Sport The Official Essendon Tennis Thread

Remove this Banner Ad

Yoda_ said:
eth-dog wants to debate Nadal's defence of being in the conversation for the GOAT.
Click to expand...

Nah.

Nadal is second, IMO, but I don’t think there’s much debate on the GOAT.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Yoda_ said:
eth-dog wants to debate Nadal's defence of being in the conversation for the GOAT.
Click to expand...
I never said GOAT. Just as good as Fed, maybe better. For me Laver is GOAT due to him winning all four in a year TWICE.
 
eth-dog said:
I never said GOAT. Just as good as Fed, maybe better. For me Laver is GOAT due to him winning all four in a year TWICE.
Click to expand...

Which is something Federer would have achieved, what, four times if Nadal didn’t exist?

There’s really not much of a debate here I’d have thought.

Roger Federer is comfortably the greatest of all time.
 
Jade said:
Which is something Federer would have achieved, what, four times if Nadal didn’t exist?

There’s really not much of a debate here I’d have thought.

Roger Federer is comfortably the greatest of all time.
Click to expand...
But he didn't. There's also the fact that after Laver did it the first time in 62, he turned pro and couldn't compete in Grand Slams for another 5 years. In between those times he won 65 tournaments. He won 200 singles titles in his career (the most of any player), to Federer's 96. Then you need to factor in the fact he won 28 doubles titles on top of that, 9 of which were Grand Slams (6 men's, 3 mixed) to Federer's 8 total, none in Slams. That's not including the fact that in the 5 years he played as a pro, he won 8 of the "pro" major's, including the pro slam in 67 (all three in the one year). Oh and that he's the only man to have won the Grand Slam in the Open Era.

There's a massive debate. Federer is a champion but to say he's "comfortably" the GOAT is disrespectful. It's not like Bradman's from a statistical standpoint where it blows everything else out of the water. Laver is firmly in the conversation for GOAT, and is currently my pick for it.
 
eth-dog said:
But he didn't. There's also the fact that after Laver did it the first time in 62, he turned pro and couldn't compete in Grand Slams for another 5 years. In between those times he won 65 tournaments. He won 200 singles titles in his career (the most of any player), to Federer's 96. Then you need to factor in the fact he won 28 doubles titles on top of that, 9 of which were Grand Slams (6 men's, 3 mixed) to Federer's 8 total, none in Slams. That's not including the fact that in the 5 years he played as a pro, he won 8 of the "pro" major's, including the pro slam in 67 (all three in the one year). Oh and that he's the only man to have won the Grand Slam in the Open Era.

There's a massive debate. Federer is a champion but to say he's "comfortably" the GOAT is disrespectful. It's not like Bradman's from a statistical standpoint where it blows everything else out of the water. Laver is firmly in the conversation for GOAT, and is currently my pick for it.
Click to expand...

You can think that if you like.

You’re wrong, of course, but you can think it.
 
Jade said:
Nah.

Nadal is second, IMO, but I don’t think there’s much debate on the GOAT.
Click to expand...
To be fair to ethan, he makes a pretty compelling case for Rod Laver. Still feel that Roger is the GOAT but gee, hard to ignore that case he makes below

eth-dog said:
But he didn't. There's also the fact that after Laver did it the first time in 62, he turned pro and couldn't compete in Grand Slams for another 5 years. In between those times he won 65 tournaments. He won 200 singles titles in his career (the most of any player), to Federer's 96. Then you need to factor in the fact he won 28 doubles titles on top of that, 9 of which were Grand Slams (6 men's, 3 mixed) to Federer's 8 total, none in Slams. That's not including the fact that in the 5 years he played as a pro, he won 8 of the "pro" major's, including the pro slam in 67 (all three in the one year). Oh and that he's the only man to have won the Grand Slam in the Open Era.

There's a massive debate. Federer is a champion but to say he's "comfortably" the GOAT is disrespectful. It's not like Bradman's from a statistical standpoint where it blows everything else out of the water. Laver is firmly in the conversation for GOAT, and is currently my pick for it.
Click to expand...
 
Pweter said:
As per everything in GOAT discussions, it's nigh on impossible to compare different eras but even moreso when you never saw one of the people play.

I can say Federer is the best I've seen, something I never thought I'd say after Sampras.
Click to expand...

Agreed

Without seeing the Sampras/Aggasi rivalry at it's peak, it has been a blessing to watch the Federer/Nadal rivalry for close to decade
 
Yoda_ said:
Agreed

Without seeing the Sampras/Aggasi rivalry at it's peak, it has been a blessing to watch the Federer/Nadal rivalry for close to decade
Click to expand...

I'm well old enough to have seen both rivalries - and with the greatest of respect to Andre Agassi, he never seriously rivaled Sampras in terms of consideration as the best of his era. Nadal on the other hand has most certainly rivaled Federer in this regard.

One of the above comments says 'he didn't', in reference to Federer not winning multiple yearly grand slams due to the existence of Nadal.

Which is ironic in the extreme when you consider that the logistical considerations of the tours, AND the schism of the pre-Open era split the talent pool in multiple ways when Laver played.

Beginning with the 2005 French Open, if not for Nadal, Federer would have won 11 straight Grand Slam titles, and 18 of 20 if just one player (Nadal) hadn't been there to stand in opposition. Christ, he'd likely have won his 26th or 27th Grand Slam last night.

Laver competed with who? Rosewall? Emerson? Fine players no doubt, but Nadal, Djokovic they are not.

Attempting to mount a serious argument that Laver should be considered ahead, hell, even equal, to Federer tells me one thing - you know how to read numbers on a page but have no actual understanding of the comparative achievements.

I'm sorry - I don't want to belittle Laver who was a phenomenal champion, but there is no serious argument to make to suggest he rivals Federer at all - it's not close.
 
Jade said:
I'm well old enough to have seen both rivalries - and with the greatest of respect to Andre Agassi, he never seriously rivaled Sampras in terms of consideration as the best of his era. Nadal on the other hand has most certainly rivaled Federer in this regard.

One of the above comments says 'he didn't', in reference to Federer not winning multiple yearly grand slams due to the existence of Nadal.

Which is ironic in the extreme when you consider that the logistical considerations of the tours, AND the schism of the pre-Open era split the talent pool in multiple ways when Laver played.

Beginning with the 2005 French Open, if not for Nadal, Federer would have won 11 straight Grand Slam titles, and 18 of 20 if just one player (Nadal) hadn't been there to stand in opposition. Christ, he'd likely have won his 26th or 27th Grand Slam last night.

Laver competed with who? Rosewall? Emerson? Fine players no doubt, but Nadal, Djokovic they are not.

Attempting to mount a serious argument that Laver should be considered ahead, hell, even equal, to Federer tells me one thing - you know how to read numbers on a page but have no actual understanding of the comparative achievements.

I'm sorry - I don't want to belittle Laver who was a phenomenal champion, but there is no serious argument to make to suggest he rivals Federer at all - it's not close.
Click to expand...

tl;dr

Federer is still the GOAT imho

Lavar was pheonomanal but unrivalled for greatness. Nadal will also go down as the GOAT clay courter the game has seen.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Jade said:
I'm well old enough to have seen both rivalries - and with the greatest of respect to Andre Agassi, he never seriously rivaled Sampras in terms of consideration as the best of his era. Nadal on the other hand has most certainly rivaled Federer in this regard.

One of the above comments says 'he didn't', in reference to Federer not winning multiple yearly grand slams due to the existence of Nadal.

Which is ironic in the extreme when you consider that the logistical considerations of the tours, AND the schism of the pre-Open era split the talent pool in multiple ways when Laver played.

Beginning with the 2005 French Open, if not for Nadal, Federer would have won 11 straight Grand Slam titles, and 18 of 20 if just one player (Nadal) hadn't been there to stand in opposition. Christ, he'd likely have won his 26th or 27th Grand Slam last night.

Laver competed with who? Rosewall? Emerson? Fine players no doubt, but Nadal, Djokovic they are not.

Attempting to mount a serious argument that Laver should be considered ahead, hell, even equal, to Federer tells me one thing - you know how to read numbers on a page but have no actual understanding of the comparative achievements.

I'm sorry - I don't want to belittle Laver who was a phenomenal champion, but there is no serious argument to make to suggest he rivals Federer at all - it's not close.
Click to expand...
You're making excuses. If the Grand Slams were open era from 63 onwards Laver probably wins more than Federer right now but guess what? It wasn't, so he didn't.

Half your argument is what COULD have happened if not for Nadal. My argument is for what ACTUALLY happened. How about the 200 singles titles, 5 Davis Cups, over triple the doubles titles and all the other factors suggesting that Laver was better?

Oh, and FYI, Laver won 74 singles titles in the Open Era in 8 years. That's 9 a year, all whilst he was over the age of 30. Federer, as great as he's been, won 96, in his 21st year. Nobody even comes close to Laver in this regard. You're either severely underrating Laver or severely overrating Federer.
 
eth-dog said:
You're making excuses. If the Grand Slams were open era from 63 onwards Laver probably wins more than Federer right now but guess what? It wasn't, so he didn't.
Click to expand...

I'm not making excuses mate - I'm doing more than reading numbers on a page.

Right, it wasn't, so he didn't.

Grand Slam Singles Titles:

Federer: 20
Laver: 11

eth-dog said:
Half your argument is what COULD have happened if not for Nadal. My argument is for what ACTUALLY happened.
Click to expand...

Right.

Grand Slam Singles Titles:

Federer: 20
Laver: 11

eth-dog said:
How about the 200 singles titles, 5 Davis Cups, over triple the doubles titles and all the other factors suggesting that Laver was better?
Click to expand...

They don't suggest Laver was better - they suggest two things:

a) That Laver played in more forms of the game more often, common for the day
-and-
b) That the Davis Cup was held in higher regard than it is today. I might as well throw in Federer's year end final wins (6) such is the relevance the Davis Cup has in this regard (a tournament I might add that Laver NEVER won, no division of talent, funny that...)

eth-dog said:
Oh, and FYI, Laver won 74 singles titles in the Open Era in 8 years. That's 9 a year, all whilst he was over the age of 30.
Click to expand...

And? Laver won the Newport Professional Championships, The Baltimore Professional Champions, The Rawlings Classic... And that's before you even consider that the segregation of talent still existed almost right up to the end of Lavers career.

Excuse me, I've been invited to play in the Richmond Car Park Championships - I'll be back in an hour with my first title.

eth-dog said:
Federer, as great as he's been, won 96, in his 21st year. Nobody even comes close to Laver in this regard. You're either severely underrating Laver or severely overrating Federer.
Click to expand...

No, I'm doing something which seems beyond you on this topic - understanding the realities of the situations, and not relying on numbers on a page (which show Federer winning more top-line titles anyway).
 
Yoda_ said:
Butch Liner is the top seed right? Might have to settle for second :p
Click to expand...

I'm planning on going all Tonya on Butch's arse - my security has the baton at the ready.
 
Jade said:
I'm not making excuses mate - I'm doing more than reading numbers on a page.

Right, it wasn't, so he didn't.

Grand Slam Singles Titles:

Federer: 20
Laver: 11



Right.

Grand Slam Singles Titles:

Federer: 20
Laver: 11



They don't suggest Laver was better - they suggest two things:

a) That Laver played in more forms of the game more often, common for the day
-and-
b) That the Davis Cup was held in higher regard than it is today. I might as well throw in Federer's year end final wins (6) such is the relevance the Davis Cup has in this regard (a tournament I might add that Laver NEVER won, no division of talent, funny that...)



And? Laver won the Newport Professional Championships, The Baltimore Professional Champions, The Rawlings Classic... And that's before you even consider that the segregation of talent still existed almost right up to the end of Lavers career.

Excuse me, I've been invited to play in the Richmond Car Park Championships - I'll be back in an hour with my first title.



No, I'm doing something which seems beyond you on this topic - understanding the realities of the situations, and not relying on numbers on a page (which show Federer winning more top-line titles anyway).
Click to expand...
You're completely delusional. You can't accept that you might POSSIBLY be wrong, which you are.

Laver was better. However I can accept that Federer is in the argument. You're so arrogant that you think that whatever you say is completely and utterly correct. Laver not even in the equation? Gimme a break
 
IMO we're in an astounding era of quality. Federer, Nadal and Djokovic will be names remembered for a long long time. Don't know if there has been a period with three players of this quality around and at their peaks at the same time.
 
Loonerty said:
IMO we're in an astounding era of quality. Federer, Nadal and Djokovic will be names remembered for a long long time. Don't know if there has been a period with three players of this quality around and at their peaks at the same time.
Click to expand...
Agassi, Sampras & Becker?
 
eth-dog said:
You're completely delusional. You can't accept that you might POSSIBLY be wrong, which you are.

Laver was better. However I can accept that Federer is in the argument. You're so arrogant that you think that whatever you say is completely and utterly correct. Laver not even in the equation? Gimme a break
Click to expand...

That's right, Laver is not even in the question due to the wholly professional era in which Federer plays, the extraordinary level of talent he plays against, the fact that the talent against him is not diluted as it was when Laver played, and, oh... the fact that he has damn near double the top-tier titles DESPITE the strength of the field against him.

It doesn't take arrogance to dismiss Laver when comparing him to Federer - it takes a semblance of common sense and a grounding in reality.

Possibly wrong hey? 2+2=4, but hey, I might possibly be wrong.
 
Loonerty said:
IMO we're in an astounding era of quality. Federer, Nadal and Djokovic will be names remembered for a long long time. Don't know if there has been a period with three players of this quality around and at their peaks at the same time.
Click to expand...

They are arguably the three greatest players in the sports history.

All three are almost certainly in the top 5 of all time - it is an extraordinary collection.
 
Jade said:
That's right, Laver is not even in the question due to the wholly professional era in which Federer plays, the extraordinary level of talent he plays against, the fact that the talent against him is not diluted as it was when Laver played, and, oh... the fact that he has damn near double the top-tier titles DESPITE the strength of the field against him.

It doesn't take arrogance to dismiss Laver when comparing him to Federer - it takes a semblance of common sense and a grounding in reality.

Possibly wrong hey? 2+2=4, but hey, I might possibly be wrong.
Click to expand...
Yes he is, despite all your bitching and moaning about it. Laver won 11 Grand Slam Titles, and 8 of the equivalent professional titles in 5 years before the Open era. Fed's won 20, an unbelievable achievement and he is firmly in the conversation.

It takes complete arrogance to do it. Federer himself considers Laver to be the GOAT, which tells me something about what you think.

2+2=4, yes. Apparently you're not completely hopeless. Next you'll be telling us that Sachin Tendulkar was better than Don Bradman
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

LordLucifer
Meet Up "BIG VINYL DIG" - Essendon 2024
Replies
3
Views
443
LordLucifer
LordLucifer

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top