The Greatest Ever Or Second Best?

First topic message reminder :

This article in today's Guardian was an interesting read. The title is "Is Roger Federer the greatest ever or the second best in his generation?" and it's written by Paul Gibson.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/the-balls-of-wrath/2014/sep/11/roger-federer-greatest-tennis-player-rafael-nadal?commentpage=1

Warning don't click the link if you don't like GOAT talk. That means you laverfan

DirectView2 wrote:Nadal is a part of 2 different generation , The Federer and then Djokovic era, Nadal never had an era on his name sadly

To get an era [decade] name behind you, one should be the most successful weeks at no.1  in that era.

In naughties it was Federer and in tens its Djokovic, Nadal has come second on both counts.

Interesting analysis...

It Must Be Love wrote:

DirectView2 wrote:Nadal is a part of 2 different generation , The Federer and then Djokovic era, Nadal never had an era on his name sadly

To get an era [decade] name behind you, one should be the most successful weeks at no.1  in that era.

In naughties it was Federer and in tens its Djokovic, Nadal has come second on both counts.

Interesting analysis...

Paying my tribute to a statistically constructed thread.

truffin wrote:What's your thoughts at the immediate major flaw in the writer of this article headline and argument that Federer is the 2nd Best player of HIS generation and then compares him to Nadal. As you say, there is a large gap in tennis age between the two and there is no one that could argue that Federer and Nadal are from the "same" tennis generation.

I did say in my initial post there were clear and obvious flaws in the article- and in my opinion you're absolutely correct about this one; Federer and Nadal are not in the same generation (certainly under my definition of what a 'generation' constitutes of anyway).
However I do realise that people have different definitions of 'generation' 'era' etc.- there's no one correct definition- so I can see whether the author is coming from despite disagreeing with it on my definition.

IMBL surely you didn't come back on here to get involved in GOAT debates? I thought you'd moved on past that?

JuliusHMarx wrote:IMBL surely you didn't come back on here to get involved in GOAT debates? I thought you'd moved on past that?

If you see what I did; I'm just observing and analysing what some people are saying- I could if I wanted have written a fairly lengthy post summing up my opinion.

It Must Be Love wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:IMBL surely you didn't come back on here to get involved in GOAT debates? I thought you'd moved on past that?

If you see what I did; I'm just observing and analysing what some people are saying- I could if I wanted have written a fairly lengthy post summing up my opinion.

Ah, so you're not actually involved in this thread. Good to hear.

JuliusHMarx wrote:
Ah, so you're not actually involved in this thread. Good to hear.

If you want you can continue this rather bizarre line of enquire via PM, rather than filling up HE's thread.

I was rather hoping you'd moved on past the whole Rafa/Fed GOAT debate, that's all. By that I mean, I know you believe Rafa is better, but I hoped you'd moved on past getting involved in the endless, and rather pointless, debate.

JuliusHMarx wrote:I was rather hoping you'd moved on past the whole Rafa/Fed GOAT debate, that's all. By that I mean, I know you believe Rafa is better, but I hoped you'd moved on past getting involved in the endless, and rather pointless, debate.

Yes, fair point; rather bizarre though you're saying this to me when I'm not the OP, neither have I actually written a post which takes either side really on this debate- my only comment on the article itself was that it was well written but had flaws many of which already had been pointed out.
My position earlier was always actually similar to yours on this, ironically without you realising, and now my position is probably identical to yours (unless you've changed your position).

Anyway I'll PM you as this is discussion is not to do with the article and thus unfair to Hawkeye.

It Must Be Love wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:I was rather hoping you'd moved on past the whole Rafa/Fed GOAT debate, that's all. By that I mean, I know you believe Rafa is better, but I hoped you'd moved on past getting involved in the endless, and rather pointless, debate.

Yes, fair point; rather bizarre though you're saying this to me when I'm not the OP

Yeah, well, we've all pretty much given up hope with the OP.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:I was rather hoping you'd moved on past the whole Rafa/Fed GOAT debate, that's all. By that I mean, I know you believe Rafa is better, but I hoped you'd moved on past getting involved in the endless, and rather pointless, debate.

Yes, fair point; rather bizarre though you're saying this to me when I'm not the OP

Yeah, well, we've all pretty much given up hope with the OP.

She's one of the most frequent posters on the site, she posts despite most people disagreeing with her and being pretty verbal about it, true sometimes her articles have a similar tone/message and thus come across as a bit repetitive- but she's never been abusive to anyone nor incited hatred towards any poster or player; everyone is too harsh to Hawkeye (anyway if they wanted they could just not respond the her articles).

Hawkeye has no wish to debate. She merely posts, often not even her own thoughts - but maybe that's her point. There's no rule against that.

JuliusHMarx. Well done! For your dedication and hard work contributing to this article I name you "Most Prolific Commenter"

Although I have to admit I'm not sure exactly what you have been trying to say so I've grouped all your comments here for easy reference.

JuliusHMarx wrote:I enjoyed his emphasis at the very start of the article, setting his tone
"The Sir prefix is pure facetiousness on my part but it would not surprise me if a SW19 pressure group are currently lobbying furiously behind the scenes for Britain to invade and conquer Switzerland, incorporate it within the realm of the Commonwealth and open the door for Roger to be knighted."

That shows him to be an objective, unbiased journalist determined to stick to the facts and make logical conclusions from them

I'll pay £5 to anyone who can offer anything original or interesting to the debate. No winners yet I'm afraid.

Some people will no doubt feel better about themselves if their favourite player (Fed/Rafa) is anointed GOAT. Others need no such vicarious boost to their self-esteem.

JuliusHMarx wrote:I bought the Guardian yesterday specifically because hawkeye said it was 'in today's Guardian' and I prefer to read a printed copy. Had to read it online in the end because it wasn't in there at all - it was 'on the Guardian web-site' which is a different thing entirely.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

I considered that, but I get 'Asian Babes' delivered anyway.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

As soon as you said it was in the Guardian, I headed straight for the newsagent. Little did I know that it wasn't in the Guardian.

JuliusHMarx wrote:In the end a mate printed it out and sent it to me in the post (first class). I haven't used the internet in months.

JuliusHMarx wrote:IMBL surely you didn't come back on here to get involved in GOAT debates? I thought you'd moved on past that?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Ah, so you're not actually involved in this thread. Good to hear.

JuliusHMarx wrote:I was rather hoping you'd moved on past the whole Rafa/Fed GOAT debate, that's all. By that I mean, I know you believe Rafa is better, but I hoped you'd moved on past getting involved in the endless, and rather pointless, debate.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Yeah, well, we've all pretty much given up hope with the OP.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Hawkeye has no wish to debate. She merely posts, often not even her own thoughts - but maybe that's her point. There's no rule against that.

Sorry still no idea what you were trying to say about the article. But thank you again for you dedication

hawkeye wrote: Sorry still no idea what you were trying to say about the article.

No, that doesn't surprise me.

Don't worry though hawkeye, if you ever write a book, I'll write the dedication.

Statistics say that 1 in 4 people are insane, so take a look at your 3 best friends and if they are all ok it's you.

JuliusHMarx wrote:IMBL surely you didn't come back on here to get involved in GOAT debates? I thought you'd moved on past that?

I don't understand this type of comment. GOAT debates have always been an intrinsic part of tennis forums, usually generate a decent level of interest and don't have a right or wrong answer. If people want to discuss it, even if it bores you and others, then they should be free to do so.

Born Slippy wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:IMBL surely you didn't come back on here to get involved in GOAT debates? I thought you'd moved on past that?

I don't understand this type of comment. GOAT debates have always been an intrinsic part of tennis forums, usually generate a decent level of interest and don't have a right or wrong answer. If people want to discuss it, even if it bores you and others, then they should be free to do so.

They are free to do so.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:IMBL surely you didn't come back on here to get involved in GOAT debates? I thought you'd moved on past that?

I don't understand this type of comment. GOAT debates have always been an intrinsic part of tennis forums, usually generate a decent level of interest and don't have a right or wrong answer. If people want to discuss it, even if it bores you and others, then they should be free to do so.

They are free to do so.

Indeed, but when same OP made the same type of "GOAT" article less than a week ago (Constable Turner), then something is amiss.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:IMBL surely you didn't come back on here to get involved in GOAT debates? I thought you'd moved on past that?

I don't understand this type of comment. GOAT debates have always been an intrinsic part of tennis forums, usually generate a decent level of interest and don't have a right or wrong answer. If people want to discuss it, even if it bores you and others, then they should be free to do so.

They are free to do so.

Sure but moderators giving the impression there is something inherently wrong with posting on the topic is likely to put people off posting.

It Must Be Love wrote:

truffin wrote:so it's basically evened out.

It's even more complex actually than what you presented to be the case- as you'd have to deduce to what extent Nadal improved as he got older and how that compares to the extent Federer declined.
I've done a pretty detailed study on the Win/Loss ratio, and Nadal is ahead on that at every step of the way.

truffin wrote:I do believe that and nowhere by me pointing out that Federer is the greater does that contradict that both are great. If Nadal is #2- that a freakin amazing accomplishment.

Indeed it would be, and I never said there was a direct contradiction between what you said; however it is slightly strange you write 'frankly no one should care' before then writing and researching a post which presented one side of the argument.

Interesting point about the w-l record. It is a way of judging which isn't affected by Rafa's injury problems. I suppose one argument is that Rafa has been fortunate that he has largely been injury-free on clay and has often missed chunks of a weaker part of his season, so the w-l record is inflated?

Born Slippy wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:IMBL surely you didn't come back on here to get involved in GOAT debates? I thought you'd moved on past that?

I don't understand this type of comment. GOAT debates have always been an intrinsic part of tennis forums, usually generate a decent level of interest and don't have a right or wrong answer. If people want to discuss it, even if it bores you and others, then they should be free to do so.

They are free to do so.

Sure but moderators giving the impression there is something inherently wrong with posting on the topic is likely to put people off posting.

But surely there is something wrong about having the same debate over and over again, week after week, month after month, year after year. That's why people do find it boring.
I do wonder why people wish to say the same thing over and over again. What is the purpose of it?

Ok, a momentary return to the forum...

JHM, you do know you're a moderator and not the thread topic police right? People are free to post whatever they like...which of course you'll agree with and have said as much. Your job on here is to ensure those posts placed within user determined threads are within house rules. However, it strikes me that the tone of your posts on this thread (and others in general) sarcastically and negatively cast judgement over posters for their posting behaviour and topics placed. So what if it's another Nadal/Federer debate, it's a perennial topic that isn't going away...and to be frank holds more interest than many other topics in tennis right now. This is somewhat backed up by Google. If you type "Nadal" into Google right now the top 2 links are:

1. "Is Roger Federer the greatest ever or the second best of his generation?"
2. "Analyzing Rafa Nadal’s domination of Roger Federer on outdoor hardcourts"

Why are these the top 2 links? Because they are the most popular links. So you can't really berate posters on here for discussing what is the most popular topic out there in general media. For me, it's a fine line being trod when a moderator is negatively casting judgement over active forum members by saying things like "Yeah, well, we've all pretty much given up hope with the OP." ...er no, YOU may have given up hope on HE but don't assume to speak for all of us. Again, you're a moderator, not forum head representative. You'll retort that you have a right to say that as a forum member, not a moderator, which is fine but the two halves of your presence here are inextricably intertwined. You say "They are free to do so" regarding posting topics of choice yet you love to needle HE and others about posting these GOAT topics when they remain hugely popular. If they are "free to do so", then let them post within the rules without you telling them each time what constitutes good or bad forum topics...it's become an insidious form of forum domination, intertwined within moderator behaviour. So, I'm with BS on the negative impact on forum posting. Moderate, don't dominate.

Regarding the topic itself, I'll comment on one perennial aspect of GOAT'dom - #weeks at No.1, a metric levelled at Federer as a leading sign of his greatness. But consider this. Wozniacki is 9th on the all time list of WTA players for weeks at No.1 position yet has never won a slam. Then consider this. Serena Williams has 18 slams to Martina Hingis' 5 slams. Yet Martina has more weeks at #1. Is Martina therefore the greater player, or is she even anywhere near as great as Serena? Most people would say not. So I take weeks at #1 with a pinch of salt.

Ok, as you were...

Says the guy who helped get Tenez banned from pretty much the same thing hawkeye does - repeat the same thing over and over again. At least Tenez chose to debate. Hawkeye doesn't even bother to respond to people's questions or points. Little more than a wum. Perhaps it would be better to treat her the way Tenez got treated, but perhaps I'm more tolerant than that.

lydian wrote:Ok, a momentary return to the forum...

JHM, you do know you're a moderator and not the thread topic police right? People are free to post whatever they like...which of course you'll agree with and have said as much. Your job on here is to ensure those posts placed within user determined threads are within house rules. However, it strikes me that the tone of your posts on this thread (and others in general) sarcastically and negatively cast judgement over posters for their posting behaviour and topics placed. So what if it's another Nadal/Federer debate, it's a perennial topic that isn't going away...and to be frank holds more interest than many other topics in tennis right now. This is somewhat backed up by Google. If you type "Nadal" into Google right now the top 2 links are:

1. "Is Roger Federer the greatest ever or the second best of his generation?"
2. "Analyzing Rafa Nadal’s domination of Roger Federer on outdoor hardcourts"

Why are these the top 2 links? Because they are the most popular links. So you can't really berate posters on here for discussing what is the most popular topic out there in general media. For me, it's a fine line being trod when a moderator is negatively casting judgement over active forum members by saying things like "Yeah, well, we've all pretty much given up hope with the OP." ...er no, YOU may have given up hope on HE but don't assume to speak for all of us. Again, you're a moderator, not forum head representative. You'll retort that you have a right to say that as a forum member, not a moderator, which is fine but the two halves of your presence here are inextricably intertwined. You say "They are free to do so" regarding posting topics of choice yet you love to needle HE and others about posting these GOAT topics when they remain hugely popular. If they are "free to do so", then let them post within the rules without you telling them each time what constitutes good or bad forum topics...it's become an insidious form of forum domination, intertwined within moderator behaviour. So, I'm with BS on the negative impact on forum posting. Moderate, don't dominate.

Regarding the topic itself, I'll comment on one perennial aspect of GOAT'dom - #weeks at No.1, a metric levelled at Federer as a leading sign of his greatness. But consider this. Wozniacki is 9th on the all time list of WTA players for weeks at No.1 position yet has never won a slam. Then consider this. Serena Williams has 18 slams to Martina Hingis' 5 slams. Yet Martina has more weeks at #1. Is Martina therefore the greater player, or is she even anywhere near as great as Serena? Most people would say not. So I take weeks at #1 with a pinch of salt.

Ok, as you were...

The #1 thing- can't you play that game with any measure of greatness though and take them all with a pinch of salt? You can just as easily point out multiple lesser players with leading H2H's over greater players throughout history and say it's not as meaningful as some want it to be. Conditions, surfaces, style matchups all come into play. We can all take a stat that we want to mean something and give it weight or dismiss it and show anomalies or examples where that stat is misleading. That's why the debate is never ending.

I'm confused... does Julius still have moderating powers?

kingraf wrote:I'm confused... does Julius still have moderating powers?

Sorry, yes - Adam changed my badge though. I did say it would confuse people

lydian wrote:

For me, it's a fine line being trod when a moderator is negatively casting judgement over active forum members by saying things like "Yeah, well, we've all pretty much given up hope with the OP." ...er no, YOU may have given up hope on HE but don't assume to speak for all of us. Again, you're a moderator, not forum head representative

Have to agree with this. In my case, I can't say I have given up any hope with hawkeye or plan to in near future. Actually, I am hopeful with hawkeye, it is just a matter of time.....

I can't take any article seriously if it proposes a player as the greatest of his generation when he's never retained even one title away from clay. Let alone when he's been #1 for miles less than one rival and shortly will fall permanently behind another.

@ Lyd, seriously what did JHM do for everybody to gang on him? you guys have become really funny.

All JHM asked IMBL was like " are you taking part in useless GOAT debate" , its nothing to do with a mod position, it was a very general harmless question, he never wrote in public "OH IMBL I will ban you if you take part in this thread" , or say like " you warned for taking part in this thread" , so where on earth he emphasized his mods power?

GOAT topics are very tiring and boring specially when Nadal fans cannot agree on anything, the only criteria Nadal is undoubtedly superior over the rest in history is his clay court stats, rest all other stats he also has loop hole like everybody else, so if GOAT is decided purely on clay stats then lets agree Nadal is the GOAT, to be frank everybody agreed Nadal is the clay GOAT, but on any other stats he certainly not even in the top 5 let alone to be marked as GOAT.

Yes you would take weeks at no.1 with a pinch of a salt coz Nadal is way behind than any other GOAT contenders in that stats, you might even take stats like not defending a slam [for that sake any title outside clay] with a pinch of salt too.

Should we take WTF with a pinch of salt as well? or we gonna take this one with a pinch of sugar?

I have involved in 3 other forums and all the other forums are mature enough to not discuss GOAT topics weekly like we do here, indeed in some forums I even searched for GOAT debates and none existed there [atleast not in the front page].

One goat debate drove many posters off this forum and not the vice versa.

Born Slippy lydian

invisiblecoolers. Your dismissal of GOAT topics made me chuckle. Do you really not know what you've done there? I'm curious about those three forums that don't discuss Federer and Nadal. Are you sure they are tennis forums?

fyi

I have decided to give up my hopes with hawkeye today. This decision is irreversible.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Says the guy who helped get Tenez banned from pretty much the same thing hawkeye does - repeat the same thing over and over again. At least Tenez chose to debate. Hawkeye doesn't even bother to respond to people's questions or points. Little more than a wum. Perhaps it would be better to treat her the way Tenez got treated, but perhaps I'm more tolerant than that.

Ok, that deliberately disingenuous comment deserves a response. It's also a rather low blow to be frank but I've come to expect those kind of snide passive-aggressive remarks - about me or other Nadal fans - from you. You choose to open Pandora's Box, so let's have a look inside again hey? You completely fail to state, or perhaps even realise, how Tenez had been banned multiple times by Admin here before I ever became the focal point around his ultimate demise. You'll of course remember how he was banned everywhere he posted so had nowhere left to go other than set up his own anti-Nadal/anti-tennis Fed worshipping desert island. You also fail to mention the abuse he and NITB directed at Laverfan towards the end...some of it was downright unpleasant. LF remembers. Was it you defending LF to Admin? Er no, that would be me. Tenez and his sidekick completely suffocated the oxygen out of this place, self-proclaiming themselves to be bigger than the forum which all led to at least 12-15 regular posters leaving here that I know of, and not just Nadal fans either. Were you there trying to sort it out? Er no, that was me again. Your seeming candle holding for Tenez is misplaced but let's not get into that any further shall we...

I always had this forum's best interest to heart during that episode but instead I got roundly derided for it by the Fed worshippers, probably because they lost their oxygen-sucking Lord of the Dance. Admin wanted me to be the moderator here but I refused due to the inadvertent negativity of the whole "Tenez" episode, so I recommended you instead. Not that I'd ever expect any acknowledgement of my allegiance to this forum from you. So with all that in mind, I find you proclaiming HE a "WUM" and inadvertently contextualising her to Tenez is a dangerous precedent. Yes, some of her topics are repetitive but HE's posts tend to directly reflect what is being discussed in the media. I thought you might have realised that by now? For that she gets roundly derided. At least she's an active topic poster JHM...what would you rather have here, a vacuum? Well don't worry, it'll be getting there the more you round on posters for merely reflecting what is popular out there in the media.

Tennis-wise it will be a sad day when Federer and Nadal retire but forum-wise it will be great as it may see a lessening of these pointless topics that throw up insult-ridden topics, chest-beating posts, bragging and slagging debates. Pretty needless and pretty much never ever come to any conclusion.

lydian, JHM is far from the only one who's tired of repetitive articles from this specific poster. Surely you can see that? For me personally, I've previously left the forum because of hawkeye - specifically him/her.

Craig is right. The debate is just boring, it's been done to death, and always by the same people.

Lydian you're a fantastic poster, you have a great insight especially in the British tennis system as you're so close to it; please continue posting on this site- it's brilliant to have you here and reading your top class analysis.

invisiblecoolers wrote:specially when Nadal fans cannot agree on anything

Ah yes, those annoying bastards, thinking they have a right to an opinion which doesn't match your own

Born Slippy wrote:Interesting point about the w-l record. It is a way of judging which isn't affected by Rafa's injury problems. I suppose one argument is that Rafa has been fortunate that he has largely been injury-free on clay and has often missed chunks of a weaker part of his season, so the w-l record is inflated?

Thanks, I think the W/L record is an interesting stat.

Also your counter point you raise is very fair, and I will look into it; Nadal has had injury problems mainly on hard court part of season (not the world's most surprising thing if you consider the surface is much worse for his body... especially considering his game). I will look into what you said to evaluate whether the periods he missed could have inflated or deflated the ratio.

I do think it's very important though to raise this point first, as it is quite easy to get misled in this particular analysis:
What I would be judging, let's say for example the injury of the US hard court season of 2014 is not whether it is a better win ratio than his average clay season but whether it is better than his current Win ratio overall.
To go into more detail, his W/L ratio now is higher in the past few years than when he was younger; as on average now the Win ratio is better- hence sending his overall average up. Now considering he's had a lot of injuries when he's older, it may be that even his Win ratio on his weaker surface is better than his overall Win ratio (so it doesn't have to be as good as his 2012 clay season or something for example); and thus would send his overall Win ratio up.
So therefore, it is actually very possible that more tennis for him now on hard courts would send his Win ratio up, even though it would appear unlikely at first.

This is dire.

There are some posters on this forum whose comments I love reading. They can be informative, thoughtful and amusing. They sometimes make me aware of things I didn't know. Reading the comments is enjoyable.

But the fanboy/fangirl element is becoming the poison in the well for me.

It's a forum, so people can speak about what they want. But the more this resembles a One Direction forum where we fawn over players' celebrity, the less I can bothered to come here.

I also note that I'm seeing much less of some posters I enjoy reading, so perhaps they can't be bothered with this nonsense either.

HM Murdoch wrote:This is dire.

There are some posters on this forum whose comments I love reading. They can be informative, thoughtful and amusing. They sometimes make me aware of things I didn't know. Reading the comments is enjoyable.

But the fanboy/fangirl element is becoming the poison in the well for me.

It's a forum, so people can speak about what they want. But the more this resembles a One Direction forum where we fawn over players' celebrity, the less I can bothered to come here.

I also note that I'm seeing much less of some posters I enjoy reading, so perhaps they can't be bothered with this nonsense either.

I hope I'm one of them?! To be honest, I thought it was a good article. And asked a question which is more pertinent now, when its 14 vs 17, 3 vs 5, 27 vs 22 or whatever, then it was when Nadal had only just got #1, and it became apparent Federer was possibly not going best Nadal in a slam again. Nadal is close enough to Fed in enough big Stat lines for it to now be asked just how big a swing Hth is. The reason I can't be bothered is the responses to the article. No one wants to discuss it (ironic for a threat with >50 posts.), and I can't be bothered with anymore threads questioning HEs contribution to the forum

kingraf this was just another wum thread to say how Nadal is the GOAT. Of course the ones who favour Nadal are defending this thread like it was made by their mother. This conversation has been done enough times now?

Josiah Maiestas wrote:kingraf this was just another wum thread to say how Nadal is the GOAT. Of course the ones who favour Nadal are defending this thread like it was made by their mother. This conversation has been done enough times now?

Yes that's right. The reason I only just commented on the thread is because I'm a nadal fan... What's your excuse? The topic may be repetitive now... but that doesn't change the fact that it bares more clout now than it did years earlier.

The question is why make a new thread when it's the same as the other ones?

I could give you links to the other ones made by the OP that are practically the same story as this thread.

I can't wait to see the same points being made yet again on a GOAT debate

I find two things dispiriting about this debate.

Firstly, in the Federer / Nadal aspect I find the cherry picking of stats pathetic. I can't be arsed revisiting them now but truly it is rubbish.

However the greater errors are made in the ignorance of prior periods. Today we have medical advances that are extending or even saving careers; greater gap between the wealth (and resources) of the top over the bottom, perpetuating hegemony; homogenisation of conditions making it a legitimate target for top players to win all four Slams each year; four fully contested Slams each year (unlike the once-ignored AO).

Each of these make it easier for top pros now to exceed the achievements of stars of yesteryear, especially those of the 80's and 90's. How then is it possible to compare what guys like Jimmy Connors achieved with Nadal or Federer? Put Rafa onto a 90's Wimbledon court in a 16 seed draw and I doubt he makes the second week too often; subject Federer to surface specialists every Slam and does he make endless semi-finals? I suspect not.

But the really dispiriting aspect is that posters know this. That the same garbage gets recycled is symptomatic of what I called the other day the level of devotion normally associated with teenage fangirls loyalty to boy-bands. And underlying it is that the most compulsive posters - such as the OP here - are really doing it because they want to make other posters angry. Face it, that's what it is, and it's infantile. At least on 606 it was funny.

Well in a Goat debate between the exact same players, I'm not sure the argument can have too many new developments, barring major controversy, just updates. Plenty football forums live on Messi vs Ronaldo, I'm not sure why there is an expectation for it to be different with tennis. Unlike TT for instance, there is very little technical discussions on here, so it stands to reason that when there is a lull in the season, it becomes more topical in nature. Its one thing if HE was spamming us high up to heaven, but a quick look at the first page shows that it's not as if more pertinent discussions are being drowned out. If perfectly good threads were ignored so people could discuss this, I'd see the argument. But if HE or whoever really, stopped posting, as we saw last year, it's not replaced by different articles/threads, the forum just goes quiet. Like I said, I'd at least be interested to discuss this, for the simple reason that it's more relevant than four five years ago when the gap was actually laughable.

Completely with Lydian on this one. The Nadal Federer debate should absolutely be allowed to be had on any tennis forum. The head mod shouldnt be giving snide remarks to the OP and others because they are tired of it. Dont want multiple articles? Then merge them all into one thread. I actually remember Tenez, I dont see why anything he/she did was Lydians fault, he/she was a nightmare, but was also a long time ago, I see no relevance in the mod bringing that up to try and slander a poster.

HE clearly likes Nadal, that shouldnt stop them from posting about him, just because most people dont like the subject.

I don't mind what the OP writes about, I just think hawkeye needs professional help for the same old same old that is posted by her/him. I suppose the forum would be more quiet kingraf I wouldn't disagree with that, maybe I shouldn't reply to this type of thread in the future. Have a good day

Might be a good idea, especially if youre suggesting someone has a mental illness for their posting...

@ temp poster, with your two above comments its pretty clear ur one of the old poster in pseudo id, n I suspect it to be either Lydian or Haddie, if mods can check for the ip pls, I guesd its clearly agaibst house rules to have multiple ids to wind up people here.

Well this is getting embarrassing. Temporary21 has made it clear that they are a temporary account from an old member who took exception at the treatment meted out to HaddieNuff.

Incorrect, and this is my only account. If being told to follows forum rules winds you up, then maybe follow them...