Is the term GOAT a myth?

In many internet forums, the GOAT argument comes up a lot of times. Probably once a month with peaks during Wimbledon, and post-seasons. Normally there are two ways this argument ends.
1) Player X is GOAT
2) There is a GOAT, but due to different eras, technologogy etc, we will never know.

Since 2005, Nadal has won over 200 matches on clay, losing exactly 10. This dominance has seen him win seven Roland Garros (clay) titles. Novak Djokovic by comparison has won five Hard court Slam titles, and in fact has made as many Hard court GS final appearances as Nadal has Clay. These stats would paint a picture which suggests Djokovc is a similar proposition on the Hard stuff as Nadal is on clay. Of course, this hides the very obvious asterisk which states Djokovic has double the opportunity to win on hard court every year.

This sounds like a simple, and thus simplistic opening statement, but it goes a long way towards explaining why I feel that it is impossible to determine a tennis GOAT, no matter what currency you try to use.

Clay court players have always been handicapped by the fact that they could only use their unique skills for one Slam. A major problem in the Slam race.
Grass court specialists used to have as many as three chances to win a slam in a given year. Now hard courters are in the pound seats as they could win two slams.

If the division had always been the same, then I think a justification could be made for why GS total should be all that matters. But it hasnt. It has been three grass slams, one clay. two grass slams two clay (for a brief period). Then two Grass slams, one clay, one hard. And now it is 2 hard courts, one clay, one grass.

The truth is tennis is an ever evolving game, both in terms of tactics, and the tools used to battle out. As a result, the achievements requiered to be the greatest of an era are constantly changing.
Sampras never made a Clay slam final.
Borg never won a Hard court slam
Federer has a negative record against his big rival.

In other eras, these flaws would have been death knells for their GOAT credentials, but instead, they are little footnotes in their careers.

So im closing I believe the term GOAT is a myth because

1) Clay courters are inherently limited with regards to how many Slams they can muster
2) The Slam dispersion has frequently changed,
3) The standards for a good player are always evolving (would a guy with no doubles slam even be regarded in the 50s?)

Nice article kingraf - the term GOAT per se isn't a myth but the actuality is.

I wrote an article on the old BBC606 called GOTEs & GOATs - here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/A37228269 (oh my, nearly 5 years ago!)

My views have somewhat developed since then but the central point remains - there can be no GOAT, too many variables to compare. There can however be a GOTE - Greatest Of Their Era - but then you have to define the era! Era's tend to be defined by the greatest players in them but that's the problem...who are the greatest players? It's a catch 22.

GOAT is also a new term, probably late 90s onwards. It wasn't used before. We live in a media obsessed era(!) where everything has to be metricised. It's an American obsession actually. So, they go for the lowest common denominator - slams - but as you say they are too hard to compare amongst themselves. For example in the 80s the AO went from grass to hard helping Lendl enormously who won 2 after the change. Had he been "The GOAT" surely he would have would it before and after the change. Actually Wilander did but that's by the by.

I like to think a true GOAT could win all the slams in their most divergent forms...fast Wimbledon, ultrafast USO, slow high bouncing AO and French clay. Only 1 man ever did that - Agassi - but he has limitations in other ways. Federer and Nadal have won all slams now, Djokovic probably soon to follow at some point once Nadal has too many clay miles under the belt...but for me the convergence of slams taints the achievement no matter how impressive. Federer himself said that the changes make it easier for the top 4, they just have to stay rooted to the baseline. I don't mean this to be negative it just means that we can't compare a guy who won 4 slams now to others in the past. There is no relativity. I can see why Federer is mentioned due to his metrics...and in that respect he's the MSOAT - most successful of all time - but to be called greatest is a different meaning altogether and as great as he undoubtedly is I couldnt put him above some others I've seen play, and some others I haven't inc. Laver. What we're left with is subjective tiers but even that is problematic.

I wrote a thead on the most dominant of all time on the old 606.


But even that is unfair. Borg only played in 3 Australian Opens. Nadal would probably be passed Federers 17 if he had a second clay slam.
So even eras are biased towards a certain style of play, whereas a seperate era championed that style.

kingraf wrote:I wrote a thead on the most dominant of all time on the old 606.


But even that is unfair. Borg only played in 3 Australian Opens. Nadal would probably be passed Federers 17 if he had a second clay slam.
So even eras are biased towards a certain style of play, whereas a separate era championed that style.

Or Federer/Sampras out of site if Australian was still on Grass? At least there has been precedence for a second grass Grand Slam. Have any of the others ever been clay? I'm genuinely not sure.

Whoever told you life was fair and I'll go get them for you. It is what it is. Believe me I'm sure the tennis gods haven't conspired against Nadal by only permitting 1 Grand Slam on clay. If only they'd have known the debate that would ensue on internet forums. I'm sure they would have evened things out for us.

I think Lydian's post neatly sums it all up.

Johnyjeep wrote:

kingraf wrote:I wrote a thead on the most dominant of all time on the old 606.


But even that is unfair. Borg only played in 3 Australian Opens. Nadal would probably be passed Federers 17 if he had a second clay slam.
So even eras are biased towards a certain style of play, whereas a separate era championed that style.

Or Federer/Sampras out of site if Australian was still on Grass? At least there has been precedence for a second grass Grand Slam. Have any of the others ever been clay? I'm genuinely not sure.

Whoever told you life was fair and I'll go get them for you. It is what it is. Believe me I'm sure the tennis gods haven't conspired against Nadal by only permitting 1 Grand Slam on clay. If only they'd have known the debate that would ensue on internet forums. I'm sure they would have evened things out for us.

I think Lydian's post neatly sums it all up.

I recall reading an article or book about McEnroe in the 1980's and him saying that the only way he would play the AO. "Is if Borg won the FO, Wimby and the USO and needed the AO for the Grand Slam". Then he would turn up to give Borg some opposition. Until about 1983 when Wilander won the AO most of the top players stayed away from it.


A common sports quiz question: "Which Grand Slam event played on clay was won by Jimmy Connors in 1976 ?" Answer: The US Open



As well the surfaces etc you also have to add in modern: diets, fitness, exercises, sports science, legal drugs, vitamins, supplements plus learning from players that have gone before.

Of course they arent conspiring against him. They are conspiring against all clay courters. In fact most tennis scribes used to be anti clay

But that is beside the point.

Of course they arent conspiring against him. They are conspiring against all clay courters. In fact most tennis scribes used to be anti clay

But that is beside the point.

kingraf wrote:Of course they arent conspiring against him. They are conspiring against all clay courters. In fact most tennis scribes used to be anti clay

But that is beside the point.

No, not at all Kingraf. That is exactly the point. It would appear that apart from a one off Grand Slam in the US (great knowledge that by the way) no Grand Slam (other than RG) has ever been played on clay before? So I don't understand what the argument is? That's like diving into a swimming pool and then complaining about getting wet.

So people want more Grand Slams on Clay?

But there are only 4 Grand Slams - that is the history of the game. We could add another Grand Slam. No issues with that. But where would it go? Players are already complaining about a schedule that is too busy. If you can't then you are left with 3 surfaces (and I'm leaving out Indoor here) into 4 - which we (hopefully) know doesn't go. Its like fitting a square peg into a round hole. As there has been no precedence for any Grand Slam other than the French to be on clay why would they change now? Why would the US and Aus want to switch now? Grass and Clay miss out. Probably because of the cost of maintaining natural surfaces at a guess.
.

And from my earliest memory of following tennis (mid 80's) I don't recall anyone having an issue with their being only 1 clay major until this debate about who is GOAT came along. And then people started using it as a reason for Nadal not having accumulated as many Grand Slams as Fed. The old 'what if' argument.

Absolutely no one has it in for clay court tennis. If they do then it can be traced all the way back to the beginnings of the game. Which brings me to my earlier point about complaining about getting wet when diving into a swimming pool.

1] Is term GOAT a myth? obviously it is

2] Is that coz of the reasons you quoted ? certainly not

3]Should GOAT discussion be abandoned? certainly not, its the core of tennis forum.

4]Who the GOAT then? Roger Federer [whether you like it or not]

5]Why is he the GOAT? for winning more slams and for being at the no.1 for the maximum duration.

6]Is Rafa handicapped in GOAT discussions since he is a clay player? certainly not, last time I heard Rafa is a very good all court player and not just clay court pony, secondly nobody insisted Rafa to be a clay court player so its his decision, thirdly there were 2 Hard court slams, 1 Grass court and Clay court slam before both Fed and Nadal started their career and its the same till now, so if Fed can do it and Rafa can't do it then Rafa don't deserve the title of being a GOAT.

7]Is this article baised? I would say yes, coz you got a feeling Rafa could never over take Fed's tally of GS wins nor no.1 in weeks and hence an article like this to cancel discussion of GOATs.

8] Will I be happy to call Rafa as GOAT sometime in future? Would love to call Rafa as GOAT if he achieves one of the parameter, more slams than Fed or more no.1 in weeks than Fed, I would even elevate Rafa to the GOAT status if he can match Fed in GS tally let alone overtake him.

So relax and enjoy your hero's comeback, which everybody is loving it including his arch rival or bunny [whatever you call] Fed.

Johnny, whay I'm saying is that, while Clay has always had only one Slam, Grass had at one stage three, while Hard court has had two for the last 26 years. There has always been a doubt/ loathing of clay in tennis. But I'm not advocating a second clay slam. I mean, show me a quote where I ask for a second clay slam.

What I am trying to say is while other sports have had changes in rules, or equipment, tennis has had changes on the surface which players play. This makes inter-generational comparisons moot

My argument actually has less to do with Nadal then you would think. Nadal has 11 Slams. 22 Masters and a 19-11 hth, I dont have the need for him to be GOAT to affirm meaning to my life.

Look at my history, No threads about GOATS, even my comments rarely touch on the matter.

Well Kingraf find me one reputed tennis forum which doesn't have a goat debate, so we could recommend the Mods and Admins to follow that style on 606v2 to avoid GOAT discussions.

By saying GOAT is a myth title you are actually doing a GOAT discussion yourself

People want to metricise everything like, Lydian said.

Imagine for a moment,
The 1970 football world cup was played on Cement.
Then the 1992 edition was played on clay.
Could you honestly say that yoy could compare both teams?

kingraf wrote:But I'm not advocating a second clay slam. I mean, show me a quote where I ask for a second clay slam.

I want 11 Slams to be on clay to affirm meaning to my life

Direct quote!

Johnyjeep - very good post (4.43pm), sums things up neatly.

You can go round & round in circles (indeed both 606 and v2 have done so for years ..!!) on the evergreen topics of GOATS and mythical eras, always secure in the knowledge that the same conclusion will be reached every time : that is, no conclusion whatever.

Ultimately there are just too many imponderables, could have beens / should have beens / what ifs.

We are where we are. History tells us what actually HAS happened ; and the future remains - happily for our continued interest in the game - a mystery.

I'd have thought it fairly obvious that it isn't clay court or slow court players who've been disadvantaged - they've enjoyed a glorious period of uninterrupted baseline play - its fast court or grass exponents who must feel the Gods conspired to hold them back.

Clay is very well represented, hard over done and Grass hopelessly neglected from its previous pre-eminent position.

No way can a serious case be made that clay is held down.

LS- I have been misquoted!!

Hi Kingraf.

No, you do not state you want a second clay slam. But reading your article impartially it is the only logical conclusion to draw.

Otherwise why make the following comments:

Since 2005, Nadal has won over 200 matches on clay, losing exactly 10. This dominance has seen him win seven Roland Garros (clay) titles. Novak Djokovic by comparison has won five Hard court Slam titles, and in fact has made as many Hard court GS final appearances as Nadal has Clay. These stats would paint a picture which suggests Djokovc is a similar proposition on the Hard stuff as Nadal is on clay. Of course, this hides the very obvious asterisk which states Djokovic has double the opportunity to win on hard court every year (i.e. pointing out Djokovic has more chances than Nadal does on clay)

or:

Clay court players have always been handicapped by the fact that they could only use their unique skills for one Slam. A major problem in the Slam race. (boohoo for clay court specialists)

or:

1) Clay courters are inherently limited with regards to how many Slams they can muster (there you have just said it)

The overriding tone of your article is that clay courters are impeded. Quite clearly you are a Rafa fan. I don't think I've put 2 and 2 together here and got 5. Are you saying you are happy that clay courters are impeded??! Therefore wouldn't like to see more of the brand of tennis you enjoy? If so then fair enough. Why complain about something but then not want it remedying?!

I'm also not sure that only having 1 slam on clay represents a loathing towards clay. Is there any heritage for clay in US or Australia? I would doubt it. I'm no expert on the matter but watching the men's professional tour how many clay tournies are held in US and Aus. I will go further and assume that this represents the vast majority of the tennis club scene in these countries as well?

So why would Australia and US pick a Grand Slam surface that does not represent the best hopes for their home grown players or indeed a surface that does not represent their club structure? It would make no sense.

I don't think the notion of a GOAT is a myth. Clearly it isn't or why does the conversation exist. I'm sure the conversation has existing for some time. It's just now with the onset of technology these conversations can gain momentum and exposure far more than if Boris and Stefan were talking about 'who is the best' back in the locker room in the late 80's.

lags72 wrote:Johnyjeep - very good post (4.43pm), sums things up neatly.

You can go round & round in circles (indeed both 606 and v2 have done so for years ..!!) on the evergreen topics of GOATS and mythical eras, always secure in the knowledge that the same conclusion will be reached every time : that is, no conclusion whatever.

Ultimately there are just too many imponderables, could have beens / should have beens / what ifs.

We are where we are. History tells us what actually HAS happened ; and the future remains - happily for our continued interest in the game - a mystery.

lags72 excellent stuff

Did hard court have a history in Australia before 1987? Did Clay/HC have a history in the States? Yet they both have been used for USO. So I'm not sure what your point is?

Now understand me nicely: I am not saying we need two clay Slams. What I am saying is that you cant split the surfaces unequally, inconsistently over history yet use Slam totals as the be-all-end-all.
In the 50-60s, doubles was more lucrative than singles. There was less of an accent on single slams. So they would not have prioritised the way modern players do. Until very close to the 21st century, Australia was regarded as an optional Slam. Borg only entered three times! Lendl, despite having 0 slams didnt play it for a long time!

kingraf wrote:LS- I have been misquoted!!

ahhhhh im just messing buddy but I wonder who said that, tis a mystery!

Haha, nah I caught the humour. Some skillful editing, as a guy who works in sports media, I'm impressed

Did hard court have a history in Australia before 1987? Did Clay/HC have a history in the States? Yet they both have been used for USO. So I'm not sure what your point is?

In all likelihood, yes. Tennis is played at all levels. What were the over-riding playing surfaces in US and Australian at club-level?? Tennis has been played in both these countries for longer than the Open era has been in existence. If clay was the overriding surface and they chose to have it on hard-court you could argue that is a strange decision. I doubt it was clay though? So there is history for the game and therefore they have long standing preferences for their preferred playing surfaces. This is possibly the reason (and at least I have justified it) as to why they have ended up on a hard court surface. As oppose to the 'loathing of clay-court tennis' that you are purveying.

To be fair I understand what you are saying regarding the GOAT comparisons. That makes it hard to be definitive across era's. This doesn't apply to Federer and Nadal however. So you still can make comparisons between the two. I will quote just one of invisiblecoolers excellent observations from earlier though:

6]Is Rafa handicapped in GOAT discussions since he is a clay player? certainly not, last time I heard Rafa is a very good all court player and not just clay court pony, secondly nobody insisted Rafa to be a clay court player so its his decision, thirdly there were 2 Hard court slams, 1 Grass court and Clay court slam before both Fed and Nadal started their career and its the same till now, so if Fed can do it and Rafa can't do it then Rafa don't deserve the title of being a GOAT

Johnny- I dont know how else I can say this.

This is not a Federer-Nadal thread. I have said it a few times on this site that 17>11 in any numerical system.

The only reason I used Nadals clay record is because it is current, thus I thought more people would get the gist of the article. Sadly, I think that this site is so tribal, you cant make a comment unless you working an angle.

haha you think this site is bad for that!

Yes I agree. Apologies. I only mentioned Federer/Sampras as you made this comment before I even entered this thread:

Nadal would probably be passed Federers 17 if he had a second clay slam.

I then only mentioned Federer and Sampras would be out of sight (of no one in particular) if more were played on grass. I have used exactly the same logic as you. I think that is fair enough.

All my other comments were than based around the tradition/heritage of the game in the US and Australia. And why I don't think there is an antipathy towards clay. You haven't really addressed these with any reasoning? If I am wrong then fair enough. But what are the other possible reasons these slams are not played on clay? And just because people don't really like clay is not really an argument.

I then agreed with you re the GOAT and era's. OK, I then made a Federer/Nadal comment and borrowed a very good quote from another poster. I hardly think I was being tribal with it though. An angle is a point of view. Which is what everyone, yourself included, is doing on here. So no, I can't make a comment unless I am expressing a point of view.

To even put the word GOAT into an article title and then expect no one to mention Federer/Nadal/Borg/Sampras/Wilander on the subsequent thread is optimistic at best. The thing is, at no where on this thread have I even said who is the GOAT and what are the credentials for being GOAT. I just stated that Federer and Nadal can be measured by the same criteria.

I think you can do a fair estimate of who is or isn't goat if you are comparing players of the modern graphite era. Lydian makes a good point and Kingraf as well that the more changes you see in conditions and the nature of the game the harder it is to compare players. But I think it is a fun conversation to have. I don't think Rafa is handicapped by there being one clay slam, from the first day he picked up his racquet his game was geared and his technique was geared to win on clay, it wasn't like when he started the game 3 slams were on clay and then they changed. Nadal's game was crafted to win the french and if he played a different style he would be less dominant on clay. I think Nadal if not for serious chronic leg problems would have been by far and away the GOAT right now, and I am a Djoko fan.

My own subjective estimate is that Fed would have 2-3 less slams and Nadal would have 2-3 more, so they would be equal at 14 or 15 and Nadal would have more time to add to the totals. Now before the federer fans burn me in effigy this is just a hypothetical for discussion purposes.

Interesting Socal. I'm not so sure. Nadal historically runs out of steam towards the end of the season. He can rarely sustain his brand of tennis over an entire season and certainly struggles back to back seasons. That's just because he has such an intense game. Add another lung busting clay slam/swing to his schedule and who knows how that would affect him. In terms of his performance elsewhere.

socal1976 wrote:
My own subjective estimate is that Fed would have 2-3 less slams and Nadal would have 2-3 more, so they would be equal at 14 or 15 and Nadal would have more time to add to the totals. Now before the federer fans burn me in effigy this is just a hypothetical for discussion purposes.

While any view can be casted in an discussion forum, a meaning ful discussion would be better.

Nadal has been so lucky to win several close contests against Fed, i.e Wim 08 and AO 09, had it gone to Fed it could have easily been 19 to 9 , but in life you can't be always lucky and always unlucky, Nadal for his part had his fair share of luck you can't expect more, its like saying Del Potro would have won 12 slams had it those if's and butts would have clicked.

Nadal frequently getting injured is his problem, when he knew his conditions he should have practiced a different style of play, which he couldn't had he done that who knows he might have been even less successful, so to say Nadal would have won 15 and Fed would have won 14 seems to be big joke.
This time around I appreciate your sense of humor.

Johnyjeep wrote:Interesting Socal. I'm not so sure. Nadal historically runs out of steam towards the end of the season. He can rarely sustain his brand of tennis over an entire season and certainly struggles back to back seasons. That's just because he has such an intense game. Add another lung busting clay slam/swing to his schedule and who knows how that would affect him. In terms of his performance elsewhere.

Mr. JJ what you forget time and again is Nadal never losses a game if he is fit and Nadal never gets injured in clay so Nadal might have had

100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000k slams had ATP organized every tournament in clay and they be branded as GS.

You can't really practice a different style of play...but you can play less. That's been his major undoing.

invisiblecoolers wrote:

Johnyjeep wrote:Interesting Socal. I'm not so sure. Nadal historically runs out of steam towards the end of the season. He can rarely sustain his brand of tennis over an entire season and certainly struggles back to back seasons. That's just because he has such an intense game. Add another lung busting clay slam/swing to his schedule and who knows how that would affect him. In terms of his performance elsewhere.

Mr. JJ what you forget time and again is Nadal never losses a game if he is fit and Nadal never gets injured in clay so Nadal might have had

100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000k slams had ATP organized every tournament in clay and they be branded as GS.

Haha yes. Seriously though there is always something I've wondered. Using today's method f allocating ATP ranking points which player has accrued the most over any one season? Using the best 18 tournaments is it? Just always wondered. Be a fairly big bit of research I'd grant you. But thought it'd he fun.

It's and buts really are the killer of any debate; impossible to deate as based by definition on fantasy.

Rafa clearly has had high profile leg issues. In my opinion, the autobiography one day will reveal what Federer kept relatively under the radar, in both the back and post-2008 issues. In the end they all play a lot of careers with problems, and everyone under performs to potential. Except Jimmy Connors.

invisiblecoolers wrote:

socal1976 wrote:
My own subjective estimate is that Fed would have 2-3 less slams and Nadal would have 2-3 more, so they would be equal at 14 or 15 and Nadal would have more time to add to the totals. Now before the federer fans burn me in effigy this is just a hypothetical for discussion purposes.

While any view can be casted in an discussion forum, a meaning ful discussion would be better.

Nadal has been so lucky to win several close contests against Fed, i.e Wim 08 and AO 09, had it gone to Fed it could have easily been 19 to 9 , but in life you can't be always lucky and always unlucky, Nadal for his part had his fair share of luck you can't expect more, its like saying Del Potro would have won 12 slams had it those if's and butts would have clicked.

Nadal frequently getting injured is his problem, when he knew his conditions he should have practiced a different style of play, which he couldn't had he done that who knows he might have been even less successful, so to say Nadal would have won 15 and Fed would have won 14 seems to be big joke.
This time around I appreciate your sense of humor.

Nadal hasn't been lucky to win those close contests federer choked away a mountain of break points that isn't lucky that is called playing the big points better and that is usually how the better player wins. The H2H is what it is because Nadal matches up well with federer and is in fed's head. That doesn't involve luck there is a reason he has placed himself firmly in federer's dome.

@ Socal, while I agree that Nadal is in Fed's head and Nadal knows how to beat Fed, I would still say Nadal was lucky to win some close contests, had he been unlucky and had Fed scraped some of the close matches the history could have been completely different.

But in life you have those lucky as well as unlucky moments, Nadal had his share.

Saying that a player has to win a major on a particular surface to prove he is great is like saying Michael Schumacher hasn't proven he's a great driver because he never won a F1 title in a turbo. You play under the conditions everyone plays under when you play, and if you're the best more often than anyone else has been before or since, it's reasonable and objective to conclude that you're the best ever.

Arguing that there are too many differences to compare across "eras" is logically inconsistent, because there are literally infinite differences even within the same tournament that don't invalidate the evaluation of who is the best in that comparison, so why should it invalidate an all time evaluation?

One doesn't compare with differences, one compares with similarities, and since 1925, when Roland Garros became open to internationals, the majors have all followed essentially the same format and have always been the most coveted titles in the game. This is what makes a major a major, and the differences, while not insignificant, are less important than these similarities. These similarities are what makes a major a major. Therefore, it is logical to use majors won as the standard of greatness, and to leave the speculation to the realm of personal preference, rather than the objective question of greatness.

I think it's biased towards those players who skipped the Australian open, to discount it as a major. If Borg and McEnroe didn't play the Australian, that was their choice, and I might add a poor one for their posterity. They knew what they were giving up by not playing - they just didn't care - they don't get a historical mulligan because they now realize that their lack of respect for a major has cost them dearly in their historical evaluation. Most of the game's other great players didn't make this choice, so to discount the Australian as a major is unfairly biased towards those who did.

Majors won is the closest thing we have to an objective measure of greatness; all other attempts to circumvent their rather obvious position in the game are more subjective than majors won, so if bias with the evaluation is the concern, your best bet is majors won. Furthermore the actual formula for greatness (i.e. the mix of those traits required to be a great player) is a secret that nobody truly knows - we only know it when it is proven by winning majors - nothing else comes close to winning majors as a form of confirmation of greatness.

And by the way, it's nothing to shake a stick at - after all, the majors just happen to be what everyone who follows and plays tennis universally cares about, they have the deepest and most uniform historical context, and the results thereof have long been the pre-eminent measure of greatness in the game. Very little has really changed in the game to alter this.

I agree with a lot of your post MMT1 but the Australian just wasn't on equal footing because it lacked a full field. The fact is that it was right in the christmas season and very far away, it lacked the prestige to draw the borg's and Mac's of the world. Now since the mid 80s it has increased in value but it is hard to equate the AO titles prior to that time with the other slams. The full slam field and the prestige involved in beating that field over 5 sets in 7 straight matches is a big part of it.

Also I think determining a GOAT is more than just counting slams. No one rates Emerson as high as his 13 slams count, maybe they should but he won most of those slams in a time when pros didn't participate. So prior to 68 winning wimbeldon against amateurs was not the same thing as winning it in 1988, it just wasn't, yes it counts in the record books. But raw numbers without subjective facts don't tell the whole story.

I don't know if you are American but take Wilt chamberlain. He dominated the NBA statistically when the league lacked talent. His closest physical counterpart was a six foot eight bill russel who weighed about 235 pounds. Wilt at 7-1, with speed and about 40 pounds of solid muscle on russel dominate the short and unathletic centers he went up against. Then a guy named Kareem came into the league and for the first time could match his length and athleticism. Wilt put up numbers that would be incomprehensible in the modern Nba because he was 6 inches taller, faster, and heavier than everyone else. When other players of his physical gifts entered the game he couldn't average 50 points a year or score 100 points in a given game anymore. So if you look at basketball in terms of raw numbers alone Wilt chamberlain has to be the greatest player ever. No one dominated the league like he did statistically, but most people while rating him one of the best give the nod to Jordan because Michael dominated a mature league with more competition. Again subjective analysis giving meaning to raw numbers.

Many French players skipped Wimbledon prior to the French Championships going international in 1925 - they would go on to win multiple titles there until 1930. Bill Tilden skipped it from 1922-1926 after winning it twice, but nobody discounts Wimbledon during that period. He then played it every year from 1926 until he turned professional, but didn't win it again until 1930.

So the assumption that Borg and McEnroe would have won any Australians is, after all, an assumption given the example of Tilden and the French players. Therefore I don't see why this major should be discounted for:

Borotra
Crawford
Perry
Budge
Sedgman
Rosewall
Hoad
Cooper
Laver
Emerson
Ashe

who played the Australian and won it to their credit.

And who knows how Borg and McEnroe benefitted from skipping the Australian - not making the long, arduous, tiring, time-consuming, energy sapping trip for 10 years. You see the benefit to Nadal's game of taking time off - nobody would have expected that, yet we assume that Borg and McEnroe would have won as many of the OTHER majors they did, if they HAD played the Australian. They both burned out of their primes by age 26 WITHOUT playing the Australian - who knows how they would have been limited in the other majors had they chosen to play the Australian?

Connors played and won it in 1974 (along with Wimbledon and the US Open), and one would have assumed that when he returned in 1975 he would win it again - but he lost to a fairly "old" John Newcombe (for HIS last major and who had won it the year before Connors in 1973). In fact Connors failed to defend ANY of his majors in 1975 - somehow he still managed to finish #1 that year (just to point out the lack of reliability of this measure, BTW).

Okay, so two or three players didn't play many Australian Opens for a decade, but that's quite a prestigious list of players who did play it and win, so again I think it would be biased towards that triumvirate of players to discount the entire history of the Australian for everyone else. Some of the players on the list that did play have as many majors as some of the ones who skipped - even if you exclude their Australian titles.

And what of modern players, for whom no such discouting would make sense since there are few notable absentees, and certainly no persistent notable absentees. If a modern player has won this major when the field was "indisputably" full, why should this be discounted? In deference to this increasingly (as we examine the record) ignominious triumvirate?

You know, Agassi skipped Wimbledon from 1987-1990 - he then played it in 1991 and reached the quarterfinal (which few predicted) and won it the next year (which nobody predicted) beating along the way, John McEnroe, Pete Sampras, Boris Becker and Goran Ivanisevic (by my count that's 23 finals and 14 wins in that troupe). Would you discount the Wimbledons won by Cash, Edberg and Becker, because Agassi didn't play those 4 years?

I'm not trying to beat you over the head with this argument, just trying to point out that, in theory, discouting the Australian for everyone who played before, during and after, the three amigos decided to flip it the bird seems to be a blunt instrument wholly benefitting just three players at the expense of the history of the game.

As to the argument against Emerson - I feel that is also harsh. After all, in 1968, the first US Open Champion (Ashe) and both finalists (Tom Okker) were amateurs - that tournament included Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales, etc. - all the players that were presumed to be superior to the amateurs. And no other amateur during that period of the amateur/professional schism, won double digit majors EXCEPT Emerson, so I think even with the "limited" competition, that tally of 12 (not 13) majors was exceptional and worthy of recognition as one of the all time greats - his problem is that he never won an Open major so his amateur majors appear (in a somewhat biased retrospect) to be faciliated by a weak field, but the same conclusion should be drawn for the amateur titles of the other greats who were able to win open majors (Laver, Gonzales, Rosewall, Hoad, Olmedo, etc), but nobody argues that. That's not particularly fair to a great champion like Emerson.

Speculation, I feel, is best left to a question of personal preference, but should not enter into an evaluation of greatness which should be objective, because there are too many was to run the risk of a witting, or more likely, an unwitting bias.

The term GOAT is not a myth.

I have seen many in farm fields up and down the country.

prove it

http://www.ukgoats.co.uk/

kingraf wrote:I wrote a thead on the most dominant of all time on the old 606.


But even that is unfair. Borg only played in 3 Australian Opens. Nadal would probably be passed Federers 17 if he had a second clay slam.
So even eras are biased towards a certain style of play, whereas a seperate era championed that style.

I think it's fair enough to declare nadal as the cuteness goat, so that all fangirls will be finally satisfied and the old tiring debate once and forever put to rest!!

I dunno they look more like sheered sheep to me

what? you mean like this one?

http://stseraphinaspins.blogspot.it/2009/07/sheep-that-wouldnt-be-sheared.html

(n.b. this is NOT a sheep, it's the GOAT).

Surely cuteness GOAT goes to...

He reminds me of Plug from the Bash Street Kids!

lydian wrote:Surely cuteness GOAT goes to...

He's rather successful with the ladies, isn't he?

lydian wrote:Surely cuteness GOAT goes to...

I think you have got to be Spanish to qualify as a cuteness goat contender.

True although dont think you'll find many women picking Baker, Ward and Murray over Lopez, Verdasco and Nadal to be honest. That Latin thing seems to make a difference.

Surely Judy would agree....It seems to me obvious that we are in a golden era in terms of very good looking Spanish players. Still, others might be able to make more competent observations on that regard.