That's cherry picking..but it speaks to my theory. Andy Roddick still has nightmares thinking about Roger. Andy record was 3-18 vs Roger .if I had to guess , those wins were most likely in Miami and Cincinnati where the conditions was most likely heavy due to the high humidity. I would assume that Andy most likely got his few wins over Novak and Rafa at Miami and the USO too.
Hypocrisy is funny to read in everyaspect
Who are these "same people" ..call their names out..I find it extremely funny that just last October, people were arguing Nadal was better than Federer. In the past 6 months, Nadal has actually added to his resume while Federer did zilch. The same people are now saying Herd of GOATs and that all of them are equal
Geez, wonder what changed in the past few months
Also I remember reading over the years why weeks at no 1, masters titles, YE #1, H2H were so important in the debate. I am now seeing now that those same people are not even mentioning any of these takes and just focusing on majors
Also wondering what happened there that caused those people to suddenly change the opinion
Moxie, you're misrepresenting what I said: both times. First I said "superior," then you equated with "vastly superior," then I corrected you, saying I didn't use the word "vastly," which you misinterpreted as me walking back the word superior. Yes, I mean superior. But I don't mean vastly superior. They are different.
Again, that's not what I said, Moxie. I'm saying that Rafa winning 14 times at RG doesn't significantly make him Clay GOATier than 13 times. Of course it matters to his overall record.
.See above. Just about everything you say is just another way to spin in Rafa's favor. And I didn't say his record wasn't balanced, at least in this thread, nor did I diminish his accomplishments on clay. Moxie, with all this strawmanning, you're about to be dubbed the Straw Court GOAT!
Some of us are more capable of impartiality than others, just as some are more insistent on defending their guy at all costs, and cherry-pick to do so. I If I was secretly trying to prop up Roger as the singular GOAT, would I have made this thread? I made this thread to say, "I think Novak deserves credit, and has the best chance of being the singular GOAT."
Ummmm---I don't get to decide. I'm just citing the criteria used by most tennis commentators. What would you suggest? 1)Most clay court victories; 2)Most French open victories; 3) Highest winning percentage on clay, etc. etc.
You forgot most matches lost to "injury."
I would agree with GOTE if statistic would support it - in meaning much lower number of matches. I did not search H-H which have higest number for Fedalovic, but i am almost sure they are highest. They have around 50-60 all i think ! If there would be some others with bigger number than GOTE might be ok.
Sorry but a 3 headed GOAT is butt ugly, doesn’t appeal to me.
I thought it was the interior texture of the meat not exterior facial features that matters
.
You are taking a variety of opinions expressed by lots of different people and compressing them into everyone's opinion, and then calling everyone a hypocrite. Firstly, if you do read the boards, I would say that only two posters here argue for Nadal as the GOAT, and they are Nadal trolls. We here are not a monolith, and we certainly don't share one opinion...that's why we're here. To debate. And we don't like being misrepresented or lumped together. If people are going to show back up with that Djokovic-fan-chip-on-the-shoulder and tell us off for not supporting Djokovic more, get off it. If you want to see Djokovic's position supported, stay around and do it yourselves.I find it extremely funny that just last October, people were arguing Nadal was better than Federer. In the past 6 months, Nadal has actually added to his resume while Federer did zilch. The same people are now saying Herd of GOATs and that all of them are equal
Geez, wonder what changed in the past few months
Also I remember reading over the years why weeks at no 1, masters titles, YE #1, H2H were so important in the debate. I am now seeing now that those same people are not even mentioning any of these takes and just focusing on majors
Also wondering what happened there that caused those people to suddenly change the opinion
You often misunderstand me in debate, and read in more bias than is intended, or where there is none. Sure, I advocate for Nadal's side...it's a debate. Yes, I inserted "vastly," just to say what I said. And you said it had evened out. If you want to parse words, fine, but don't get so tetchy about it. Also, what I didn't say about Roger and Novak in my point about Rafa's being sandwiched in between them, you are welcome to insert. Don't accuse me of deliberate occulting something, because a) I'm not sure what you do mean by that, but feel free to add, and b) my posts are bloody long enough without restating every side of every point I bring up. LOL.Moxie, you're misrepresenting what I said: both times. First I said "superior," then you equated with "vastly superior," then I corrected you, saying I didn't use the word "vastly," which you misinterpreted as me walking back the word superior. Yes, I mean superior. But I don't mean vastly superior. They are different.
Again, that's not what I said, Moxie. I'm saying that Rafa winning 14 times at RG doesn't significantly make him Clay GOATier than 13 times. Of course it matters to his overall record.
Weeks at #1 is the best metric we have for sustained dominance, week in and week out. All of this is subjective, of course, and that's just my opinion.
And of course I agree that there are many criteria. But you continue to want to frame things in ways that prop up Nadal. I mean, at least try to approach this question somewhat objectively
See above. Just about everything you say is just another way to spin in Rafa's favor. And I didn't say his record wasn't balanced, at least in this thread, nor did I diminish his accomplishments on clay. Moxie, with all this strawmanning, you're about to be dubbed the Straw Court GOAT!
But yes, I agree that Rafa had it rough, considering his prime years overlapped with both Roger's and Novak's best years. I think that is a valid point. But Roger and Rafa have their own variants on this theme, but you don't mention those.
Some of us are more capable of impartiality than others, just as some are more insistent on defending their guy at all costs, and cherry-pick to do so. I If I was secretly trying to prop up Roger as the singular GOAT, would I have made this thread? I made this thread to say, "I think Novak deserves credit, and has the best chance of being the singular GOAT."
But considering your insistent on forever waging the Fedal War, I can't help but think that you probably think this is some underhanded attempt to prop up Federer, which is just silly given the nature of the thread.
PREACH my SistaYou are taking a variety of opinions expressed by lots of different people and compressing them into everyone's opinion, and then calling everyone a hypocrite. Firstly, if you do read the boards, I would say that only two posters here argue for Nadal as the GOAT, and they are Nadal trolls. We here are not a monolith, and we certainly don't share one opinion...that's why we're here. To debate. And we don't like being misrepresented or lumped together. If people are going to show back up with that Djokovic-fan-chip-on-the-shoulder and tell us off for not supporting Djokovic more, get off it. If you want to see Djokovic's position supported, stay around and do it yourselves.
Watching and playing tennis for almost five decades, the equipment, the style of play, the training regimens of the players - so many things have changed. Greatest of their era (in my opinion), is the only way to spell Gote. Is this one of the greatest eras in tennis? It would be hard to argue otherwise, but there are still chapters to be written before it closes out.
