Rafa is the GOAT, butnahhhhh or maybe? - Page 64 - Sporting Events and Fantasy Sports

Two Plus Two Forums Sports and Games Sporting Events

Rafa is the GOAT, butnahhhhh or maybe?

View Poll Results: Who will end up as the GOAT

Roger Federer

374 68.12%

Rafa Nadal

96 17.49%

Novak Djokovic

62 11.29%

Andy Murray

6 1.09%

Pete Sampras

2 0.36%

Roy Emerson

0 0%

Bjorn Borg

2 0.36%

Roder Laver

2 0.36%

John McEnroe

3 0.55%

Bill Tilden

2 0.36%

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 64 of 104

First

14 44 54 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 74 84

Last

Page 64 of 104

First

14 44 54 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 74 84

Last

04-04-2018 , 03:20 PM

#1576

kingweed

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 46,757

I don't think we do count all slams the same in that way, looking back we would for guys who have multiple slams. You'll still get people saying this tournament should have an * on it etc

100% agree though everyone wants to win Wimbledon first and foremost. It's the one.

It's Wimbledon. You just don't get that with the others. It's like the golf with St Andrews. It's just the one.

Quote

04-04-2018 , 03:30 PM

#1577

patron

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Oct 2015 Posts: 3,805

Yup. I mean, if you had a hypothetical great player A who had won 15 Wimbledons and 15 hard court GS's, and a hypothetical great player B who had won 15 French Opens and 15 hard court GS's (and everything else between them was the same), I would say that player A is still slightly "greater" than player B overall. Not everyone would agree with that though.

Quote

04-04-2018 , 03:40 PM

#1578

Carnivore

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 8,236

Nadal vs Djokovic is a nice debate for 2nd best of all time.

Quote

04-04-2018 , 03:43 PM

#1579

kingweed

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 46,757

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carnivore

Nadal vs Djokovic is a nice debate for 2nd best of all time.

Rafa AINEC

Laver > Novak.

Quote

04-04-2018 , 04:37 PM

#1580

patron

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Oct 2015 Posts: 3,805

After Fed, who is clearly both the GOAT and the best player of all time, the rankings start getting into semantics and interpretations or definitions of "best" and "greatest".

For example, I think that "greatest" includes every measurement you can think of, from career accomplishments, to peak play, to longevity at the top, to quality of competition, etc.

So for "greatest", I think that Nadal is clearly the 2GOAT. You could possibly argue Djokovic anywhere from 3-6, depending on how you value different eras.

But when you say "best" or even "best of all time", some people take that to primarily mean the best extended peak player over 3-6 years or something like that.

By that standard, Djokovic has a good argument for 2nd. These arguments are probably going to come down to what measurements different people value over others.

Quote

04-04-2018 , 04:41 PM

#1581

TheHip41

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 27,047

Quote:

Originally Posted by kingweed

Rafa AINEC

Laver > Novak.

It’s actually closer than you would think

I would argue Novak has had 3 seasons better than any of nadals seasons

Novak might have the single greatest season ever

I still think Rafa > Novak

But Novak is closer to Rafa

Than

Rafa close to fed

Or

Fed >>>> Rafa >> Novak

**** laver

Quote

04-08-2018 , 02:38 AM

#1582

UpHillBothWays

adept

Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 978

Best clay: rafa
Best peak year: djoker
Best hard court player: fed
Best returner (peak): djoker though Murray did come v close
Best grass: fed
GOAT: fed

Everybody seems to ignore the best argument for fed as best aside from singles titles and #1 record numbers: from 2004-2009, fed’s GS final appearance record was
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
SF
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F

Before fed, the best consecutive final appearance record was 7. Fed first did it 10 times in a row, got to the semis in one GS, then did it AGAIN and appeared in 8 straight finals.

Quote

04-08-2018 , 03:52 AM

#1583

brandoncla

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 5,728

Agree with all that.

Feel free to say NO, but just out of curiosity does a previous generation guy like Sampras or Agassi ever get thought of for these best of type things? Especially Sampras, to me, I just still have this nostalgia of seeing him serve on grass and thinking whoa nobody can handle that. Maybe just my memories.

Quote

04-08-2018 , 08:57 AM

#1584

patron

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Oct 2015 Posts: 3,805

Pre-Fed, Sampras was considered the GOAT by many, or at least in the argument. Post-Fed/Big3, he's in the argument for 3-6. Even post-Fed, he's still the grass 2GOAT.

Agassi, NO career-wise, but in the argument talent-wise. If he had been able to focus on tennis his entire career, or even just hadn't done so much coke or had his 1st marriage, then he would have won more GS's and everything else and been in the argument career-wise as well.

He could have won 4+ GS's from '96-'98 alone, and at 12+ GS's plus being more well rounded than Sampras, would have had a strong GOAT argument in the Pre-Fed era.

Last edited by patron; 04-08-2018 at 09:08 AM.

Quote

04-08-2018 , 09:12 AM

#1585

kingweed

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 46,757

I don’t really remember either of them because I was too young, as the game progresses you have to think that Agassi’s style of play would edge him too towards to the conversation. Pete also didn’t win all four slams.

Quote

04-08-2018 , 09:14 AM

#1586

El Rata

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 31,720

Quote:

Originally Posted by UpHillBothWays

Best peak year: djoker.

all that matters, VAK GOAT

Quote

04-08-2018 , 09:54 AM

#1587

TheHip41

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 27,047

Quote:

Originally Posted by UpHillBothWays

I brought up the QF and SF or better record

I remember someone interviewing Roddick and they mentioned fed had been in like 16 straight semis or better

AR had that blank look and said something like “that’s so ridiculous”

Making that many semis in a row is incredible. I think he made what. 18-22 QF in a row?

Also the semifinal loss in that list is prob the Aussie open

He had mono.

Quote

04-08-2018 , 09:59 AM

#1588

TheHip41

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 27,047

Quote:

Originally Posted by brandoncla

Sampras. Lost to fed on Pete’s best surface, sure it’s not a peak vs peak, but Pete was in way down and fed on way up. But Pete won recently at Wimbledon so it’s not like fed beat Pete when he was 37

It’s clear fed would neutralize his serve and dominate ground strokes. Pete would win some but not a lot

Regarding Andre. Killer Cahill was asked about how Andrew would match up against Novak and he said “big match up problem”

Novak is like Andre but does every thing better

I think if Andre was in this class of guys he would end up like Murray. Win a decent amount of masters. Be in top 5 consistently. Snipe a grand slam here and there. But not end up at 8

We really have 3 of top 5 or 6 players all time playing at the same time.

Quote

04-08-2018 , 10:40 AM

#1589

patron

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Oct 2015 Posts: 3,805

If you take Sampras and Agassi just as is, then sure, I can see your point.

But I think you may be underrating them a bit, due to modern training and technology and all else. Djokovic's peak is like 20 years after Sampras's and Agassi's. A lot has gone on. If you brought Sampras and Agassi up in the same modern era, with the same training and technology, I think they would be closer to Fed and Djok than you indicate.

I mean, Agassi in his 30's was beating Fed when Fed was only a year away from entering his prime/peak. And Sampras was better than Agassi. Those guys were no slouches.

Last edited by patron; 04-08-2018 at 10:48 AM.

Quote

04-08-2018 , 10:42 AM

#1590

patron

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Oct 2015 Posts: 3,805

Here's an interesting thought experiment: take a 10-year modern day timespan, and then put in Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Sampras, and Agassi all in their 10-year primes. Their relative health and situations still apply as IRL, but their primes overlap, and they would all compete directly against each other. The only exceptions would be that Sampras and Agassi get the benefit of modern training and technology (which would make them better), and remove Agassi's coke/partying/1st marriage from the equation.

How would they all do?

Gonna put my thoughts in spoilers, just in case anyone wants to ponder it first, without reading further.

Spoiler:

What are all y'all's thoughts on this?

Last edited by patron; 04-08-2018 at 10:48 AM.

Quote

04-08-2018 , 10:50 AM

#1591

kingweed

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 46,757

It's why is it's super hard to compare generations.

Laver is getting laughed at itt yet won the grand slam twice in 62 and 69.

Won 8 pro slams too. Which would mean 19 slams total. Plus 12 total runners up as well for 31 finals. Reached 14 slam finals in a row too that's more than Fed!

Won each slam two times, won on all three surfaces too.

His best year 69 is best season ever as well, all 4 slam wins and 18 titles in total.

Roger, Rafa and Rod top 3 AINEC

Quote

04-08-2018 , 11:00 AM

#1592

patron

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Oct 2015 Posts: 3,805

If we disregard era comparisons, and direct player level comparisons, then Laver might still be in consideration as the GOAT against Fed.

The problem is that it was soooo long ago, with less competition (which also helped his main rival who is also near the top of these lists), and things are much harder to compare given how different they are.

But yes, if you brought him up in the modern era, maybe he would compete with the modern GOATS. It's hard to say.

Sampras and Agassi seem almost close enough to compare, especially since we have a teeny bit of overlap between them and Fed. I'm comfortable with just giving them a small boost and thinking that it's pretty darn close.

As things stand now, 3GOAT - 6GOAT is a pretty tough battle, just depends on how you value different comparisons and measurements.

Quote

04-08-2018 , 11:18 AM

#1593

brandoncla

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 5,728

I would want to see that prime Fed prime Sampras standoff

Quote

04-08-2018 , 11:44 AM

#1594

TheHip41

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 27,047

Fed is a bad match up for Sampras.

Sampras has a slight serve advantage

Volley probably equal

Forehand fed
Backhand fed
Movement fed

I think if they played at Wimbledon 10 times Fed is winning 7

Also

No ****ing way Agassi is getting 6 majors in an era containing fed, Novak, and Rafa and Pete

He got 8 in an era only containing Pete.

The main reason is pointed about above by Cahill, former coach of Agassi and one of the brightest tennis minds out there

Agassi never beating Novak on hard court when Novak is in prime

No one could.

Quote

04-08-2018 , 11:45 AM

#1595

Feldman

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 4,571

Agassi is being over rated here. He had large segments where he just didn't care and stopped trying. He fell out of the top 100 altogether, IIRC, before coming back and winning again.

He also was doing meth, not just glamorous Hollywood coke.

In his book, which I would recommend (it's a quick easy read) he talks about how they used to eat fast food and drink a nightcap the nite before playing.

I say this because everyone is just assuming that Sampras and Agassi would easily adhere to the modern extreme diet and exercise regimens the big 4 hold themselves to, but IMO there's no way Agassi had the will power to do that.

Agassi would have been a Monfils type where he clearly had the skills, but couldn't put it all together at the same time.

He was also a bit of a headcase and I hypothesize that constantly reaching
quarters/semis/finals and losing to the same 4 (5 with Pete, 6 with Wawrinka) guys everytime he gets there would drive him to insanity.

In the book he says he constantly wanted to quit altogether. Dude would not hold up if he played in the modern era.

Quote

04-08-2018 , 11:57 AM

#1596

patron

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Oct 2015 Posts: 3,805

I don't disagree. As far as my hypothetical went, Agassi got the benefit of anti-coke/meth, anti-partying, and anti-bimbo pills. But I obviously wouldn't argue that the guy was a mental GOAT IRL.

Quote

04-08-2018 , 12:06 PM

#1597

patron

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Oct 2015 Posts: 3,805

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheHip41

Fed is a bad match up for Sampras.

Sampras has a slight serve advantage

This is almost all that is relevant at Wimbledon. Someone with a better serve than Fed, and still skilled in the other areas is gonna crush and almost never get broken.

Quote:

Volley probably equal
Forehand fed
Backhand fed
Movement fed

Even if I grant all that, which I don't dispute, it doesn't really matter that much. Sampras was fine in those areas. Fed may be better, but when you start the point off with the Sampras serve, you just have to be solid in the other areas, in order to win your service games.

Quote:

I think if they played at Wimbledon 10 times Fed is winning 7

And thus, it's a lot closer to 5-5 and a variance fest, than a clear Fed advantage. I could even buy 6-4, but 7-3 is not fair to Sampras. He ain't gettin' broken that easily.

Quote:

Also

No ****ing way Agassi is getting 6 majors in an era containing fed, Novak, and Rafa and Pete

He got 8 in an era only containing Pete.

The main reason is pointed about above by Cahill, former coach of Agassi and one of the brightest tennis minds out there

IRL - sure. In my hypothetical - Agassi got a super boost.

And you're discounting the effects of modern training in the modern game. Agassi had talent for days. With modern coaching and technology, he would look a ton better. Cahill was comparing the IRL Agassi with his shots as is, not Agassi 2.0.

Quote:

Agassi never beating Novak on hard court when Novak is in prime

No one could.

Lol. Fed and Nadal and IRL results would disagree. You're overrating Novak by far.

Quote

04-08-2018 , 12:27 PM

#1598

Willd

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 16,237

I think you're overestimating Pete's advantage on serve over Federer. They are almost identical in terms of service games won over their careers (both overall and just on grass) and Federer has played against significantly better returners on slower courts. Given Federer is significantly ahead of Sampras in terms of return games won I think having Fed as a strong favourite is the only real conclusion.

I think people generally underrate Federer's serve because he's so good in other areas but he's easily top 10 servers of all time imo.

Quote

04-08-2018 , 12:31 PM

#1599

patron

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Oct 2015 Posts: 3,805

So you think Fed would break Sampras serving at Wimbledon regularly, no biggie?

That doesn't seem likely to me. Seems likely to go to tiebreakers often, where Fed would have an advantage, but would have a decent amount of variance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willd

Given Federer is significantly ahead of Sampras in terms of return games won I think having Fed as a strong favourite is the only real conclusion.

This doesn't matter. The only thing that is relevant here is Federer's return game against Sampras.

Quote

04-08-2018 , 12:33 PM

#1600

estefaniocurry

adept

Join Date: Apr 2017 Posts: 1,165

Quote:

Originally Posted by patron

Spanish Steph Curry is arguing (poorly) that Nadal is the GOAT.

His "arguments" just get worse and worse though. "Don't see why longevity is an argument for GOAT" is perhaps his worst one yet. As if we're saying that longevity at being a mediocre player is important, instead of longevity as the best player in the world who is still winning Grand Slams over his much younger 2GOAT and 3.5GOAT peers - which is indeed important.

For example, imagine that every H2H record and stat and # of GS's for Nadal and Djokovic is the same, but Federer won all the others and had won an absurd 40 GS's. He would obviously be the unquestionably definitive GOAT even more than he already is. And yet all of estefanio's horrible H2H arguments would still "apply" - but they would just be exposed as stupid and irrelevant, even more than they already are.

I didn't say longevity wasn't a good argument for being GOAT. I said it was a good indicator for doping. Federer gets far too much a pass here. Regularly beating clearly doped guys 5-10 years younger is an obvious signal. I don't really care, because all the competition does the same.

Federer is obviously the most well rounded player ever, among the best 3 or 4 ever on every surface, but it seems to me genuinely hard to say he's better than Nadal when he can't consistently beat Nadal, even on the surfaces where he's clearly better.

It's really funny to see how the Federer GOAT fan club gets worked up by the suggetion that someone else might be better, particulary when it's Nadal. I personally think Federer is the best ever, although Nadal is better than Federer (being better than one guy is not a transitive relation; even the GOAT loses to Kafelnikov occasionally), but I enjoy the inability of folks to articulate rationally why. The rest of your "imagine" post is just stupid. Nadal isn't some chump -he's the guy with the second most GS, the only one currently active with the possibility to catch Federer (he won't, but he'll get one or two more in France).

Quote

Page 64 of 104

First

14 44 54 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 74 84

Last

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 64 of 104

First

14 44 54 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 74 84

Last