HomeAre there still doubters to the Feds GOATness?
The Fed
Ice- Posts : 1538
Reputation : 121
Join date : 2015-10-22
ryno_- NRL FF Survivor Champion : 2018
Posts : 2230
Reputation : 490
Join date : 2015-09-27
Age : 35
People will rabbit on about Serena over Fed, but the fact is she's dominant in a remarkably under strength period of womens tennis. Not her fault but still - you can't claim she's the GOAT when all she plays are turkeys.
No Worries- Moderator
- NRL FF Survivor Champion : I'm like the waterboy.
Posts : 10524
Reputation : 7276
Join date : 2015-07-31
ryno_ wrote:People will rabbit on about Serena over Fed, but the fact is she's dominant in a remarkably under strength period of womens tennis. Not her fault but still - you can't claim she's the GOAT when all she plays are turkeys.
Same as JT
ryno_- NRL FF Survivor Champion : 2018
Posts : 2230
Reputation : 490
Join date : 2015-09-27
Age : 35
No Worries wrote:
Same as JT
Never seen him on a tennis court. How's his backhand?
Ice- Posts : 1538
Reputation : 121
Join date : 2015-10-22
ryno_ wrote:People will rabbit on about Serena over Fed, but the fact is she's dominant in a remarkably under strength period of womens tennis. Not her fault but still - you can't claim she's the GOAT when all she plays are turkeys.
Sorry, I was only talking about the men's game.
Hard to argue against Steena, you could argue she has only beaten turkeys, you could equally argue she is THAT far ahead she makes them look like turkeys and has done for almost two decades and she's won 14 doubles and two mixed doubles in the mix.
ryno_- NRL FF Survivor Champion : 2018
Posts : 2230
Reputation : 490
Join date : 2015-09-27
Age : 35
Ice wrote:
Sorry, I was only talking about the men's game.
Hard to argue against Steena, you could argue she has only beaten turkeys, you could equally argue she is THAT far ahead she makes them look like turkeys and has done for almost two decades and she's won 14 doubles and two mixed doubles in the mix.
Navratilova, Graf and Seles each reigned over women’s tennis while competing against more elite players. When Navratilova won six majors in two years, she had to beat Evert in four of the finals. Graf and Seles competed with each other and Navratilova, as well as merely-greats like Arantxa Sánchez Vicario (four majors) and Jennifer Capriati (three majors).4 Amid so much greatness, Seles dominated in a stunning period from 1991 through April 1993, winning seven of eight majors she entered. Her meteoric rise, steeper than that of any other greats, was halted when she was stabbed by a Graf fan in 1993. Seles returned 28 months later but never reached No. 1 again.
Williams also faced tough competition early in her career, though no rival as great as Graf or peak-Seles. The last time Williams won four straight majors — in her first Serena Slam more than a decade ago — she was competing against Venus, who was herself in her prime; fellow Americans Lindsay Davenport and Capriati; five-time major champ Martina Hingis; and Belgian rivals Henin and Kim Clijsters.
As Williams returned from health problems, her younger rivals were retiring or struggling. Henin and Clijsters left the sport, came back, and left again for good (we think), playing no majors between them after age 29. Hingis retired at age 22, and, while she has since un-retired twice, she has played little singles. Li Na retired last year at age 32. Maria Sharapova has struggled with her own injuries — one of which caused her to withdraw from the U.S. Open on Sunday — as has Victoria Azarenka. Petra Kvitova has looked unbeatable at two Wimbledons in the last four years, but at other Grand Slam events during that time she has had as many first-round exits as major semifinals (two). The power vacuum beneath Williams has been such that three women — Dinara Safina, Caroline Wozniacki and Jelena Jankovic — spent more than two years combined at No. 1 between 2008 and 2012 without winning a single major. (Jankovic and Wozniacki are still trying.)
In other words, women’s tennis got weak at the top — aside from Williams herself. Now just two active players have won more than two Grand Slam titles: Venus Williams (seven majors), who is still competitive but finished the last four years outside the top 10; and Sharapova (five), who has lost her last 17 matches against Serena Williams. Serena Williams’s top rivals aren’t weak just because she keeps beating them; often they lose to players ranked beneath them.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/serena-williams-and-the-difference-between-all-time-great-and-greatest-of-all-time/
Ice- Posts : 1538
Reputation : 121
Join date : 2015-10-22
Yeah, still.....
No Worries- Moderator
- NRL FF Survivor Champion : I'm like the waterboy.
Posts : 10524
Reputation : 7276
Join date : 2015-07-31
ryno_ wrote:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/serena-williams-and-the-difference-between-all-time-great-and-greatest-of-all-time/
Found that a really awesome article. Anything compatible for men ?
ryno_- NRL FF Survivor Champion : 2018
Posts : 2230
Reputation : 490
Join date : 2015-09-27
Age : 35
No Worries wrote:
Found that a really awesome article. Anything compatible for men ?
Not that I can remember reading... There was an article last week that was about American mens tennis players specifically but not one about the game as a whole. 538 is the best tho, thoroughly recommend it.
Dip- Posts : 1597
Reputation : 283
Join date : 2015-09-30
The problem with comparing between eras is that it is hard to determine how good the opposition was. Take golf as a perfect example. Some might say the fact that Jack Nicholas won 18 was incredible considering the other multiple major winners that were around in his time - e.g. Palmer, Player, Trevino Watson. Many will say though that realistically there were probably only 10 people capable of winning a major at any one time in 60's and 70's, so of course the top 5 won 4+ majors.
Then you look at Tiger with 14 majors. When he was winning everything, Mickelson was about the only guy winning more than 1-2 majors. But at any one time there were maybe 80+ guys who could win a major (Paul Lawrie was something like 169 in the world when he won).
So are Tiger's worth less because they were against less Hall of Famers with 4+ majors, or are they worth more because they were in fields where 90% of the field was much better than in 1970? That is the question which causes the debate, and I think applies equally to tennis. In my mind, had Tiger reached 18 majors he'd be unquestionably golf's GOAT. Right now, he's maybe golf's GOAT IMO but I'm on the fence on that.
For the record, I consider Federer the GOAT in mens tennis on the basis of what he's done and for how long. I remember when Sampras overtook Emerson's 11 grand slams, a record which had stood for 30 odd years. I'm sure Sampras never played Emerson on tour. Considering Sampras presumably played Fed in the early 2000's on tour, for Fed to go almost double past Emerson's mark so soon after Sampras breaking it, at a time when Nadal and Djoker have numbers approaching or exceeding that mark as well, is mind blowing to me.
Then you look at Tiger with 14 majors. When he was winning everything, Mickelson was about the only guy winning more than 1-2 majors. But at any one time there were maybe 80+ guys who could win a major (Paul Lawrie was something like 169 in the world when he won).
So are Tiger's worth less because they were against less Hall of Famers with 4+ majors, or are they worth more because they were in fields where 90% of the field was much better than in 1970? That is the question which causes the debate, and I think applies equally to tennis. In my mind, had Tiger reached 18 majors he'd be unquestionably golf's GOAT. Right now, he's maybe golf's GOAT IMO but I'm on the fence on that.
For the record, I consider Federer the GOAT in mens tennis on the basis of what he's done and for how long. I remember when Sampras overtook Emerson's 11 grand slams, a record which had stood for 30 odd years. I'm sure Sampras never played Emerson on tour. Considering Sampras presumably played Fed in the early 2000's on tour, for Fed to go almost double past Emerson's mark so soon after Sampras breaking it, at a time when Nadal and Djoker have numbers approaching or exceeding that mark as well, is mind blowing to me.