"Five Minutes Before the F-ing Match!"

[Kieran]

That's a great point about a goat on clay, buddy! I've seen clay evolve so much over the years, that the days when it was virtually its own sport within the the sport are gone. It used to be a gigantic achievement for the previous Wimbledon champ to reach the final of Paris, or even the semis. Clay court tennis had its own glamour, its assassins lying in wait for the net rushers, its own craft. Now things have changed and the same players turn up everywhere.

Borg was the best in his day on clay, then the 80's and 90's had many great clay courters, and now Rafa is the best in this time. Is he the goat on clay? Logically speaking, he can't be.

And I agree with you, as I did with the Dude, goat talk is natural and it occurs across all sports. But as enjoyable as it (usually) is, there is no satisfactory criteria for picking one man ahead of others. Maybe even more so in tennis than other sports, because we have issues with surface changes across the season - and even slams played on different surfaces than they used to be. We have huge advances in technology and we have the amateur-pro divide. We have players in one era chasing different goals to players in another era, etc.

The goat talk usually generates more heat than light, in my opinion, and more spin than sense...

 

[Kieran]

A lot of it is media driven and I agree with that point. GOATs in tennis weren't really talked about until Sampras approached Emerson's major tally. (That in itself is laughable as nobody in their right mind would have had Roy pegged as the GOAT).

This isn't strictly true. Borg believed that if he could win the calendar year slam, he'd be seen as the GOAT. It was an explicitly stated goal of his, and as we all know, he routinely skipped Oz as being insignificant to his goals unless he had the other three.

Pete also chased the calendar year slam, and also the 4-in-a-row, but once he saw that Paris was beyond him and his career was running down, he chased whatever records he could get, including the slam tally that Emerson had, and the year-end #1, which is an immense achievement.

Funny you call him chasing Emerson's total laughable: the number of slams won is the record most often cited in Rogers favour. It's actually become the default setting in these arguments - and yet to Borg and players from before Pete's time, such a thing would certainly have been laughable.

But Pete never thought that Emerson himself was some sort of benchmark in the sport. :nono He just wanted that record. I don't think Pete ever said that having it would conclusively make him the goat, either, but maybe you have other sources on this.

But the Federer fans are much more heavily invested in the notion of one absolute GOAT, as you say. I really think that's because folks were trying to make Pete the Greatest of All Time.

There's definitely a sacred cow aspect to this, with Fedfans. You can see it in this discussion, where I replied to one thing, and within 2 posts the goat thingy began to be defended. I see it more often now that Rafa is on 14, the Fedfans are getting more rabid towards him. Not all, I might add, but certainly it's something Fedfans definitely feel proprietorial about.

And yes, there is often a vested interest in fans of other players that this shouldn't be so readily and lazily accepted, especially maybe more so among Rafa fans. Maybe that's cos we've seen them both play each other. :snigger

And Pele isn't the GOAT in fupple, either!

 

[britbox]

A lot of it is media driven and I agree with that point. GOATs in tennis weren't really talked about until Sampras approached Emerson's major tally. (That in itself is laughable as nobody in their right mind would have had Roy pegged as the GOAT).

This isn't strictly true. Borg believed that if he could win the calendar year slam, he'd be seen as the GOAT. It was an explicitly stated goal of his, and as we all know, he routinely skipped Oz as being insignificant to his goals unless he had the other three.

Pete also chased the calendar year slam, and also the 4-in-a-row, but once he saw that Paris was beyond him and his career was running down, he chased whatever records he could get, including the slam tally that Emerson had, and the year-end #1, which is an immense achievement.

Funny you call him chasing Emerson's total laughable: the number of slams won is the record most often cited in Rogers favour. It's actually become the default setting in these arguments - and yet to Borg and players from before Pete's time, such a thing would certainly have been laughable.

But Pete never thought that Emerson himself was some sort of benchmark in the sport. :nono He just wanted that record. I don't think Pete ever said that having it would conclusively make him the goat, either, but maybe you have other sources on this.

But the Federer fans are much more heavily invested in the notion of one absolute GOAT, as you say. I really think that's because folks were trying to make Pete the Greatest of All Time.

There's definitely a sacred cow aspect to this, with Fedfans. You can see it in this discussion, where I replied to one thing, and within 2 posts the goat thingy began to be defended. I see it more often now that Rafa is on 14, the Fedfans are getting more rabid towards him. Not all, I might add, but certainly it's something Fedfans definitely feel proprietorial about.

And yes, there is often a vested interest in fans of other players that this shouldn't be so readily and lazily accepted, especially maybe more so among Rafa fans. Maybe that's cos we've seen them both play each other. :snigger

And Pele isn't the GOAT in fupple, either!

I think you're mixing up winning the grand slam (All four majors in a calendar year) and being labelled the Greatest of All time.

The holy grail in tennis has and always will be the Calendar Grand Slam. I personally haven't heard Borg say he wanted to win because it would make him the greatest tennis player of all time.

I think He wanted to win it because it was simply "The Grand Slam"... and yeah, he did say he'd go to Australia if the Grand Slam opportunity was still on at that stage of the season. (and Connors said he'd go to try and stop him if that scenario ever materialised!).

I didn't say Pete thought Emerson was a benchmark either. I said the thought that Emerson was the GOAT prior to Pete was laughable. Some in the media christened Pete the GOAT when he broke that record... I don't recall it being a term Peter ever used.

...and yeah, sure, meetings with Nadal are a cross on Federer's "GOAT" ticklist, but I'd be of the opinion he has a few more ticks than Rafa as it stands right now.

 

[Kieran]

I think Emerson's mammy thought he was the goat, she used to post on tennis.com. :snigger

Borgie definitely believed that winning the GS would make him goat. I remember this - and I remember believing it too, God bless my innocence.

You ever notice how the goat is always current? I recall when Pete retired it was very easy to spin him as the goat, and this among respected and long-serving commentators, even without the FO. It was considered too difficult for anyone to be dominant on all surfaces then, though that's a challenge that's become more accessible now, with the changes in the game. I remember after Becker won his first Wimbledon, the venerable British commentator John Barrett wondering out loud if we'd just witnessed the greatest tennis player ever.

The even more venerable Dan Maskill didn't quite reply, "oh I say!" but he almost did, so strange a comment was it. Mats Wilander said - back in his playing days - that the goat is always the current number one, because the bar was being incrementally raised. Few people would have agreed with that kind of thinking the day Roddick became number one.

Anyway, Pele, eh? Talk about a bleeding joke! :laydownlaughing

 

[Kieran]

Just in terms of having a few more ticks, etc, would you agree with me that the modern player has the advantage, in the sense that he can measure what's gone before, and that he can also set a new agenda (kind of like Pete did when he chased the record number of slams, something Roger then took as his cue)?

Had Borg been in on the ground floor on this gimmick, he'd have played Oz, right? He'd have beaten Emerson's record and retired in full confidence that he didn't need the calendar year GS.

And given that most people automatically nod when we say things like, the calendar year GS is the holy grail, why do we not automatically accept Laver as goat, and work down from there?

Is it because we find fault even with his achievement? Or is it because the fact that he operated under certain conditions that no longer exist means that the challenge of electing a goat contains too many pitfalls and variables to accept so obvious a conclusion?

 

[britbox]

^ Agree, that the modern player always has the advantage and that the bar and standard is always being incrementally increased.

I read that when Roger Bannister ran a mile in under four minutes it was deemed an amazing achievement - likened to climbing Mount Everest for the first time. Within two months his record was broken, half a dozen broke the time within a couple of years and hundreds have done it since. The record is something like 17 seconds quicker now.

I guess it goes to show once the bar rises, everyone sets a higher standard and it keeps increasing. Same with tennis. Sampras set the benchmark for Federer, Federer for Nadal, Nadal and Federer for Djokovic etc.

But... what if Bannister was born to run in this era and the current record holder lived in Bannister's era?? Who knows.. it may even have been a complete role reversal.

I guess that's why I carry a torch for the old guys of yesteryear. Nobody said to them when they were winning a big tournament - you'd better win this more handily because someone will compare you to another guy you'll never have the chance to play in a few decades time.

Also agree that we live in a "What did you do for me today" environment. I guarantee either Federer or Djokovic will be roundly trashed after today's match by some.

Still, when it comes to ticking boxes, with context... I still end up with Federer pretty much coming at the top of the tree as it stands right now based on entire careers. But that's just personal opinion and I'm not fussed if others have somebody else.

 

[Kieran]

Well, when it comes to ticking boxes, Laver has twice ticked off the Holy Grail, so I think with everything, it's how we spin it. We dance with the one who smells the sweetest.

As for the old and new, I'm like you. I think the old grizzled vets who sat on the crate of beer at the change of ends and had the ballgirls hold cigars, and not towels, so they could light up between points, would have loved to face anybody and found a way to win. These guys didn't only have cat-gut strings - they stalked and killed their own cats, lions and tigers being the preferred, ate them as a fitness thingy, and strung their own rackets with the guts, using their teeth to gain the tension, and not machines.

The modern game would be alien to them, however - just as the game of their time would be alien to the modern players. And I agree about the Bannister switcheroo - he was the fastest man alive over that distance back then, and the Holy Grail for him was the 4 minute mile.

Interesting that you say that within 2 months his record was broken. It's a good analogy to say that when the bar is raised, the next guy focuses on the new target instead of the old. In some senses the lad who broke the 10 second 100 metres is of the exact same stock as Usain Bolt, but Bolt gets the nod because he's the current incumbent....

 

[El Dude]

Rather than always find reasons for why a GOAT is an impossibility--which we could take for granted, at least in the ultimate sense--it might be an interesting thought exercise to ask the question: If we had to come up with criteria for determining a GOAT, what would they be?

I mean, again, we all know it is virtually impossible and that any criteria will be imperfect. But what's the best we can do? And can we do it without biasing our house in the race?

One of the red herrings that often gets brought up for invalidating the GOAT question is that we can't compare players across generations. I've said time and time again that this isn't as much of a deal-breaker as it is a complication. What we can do is look at how dominant players were while they played and compare that. How dominant was Federer in his time vs. Sampras vs. Borg, etc?

I'd hope that we, as adults, are able to catch our own bias just a little bit, and even, perhaps, be able to approach this question without secretly angling it towards making our favorite come out stronger. Or, on the other hand, always finding reasons why the question is impossible because we don't want our favorite to end up with the short end of the stick.

But again, it really doesn't matter and is ultimately a futile exercise. But it can be fun and it can tell us something. Simply because perfection isn't possible doesn't mean it shouldn't be strived for.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

This is exactly what the MDP blog was trying to do.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

This thread has less than 1% of posts on the original topic. Getting back to the
original topic, does any one know as to whether the British main stream media have
figured out what is the mystery behind the rantings. May be Iona can tell us.

 

[El Dude]

This thread has less than 1% of posts on the original topic.

Actually, ALL threads are like that - 1-5% about the original topic, then inevitably they devolve into some variant on the Fedal Debate and/or GOAT discussion.

 

[Kieran]

This thread has less than 1% of posts on the original topic. Getting back to the
original topic, does any one know as to whether the British main stream media have
figured out what is the mystery behind the rantings. May be Iona can tell us.

I'm glad you're saying that there was something wrong with Murray: I agree. I read other posters crowning Dimi with a demolishing display. :nono

I dunno what was wrong with him and the press haven't sussed it out yet, other than there was a row with his missus, and a barney with his coach, and he had to start too early, and....they have nothing to report just yet...

 

[El Dude]

Maybe the missus said, five minutes before the match, "Hey Andy, I hope you don't mind, but I made out with that cute Bulgarian player last night."

 

[Iona16]

Utter drivel on page 1 and less and less about Andy as the thread wore on. Glad I haven't missed much.

 

[Kieran]

Eh, Iona, you haven't been around here much, maybe like me during the slams, while Rafa is still involved.

You didn't post here by mistake...****ing 5 minutes before the match? :snigger

 

[Iona16]

Eh, Iona, you haven't been around here much, maybe like me during the slams, while Rafa is still involved.

You didn't post here by mistake...****ing 5 minutes before the match? :snigger

I never take an Andy loss very well and coming on here to see people slagging him off does little to improve the mood.

Besides I see the thread became a 'goat' thread so I didn't miss much.

 

[Kieran]

Well, there was little to praise in that match, Iona, he went down sheepishly. The lad is in crisis, but others have been there and come out of it...

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Utter drivel on page 1 and less and less about Andy as the thread wore on. Glad I haven't missed much.

Anyway, do you know the reason behind the rants? Has some mainstream news media
done some investigative journalism? One tabloid that I read gave the following long list of
plausible reasons for the rant.

1. Kim said she is breaking up.
2. Kim said she is pregnant.
3. Judy came late to the match as he is "second son"
4. Match was scheduled early and he did not know about it.
5. Amelie had different game plan 5 minutes before the match.

Apart from Andy's own rants, Grigor's observation that he felt something was wrong
with Andy right during warm up is adding some more credibility to the theory that there
is some juicy story here.

 

[Iona16]

Well, there was little to praise in that match, Iona, he went down sheepishly. The lad is in crisis, but others have been there and come out of it...

I'm talking in general.

My boy will be back though

 

[Iona16]

Utter drivel on page 1 and less and less about Andy as the thread wore on. Glad I haven't missed much.

Anyway, do you know the reason behind the rants? Has some mainstream news media
done some investigative journalism? One tabloid that I read gave the following long list of
plausible reasons for the rant.

1. Kim said she is breaking up.
2. Kim said she is pregnant.
3. Judy came late to the match as he is "second son"
4. Match was scheduled early and he did not know about it.
5. Amelie had different game plan 5 minutes before the match.

Apart from Andy's own rants, Grigor's observation that he felt something was wrong
with Andy right during warm up is adding some more credibility to the theory that there
is some juicy story here.

Never believe the tabloids. I'd say all 5 are completely false. In the absence of quotes from Andy the gutter press are in overdrive. I'll let you all know when I speak to Andy.