x2
Tony Roche

Fletcher and Darmon were essentially Nicolas Almagro types: good top 20 guys who might occasionally dip into the top 10. Fletcher was known for his doubles titles.

Stolle and Roche were better. Stolle won two amateur Slams and 39 titles, while Roche won a single amateur GS.

I think the best that could be argued for Emerson is that he was somewhere in the 3rd to 5th best player of the 1960s. Laver and Rosewall were clearly better. Pancho was better in the 50s, but had faded in the 60s. My guess is that he was probably still better than Emerson into the mid-60s. Actually, they played 8 times during the Open Era, winning 4 matches each. Remember, though, that Pancho was 8 years older. Andres Gimeno was also very good and probably better -- his Open Era record vs Emerson was 13-6. Newcombe too towards the end of the decade.

But Emerson vs. Borg is easy. Borg was far, far better. He was either the best or second best player (after Connors or McEnroe) from 1974-81. Emerson could never been said to be the best player in the sport, in any year, and probably not the 2nd best.

 

[Andy22]

Boy oh boy.

Emerson was a very good player, but he was no Laver or Rosewall or Borg. Saying that he was better than Borg is like saying that Andy Murray was better than Jack Kramer. Andy Murray was very good, underrated even, but he was the 4th best player of his era. Jack Kramer was the best player of his era, though the records don't adequately reflect that due to the nature of the tour in the 1940s.

Emerson did beat Laver in two amateur Slam finals in 1961, but then lost to him in three the following year, as Laver found his peak form.

After winning his first CYGS in 1962, Laver went pro, and Emerson was left without the top two players in the sport--Laver and Rosewall--to compete with in the amateur Slams. Here are his opponents in the remaining ten finals he won:

Ken Fletcher
Pierre Darmon
Fred Stolle x5
Arthur Ashe x2
Tony Roche

Fletcher and Darmon were essentially Nicolas Almagro types: good top 20 guys who might occasionally dip into the top 10. Fletcher was known for his doubles titles.

Stolle and Roche were better. Stolle won two amateur Slams and 39 titles, while Roche won a single amateur GS.

I think the best that could be argued for Emerson is that he was somewhere in the 3rd to 5th best player of the 1960s. Laver and Rosewall were clearly better. Pancho was better in the 50s, but had faded in the 60s. My guess is that he was probably still better than Emerson into the mid-60s. Actually, they played 8 times during the Open Era, winning 4 matches each. Remember, though, that Pancho was 8 years older. Andres Gimeno was also very good and probably better -- his Open Era record vs Emerson was 13-6. Newcombe too towards the end of the decade.

But Emerson vs. Borg is easy. Borg was far, far better. He was either the best or second best player (after Connors or McEnroe) from 1974-81. Emerson could never been said to be the best player in the sport, in any year, and probably not the 2nd best.

Cool story bro but me personally would still have Roy.Emserson, Ken.rosewell laver all over Borg get over it tard.

 

[monfed]

‎Can only one match bring the title of greatest of all time, GOAT?‎

One match? Points have swung legacies. Infact centimeters have decided matches. Fed misses his I/O FH against Haas and he doesn't win RG. Fed hits an ace at 40-15, he would be considered undisputed GOAT. dull misses a BH DTL at AO 12 and wins a DCGS. Fed's dropshot lands on the line at RG 11 and wins the first set and possibly the match. These misses were cm/mm long.

USO 11 Fed hits an ace at 40-15, he wins that and that memory doesnt haunt him so he wins Wim 19 too.

At the highest levels the difference comes down who wins the big points and often comes down to a few points.

The butterfly effect of losing close matches to your problematic opponents is another factor. How big or how small depends on the player.

Sport is cruel and unfair but that is the nature of the sport.

A croctard of all people shouldn't be asking this question. Joe more than any other player has carved out his legacy from saving MPs. The luckbotter's last slam should've been RG 16. Thank your stars he won 3 slams in 2021 playing the most substandard tennis ever seen for a 3-slam year.

The nature of CYGS is such that you only get one shot at it. If you miss you have to restart next year. But what makes it hard is also what makes it great.

 

[Moxie]

‎Can only one match bring the title of greatest of all time, GOAT?‎

No.

 

[monfed]

Hey, I agree that Laver's CYGS in 1969 was amazing or that he doesn't have a GOAT argument. He's probably still the safest pick, at least at this moment. Everyone agrees that he's, at least, one of the greatest of all time, so you won't find any disagreement from me or anyone on that.

I'm more talking about Slams in general, that they have shifted over the years and we can't compare raw Slam counts across eras as a singular marker of greatness, which you've done several times with Emerson.

I was referring to Sampras breaking Emerson's slam tally as the marker for GOAT status being faulty because that's where the slam record=GOAT narrative originated from. The main takeaway was that slam record=GOAT wasn't the case before Pete's era. Ask Borg, Laver or any players of that era and they'll tell you it was always the calendar slam that was the GOAT marker.

 

[BratSrbin]

No.

‎One match ‎also can't take anyone off the GOAT throne. In this case Nole.‎

 

[Moxie]

‎One match ‎also can't take anyone off the GOAT throne. In this case Nole.‎

If you've been following this dialogue, I think you see that everyone agrees it is very complicated. One match won't make you, nor will it break you, when you get to the heights of Roger, Rafa and Novak. What Nole missed was a big bump in the conversation, by not winning the USO. It doesn't drop him down, having lost. it simply doesn't fly him up. What that one match win does for Medvedev is stratospheric. What the loss does for Novak doesn't really change much, in context. Only the win would have changed the conversation.

 

[El Dude]

I was referring to Sampras breaking Emerson's slam tally as the marker for GOAT status being faulty because that's where the slam record=GOAT narrative originated from. The main takeaway was that slam record=GOAT wasn't the case before Pete's era. Ask Borg, Laver or any players of that era and they'll tell you it was always the calendar slam that was the GOAT marker.

Just to clarify what I said above, I agree that Laver DOES have a GOAT argument.

But...I still don't think CYGS is, on its own, "the GOAT marker." It is certainly the Holy Grail of tennis accomplishments, but we still have to consider everything else.

I mean it is just a hypothetical, but imagine if Daniil Medvedev wins all four Slams next year, then decides he wants to become enlightened, quits tennis and joins an ashram. Does that make him the GOAT? Of course not, although it would make him very interesting and with a certain mystique, not unlike Borg retiring young.

Actually, Borg is another good example. He retired at 25 (for all intents and purposes) with 11 Slams and great statistics because he never played while in decline (unlike Federer, for example). We can play the "what could have been" game and consider him arguably the greatest of all time, imagining him playing another five years and winning tons more Slams. But even putting aside the fact that Mac had gained the edge over him, we can't credit him for what he didn't do. I think he's a unique case, because his ability is more than his "mere" 11 Slams, but on the other hand we just don't know what the rest of his career would have looked like.

(My personal guess on Borg is that he would have have still been really good for a few years, but not the player he was in 78-80. I'm not sure he would have ever been able to regain the edge vs Mac, and further, that Lendl would have caught up to him, especially once Ivan hit his stride in 84-85. He might have taken a Slam or two away from Wilander (RG 1982-83), and maybe won Wimbledon once or twice more, but would have hit a wall by 1984 or so at age 28. So my prediction for "what could have been is maybe 3-4 more Slams for Borg, finishing with 14-15. Maybe one or two more if he decided to sneak over to Australia and take one of those easy ones from Kriek (although then Mac, Lendl, and Connors would have followed to try to stop him).

 

[the AntiPusher]

Andy's "what could have been" story is if he didn't play alongside those three, just as Roddick's is if he didn't play alongside Roger. The Unfortunate Andys!

But I agree with your assessment: If he hadn't played alongside those three, or even just played alongside Novak, he'd have probably have "only" 6 or so majors and more time at #1. Meaning, Edberg/Becker territory.

No.. Roddick was not as good all around tennis player as Andy Murray. Only Thiem and Stan was in Murray's level of all around talent below the big 3..

Roddick was an extremely flawed tennis player..Big serve and a FH he could hit early in a rally.. Roddick's groundstroke was at the collegian level at best. I know others on this board will have issues with this but I have spoken to a few USTA former hitting partners of Roddick who made this statement.

 

[monfed]

Just to clarify what I said above, I agree that Laver DOES have a GOAT argument.

But...I still don't think CYGS is, on its own, "the GOAT marker." It is certainly the Holy Grail of tennis accomplishments, but we still have to consider everything else.

I mean it is just a hypothetical, but imagine if Daniil Medvedev wins all four Slams next year, then decides he wants to become enlightened, quits tennis and joins an ashram. Does that make him the GOAT? Of course not, although it would make him very interesting and with a certain mystique, not unlike Borg retiring young.

Actually, Borg is another good example. He retired at 25 (for all intents and purposes) with 11 Slams and great statistics because he never played while in decline (unlike Federer, for example). We can play the "what could have been" game and consider him arguably the greatest of all time, imagining him playing another five years and winning tons more Slams. But even putting aside the fact that Mac had gained the edge over him, we can't credit him for what he didn't do. I think he's a unique case, because his ability is more than his "mere" 11 Slams, but on the other hand we just don't know what the rest of his career would have looked like.

(My personal guess on Borg is that he would have have still been really good for a few years, but not the player he was in 78-80. I'm not sure he would have ever been able to regain the edge vs Mac, and further, that Lendl would have caught up to him, especially once Ivan hit his stride in 84-85. He might have taken a Slam or two away from Wilander (RG 1982-83), and maybe won Wimbledon once or twice more, but would have hit a wall by 1984 or so at age 28. So my prediction for "what could have been is maybe 3-4 more Slams for Borg, finishing with 14-15. Maybe one or two more if he decided to sneak over to Australia and take one of those easy ones from Kriek (although then Mac, Lendl, and Connors would have followed to try to stop him).

I hear you but Joe losing CYGS this year when he had an easy chance to beat a relative nobody like Medvedev who never won a slam and who he had beaten earlier in the year in straight sets and the way he capitulated without a fight choking left and right, crying before the match ended added even more prestige to the CYGS. Even the doubts about it being easy for Laver as it was in 1969 are gone. The license to downplay the greatness of CYGS is gone.

I mean let's be honest, would Federer from 2015/2017 (assume he wins RG) had the same chance of playing Med in the USO final would've lost?

Joe had 2 other clear chances of doing the CYGS in 2011 and 2015 and he blew them both and in both cases, Nadal wasn't stopping him at RG unlike for Fed in 06 and 07.

Bottomline - If CYGS was going to vault Joe past Fedal or Laver then by the same token Laver remains the GOAT because he did the CYGS.

 

[Moxie]

I mean let's be honest, would Federer from 2015/2017 (assume he wins RG) had the same chance of playing Med in the USO final would've lost?

Joe had 2 other clear chances of doing the CYGS in 2011 and 2015 and he blew them both and in both cases, Nadal wasn't stopping him at RG unlike for Fed in 06 and 07.

Bottomline - If CYGS was going to vault Joe past Fedal or Laver then by the same token Laver remains the GOAT because he did the CYGS.

I don't know what you're on about as to Federer and the 2015/2017. The bolded above makes no sense. You can't assume that Roger would have won the French, which he only won in '09, and how does that follow that he would have beaten Medvedev at the USO? Roger hasn't won the USO since 2008, and some of his fans here are still pissed off about the loss to Del Potro. Roger's chances at the CYGS were in '06 and '07, and both of those years he lost to Rafa at the French, as you mention. Roger has nothing to do with Novak losing at this year's USO. He didn't even participate, not to put too fine a point on it.

 

[monfed]

I don't know what you're on about as to Federer and the 2015/2017. The bolded above makes no sense. You can't assume that Roger would have won the French, which he only won in '09, and how does that follow that he would have beaten Medvedev at the USO? Roger hasn't won the USO since 2008, and some of his fans here are still pissed off about the lost to Del Potro. Roger's chances at the CYGS were in '06 and '07, and both of those years he lost to Rafa at the French, as you mention.. Roger has nothing to do with Novak losing at this year's USO. He didn't even participate, not to put too fine a point on it.

You're so triggered when I said Fed would've done it if he was in the same position as Joe.

And Joe has messed up multiple times with lesser players when history was on the line. Messed up against a post-prime Federer at RG 11 when he was the clear favourite, messed up against Stan who Fed owns in RG 15, again Joe was the clear favourite there too. He almost messed up against Mugray in 2016 too but Murphy simply didn't have the clay chops to prevent his career slam. If that was another decent claycourter like a JCF or a Thiem, Joe would've lost that too. And now his latest blowup against Med.

Way to miss the point though.

 

[Moxie]

You're so triggered when I said Fed would've done it if he was in the same position as Joe.

And Joe has messed up multiple times with lesser players when history was on the line. Messed up against a post-prime Federer at RG 11 when he was the clear favourite, messed up against Stan who Fed owns in RG 15, again Joe was the clear favourite there too. He almost messed up against Mugray in 2016 too but Murphy simply didn't have the clay chops to prevent his career slam. If that was another decent claycourter like a JCF or a Thiem, Joe would've lost that too. And now his latest blowup against Med.

Way to miss the point though.

Please tell me what it was, because it was pretty garbled in there. Are we talking about the same Federer who had 2 championship points and lost his #21? I'm in no way hating on Roger...I'm just trying to figure out how you've come to that specific conclusion. If I read that mess right.

 

[El Dude]

No.. Roddick was not as good all around tennis player as Andy Murray. Only Thiem and Stan was in Murray's level of all around talent below the big 3..

Roddick was an extremely flawed tennis player..Big serve and a FH he could hit early in a rally.. Roddick's groundstroke was at the collegian level at best. I know others on this board will have issues with this but I have spoken to a few USTA former hitting partners of Roddick who made this statement.

Reading comprehension, AP. I didn't say that Roddick was as good as Murray. I said that they are both unfortunate to have played alongside the greatest players ever. Remove Roger from existence and Roddick wins at least a couple more Slams, if not 3-4 more. Remove the Big Three and Murray wins 6-8 Slams.

If you don't think Roddick would have won more Slams, look at the actual Slams that he lost to Roger in the SF or F--7 times, I believe, plus one or two QF--and extrapolate the competition. He would have won several of those Slams.

 

[Fiero425]

No.. Roddick was not as good all around tennis player as Andy Murray. Only Thiem and Stan was in Murray's level of all around talent below the big 3..

Roddick was an extremely flawed tennis player..Big serve and a FH he could hit early in a rally.. Roddick's groundstroke was at the collegian level at best. I know others on this board will have issues with this but I have spoken to a few USTA former hitting partners of Roddick who made this statement.

Roddick reminded me of the boy phenoms of my era with a serve, big FH, and not much else; ex. Krickstein and Arias come to mind!

 

[the AntiPusher]

Reading comprehension, AP. I didn't say that Roddick was as good as Murray. I said that they are both unfortunate to have played alongside the greatest players ever. Remove Roger from existence and Roddick wins at least a couple more Slams, if not 3-4 more. Remove the Big Three and Murray wins 6-8 Slams.

If you don't think Roddick would have won more Slams, look at the actual Slams that he lost to Roger in the SF or F--7 times, I believe, plus one or two QF--and extrapolate the competition. He would have won several of those Slams.

See El Dude this is where you and I usually part ways.. "reading comprehension". Is that necessary.....my point is Roddick name shouldn't be mentioned..Do you think Roddick had a better career then Safin or Yeveny K?

 

[Fiero425]

See El Dude this is where you and I usually part ways.. "reading comprehension". Is that necessary.....my point is Roddick name shouldn't be mentioned..Do you think Roddick had a better career then Safin or Yeveny K?

Hardly! Safin "worked" both Sampras & Federer in Majors while Roddick barely got a sniff! Kafelnikov won 2 Majors & OG in 2000.!