What does a modern day tennis player has to achieve today to be called an undisputed GOAT?
Posted by tennisplanet on October 6, 2008
What is reasonable today to achieve and still be head and shoulders above everyone in the history of the sport in the GOAT debate?
-At least two calendar Grand Slams.
-18 majors.
Rest is all BS. Yes, including the No. 1 crap.
Is it possible for someone to get there? Absolutely. Two years of complete domination followed by a steady accumulation of majors into your early thirties and you are there.
For a ten year career span, that would mean eight majors in two years and roughly 1.2 for the rest. Quite doable, don’t you think? Well, it almost got done few years ago. But this train has left the station for good. Wait for the next one please.
Sol said
Why 18 majors?
jennifur said
Scale mountains with minimal effort. And work hard at the petting zoo.
Claire said
TP,
Why are you so mean to Federer??
Yes, the train (Federer) will leave the station next year at a high rate of speed!! A lot of people (i.e. tennis players) are confused on which direction to go so they miss the train!.They (other tennis players)are left behind trying to catch up to that train (Federer)that left the station !!!!!
“The train has left for good”.
The train is on it’s way to break the record(GS’s) of speed traveled and will never return after it reachs it’s destination(breaking record on GS’s won) . Even if it’s unable to ride back, it was a great run. Isn’t that what Federer says – it will be a great run (his tennis career)?
So there TP – kinda like I see the cup half full and you (TP) sees the cup half empty!!!
That’s how I interpret your statement
Bento said
No, TP, it is not possible. We have already seen all that’s possible.
banti said
Yes what you ask for will not happen anytime soon. The calender year Grandslam was never done by any player on all 4 surfaces. So that takes out Laver. Borg couldn’t win a GS tournament on a hard court (10 tries), didnt suit his topspin heavy baseline game. But atleast he came close. Sampras couldn’t pass the 4th round in the french open in probably double the tries. Which leaves Fed who also hasn’t won the french bc of and only bc of one man. This is why I think this debate is settled with Rafa. If Rafa goes down unanimously as the greatest clay court player ever, and Fed continues to win atleast 2 slams a year, we can say Fed is the GOAT.
boxingary said
TP wrote:
“18 majors”
“followed by a steady accumulation of majors into your early thirties”
“Quite doable, don’t you think?”
14 majors…exactly ONE into his early thirties…Pete votes no.
Tony said
Banti says:”The calender year Grandslam was never done by any player on all 4 surfaces.” He means of course any MALE player. This was achieved by Steffi Graf in 1988. She just happens to be the point of reference for GOAT status, particularly for Federer. Or are you gonna turn male chauvinist again?
Banti said
I wouldn’t go as to say she is the point of reference for the GOAT status as Men’s tennis and woman’s tennis are so different but can agree that Graf’s domination of the game has been unmatched for sure. 22 slams in the open era was 4 more than any other in the open era. She dominated in every event.
Tony said
Perhaps the four surfaces have now been reduced to three. How different is the Aussie Open hard court from the US Open hard court? I have the feeling that the former is slower than the latter. In which case Nadal has a greater chance of winning the Aussie Open than the US Open. The Fed has won the US Open five times, Wimbledon five times, and the Aussie Open three times. It seems to me that the slower the surface, the more chances the other players have to beat him. Also, it is full summer when the Aussie Open is played, and I have the distinct impression that the Fed does not like the heat. Played in cool September, the US Open is more to his liking.
Andy said
There is something kind of key in TP’s wording that touches on a point I’ve been hitting on in a few of my posts. He uses the wording, “undisputed GOAT”. That to me is VERY different from just “GOAT”. If you are the “undisputed GOAT” then, by definition, you have to be head and shoulders above the rest. As soon as someone gets close to your achievements, you of course can no longer have that title, so using that wording TP is actually quite right in my view to set such a high and probably impossible/definitely VERY difficult standard.
This comes to my point again on the GOAT debate. If the question is simply “who is the GOAT” (without the word “undisputed) then the answer to the question does not have to be leaps and bounds ahead of the second GOAT. Just a bit better. And so the arguments that you need this (a FO for example) or need that (15 Slams for example), or have to do what Graf did, and so on, are really missing the point. You just have to have achieved more, overall, than anyone else.
Maybe Federer hasn’t done this. Maybe others, in particular in my view, maybe Laver, have done more based on an overall analysis. But to me it’s fairly close and legitimate arguments can be made for or against a few players out there.
In my mind at this point Laver perhaps gets the nod as GOAT. I was fairly young when he was around so this view is based mainly on his multiple titles across all surfaces and in general on what I have read about him (but it should be noted that Jack Kramer has commented that Pancho Gonzales in his prime would have beaten Laver regularly).
But in my opinion if Fed bulks up his resume in the next few years with more Wimbys, USOs and AOs, even without a French, or (in an even more hopeful scenario) even with just one FO to go along with some more of those other titles, the argument for Laver as the GOAT IS weakened. There IS a point where the impressiveness of Rod’s victories on all surfaces is outweighed by the sheer weight of the GS totals of Fed, or some other guy like Fed who comes along (provided that this guy, like Fed, has an impressive record on all surfaces, VERY impressive on two out of three, albeit perhaps title-less or relatively title-short on one of them).
The GOAT has to be looked at overall across a wide range of factors. Laver got the Calendar Slams but he didn’t win 5 straight Wimbys and five straight USOs. Sure, Rod missed several years there as a result of turning pro in ‘62, and that needs to be considered, but what happens if Roger’s feat turns into 6 straight USO or seven or more, and Fed wins another few Wimby too (a guy can dream Tony!)? Are you “Federer HAS to win the FO” guys SO unwilling to look at the overall picture as to ignore the weight of these other factors? I ask this question especially in a scenario where Fed also continues for the next few years to perform admirably at the FO, making it to finals or SFs, only to lose to you know who. Are you that inflexible in your thinking?
If so, Rod Laver is probably now, and forever, the GOAT. But not the “undisputed GOAT”.
p.s. Perhaps the question which is more to the point is, are you so wound up in this inflexible thinking so as to overturn the GOAT status to Fed should he actually win the FO through a series of very lucky events such as the hypothetical events I described in that other post a while back?
Andy said
Just read Banti’s earlier comment on Laver not winning on all surfaces, and must say that I simply forgot about the old days when the surfaces were just clay and grass when writing my last post. I still think what Laver did across all Slams (if not surfaces) is awfully impressive.
But this is really my point. Everything has to be looked at, but no one factor rules. Does Laver get totally eliminated from the running because of not winning a Slam on a hard court? No, not in my opinion. But does Laver automatically meet an eligibility requirement which Federer does not because of winning all 4 Slams? No, not in my opinion. Both points are very good ones and need of course to be considered and given reasonable weight in the discussion, but neither one can be used, in and of itself, to answer the question – in my humbler than your grandma’s apple pie opinion anyway.