Who is the true goat in Tennis ?

Remove this Banner Ad

Jazny

Watching the Sunset
Nov 2, 2014
14,828
30,451
AFL Club
North Melbourne
How many of these random stats would he trade for one of Nadal's Grand Slam victories?
 

BringouttheGimp

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 18, 2015
19,772
23,695
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
PAOK of SALONIKA LIVERPOOL
How many of these random stats would he trade for one of Nadal's Grand Slam victories?

How many of his 3 Brownlow's.. 9 best and fairest's.. would Skilton trade for 1 of Castagna's premiership medals? Throw in his Hall of Fame status while we're at it and that re..

How many do you reckon and that re?

Please.
 

Jazny

Watching the Sunset
Nov 2, 2014
14,828
30,451
AFL Club
North Melbourne
How many of his 3 Brownlow's.. 9 best and fairest's.. would Skilton trade for 1 of Castagna's premiership medals? Throw in his Hall of Fame status while we're at it and that re..

How many do you reckon and that re?

Please.
Djokovic would trade all random stats to have the most grand slam victories. But he cant so Nadal is the GOAT for now.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

BringouttheGimp

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 18, 2015
19,772
23,695
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
PAOK of SALONIKA LIVERPOOL
How many of these random stats would he trade for one of Nadal's Grand Slam victories?

I'm giving you the 1 re.. but 21/41 makes it somewhat.. immaterial.. that's why these so called 'random stats'.. are important.
 

BringouttheGimp

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 18, 2015
19,772
23,695
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
PAOK of SALONIKA LIVERPOOL
Djokovic would trade all random stats to have the most grand slam victories. But he cant so Nadal is the GOAT for now.

Out of curiosity..

Who was the GOAT at 20 each?
 

PhatBoy

Hall of Famer
May 5, 2016
33,079
35,988
AFL Club
Geelong
How many of his 3 Brownlow's.. 9 best and fairest's.. would Skilton trade for 1 of Castagna's premiership medals? Throw in his Hall of Fame status while we're at it and that re..

How many do you reckon and that re?

Please.


Lol well done. In a forum where there must have been 5,000,000 terrible analogies across sports, you’ve managed to create the worst.

The thing is grand slams are premierships. Hence you can throw as many useless stats as you want, none of them make up that difference
 

BringouttheGimp

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 18, 2015
19,772
23,695
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
PAOK of SALONIKA LIVERPOOL
Lol well done. In a forum where there must have been 5,000,000 terrible analogies across sports, you’ve managed to create the worst.

The thing is grand slams are premierships. Hence you can throw as many useless stats as you want, none of them make up that difference

21 > 20 enough for you.. right?

Your top 10?
 

BringouttheGimp

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 18, 2015
19,772
23,695
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
PAOK of SALONIKA LIVERPOOL
Of course it is - why would you compare that to Bob Pratt’s lack of flags?

My top 10?

Nadal
Djokovic
Federer
Laver
Borg
Sampras
Tilden
Budge
Agassi
Emerson maybe

Is that in descending GOAT order.. 1. Nadal.. 10.. Emerson?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

PhatBoy

Hall of Famer
May 5, 2016
33,079
35,988
AFL Club
Geelong
11 (Laver) > 14 (Sampras)?

11 (Borg) > 14 (Sampras)?

Your goal posts light weight?

Sampras never won on clay.

You can’t pick holes in something that doesn’t have any.

Yours seem non existent when you start pinning your hopes on stats that simply don’t matter
 

PhatBoy

Hall of Famer
May 5, 2016
33,079
35,988
AFL Club
Geelong
Every possible argument around Nadal has been debunked.

Can he win on grass? Yes. He’s done it twice.
Can he win on grass against the best. Yes
Can he win on hardcourt? Yes he’s done it 6 times.
Can he win on hardcourt against the best? Yes
Can he win on clay? Yes
Can he win on clay against the best? Well until he plays himself there we won’t truly know, but yes.
Has he won his slams during a competitive era? Yes
Has he won in all sorts of circumstances, frontrunning, coming from behind, taking the long way through the draw, breezing through it, battling injury, batting no injury? Yes

Has he done it more often than everyone else in history?

Yes.

Stop wasting your breath.
 

Jazny

Watching the Sunset
Nov 2, 2014
14,828
30,451
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Wait guys, if Nadal wins three unimportant games against Djokovic so his head to head is better, then retires without winning another slam, but Djokovic wins two more slams, Im sure BringouttheGimp will totally agree then that 21 is > 22 and that Nadal is better than Djokovic.

Let's just all hope that Nadal can win some meaningless games against Novak in random tournaments to finally prove he is the GOAT!
 

BringouttheGimp

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 18, 2015
19,772
23,695
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
PAOK of SALONIKA LIVERPOOL
Sampras never won on clay.

You can’t pick holes in something that doesn’t have any.

Yours seem non existent when you start pinning your hopes on stats that simply don’t matter

You're a funny bloke.. apparently it was all about GS's won.. now............. it's not.

Well.. at least.. you're learning.
 

PhatBoy

Hall of Famer
May 5, 2016
33,079
35,988
AFL Club
Geelong
You're a funny bloke.. apparently it was all about GS's won.. now............. it's not.

Well at least.. you're learning.


If someone only won 21 slams on one surface, yeah you’d have a point because what have they really proven beyond that they can play on THAT surface. Sampras didn’t just not win on clay, he was rank on it. He couldn’t match any of the good slow courters on slow courts. So yes, the caveat of being able to win anywhere against anyone is already being invoked.

You want to have a pixelated flog over all this meaningless s**t like who won at some generic tour tournament in a best of three sets non event to make your point, then go ahead but no one gives a s**t.

The only things people care about are a) proving you can win anywhere, which all three of the current greats have done, and b) winning a lot, which one of them has done more than the others.
None of them have retired early at the peak of their powers.
None of them have avoided playing a particular major because it’s irrelevant.
None of them have joined a different organisation and played tournaments there. The playing field is entirely level so you look at the most obvious way of separating them.

The playing field between Sampras and borg, or laver and Emerson, or whoever else, is not level, so you chuck in a few other measures to judge them.

You can’t win this argument by throwing around catchphrases like ‘shifting goalposts’ just because I don’t think a one dimensional albeit very good serve volley robot is inferior to a bloke who won 11 slams on two polar opposite surfaces and retired halfway through his 20s
 

BringouttheGimp

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 18, 2015
19,772
23,695
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
PAOK of SALONIKA LIVERPOOL
If someone only won 21 slams on one surface, yeah you’d have a point because what have they really proven beyond that they can play on THAT surface. Sampras didn’t just not win on clay, he was rank on it. He couldn’t match any of the good slow courters on slow courts. So yes, the caveat of being able to win anywhere against anyone is already being invoked.

You want to have a pixelated flog over all this meaningless sh*t like who won at some generic tour tournament in a best of three sets non event to make your point, then go ahead but no one gives a sh*t.

The only things people care about are a) proving you can win anywhere, which all three of the current greats have done, and b) winning a lot, which one of them has done more than the others.
None of them have retired early at the peak of their powers.
None of them have avoided playing a particular major because it’s irrelevant.
None of them have joined a different organisation and played tournaments there. The playing field is entirely level so you look at the most obvious way of separating them.

The playing field between Sampras and borg, or laver and Emerson, or whoever else, is not level, so you chuck in a few other measures to judge them.

You can’t win this argument by throwing around catchphrases like ‘shifting goalposts’ just because I don’t think a one dimensional albeit very good serve volley robot is inferior to a bloke who won 11 slams on two polar opposite surfaces and retired halfway through his 20s

He's gone from criterion.. to criteria.

Unbelievable.
 

BringouttheGimp

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 18, 2015
19,772
23,695
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
PAOK of SALONIKA LIVERPOOL
If you are too dumb to understand this I can’t help you.

Oh I understand it.. so Sampras 0 French.. 14 GS's.. Borg 11 GS's.. 11 > 14. Nadal 13 French.. 21 GS's.. Djokovic 20 GS's.. 21 > 20.

Thanks for your help.
 

PhatBoy

Hall of Famer
May 5, 2016
33,079
35,988
AFL Club
Geelong
Oh I understand it.. so Sampras 0 French.. 14 GS's.. Borg 11 GS's.. 11 > 14. Nadal 13 French.. 21 GS's.. Djokovic 20 GS's.. 21 > 20.

Thanks for your help.

You can’t possibly be this thick.

Nadal has won as many slams on hardcourt as Agassi. He’s won as many slams on grass as Brugera, the best clay courter of the 90s, won on clay.

He doesn’t have to pass any criteria on the non clay slams because he has won as many on hardcourt and grass as Agassi won for his entire career. So picking apart surfaces doesn’t work with Nadal. He’s proven not just once, but 8 f***ing times that he can win on his non preferred surfaces. So degrading his actual total slams, is utterly f***ing stupid. You can do it when someone, like Sampras, obviously couldn’t play on a surface. You can’t do it to Nadal, no matter how much you want to. So trying to say someone else is better ‘because reasons’ doesn’t exist as an argument. Same as trying to say a golfer with 20 majors, evenly spread, is somehow better than a golfer with 21, who has won 13 at Augusta, two on links courses, and six on the other US beasts like Shinnecok Hills or Crooked Stick or Winged Foot. It doesn’t work because he’s proven it’s not a fluke when he wins away from Augusta by doing it 8 times.

Now if you were comparing someone who had won 6 at Augusta, and 5 British opens and then retired, to someone who had won 14 in total but couldn’t play a links course or at Augusta to save themselves, yes you could have an argument.
 

BringouttheGimp

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 18, 2015
19,772
23,695
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
PAOK of SALONIKA LIVERPOOL
You can’t possibly be this thick.

Nadal has won as many slams on hardcourt as Agassi. He’s won as many slams on grass as Brugera, the best clay courter of the 90s, won on clay.

He doesn’t have to pass any criteria on the non clay slams because he has won as many on hardcourt and grass as Agassi won for his entire career. So picking apart surfaces doesn’t work with Nadal. He’s proven not just once, but 8 f***ing times that he can win on his non preferred surfaces. So degrading his actual total slams, is utterly f***ing stupid. You can do it when someone, like Sampras, obviously couldn’t play on a surface. You can’t do it to Nadal, no matter how much you want to. So trying to say someone else is better ‘because reasons’ doesn’t exist as an argument. Same as trying to say a golfer with 20 majors, evenly spread, is somehow better than a golfer with 21, who has won 13 at Augusta, two on links courses, and six on the other US beasts like Shinnecok Hills or Crooked Stick or Winged Foot. It doesn’t work because he’s proven it’s not a fluke when he wins away from Augusta by doing it 8 times.

Now if you were comparing someone who had won 6 at Augusta, and 5 British opens and then retired, to someone who had won 14 in total but couldn’t play a links course or at Augusta to save themselves, yes you could have an argument.

#492
 

PhatBoy

Hall of Famer
May 5, 2016
33,079
35,988
AFL Club
Geelong


And? Again, it’s not possible for someone with unrestricted internet access to be this dumb.

The variables are taken out.

Does any player have an obvious weakness on one surface? No
Does any player have an obvious weakness against any of the others? No
Does any player have a missing trophy? No
Has any player won heaps more against the other two than any of the others? No

So what do you judge them on? majors

One has more than the others.

And even if YOU don’t get it, I guarantee Novak does and he would have been jerking it with all his might in support of Medvedev
 

BringouttheGimp

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 18, 2015
19,772
23,695
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
PAOK of SALONIKA LIVERPOOL
And? Again, it’s not possible for someone with unrestricted internet access to be this dumb.

The variables are taken out.

Does any player have an obvious weakness on one surface? No
Does any player have an obvious weakness against any of the others? No
Does any player have a missing trophy? No
Has any player won heaps more against the other two than any of the others? No

So what do you judge them on? majors

One has more than the others.

And even if YOU don’t get it, I guarantee Novak does and he would have been jerking it with all his might in support of Medvedev

Does any player have an obvious advantage over others.. growing up.. playing on one? Mate.. I don't have access to a hard court.. I can go and practice on a basketball court.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad