Base it on the same criteria.. or should I say.. criterion.. you used to declare Nad's the GOAT?
What’s your opinion on Definitely Maybe vs What’s The Story?
Unforgettable Fire vs The Joshua Tree?
II vs Physical Graffiti?
If I wanted overall reeeesults.. and had to chose between Nad's and Djokovic to perform to these tracks at the Odyssey.. Broadway.. 5th Avenue.. etc.. I'd go with Djokovic.. without a shadow of a doubt.
As they don’t play tennis, no.
The closest equivalent is golf and even that doesn’t necessarily translate because you aren’t impacting on your opponents’ performance in anyway bar psychologically.
Don't liken a punch in boxing to a back/forehand in tennis? Catch your opponent off guard with a nice one right down the line.. after setting him up in a rally?
If Federer converted one of those championship points in Wimb '19, it would be a very different story. Could've had enough confidence and momentum to even win the US Open. But alas, he hasn't recovered mentally from 40-15 and never will. Assuming his knee will be okay and will be fit enough, that mental scar will affect his other matches (it already has).
GOATness based on one criterion.. I've never heard of such nonsense.
As opposed to basing it on head to head records?
If you’re that keen to explore all the variables, address how Nadal has managed to put up more titles than the other two despite ‘his’ surface being the least played on in terms of both Tour and Grand Slam tournaments.
Address that his career overlaps both the early dominance of Federer and the later dominance of Djokovic and he’s still managed to keep pace and now overtake them.
Then address the fact that he has won more of the only four measuring stick events that anyone really gives a toss about
Basing it on everything.. and I don't think you've answered many of my questions.. Nadal grew up playing on clay courts by the way.. hence why he's an Odyssey legend re.
If Nadal won all 22 slams at the French.. he'd be the GOAT?
He’d have a case. Being THAT unbeatable on anything would put you in the discussion. As it is all three of them have done enough on all surfaces to show that they are rounded enough to succeed anywhere so it doesn’t really matter too much does it?
Because my argument is too easily defeated if he can only show that he can win on one surface.Why would it put him in the discussion when all it's about is winning grandslams.. according to you.
You're confusing 'G GSC OAT' with 'GOAT'.. GSC = Grand slam champion.
I rest my case.
Because my argument is too easily defeated if he can only show that he can win on one surface.
The whole idea of the grand slams is that they are played on 3 different surfaces rather than 1, even before hardcourt came along they were at least played on 2. To qualify for a best ever discussion in any sport you’d have to be able to show you can at least compete in different conditions. A cricketer boasting an average of 100 but who’s never made triple figures away from home would have a hard time being regarded as the best even if figures supported the notion. As it is, he hasn’t won 22 French opens he’s won 13. He’s won elsewhere as much as Agassi won anywhere, more than Edberg and Becker and McEnroe won anywhere. It’s a moot point
Try and convince some Collingwood supporters who think John Greening is the GOAT.. that they got it wrong. Bloke only played 107 games. Pendlebury.. 300 game player.. has won individual awards.. multiple times.. it must be him.