Author Topic: After today's Wimbledon I have concluded Nadal is the GOAT  (Read 1390 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Alex

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 12249
  • Gender: Male
Re: After today's Wimbledon I have concluded Nadal is the GOAT
« Reply #20 on: July 10, 2014, 07:29:45 PM »
Don't let my logic hurt your feelbads Alex. You purposely took what I said out of context.  You forgot the "in h2h".

Nadal leads Nole in virtually every category in H2H stats.  That is domination.
You are delusional, but I'm not going to try to explain this to you because you won't get it. You have no clue what you are talking about, and btw when all is said and done Djokovic will have a positive h2h against Rafa. Right now, they h2h is pretty balanced. Anyways, I'm done here. I don't debate with 'blind' people, or people who wear pink sunglasses. Suit yourself and believe in whatever you want. You are just another Rafa tard  ..-).

Offline Michael

  • Tennis Player
  • **
  • Posts: 27
Re: After today's Wimbledon I have concluded Nadal is the GOAT
« Reply #21 on: July 10, 2014, 10:20:28 PM »
Off clay, Djokovic leads Nadal 15-9. Since the start of 2011, (beginning Djokovic prime) that's been 8-2 Novak. 3-1 Slam finals Novak. (3-2 total)

People can opine for themselves how/why the US Open 2013 Final went down; I don't recall the other Nadal win.

But IMO beating Nadal isn't a 'light of the full moon' voodoo. He doesn't have a complicated game. What's needed is to be rock solid on forehand and backhand sides, both cross court and down the line; serve & return, being able to control Nadal's shots and sustain a very high level. Djokovic is the only player capable of producing that full package consistently enough throughout a match, and on a regular match-to-match basis.

When the opponent isn't solid on all the shots, Nadal doesn't have to adjust his court position and tactics to respect them; and can abuse cross court forehands and use his top spin to find angles to open them enough to roll his high down the line winner with enough depth when they're out of position.

When those two play, Djokovic has to bring his most rock solid game without any hiccups; and if he does that, he wins. Even on clay, although his margin for error all but disappears. I'll add in mention of those 7 finals in a row with Djokovic. (just since you're so keen on making everything about H2H dynamics) That made Nadal adjust to Djokovic by changing his court position habits and using more flatter aggressive forehands.

Sounds as if all Nadal would have to do for you is limit his schedule to defending his clay records to keep a lid on the Djokovic H2H, win some more clay masters, 4 more at the French (or 3, +1 elsewhere) and that would be enough for you for the greatest all round player. 

Nadal is a great player regardless of clay. 5 slams off the dirt. Still, 2/3's of his big boasts of 'absolute' domination is currently clay. Clay = 45 of 64 titles (70%), 19 of 27 masters (70%), 9 of 14 slams (64%), 14 of 23 wins over Djokovic (60%).

Last note on the topic of Djokovic vs Nadal H2H. Even on clay alone, Nadal went 9-0 over Djokovic prior to 2011, when Djokovic awakened and got his first clay win over Nadal. Since then, it's been 5-4 Nadal.

So I'm more with Alex on their H2H. I think Djokovic probably would eventually beat Nadal to win the French (if he has to), but it remains to be seen if he does get his head together and perform to the best of his ability for it.

Offline TheLogo

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 1029
Re: After today's Wimbledon I have concluded Nadal is the GOAT
« Reply #22 on: July 10, 2014, 10:42:46 PM »
Thanks for the quality reply Michael.  Let me add a few things:

"off-clay"  --> Clay is part of the game and has been since... well forever!!  We should all accept that and move on.

Also, prime discussion here is either way.  Clearly Rafa and Novak have two vastly different games and have peaked at different times.  IMHO -> Nadal has already entered and left his prime.  Novak is there right now.  You bring up Novak's 'prime' performances since 2011, but I could easily discount that by saying Nadal is off his peak since then (he has been a step slow, injured, etc).  So best to just leave this talk alone.

Simple h2h, in what matters (slams, total wins) is what determines a rivalry.  We all know the game here.  We know that GS are the holy grail.  So let's examine:

--  Nadal lead 2319 in total H2H

--  Nadal leads in GS Matches 93

--  Nadal leads in GS Finals 4-3

-- Nadal is ahead / tied at GS for total win losses in all but one!
Australian Open: Djokovic, 1-0
French Open: Nadal, 6-0
Wimbledon: Tied, 1-1
US Open: Nadal, 2-1

This is telling because again, for all the talk I hear about Nadal being a 'specialist', Novak hasn't managed to get ahead of him in ONE slam.  Yet Nadal (like he does to fed) manages to be in the lead in a few and have the COMPLETE domination on clay.

Nadal is 1-0 vs Djoker at the olympics
and 1-0 vs Nole in Davis cup.

in fact, the only Place that Djoker can beat Nadal in H2H is hard court non-slam events.

That is domination.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2014, 10:48:24 PM by TheLogo »
The Logo Knows!!!

Offline TheLogo

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 1029
Re: After today's Wimbledon I have concluded Nadal is the GOAT
« Reply #23 on: July 10, 2014, 10:54:45 PM »
I do love how people love to discount Nadal's non Clay.

"Hey, the guy has ONLY won 5 non clay titles, clearly he has no game off clay..."    :)) :))

Obviously I am exaggerating but you have to remember Nole has 7 slams in his entire career.  Nadal has 'only' almost matched that with 'just' his non-clay titles. 

Nadal joins Laver as the ONLY guy to have two GS wins on every surface.  Not fed, not djoker, not pete, not agassi, not borg, not llendl....

Rafa and Laver.  That is it!


« Last Edit: July 10, 2014, 11:00:38 PM by TheLogo »
The Logo Knows!!!

Offline Michael

  • Tennis Player
  • **
  • Posts: 27
Re: After today's Wimbledon I have concluded Nadal is the GOAT
« Reply #24 on: July 11, 2014, 12:04:41 AM »
I've already made my position clear on my own semantics here. They won't be changed by you re-asserting yours.

To me Nadal is clay court specialist. As Ferrer; or as Henman was a grass court specialist. Nadal's game was made around clay. He learned it on clay. Built his forehand for clay, his baseline retrieving and rally style, his return position of 6 feet behind the baseline for second serves. He adapted it and expanded off clay. Ferrer or Henman were solid on other surfaces (less so Henman). It's not "specialist" in the exclusive sense, I already said he's a great player regardless, so some of those counters are just air to me; as are "my historical H2H figures matter more" and "clay is part of the game". I describe where my perspective lies.

(H2H between great players of previous Era's of different peaking ages have swung from one position of domination to the other. Where you want to evaluate the most meaningful contests will be subjective)

Nadal has for a long time been regarded the greatest clay court player ever. Whether he would cross over to the greatest all round player has been something speculated over since 2008. If a player can hypothetically absolutely dominate one surface, while also being good enough to score else where occasionally; if they are active aganst their rival contenders, they can actively obstruct them. Both Federer and Djokovic have at one time held 3 of the slams plus a runner up at the remaining one (Federer a few times). Both have been runner up to Nadal at the French more than once. It's not unfeasible that that a greatest surface player could trump a greatest overall player. With Nadal, what I'm waiting for is a widely acceptable jump away from the surface he's synonymous with to overall.

Up until 2013, I thought Nadal would be the greatest clay player. He hadn't been number 1 or won a single tournament off clay since 2010; a gap in time when Federer had slid out of the game, and Djokovic hadn't yet emerged as a rival. It had recently looked like he would possibly have to limit his schedule to clay only for the rest of his career for the sake of his knees.... then 2013 happened. He returned to number 1, won a slam and 3 masters off clay, and put together a Mc Enroe-esque match record for the season... something before then, Federer and Djokovic had to their names.

So now I'm waiting to see what's next. Djokovic as of 2011 is his rival. This is my overview on the topic, in-keeping with my previous posts. So we are clear, that's what I'm here to lay that out, not to super-impose my ideas. 

Offline Michael

  • Tennis Player
  • **
  • Posts: 27
Re: After today's Wimbledon I have concluded Nadal is the GOAT
« Reply #25 on: July 11, 2014, 12:32:49 AM »
One last thing is I think there's probably going to be a player that ends up greater than anyone we've seen so far. It may be that the big 3 really are out of this world in a way that'll be very difficult to match, or it may be the case that in the modern game, it seems to be easier to play longer with fuller schedules and win a lot very consistently. It's difficult to be sure because the players are probably fitter and more complete players than previous generations, (technology and conditions is part of that) but the tour is also more competitive than it used to be.

Nadal has clay as a stronghold, but had injury gaps and not been entirely prolific off it. Federer probably wouldn't hold up as a "greatest" example indefinitely because he could end his career with a losing record against all of his 3 rivals; and it'd be easy for hypothetical face-offs to focus on how easily Federer's backhand could be broken down. If another future dominant great could get close to the kind of early years and career span Federer had, it's not hard to see them topping his late years. Djokovic has had Nadal and Federer to contend with and will probably end his career with 10 slams or more. Not completely mad to think we could see someone fill all the blanks each of them faced.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2014, 12:50:25 AM by Michael »

Offline TheLogo

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 1029
Re: After today's Wimbledon I have concluded Nadal is the GOAT
« Reply #26 on: July 11, 2014, 07:12:12 AM »
I am not trying to change anyone's mind Michael.  This is the internet... changing someones mind is impossible!!!   :rofl_2: :rofl_2:

What I am doing is laughing at the assumptions on here. 

Again, you want to state that Nadal is not in the 'greatest overall' and would have to trump that.  But everyone YOU think is greatest overall has never won more then 1 slam on clay.  How are they the 'greatest overall' if they can't win on Clay.

Again Michael, and other Anti-Nadal peeps... search these threads.  I was YOU a long time ago.  Ridiculously naive and grass / hard court biased.

Until Nadal beat an Argueable GOAT on his court, in his prime, on his best surface.

You still haven't addressed that. 

You know who else has done that... NOT PETE, NOT ROG, NOT NOLE, NOT MAC, not Anyone!

And again, Nadal has 2+ slams on every surface.  you say others are better overall players, but the term 'overall' includes clay.  It does not mean, 'everything but clay'.  So overall Rafa is better then Rog and Novak, and Pete, and Mac, and Borg, etc etc.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2014, 09:46:49 AM by TheLogo »
The Logo Knows!!!

Offline TheLogo

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 1029
Re: After today's Wimbledon I have concluded Nadal is the GOAT
« Reply #27 on: July 11, 2014, 07:16:10 AM »
One other thing, Rafa has won 3 straight GS finals against Nole.  This is while Nole has entered his PRIME (you said so yourself).

Rafa has clearly not been in his prime. 

So that right there... is pretty impressive. 
The Logo Knows!!!

Offline TheLogo

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 1029
Re: After today's Wimbledon I have concluded Nadal is the GOAT
« Reply #28 on: July 11, 2014, 07:18:06 AM »
One other thing.  Nadal has an Olympic gold.  The most coveted possession outside a slam (some with great pride in their countries think it is ABOVE a slam - but i dont want to argue that).

So there goes more of the 'overall' theory.

If you have any questions, see the signature   :)>>>> :)>>>>
« Last Edit: July 11, 2014, 09:47:19 AM by TheLogo »
The Logo Knows!!!

Offline pawan89

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 8501
  • Gender: Male
    • Onset of Chaos
Re: After today's Wimbledon I have concluded Nadal is the GOAT
« Reply #29 on: July 16, 2014, 03:48:43 PM »

Until Nadal beat an Argueable GOAT on his court, in his prime, on his best surface.
You still haven't addressed that. 
You know who else has done that... NOT PETE, NOT ROG, NOT NOLE, NOT MAC, not Anyone!


Hey Logo. Very cool of you to carry on a pretty serious and awesome discussion with solid posts and not get dirty with it. That's good quality right there! Thanks for that! Now I am not going to start from scratch about my views of the GOAT and whatnot so here's a few quick points for where I stand:

- GOAT is a subjective term. I love playing and watching tennis and enjoy it and for me the GOAT is someone who I have enjoyed watching over the course of their career, or in instances where I have not followed that person's career, something that would make me believe that I'd have enjoyed him/her if I were in that era.
To that end, I am a big Federer fan - I think his game, his successes and shortcomings and his journey through the ups and downs of his career, battling youngsters and challenging for the best spot long after any apparent need and his role as an overall classy ambassador of the sport are awesome.
Nadal is great and his numbers and fan base speaks for themselves, but I started off initially not being a fan of his game, and while it has evolved over time and his successes show for it, i have not grown overly fond of him.
Note that I am not calling either one a GOAT.

If I had to go purely off numbers and head 2 heads and all and had to be completely unbiased, I personally could make an argument either case. But I might just have to give the edge to Nadal - he has put up impressive numbers overall (5 slams on non-clay is pretty impressive in itself + clay court domination, masters titles, wins over other Big 4, etc) even given his tendancy to be injured and out of office for long periods of his career. He does however lack consistency at the top spot and reliably consistent performance across the board and that is also something I'd consider to be part of a GOAT's resume. He does best when he's climbing up the rankings and has something to prove, not a legitimate leader and dominant era-definer off-clay.

Either way, I did want to address the point I highlighted above. Why does it matter so much that he beat a potential GOAT in his home turf? In fact I'd say Nadal has done that twice, 2008 Wimbledon and 2009 AO. People forget that Federer had won 3 of the 5 AO's before that. But there are plenty of people who have pulled off similar upsets. Soderling over Nadal in 2009. Federer over Sampras in 2001. Krajieck over Sampras in 1996. Wawrinka over Djokovic AO 2014. Why is that such a big deal. He's clearly a great and has grass success to speak of but one win doesn't really make that much of a difference to call him the GOAT over Federer. They have obviously been close on grass before and it was a close match - only a matter of time/statistics that he would win one. It wasn't a blowout like the second episode of Johnny Mac vs. Borg Wimbledon. I don't think that should really count that much for him, just as it wouldn't count too much in the overall scheme of things if Federer beat Nadal at the FO for his single FO - in the end he'd still only have one FO as he does now and there's only so much that speaks to.


Offline Alex

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 12249
  • Gender: Male
Re: After today's Wimbledon I have concluded Nadal is the GOAT
« Reply #30 on: July 18, 2014, 08:37:37 PM »
Well, I give an edge to Djokovic. He is the GOAT. You can try to challenge me but I'll prove I'm smarter than most of you combined  ::))). It's all about movement and class, thick hair and beautiful green eyes, gifting slam finals to his pals Murray and Wafa like a boss  :ice cream:


Online FedFanForever

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 3768
  • Gender: Male
Re: After today's Wimbledon I have concluded Nadal is the GOAT
« Reply #31 on: July 19, 2014, 04:02:53 PM »
So Nole winning Wimbledon = Nadal is the GOAT. Great logic right there. I thought the idea was to win Wimbledon.
Then we will fight in the shade.

Offline TheLogo

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 1029
Re: After today's Wimbledon I have concluded Nadal is the GOAT
« Reply #32 on: July 21, 2014, 12:00:24 PM »

Until Nadal beat an Argueable GOAT on his court, in his prime, on his best surface.
You still haven't addressed that. 
You know who else has done that... NOT PETE, NOT ROG, NOT NOLE, NOT MAC, not Anyone!


Hey Logo. Very cool of you to carry on a pretty serious and awesome discussion with solid posts and not get dirty with it. That's good quality right there! Thanks for that! Now I am not going to start from scratch about my views of the GOAT and whatnot so here's a few quick points for where I stand:

- GOAT is a subjective term. I love playing and watching tennis and enjoy it and for me the GOAT is someone who I have enjoyed watching over the course of their career, or in instances where I have not followed that person's career, something that would make me believe that I'd have enjoyed him/her if I were in that era.
To that end, I am a big Federer fan - I think his game, his successes and shortcomings and his journey through the ups and downs of his career, battling youngsters and challenging for the best spot long after any apparent need and his role as an overall classy ambassador of the sport are awesome.
Nadal is great and his numbers and fan base speaks for themselves, but I started off initially not being a fan of his game, and while it has evolved over time and his successes show for it, i have not grown overly fond of him.
Note that I am not calling either one a GOAT.

If I had to go purely off numbers and head 2 heads and all and had to be completely unbiased, I personally could make an argument either case. But I might just have to give the edge to Nadal - he has put up impressive numbers overall (5 slams on non-clay is pretty impressive in itself + clay court domination, masters titles, wins over other Big 4, etc) even given his tendancy to be injured and out of office for long periods of his career. He does however lack consistency at the top spot and reliably consistent performance across the board and that is also something I'd consider to be part of a GOAT's resume. He does best when he's climbing up the rankings and has something to prove, not a legitimate leader and dominant era-definer off-clay.

Either way, I did want to address the point I highlighted above. Why does it matter so much that he beat a potential GOAT in his home turf? In fact I'd say Nadal has done that twice, 2008 Wimbledon and 2009 AO. People forget that Federer had won 3 of the 5 AO's before that. But there are plenty of people who have pulled off similar upsets. Soderling over Nadal in 2009. Federer over Sampras in 2001. Krajieck over Sampras in 1996. Wawrinka over Djokovic AO 2014. Why is that such a big deal. He's clearly a great and has grass success to speak of but one win doesn't really make that much of a difference to call him the GOAT over Federer. They have obviously been close on grass before and it was a close match - only a matter of time/statistics that he would win one. It wasn't a blowout like the second episode of Johnny Mac vs. Borg Wimbledon. I don't think that should really count that much for him, just as it wouldn't count too much in the overall scheme of things if Federer beat Nadal at the FO for his single FO - in the end he'd still only have one FO as he does now and there's only so much that speaks to.

You are 100% correct that GOAT is entirely subjective and based on whatever the perception is of the individual looking at it.

I am not against Rog being viewed as the GOAT.  Rather I am pointing out that Rafa really has no weaknesses in the debate against him.  I could go through those again, but if you read my other long winded comments I am sure you will get the gist of it.

As for the match against Federer.

That was a huge one.  First, losing in a Final to your Rival is always a HUGE deal.  However, add in the fact that Federer is arguably the greatest Grass Courter ever, likely the most consistent player ever, and was in HIS house...

And that makes it 10x as big. 

If Fed happened to get knocked out by some no name in the 2nd round or like Nadal at his French loss.  We would probably say it was nerves, bad day, etc.  But that wasn't what happened.  Rafa came up slowly, losing twice in finals and then took it away from Fed's prying grip.

TO earn it like that means everything.  It is a HUGE win.  Career Defining.  What makes it so stark is that Nadal on his surface handed Fed some of the worst beatdowns we ever seen at a finals.

And you are correct about the Aussie open. However, the thing about Wimbledon is again, Fed is likely to go down as greatest grass courter ever, and you can't say he 'had a bad day'.  I mean, they both fought at top level tooth, nail and claw for it. 

It was Ali vs Frazier, Lakers vs Celtics, just an all time great match.

If Fed had ever done that to Nadal at the French in the finals, this thread would not be in existance.  He would have cemented his status as GOAT with ZERO doubts.  Near bulletproof resume.
The Logo Knows!!!

Offline Mertov

  • Tennis Addict
  • ****
  • Posts: 259
Re: After today's Wimbledon I have concluded Nadal is the GOAT
« Reply #33 on: July 21, 2014, 05:47:50 PM »
Hi everyone,

Just a couple of comments..

Regarding "facing a weaker/stronger" era..  unfortunately nobody can determine that.  There is absoultely no way to prove that Rafa, Becker, Sampras, Borg, or McEnroe faced a stronger (or weaker) era or a set of players that anyone else.  How do you know that Roddick was a tougher/weaker opponent than Chang?  What about Hewitt vs. Muster?  Nobody can know..

For example here is the list of top 10 in the last ranking of 1974:
1)  Jimmy Connors
2)  John Newcombe
3)  Bjorn Borg
4)  Rod Laver
5)  Guillermo Vilas
6)  Tom Okker
7)  Arthur Ashe
8)  Stan Smith
9)  Ken Rosewall
10) Ilie Nastase

If I'm not mistaken everyone on that list is a Slam (if not multiple-Slams) winner by the time of this ranking (except Vilas).  Now, how do we exactly know that Rafa (or anyone else) faced tougher competition than Connors, Laver, or Borg faced?  we don't.  Anyone could easily argue that the top 10 above was a far tougher group than the top 10 of today.  this is just one example.  We could multiply examples easily. 

- Second note: About head-to-head stat. 
While it means a lot to active players' fans (so they can brag about it to each other while their players are facing each other), twenty years later, when history is analyzed with cooler heads and not with admiration/fan sentiments, head-to-head records will mean very little.  Most tennis historians would never put Gerulaitis ahead of Nastase in the all-time tennis players list.  but guess what?  Gerulaitis had a 10-1 record against Nastase!  Because it was a terrible match-up for Nasty.  Gerulaitis would slice his backhand and approach Nasty's backhand all-day long and Nasty could not flick his wrist quick enough to produce topspin passing shots against Gerulaitis who was probably the quickest volleyer on the tour in the 70s.  Would you put Manuel Orantes ahead of Guillermo Vilas in the all-time best clay-courters list?  While Manolo was an excellent clay-courter, anyone in the right mind would know to put Vilas ahead of him in the historical perspective.  But guess what?  Manolo had a 8-5 record against Vilas on clay and two of those five losses were defaults or abandons.  Again, it was a match-up problem.  Historiography has put very little weight into head-to-head records because a player faces a whole field, not just one player.

« Last Edit: July 21, 2014, 05:56:04 PM by Mertov »

Offline Alex

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 12249
  • Gender: Male
Re: After today's Wimbledon I have concluded Nadal is the GOAT
« Reply #34 on: July 21, 2014, 06:28:17 PM »
Hi everyone,

Just a couple of comments..

Regarding "facing a weaker/stronger" era..  unfortunately nobody can determine that.  There is absoultely no way to prove that Rafa, Becker, Sampras, Borg, or McEnroe faced a stronger (or weaker) era or a set of players that anyone else.  How do you know that Roddick was a tougher/weaker opponent than Chang?  What about Hewitt vs. Muster?  Nobody can know..

For example here is the list of top 10 in the last ranking of 1974:
1)  Jimmy Connors
2)  John Newcombe
3)  Bjorn Borg
4)  Rod Laver
5)  Guillermo Vilas
6)  Tom Okker
7)  Arthur Ashe
8)  Stan Smith
9)  Ken Rosewall
10) Ilie Nastase

If I'm not mistaken everyone on that list is a Slam (if not multiple-Slams) winner by the time of this ranking (except Vilas).  Now, how do we exactly know that Rafa (or anyone else) faced tougher competition than Connors, Laver, or Borg faced?  we don't.  Anyone could easily argue that the top 10 above was a far tougher group than the top 10 of today.  this is just one example.  We could multiply examples easily. 

- Second note: About head-to-head stat. 
While it means a lot to active players' fans (so they can brag about it to each other while their players are facing each other), twenty years later, when history is analyzed with cooler heads and not with admiration/fan sentiments, head-to-head records will mean very little.  Most tennis historians would never put Gerulaitis ahead of Nastase in the all-time tennis players list.  but guess what?  Gerulaitis had a 10-1 record against Nastase!  Because it was a terrible match-up for Nasty.  Gerulaitis would slice his backhand and approach Nasty's backhand all-day long and Nasty could not flick his wrist quick enough to produce topspin passing shots against Gerulaitis who was probably the quickest volleyer on the tour in the 70s.  Would you put Manuel Orantes ahead of Guillermo Vilas in the all-time best clay-courters list?  While Manolo was an excellent clay-courter, anyone in the right mind would know to put Vilas ahead of him in the historical perspective.  But guess what?  Manolo had a 8-5 record against Vilas on clay and two of those five losses were defaults or abandons.  Again, it was a match-up problem.  Historiography has put very little weight into head-to-head records because a player faces a whole field, not just one player.
Mertov, great post. I want to ask for your permeation to quote the last part of your post (h2h part) on another tennis board as an argument in a h2h discussion. Of course, I will give you credit and mention your name. Thank you. If you say no, no problem, it's all good.

Offline Mertov

  • Tennis Addict
  • ****
  • Posts: 259
Re: After today's Wimbledon I have concluded Nadal is the GOAT
« Reply #35 on: July 21, 2014, 10:13:14 PM »
No problem Alex..
I talked about it more in this post on my blog from Dec 2013:
http://www.mertovstennisdesk.com/2013/12/29/invented-categories-diluting-the-greatest-player-of-all-time-debate/

Feel free to use either posts however you wish, and thanks for asking.

Best

Offline TheLogo

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 1029
Re: After today's Wimbledon I have concluded Nadal is the GOAT
« Reply #36 on: August 01, 2014, 04:07:55 PM »
Hello Mertov! 

Thanks for the great reply.  Much appreciated.  Now let's debate :D :D

On the competition aspect.  While I agree that there is no way to determine if a chang was better then a roddick, your notion of not being able to determine the strength of an era is completely off. 

Sure, it is not an exact science, but we can tell a 'weaker' from 'stronger' era, especially from a players perspective and that is all I am referencing. 

For example:  We can EASILY determine that Roger and Novak are superior to those players named above.  And just as easily conclude Fed is greater then everyone outside his era not named Borg, Laver, or Pistol Pete (and those guys are with only the smallest of doubts).

Now take that & apply the fact that Roger was the most consistent player the tour has ever seen bar none and remember:

1) Rafa has had to face this man his ENTIRE career!!

2) Rafa had to face this man through his (Fed's) peak! 

"No holes"

The "no holes" references that I was not arguing 'strongest era' ever.  Yet pointing out he does not 'suffer' from a weak era argument.  He has "no holes" in the era debate. 

If you want to argue about era's though, I will argue that his era was the strongest.  Unlike your '74 list which quickly has holes (laver way past his prime, bjorg baby stepping into his and neither was in 23 consecutive Grand Slam Semi's like a certain someone was anyways) Rafa has never had one 'easy' year let alone an 'era'

Let's not forget Djokovic, who may end up passing Borg on the Slam list, also peaked THROUGH Rafa's career.

So case closed, Rafa is bulletproof there.


Next issue: H2H does matter.  50 years later everyone remembers that Bill Russell wiped the floor with Chamberlain.  And this type of dominance will hold in tennis.

The h2h you reference is weak in comparison.  You are talking about Orantes vs Vilas??  First off, neither of those players are the level of a Federer or Nadal on any stage.  And they didn't meat that many times.

Novak, Rog and Rafa (due to their excellence) have faced each other NUMEROUS times. And on the biggest of stages -> GRAND SLAMS!  Rafa has face Roger 11 times in Grand Slams alone.  You are talking about guys who face each other 11 times in their career.

Plus, the moments, want to reference that more.  you think people aren't going to remember what is called the "Greatest Tennis Match Ever" of Rafa vs Fed at Wimby 2008.  Or, as was pointed out earlier, the Fed - Rafa final at the 2009 Aussie Open Final??

You think they won't remember who was the victor of both those matches and that the guy who won those also wiped the floor with the other guy on Clay?

I think you are not giving enough credit.  They will indeed remember that.  Even nowadays I hear about the Lendl - McEnroe Final in every argument about those two and it always comes down to Lendl's superior H2H in GS's.

Enjoy!!!






« Last Edit: August 01, 2014, 04:12:26 PM by TheLogo »
The Logo Knows!!!

Offline Swish

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 10326
  • Gender: Male
  • How Many Times?
Re: After today's Wimbledon I have concluded Nadal is the GOAT
« Reply #37 on: August 03, 2014, 11:33:49 AM »
Nadal hasn't shown he can hold on to the number one rank, even against a guy who isn't a GOAT contender and while in his prime.
 
Not something people expect to see from a GOAT.
 
Everyone has their criteria, for me Nadal comes up short in too many areas.  :dunno:

Offline Mertov

  • Tennis Addict
  • ****
  • Posts: 259
Re: After today's Wimbledon I have concluded Nadal is the GOAT
« Reply #38 on: August 03, 2014, 08:41:32 PM »
Hi Logo,

You say "let's debate," but everything that comes after that confirms quite the opposite.
You first declare what the other person says "completely off," and then you write your opinion and follow it by declaring the matter "case closed."  In an earlier post, your advice was: "any questions see the signature," which promptly says "The Logo knows!!!"
These are all your own words.  Therefore, debate?  I doubt anyone who says those things is looking to debate :innocent:

Perhaps, that is why even the title of your original topic post affirms a "conclusion" on your part.  Debates usualy take place before a conclusion is declared.

I will entertain some of what you said for the rest of the people who happen to be interested in the topic, but again, for the two of us debate has ended before it ever started, since in your understanding, per your own words and affirmation, I am completely off, the case is closed, and most of all... "The Logo knows!!!" and anyone who doubts it should "see your signature.."  :cool:


The following is for anyone else who actually is sincerely open to debate:
---
"We can EASILY determine that Roger and Novak are superior to those players named above."

No we can't.  How do we know that Djokovic is superior to Laver?  to Borg? To Connors?  How do we conclude that Federer is superior to Laver or Borg?  One can only know how they did against the rest of the field during their times and compare their records against the rest of the field during their era.

---
"If you want to argue about era's though...."

No, I don't.  The whole point of my post (which was missed obviously or else the "if you want to argue about" phrase would not have been used) was to precisely say that nobody can determine one era being weaker/stronger than the other.  The 1974 list was given as an example to make a point (which was again, missed) which was to say that an argument could be made that it was stronger than any other.

---
"You think people aren't going to remember what is called the "Greatest Tennis Match Ever" of Rafa vs Fed at Wimby 2008.  Or, as was pointed out earlier, the Fed - Rafa final at the 2009 Aussie Open Final??"

Not many people remember, Borg-Connors final from 1977, one of the finest Wimbledon finals ever (certainly people who have lived through the previous two and 2009 Aussie Open final will tell you that the 2009 Aus Open final pales in comparison).  Because it was long ago.  And yes, the same will arrive to Rafa-Fed of Aussie Open 2009.  Even in the last 5-10 years we have had better Slam finals than the 2009 Aussie Open final. 

Rafa vs. Fed at Wimbledon "the greatest match ever'?  Yes many may have called it that, and for a few years after it was played, and less likely but still possible for a few more years, especially the younger generation...  because they did not live through the Stan Smith vs. Ilie Nastase final in the finals of Wimbledon 1972, the Borg-Connors of 1977, the Borg-McEnroe finals of 1980 both at Wimbledon and at US Open, Ivan Lendl vs. J. McEnroe of 1984 in Paris, or Chang vs. Edberg in Paris in 1989.  And those are just slam finals, in terms of "matches" I can include a dozen others, such as the the 1977 Borg-Gerulaitis semifinal, 1989 Chang vs. Lendl in Paris, 1996 ATP World Tour Champ. Becker vs. Sampras, 2001 Agassi-Rafter semi, .Some people on this board probably have never seen a portion of these people play live or on tape (or maybe both), and certainly have no emotional attachment to most of them like they may to Federer, Nadal, or DJokovic.  Thus, in 20 years, when two fantastic players in the year 2034 are playing a great 5 set Major final, most of the tennis world at that time, half of whom will be fans of those two players and may have never seen Rafa or Federer or Djokovic play and heard their name only in occasional talks will be enthusiastically saying that they are watching "the greatest final ever" between their two favorite players.

---   
"Even nowadays I hear about the Lendl - McEnroe Final in every argument about those two and it always comes down to Lendl's superior H2H in GS's."

I hang out people who are deeply involved in tennis and quite old too.  I have not heard anybody say yet that they would consider Lendl ahead of McEnroe due to their head-to-head.  In fact, many will argue that McEnroe stands ahead of Lendl in the historical debate (personally, I don't, but there are plenty who do).  Never the head-to-head between the two has been a point of argument, nor has it been brought up. 

Side note: With regards to the misuse of the term "Grand Slam" (see the end of the quote above --- "[...] comes down to Lendl's superior H2H in GS's." --- where "GS" stands for "Grand Slam")
It's not "Grand Slam"... It's "Majors" or "Slams," Lendl's & McEnroe's "Grand Slam" records are both zero, thus their head-to-head there would be 0-0. Laver is the last person to accomplish the Grand Slam in men's tennis. Unfortunately the rampant misuse of the term "Grand Slam" continues to spread.  Bud Collins and many other tennis historians have expressed their dismay on this, but unfortunately, even some of the top commentators and payers fall into this error.  For more see:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/933082-grand-slam-champion-vs-major-champion
http://2013.usopen.org/en_US/about/history/all-time.html



« Last Edit: August 03, 2014, 09:10:05 PM by Mertov »

Offline TheLogo

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 1029
Re: After today's Wimbledon I have concluded Nadal is the GOAT
« Reply #39 on: August 06, 2014, 02:37:36 PM »
 :scared: :scared:
Hello Mertov!

First off -- What a lot of hot air!!

In a prior thread I alluded to the notions that there are no 'real' debates on the internet.  We already have our ideas formed.  So if you didn't figure that out on your own then maybe you will now. 

Now to address some of your off points:   :rofl_2:

When you quoted me and responded to the players I had "named above", you came up with some oddballs out of nowhere.  If you look at my post I clearly am referring to Roddick and Chang.  You were so good at quoting me in your post, so don't ask me how you missed that gimme.

Now if you can't determine that Novak and Rog are better then Roddick and Chang I think this debate is over. 

You lose.

When in doubt, see the Sig!

<heavily edited since the first one was written on the go on my phone ::D:D:D:DD:D:D>
« Last Edit: August 07, 2014, 08:10:39 AM by TheLogo »
The Logo Knows!!!