Time to crown Novak the GOAT?

[monfed]

Opinions are subjective but why keep bringing it up as a shield when youve lost the argument and your taste fucking sucks essentially? If you want to play the subjectivity game, let's say your opinion is 9 on the subjectivity scale (meaning you're in the minority and noone gives a flying fuck about your opinion because it sucks) and mine is like 2 meaning it's closest to a fact and most people agree with me.

In other news, none of these Nadovic tards will ever watch a highlight video of either faker or dull unless they're in some legacy defining match. Most of these fools have never picked up a racquet in their lives either but they'll act like tough know it alls on the internet. This is the problem with anonymity, you're not held accountable for your opinions. Meanwhile Federer fans play tennis and would tune into his higlights even if it's some R2 match against a nobody. That's why he's the GOAT and his fans are actual tennis fans and also play tennis. No need to overwork your small brains, leave some space to do some productive work.

 

[Moxie]

If anything the Justin Bieber comparison is more appropriate for Nadull because his tennis is unlikeable and ugly AF but he's still quite popular similar to Bieber's shitty music. And lo and behold most dulltards are fangirls similar to Justin Bieber's fanbase. And by extension, you're implying that Federer fans are like the "Beliebers". What a joke.

As for Joekovic, his tennis is shitty AND he isn't popular. You need both to be the greatest so that's why he isn't and never will be the GOAT. Federer has both that's why he's the GOAT. Simples.

I guess in this forum you're a hit if you criticize popular choices, makes you sound smarter than you actually are, for the sheep anyway.

It's astonishing how wildly you miss the point on basically everything, but it is clear that you want to just keep declaiming your nail-on-the-head assertions. I don't know why I even tried. You are a one-way train, and you hear nothing else on the journey.

 

[monfed]

It's astonishing how wildly you miss the point on basically everything, but it is clear that you want to just keep declaiming your nail-on-the-head assertions. I don't know why I even tried. You are a one-way train, and you hear nothing else on the journey.

As usual you have no real arguments.

 

[monfed]

Did I forget to say that Laver is the stats GOAT and Federer is the GOAT gamewise? Sorry for my subjective opinion HAHA! Oops!

The thing about subjectivity is that it's a scale. Remember that kids before you go out in public and be dismissive of a consensus.

 

[Moxie]

As usual you have no real arguments.

Excuse me? I made great arguments as to why Roger would in no way absolutely, (as you insist) have beaten Medvedev in this year's USO. You simply chose to ignore them. And you're a slippery one. In one post you state that the USO '09 was the worst loss of Roger's career, but then, when I put it to you that Roger lost to a "slam final virgin," as you were making out Medvedev to be, you are suddenly the champion of JMDP. Well, if del Potro is so fantastic, (and I agree he was, and he won that match fairly, and by dint of talent,) then it WASN'T the worst match of Rogers finals career. Let's face it, the RG '08 final was. More than worthy opponent in Nadal, but 4 games? Seriously? Natter on as you will, and deflect, completely obviously, but Roger has never proven in his history that he would have done better in this year's USO v Medvedev than Djokovic did, given the circumstances. Let's face it: Roger is a great front-runner, but not the best pressure player. Djokovic was under extreme pressure in the USO final to win the CYGS. I told people he wasn't up to it, and he wasn't. And there is nothing in history that tells us a 40-year-old Roger, had he even had the legs to compete in the tournament, would have done any better. There's your argument. Since you missed it the first 2 times.

 

[monfed]

Federer has won 5 consecutive USOs, champ. His so called main rivals haven't defended it even once when they've won it 3 or more times. The guy beat everyone and took out faker's toughest opponent in the USO 15 SF, something he did in the Wim 15 SF too. Federer has never lost to weaponless nobodies when he's shown any real form. So comparing Joe's loss to Med to Fed's loss to Joe in the Wim 19 final is not even accurate. It's a good example of a shitty analogy. I'm not talking about this useless version of Fed this year, I'm talking about semi-useless version of Federer in 2015, the same age that Joe was this year. No way 2015 Fed loses to freaking Med with CYGS being on the line that too choking like a hen from the first point.

Your arguments are so shallow and pitiful.They donot reflect reality at all, it's shocking you think you're a serious tennis analyst. Stick to cakes and frosties.

 

[monfed]

What is the all knowing Foxie going to do next, call out Federer's loss to Safin at AO 05? Safin's one of the most talented players ever, possibly even more talented than Fed. Is that your big case against my "subjective" opinion of Fed screwing up a CYGS match? Are you going to tell me how subjective my opinion is when you run out of arguments? Man, can't wait! How exciting! Popcorn is ready. Go ahead.

 

[El Dude]

LOL you're definitely in the minority then because pink floyd fans either like syd or dsotm stuff so yeah you dont get to decide their greatest work but I get to laugh at your taste

The bottomline is your retarded comparison of Federer with Justin Bieber based on his popularity was dismantled. And then you tried to justify that by criticising DSOTM and my taste in music. You have no problem in dismissing my choices as subjective since you don't agree with them while being ignorant of your own choices being subjective. Typical traits of a keyboard warrior. You have a lot of growing up to do.

As Moxie said, you completely missed the point (again) about Justin Bieber. Please re-read what I wrote and try to understand, but the gist of it is that popularity does not necessarily mean quality. If a million times the people prefer Bieber to John Coltrane it doesn't mean Bieber is a greater artist.

As far as Pink Floyd is concerned, I couldn't care less if I'm in the minority. De gustibus non est disputandum. It isn't about deciding their greatest work, but talking about what one prefers. We can say that DSOTM is the most popular and influential PF album, but when we use terms like "greatest," it becomes more of a subjective matter (and depends upon how one defines "greatest").I'm not arguing that Meddle is their "greatest" work, but that it is (probably) my favorite album of theirs.

Sports aren't the same as art in that there are more objective measures (statistics and accomplishments) to consider. But it also depends upon what we mean by "greatest." But you're not going to get me--or probably most here--to agree that the main qualification for the GOAT is a popularity contest.

 

[monfed]

As for Fed choking CPs to fakervic. Yeah it's bad but you're never safe against a returner like Joe, this was proven in the USO 11 SF too. It's not your stereotypical choke, it's called getting tight on MPs. A proper tennis fan would know that but then again you're not interested in that. You're more interested in proving you're smarter and righter than me.

Joe didn't choke MPs. He choked the entire bloody match from point one and then was crying like a pansy before the match even ended. He basically shat his pants .Time to use your much taunted brains in seeing the damn difference.

 

[Moxie]

Federer has won 5 consecutive USOs, champ. His so called main rivals haven't defended it even once when they've won it 3 or more times. The guy beat everyone and took out faker's toughest opponent in the USO 15 SF, something he did in the Wim 15 SF too. Federer has never lost to weaponless nobodies when he's shown any real form. So comparing Joe's loss to Med to Fed's loss to Joe in the Wim 19 final is not even in accurate. It's a good example of a shitty analogy. I'm not talking about this useless version of Fed this year, I'm talking about semi-useless version of Federer in 2015, the same age that Joe was this year. No way 2015 Fed loses to freaking Med with CYGS being on the line that too choking like a hen from the first point.

Your arguments are so shallow and pitiful.They donot reflect reality at all, it's shocking you think you're a serious tennis analyst. Stick to cakes and frosties.

Oh, so you didn't mean THIS Roger, when you said he'd have beaten Medvedev. I don't see how you get to pick which Roger would have beaten Medvedev at this USO, especially as you never specified that you were talking about Roger in his earlier days. And you also say "when he's shown any real form." Well, that's a qualifier if I've ever heard one. Shall we go down the list of "nobodies" that Roger has lost to at Majors? Robredo, Stakhosky, Hurkacz....

 

[monfed]

As Moxie said, you completely missed the point (again) about Justin Bieber. Please re-read what I wrote and try to understand, but the gist of it is that popularity does not necessarily mean quality. If a million times the people prefer Bieber to John Coltrane it doesn't mean Bieber is a greater artist.

Oh I got your point alright, I just threw it back at you with interest with the more accurate Pink Floyd analogy and like the weasel that you are you changed the topic and started criticizing my taste in music and pretended to not know what I'm talking about. You thought I could be bullied but you got more than you bargained for.

Lack of popularity doesn't equal quality either, champ and you seem to be pressing on that a lot. Way more than I'm comfortable with with your retarded Bieber analogy which YOU brought up in the first place. Take some responsibility, kid.

Try not shoving your opinion down someone's throat next time by calling them foolish for disagreeing with you, will specially suit you in real life.

Also I couldn't care less what some fringe element like you thinks about Pink Floyd's greatest work.

 

[monfed]

Oh, so you didn't mean THIS Roger, when you said he'd have beaten Medvedev. I don't see how you get to pick which Roger would have beaten Medvedev at this USO, especially as you never specified that you were talking about Roger in his earlier days. And you also say "when he's shown any real form." Well, that's a qualifier if I've ever heard one. Shall we go down the list of "nobodies" that Roger has lost to at Majors? Robredo, Stakhosky, Hurkacz....

Why the fuck would I pick Federer from 2021 or 2013? Ofcourse he would fail too in that case. I thought that's understandable but it seems you can't even assume basic things with the likes of you. Joe's form in 2021 is comparable to Fed's form in 2015, plus they're of comparable ages that's why I picked that.

Those lost matches were in 2013 and 2021, in both years Federer was injured and completely out of sorts. Why pick those matches when Federer didn't show any semblance of winning? Are you dumb?

Look man, dispose of your senseless garbage in the dumpster, not at me.

 

[Moxie]

Oh I got your point alright, I just threw it back at you with interest with the more accurate Pink Floyd analogy and like the weasel that you are you changed the topic and started criticizing my taste in music and pretended to not know what I'm talking about. You thought I could be bullied but you got more than you bargained for.

Lack of popularity doesn't equal quality either, champ and you seem to be pressing on that a lot. Way more than I'm comfortable with with your retarded Bieber analogy which YOU brought up in the first place. Take some responsibility, kid.

Try not shoving your opinion down someone's throat next time by calling them foolish for disagreeing with you, will specially suit you in real life.

Again, it is astonishing how much that Bieber analogy stuck in your head. He juxtaposed it with John Coltrane...ever hear of him? No one is talking about Justin Bieber, nor are they talking about the psychedelic album by William Shatner. One is a metaphor, and the other is a direct poke at you, for being such a dead head. Is all of this lost on you? You are honestly tiring and exasperating.

But keeping it to tennis, why is it that you think 2015 Roger would win this year's CYGS?

 

[monfed]

Again, it is astonishing how much that Bieber analogy stuck in your head. He juxtaposed it with John Coltrane...ever hear of him? No one is talking about Justin Bieber, nor are they talking about the psychedelic album by William Shatner. One is a metaphor, and the other is a direct poke at you, for being such a dead head. Is all of this lost on you? You are honestly tiring and exasperating.

But keeping it to tennis, why is it that you think 2015 Roger would win this year's CYGS?

Bieber. Coltrane. "insert random musician name here".....Let's stick to the ground reality so the correct analogy would be that Federer is like the Beatles/Floyd/Zeppelin of music, or the Jordan of Baseball, or the Messi/Maradona of football. Great and popular. You gotta be both to be the GOAT. Djokovic can be called great based on his stats but he aint got the greatness in his tennis and doesn't have the aura (strictly speaking popularity is a cheap word), required to be the GOAT. CYGS was his chance to overcome the greatness and the aura of Federer and he blew it. He knows it, his tards know it, this El dude guy knows it deep down too but doesn't want to acknowledge it (kinda like you). Keep lying to yourselves or whatever kumbaya shit you got going on, nobody cares.

Joe's tennis isn't creative or constructive, it's success relies on extracting errors from his opponents and outlasting opponents. That is not tennistically great. Go watch athtletics if you want stamina battles, that doesn't belong to tennis, certainly not in the GOAT conversation. On the most basic level, Joe's tennis is negative. Nadal's is too. Federer's tennis is positive. In no sport is a defender or a defensive minded player considered the GOAT. Get real.

As far as Fed 15 goes, I've already explained in multiple posts which you're purposely naive about. Regardless, Fed had 20+ BPs against a peak Joe. If you think I'm going to be convinced that some weaponless nobody like Medvedev is going to give him trouble, you have bigger issues and I suggest you sort them out before you pick fights with knowledgeable people on the internet or in real life, specially the latter.

There's a reason why there are so few Fed fans left on this board because of windbags like you. We have more fun things to do than get into a 10 page pointless "debate" with you.

 

[shawnbm]

I can’t go back and read all these posts, but I’m wondering how the Biebs got sucked into all this

 

[Moxie]

I can’t go back and read all these posts, but I’m wondering how the Biebs got sucked into all this

Pages back, El Dude used him as a "for instance" as to how just because you're wildly popular doesn't mean you're the GOAT, and somehow monfed confused that with El Dude's taste in music. As you see above, now monfed has added popularity to the list of requirements for GOATness. Sort of like when britbox declare Roger the GOAT "stylistically."

 

[El Dude]

Pages back, El Dude used him as a "for instance" as to how just because you're wildly popular doesn't mean you're the GOAT, and somehow monfed confused that with El Dude's taste in music. As you see above, now monfed has added popularity to the list of requirements for GOATness. Sort of like when britbox declare Roger the GOAT "stylistically."

Well, to be fair to Britbox, I think there's a good argument that Roger is the greatest player in terms of style, finesse, and range of skills. But that doesn't mean he's the singular GOAT overall.

Similarly, I and some others have said that Rafa is the greatest competitor. Doesn't mean he's the GOAT in all ways.

My point being, there is nuance and specificity to Britbox's claim, while monfed is just a raving lunatic who confuses his stupidity with "winning the argument." It is kind of sad.

 

[Moxie]

Well, to be fair to Britbox, I think there's a good argument that Roger is the greatest player in terms of style, finesse, and range of skills. But that doesn't mean he's the singular GOAT overall.

Similarly, I and some others have said that Rafa is the greatest competitor. Doesn't mean he's the GOAT in all ways.

My point being, there is nuance and specificity to Britbox's claim, while monfed is just a raving lunatic who confuses his stupidity with "winning the argument." It is kind of sad.

I don't think "style" should really be in the GOAT debate, because it is too subjective. That is a matter of taste, and doesn't win points, games or matches. Whereas, competitiveness does. However, I will give you that range of skills is in there, because tools in the tool shed DOES win you points, games and matches. Likewise "finesse," as that is soft hands, and tennis IQ, and Roger isn't the only master of that.

And, yes, Monfed is a raving lunatic.

 

[monfed]

Ofcourse you don't think style should be in the GOAT debate because you're a fucking dulltard, fangirl of the ugliest player in the history of tennis. You wouldn't recognize style if it hit you in the face. Shock!

And LOL@aura/popularity not important for GOAT status when GOAT is a popularity contest. There's no list published by the ATP that determines GOAT. It's not some official achievement. Hipster morons calling others lunatics when their basement theories are rejected. LOL

The brazen illogical stupidity you hear from pseudointellectual tennis nerds on internet forums cannot be overstated.

 

[monfed]

I can’t go back and read all these posts, but I’m wondering how the Biebs got sucked into all this

You can thank the hipster 'El dude' who brought it up in the first place. And then when his moronic analogy got exposed, he pivoted to criticizing my music taste. Typical immature hipster behaviour.