Print

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[CLR James]

Bow down to the GOAT you misguided souls!

 

[ramshorns]

 

[dextrous]

Let me guess, he beat another unworthy opponent?

[dhruvdeepak]

what a loser. he's been lucky half his grand slam wins. the only real ones he's earned are those fighting off nadal.

also half his slams dont count because of the quality of racket strings and court surfaces today

he's just a lamb pretending to be a GOAT

[WicketView]

what a loser. he's been lucky half his grand slam wins. the only real ones he's earned are those fighting off nadal.

also half his slams dont count because of the quality of racket strings and court surfaces today

If the quality of racket strings and court surfaces changes things like this, does this mean that goats must always be from the past?

he's just a lamb pretending to be a GOAT

[CLR James]

Let me guess, he beat another unworthy opponent?

Dude, can he help it if there is no worthy opponent in a hundred years? Now bow your head!

[WicketView]

Let me guess, he beat another unworthy opponent?

Yup. The unworthy opponent who beat the worthy one in straight sets (almost).

[Cover Point]

was there a tennis game on?

[CLR James]

Rams is the most sporting of the lot. A true lover of sport.

[dextrous]

Rams is the most sporting of the lot. A true lover of sport.

Now, what smiley do I respond to this with.

But, basically, guys like Murray simply prove the basic point kban, i, etc. have made--the men's tour has a lot of mediocre players today (sans nadal and federer) and while federer is good, it is doubtful that he's better than sampras, borg, etc. 80s, esp., was a far more competetive decade.

[kban1]

Its unfortunate and funny to be labeled a Fed hater considering I was backing him and have for a long time.

But just because I can see objectively past my support for Fed and still determine that he is not the greatest of all time (given the competition for that title) shouldn't stop my dear friend CLR from embracing myopia that afflicts the average fan 

Aside from the comfort in numbers (the cacophonous mass of fandom), after all, objects in the rear view mirror do seem farther than they are -- at least to some 

[CLR James]

Rams is the most sporting of the lot. A true lover of sport.

Now, what smiley do I respond to this with.

But, basically, guys like Murray simply prove the basic point kban, i, etc. have made--the men's tour has a lot of mediocre players today (sans nadal and federer) and while federer is good, it is doubtful that he's better than sampras, borg, etc. 80s, esp., was a far more competetive decade.

Yes Fed is very good. Sampras and Borg were fair. The rest were just competent or just about waiting for the invention of tennis.

[dextrous]

Rams is the most sporting of the lot. A true lover of sport.

Now, what smiley do I respond to this with.

But, basically, guys like Murray simply prove the basic point kban, i, etc. have made--the men's tour has a lot of mediocre players today (sans nadal and federer) and while federer is good, it is doubtful that he's better than sampras, borg, etc. 80s, esp., was a far more competetive decade.

Yes Fed is very good. Sampras and Borg were fair. The rest were just competent or just about waiting for the invention of tennis.

"fair"!

[CLR James]

Rams is the most sporting of the lot. A true lover of sport.

Now, what smiley do I respond to this with.

But, basically, guys like Murray simply prove the basic point kban, i, etc. have made--the men's tour has a lot of mediocre players today (sans nadal and federer) and while federer is good, it is doubtful that he's better than sampras, borg, etc. 80s, esp., was a far more competetive decade.

Yes Fed is very good. Sampras and Borg were fair. The rest were just competent or just about waiting for the invention of tennis.

"fair"!

If Fed is just good, then everyone else struggles to be fair

[CLR James]

Its unfortunate and funny to be labeled a Fed hater considering I was backing him and have for a long time.

But just because I can see objectively past my support for Fed and still determine that he is not the greatest of all time (given the competition for that title) shouldn't stop my dear friend CLR from embracing myopia that afflicts the average fan 

Aside from the comfort in numbers (the cacophonous mass of fandom), after all, objects in the rear view mirror do seem farther than they are -- at least to some 

Yes. I am an average tennis fan like John Mac and Pete Sampras and many others. All of us suffer from myopia. We do have rear view mirrors. The question is, do you have any hindsight kban?

[dextrous]

Its unfortunate and funny to be labeled a Fed hater considering I was backing him and have for a long time.

But just because I can see objectively past my support for Fed and still determine that he is not the greatest of all time (given the competition for that title) shouldn't stop my dear friend CLR from embracing myopia that afflicts the average fan 

Aside from the comfort in numbers (the cacophonous mass of fandom), after all, objects in the rear view mirror do seem farther than they are -- at least to some 

Yes. I am an average tennis fan like John Mac and Pete Sampras and many others. All of us suffer from myopia. We do have rear view mirrors. The question is, do you have any hindsight kban?

If Gambhir scores more runs than Gavaskar in the West Indies, will he become more talented than Gavaskar?

[vincent]

what a loser. he's been lucky half his grand slam wins. the only real ones he's earned are those fighting off nadal.

also half his slams dont count because of the quality of racket strings and court surfaces today

he's just a lamb pretending to be a GOAT

I thought Lambs were better (tastier) than Goats.

[Cover Point]

what a loser. he's been lucky half his grand slam wins. the only real ones he's earned are those fighting off nadal.

also half his slams dont count because of the quality of racket strings and court surfaces today

he's just a lamb pretending to be a GOAT

I thought Lambs were better (tastier) than Goats.

actually thats a myth. Lamb chops in a decent restaurant are JUST expensive ... for hardly any meat and barely any taste. Goat (or bakra in real terms) is awesome and can be made into any kind of meat. Goat Curry (Meat curry in India) is one of the best dishes ever made.

Since this thread already did not have anything to do with Ganguly this OT is very much fair. What kind of sport is this? The bat is round and both teams have one. There is a lot of loud moaning and groaning (specially from the women) but most of them are underage!

[CLR James]

Its unfortunate and funny to be labeled a Fed hater considering I was backing him and have for a long time.

But just because I can see objectively past my support for Fed and still determine that he is not the greatest of all time (given the competition for that title) shouldn't stop my dear friend CLR from embracing myopia that afflicts the average fan 

Aside from the comfort in numbers (the cacophonous mass of fandom), after all, objects in the rear view mirror do seem farther than they are -- at least to some 

Yes. I am an average tennis fan like John Mac and Pete Sampras and many others. All of us suffer from myopia. We do have rear view mirrors. The question is, do you have any hindsight kban?

If Gambhir scores more runs than Gavaskar in the West Indies, will he become more talented than Gavaskar?

Wrong analogy. Federer's all court game is perfect. It is also frightfully consistent. Apart from the 16 slams, it is the inhuman number of semis and finals reached that places him in a different stratosphere. Compare Federer to Bradman. Do not insult him. That would be a gambhir mistake.

[gouravk]

hehehe ... you dont need to count his 16 titles, 22 finals, 23 semis or no. 1 ranking to determine his greatness.

you just need to watch his game. it is a thing of beauty. a thing of beauty is a joy forever.

[kban1]

Its unfortunate and funny to be labeled a Fed hater considering I was backing him and have for a long time.

But just because I can see objectively past my support for Fed and still determine that he is not the greatest of all time (given the competition for that title) shouldn't stop my dear friend CLR from embracing myopia that afflicts the average fan 

Aside from the comfort in numbers (the cacophonous mass of fandom), after all, objects in the rear view mirror do seem farther than they are -- at least to some 

Yes. I am an average tennis fan like John Mac and Pete Sampras and many others. All of us suffer from myopia. We do have rear view mirrors. The question is, do you have any hindsight kban?

Hiding behind the platitudes paid by all time greats whose own legacy is secure does not make for balanced analysis. Neither does the constant regurgitation of numbers, as impressive as they are, make for a conclusive determination.

I do have hindsight, I have watched the game, I have also played the game even if it is at a low level, comparatively speaking. I have seen what technology has done for the game, and I have witnessed the quality of play and the quality of players through 3+ decades.

In my mind, there is no definitive proof that establishes Fed above the other claimants given the quality of opposition. That is my opinion, and I have defended and explained this point in reasonable detail in an earlier thread that ran for miles and miles.

I am unwilling to rehash the same argument over and over again, not least because argument against unabashed rhetoric is pointless.

I am happy that you and several others genuinely believe that Fed is the GOAT. I am also happy that you find support as well as solace in magnanimous pronouncements of other greats.

I would prefer you revel in the cacophonous din of back slapping adulation rather than attempting to call me out just because the dissenting voice to your rhetorical pronouncements jars the collective narrative.

In any case, for people bent so, nothing else would sate but hearing the echo of their pronouncements via another vocal chord, so this back and forth is unreasonable.

Sorry, I haven't seen God yet, have not had the epiphany -- but please do not consider it your burden to proselytize me to the all knowing truth.

[dhruvdeepak]

Its unfortunate and funny to be labeled a Fed hater considering I was backing him and have for a long time.

But just because I can see objectively past my support for Fed and still determine that he is not the greatest of all time (given the competition for that title) shouldn't stop my dear friend CLR from embracing myopia that afflicts the average fan 

Aside from the comfort in numbers (the cacophonous mass of fandom), after all, objects in the rear view mirror do seem farther than they are -- at least to some 

Yes. I am an average tennis fan like John Mac and Pete Sampras and many others. All of us suffer from myopia. We do have rear view mirrors. The question is, do you have any hindsight kban?

Hiding behind the platitudes paid by all time greats whose own legacy is secure does not make for balanced analysis. Neither does the constant regurgitation of numbers, as impressive as they are, make for a conclusive determination.

I do have hindsight, I have watched the game, I have also played the game even if it is at a low level, comparatively speaking. I have seen what technology has done for the game, and I have witnessed the quality of play and the quality of players through 3+ decades.

In my mind, there is no definitive proof that establishes Fed above the other claimants given the quality of opposition. That is my opinion, and I have defended and explained this point in reasonable detail in an earlier thread that ran for miles and miles.

I am unwilling to rehash the same argument over and over again, not least because argument against unabashed rhetoric is pointless.

I am happy that you and several others genuinely believe that Fed is the GOAT. I am also happy that you find support as well as solace in magnanimous pronouncements of other greats.

I would prefer you revel in the cacophonous din of back slapping adulation rather than attempting to call me out just because the dissenting voice to your rhetorical pronouncements jars the collective narrative.

In any case, for people bent so, nothing else would sate but hearing the echo of their pronouncements via another vocal chord, so this back and forth is unreasonable.

Sorry, I haven't seen God yet, have not had the epiphany -- but please do not consider it your burden to proselytize me to the all knowing truth.

for God's sake. next time just say:

"let's agree to disagree"

 

[pieterSAN]

what a loser. he's been lucky half his grand slam wins. the only real ones he's earned are those fighting off nadal.

also half his slams dont count because of the quality of racket strings and court surfaces today

he's just a lamb pretending to be a GOAT

I thought Lambs were better (tastier) than Goats.

actually thats a myth. Lamb chops in a decent restaurant are JUST expensive ... for hardly any meat and barely any taste. Goat (or bakra in real terms) is awesome and can be made into any kind of meat. Goat Curry (Meat curry in India) is one of the best dishes ever made.

Since this thread already did not have anything to do with Ganguly this OT is very much fair. What kind of sport is this? The bat is round and both teams have one. There is a lot of loud moaning and groaning (specially from the women) but most of them are underage!

The only good thing about goat meat is that it is healthier. Lamb not only has a delicious (yet not overpowering) flavor, it goes well with different combinations of herbs and spices. Lamb is one of the meats that I love to experiment with. And if you have nice bottle of red wine...

[CLR James]

Sorry, I haven't seen God yet, have not had the epiphany -- but please do not consider it your burden to proselytize me to the all knowing truth.

You have not seen god? I have. God is goat...

"The lust of the goat is the bounty of God" -- William Blake.

[Cover Point]

what a loser. he's been lucky half his grand slam wins. the only real ones he's earned are those fighting off nadal.

also half his slams dont count because of the quality of racket strings and court surfaces today

he's just a lamb pretending to be a GOAT

I thought Lambs were better (tastier) than Goats.

actually thats a myth. Lamb chops in a decent restaurant are JUST expensive ... for hardly any meat and barely any taste. Goat (or bakra in real terms) is awesome and can be made into any kind of meat. Goat Curry (Meat curry in India) is one of the best dishes ever made.

Since this thread already did not have anything to do with Ganguly this OT is very much fair. What kind of sport is this? The bat is round and both teams have one. There is a lot of loud moaning and groaning (specially from the women) but most of them are underage!

The only good thing about goat meat is that it is healthier. Lamb not only has a delicious (yet not overpowering) flavor, it goes well with different combinations of herbs and spices. Lamb is one of the meats that I love to experiment with. And if you have nice bottle of red wine...

actually one needs to try an Octopus with red wine to really savor the taste (of the wine since the Octopus is so tasteless and chewy ... u appreciate the wine that much more).

Also, whats up with the price of Toor daal?

[ruchir]

IMO Fed is the greatest tennis player yet, that I have seen... and I have seen Sampras, Becker, McEnroe, Agassi, Lendle, Borg etc.

I have a hard time understand this concept that players of years gone by - this includes most sports discussed on this DG - were somehow better, had a harder competitors, had more difficult playing tools and surfaces, than what players of today find.

Surfaces of old were the same for all players of that time. So they had a level playing field. Surfaces of today are the same for all players of this time. So they have a level playing field. If a player of today is winning more than any other player in the history of the sport, then it has to be because he IS really good. He has to be better than anyone before him to be the "winning-est" player.

Let us say, tennis courts were faster before and have slowed down now. So players of old designed their game for fast courts. If they were to play today (on slower courts), would they be as successful as they were then? I don't think so, because their game was designed for fast courts. Commentators were saying during AUS Open finals that Murray likes fast surface and he has difficulty adjusting to slow surface of AUS Open. Fed did not have that difficulty. Who knows, maybe players of old would have similar difficulty too!! Who knows?

This is one of the reasons why I find it hard to digest the concept that Fed is not better than Sampras or Becker or Borg or Lendle. Fed is never going to play them, so we will never know. Remembering something from memory and comparing that with something of today is not fair.

If we keep saying that players of old had this or that constraint, or that players of old had better competitors, then we will come to a situation where no player of today will ever measure up to any player of old. Then what's the point of keeping statistics? What's the point of counting numbers? What's the point of rankings?

[vincent]

Federer has also adapted his game very well to the new surfaces so that he is good on all of them. If you have seen that famous Wimbledon match where the unknown Federer beat Sampras, he ws playing exactly the type of game his idol Sampras was playing - serve and volley. (I did not see it live. But from time to time whenever it rains in Wimbledon they show some classic matches.I saw this just three years ago). They were almost mirror images of each other. Since then, Federer has changed quite a bit - a bit of Lendl and Wilander, a bit of Sampras and McEnroe, self-control and coolness of Borg and many times his own unmatched strokes like the long line backhand.

[CLR James]

Absolutely, Ruchir and Vincent. Now compare that to the era when Laver won his grand slams. Back then, three out of four majors were played on grass.

[kban1]

Absolutely, Ruchir and Vincent. Now compare that to the era when Laver won his grand slams. Back then, three out of four majors were played on grass.

Ermm, grass is usually faster and more difficult to play on than hard courts.

The 4th Slam used to be played on the slowest surface -- clay.

I believe that covers the gamut between fast and hard.

In any case, nobody made the argument that players of yesteryears were better because of surface per se.

And Ruchir's argument is its own rebuttal --

he claims how can we compare against generations ? And then proceeds to call Fed the greatest, completely oblivious to the delicious and rich irony that by calling fed the greatest, one is precisely comparing across generations.

[CLR James]

Absolutely, Ruchir and Vincent. Now compare that to the era when Laver won his grand slams. Back then, three out of four majors were played on grass.

Ermm, grass is usually faster and more difficult to play on than hard courts.

The 4th Slam used to be played on the slowest surface -- clay.

I believe that covers the gamut between fast and hard.

In any case, nobody made the argument that players of yesteryears were better because of surface per se.

And Ruchir's argument is its own rebuttal --

he claims how can we compare against generations ? And then proceeds to call Fed the greatest, completely oblivious to the delicious and rich irony that by calling fed the greatest, one is precisely comparing across generations.

Let me explain the logical scenario here:

Federer's statistical achievements in an era of cut throat professional tennis, high-tech fitness, and high-tech gear are so astounding, and his all court game so sublime that he transcends the rule.

Hence

The rule is that we cannot compare between generations.

Federer is an exception to that rule.

Ergo, Exception proves the rule. 

[Cover Point]

please dont divert the conversation from Lamb, Octopus and Goat.

[kban1]

Absolutely, Ruchir and Vincent. Now compare that to the era when Laver won his grand slams. Back then, three out of four majors were played on grass.

Ermm, grass is usually faster and more difficult to play on than hard courts.

The 4th Slam used to be played on the slowest surface -- clay.

I believe that covers the gamut between fast and hard.

In any case, nobody made the argument that players of yesteryears were better because of surface per se.

And Ruchir's argument is its own rebuttal --

he claims how can we compare against generations ? And then proceeds to call Fed the greatest, completely oblivious to the delicious and rich irony that by calling fed the greatest, one is precisely comparing across generations.

Let me explain the logical scenario here:

Federer's statistical achievements in an era of cut throat professional tennis, high-tech fitness, and high-tech gear are so astounding, and his all court game so sublime that he transcends the rule.

Hence

The rule is that we cannot compare between generations.

Federer is an exception to that rule.

Ergo, Exception proves the rule. 

And again this is rhetoric to support a decision already reached.

I'll take Dhruv's advice --  lets just agree to disagree on this.

[vincent]

please dont divert the conversation from Lamb, Octopus and Goat.

OK. Can you send a good recipe for Goat Curry? It is hard to get goats meat in Europe but it may become useful sometime.

[RicePlateReddy]

hehehe ... you dont need to count his 16 titles, 22 finals, 23 semis or no. 1 ranking to determine his greatness.

you just need to watch his game. it is a thing of beauty. a thing of beauty is a joy forever.

No. For the GOAT assertion, the numbers are key.

Bradman was far from the most pleasing on the eye. Yet he is the GOAT because of his stupendous numbers.

[kban1]

hehehe ... you dont need to count his 16 titles, 22 finals, 23 semis or no. 1 ranking to determine his greatness.

you just need to watch his game. it is a thing of beauty. a thing of beauty is a joy forever.

No. For the GOAT assertion, the numbers are key.

Bradman was far from the most pleasing on the eye. Yet he is the GOAT because of his stupendous numbers.

If one is to argue numbers via analogy to Bradman, then the key difference is his numbers dont tower over that of his fellow greats.

Sampras has 13, Borg has 11, laver had 11 despite a significantly interrupted career. 

Bradman stands the test across generations well despite differences in bowlers, pitches, fielding standards, fielding tactics etc because he averaged almost twice what is considered the benchmark for greatness (50 average) -- and I dont mean the 50 average in the decade of the 2000's.

To average ~2x the benchmark for greatness, and almost 40 avg points higher than any batsman worth his salt over an extended period is what makes Bradman's numbers stand the test of time.

If we are going to use this analogy and this line of reasoning, let us revisit this argument when he has ~30 Grand Slams.

[RicePlateReddy]

Not arguing his greatness relative to Bradman or analogizing with Bradman. Making the point that numbers are the greatest influencer of GOAT status (presenting Bradman's case as an example); and making the point that ease on the eye does not count much towards GOAT status.

I will not argue with someone who contends that Laver is the GOAT. I can appreciate that PoV.

[ruchir]

And Ruchir's argument is its own rebuttal --

he claims how can we compare against generations ? And then proceeds to call Fed the greatest, completely oblivious to the delicious and rich irony that by calling fed the greatest, one is precisely comparing across generations.

We can agree to disagree, but this is what I said:

This is one of the reasons why I find it hard to digest the concept that Fed is not better than Sampras or Becker or Borg or Lendle. Fed is never going to play them, so we will never know. Remembering something from memory and comparing that with something of today is not fair.

I never said don't compare them, I said it is not fair to compare today's player to an old player, whose game you remember from memory. You can see games of most recent players on the internet somewhere, but you remember Borg or Laver mostly from memory.

Then I finished my argument with the crux of the point I was making:

If we keep saying that players of old had this or that constraint, or that players of old had better competitors, then we will come to a situation where no player of today will ever measure up to any player of old. Then what's the point of keeping statistics? What's the point of counting numbers? What's the point of rankings?

If we follow your logic, Pitamah, that older players had better competition, more difficult playing tools and conditions so they are probably better, then what's the use of keeping count of how many grand slams who has won? You can simply declare that no player will ever ever be greater than Sampras!! End of discussion, right? After all, no player from hence forward will have the same playing conditions that Sampras or Becker or Borg had, so why bother ranking them, why bother counting their victories.

IMO Federer's greatness does not solely lies in the fact that he has won so many titles. It lies in the fact that he has been the most consistent performer of all time. No other tennis player had so many semi-finals or finals appearances in grand slam events as Federer had. His greatness is in successfully wiping out competition. His greatness is winning 16 grand slam titles in 6 years. He won his first at age 22.

[kban1]

I never said don't compare them, I said it is not fair to compare today's player to an old player, whose game you remember from memory. You can see games of most recent players on the internet somewhere, but you remember Borg or Laver mostly from memory.

None of us have seen Laver play but for a few clips.

However, extensive recordings of Lendl, Becker, Edberg, McEnroe, Connors, Borg, Wilander are all available to view such that one is not left to the mercy of only memories.

If we follow your logic, Pitamah, that older players had better competition, more difficult playing tools and conditions so they are probably better, then what's the use of keeping count of how many grand slams who has won? You can simply declare that no player will ever ever be greater than Sampras!! End of discussion, right? After all, no player from hence forward will have the same playing conditions that Sampras or Becker or Borg had, so why bother ranking them, why bother counting their victories.

That is not the crux of the argument. the crux of the argument is competition -- Federer has not faced enough of it.

he is an all time great playing in an era of players who are mostly good.

IMO Federer's greatness does not solely lies in the fact that he has won so many titles. It lies in the fact that he has been the most consistent performer of all time. No other tennis player had so many semi-finals or finals appearances in grand slam events as Federer had. His greatness is in successfully wiping out competition. His greatness is winning 16 grand slam titles in 6 years. He won his first at age 22.

Thats the point. Having seen competitors and tennis greats who played in the 70's to mid 90's, one can venture to say that against similar competition, the numbers would have been less stratospheric.

As in the stratospheric achievements are a product of the competition he faces.

If he played in an era where another 3/4/5/6 all time greats were playing and he still managed these numbers, he would be an automatic first ballot selection for the GOAT.

[ramshorns]

Ruchir:You always go length's laying out well constructed arguments.  Without a doubt.  In this case after reading your POV on Tennis on this thread you have not really followed or closely associated yourself(like watching them live or following them in the immedaite aftermath of a match being played) with the Borg-Connors, Borg- McEnroe, McEnroe - Connors,  Lendl-McEnroe, Lendl-Connors, Lendl-Wilandar, Lendl-Edbeg, Lendl-Becker, Becker-Edberg rivalries to name a few.  Is that a fair statement.  I need you to confirm that for me just for my understanding on how close or how far back do you go back on following the mid 70's to late 80's rivalries.

[ruchir]

None of us have seen Laver play but for a few clips.

However, extensive recordings of Lendl, Becker, Edberg, McEnroe, Connors, Borg, Wilander are all available to view such that one is not left to the mercy of only memories.

Where do these extensive recordings exist? Which website? How are they accesible? I would like to see them too, so if you guide me on how can I see extensive recordings of Lendle, Becker, Edberg, McEnroe, Connors, Borg, Wilander etc. I'll be more than grateful.

That is not the crux of the argument. the crux of the argument is competition -- Federer has not faced enough of it.

he is an all time great playing in an era of players who are mostly good.

How do you decide he has not faced enough competition? For a guy who has played Tennis for 12 years now, you say he has not faced enough good competition?

Thats the point. Having seen competitors and tennis greats who played in the 70's to mid 90's, one can venture to say that against similar competition, the numbers would have been less stratospheric.

As in the stratospheric achievements are a product of the competition he faces.

If he played in an era where another 3/4/5/6 all time greats were playing and he still managed these numbers, he would be an automatic first ballot selection for the GOAT.

How do you define "all time greats"? What parameters or criteria do you use to term any one all time great? Which players are you talking about when you say "3/4/5/6 all time greats"?