tennis-forum.net
Promoting tennis discussion.

Main
Date: 03 Feb 2009 01:48:36
From: ghell666
Subject: Roger would never have been GOAT any way
Whether he won 14 or 15 the fact is Nadal , unless he get
injuried ,would of been around for many years with many changes to
beat Roger i.e. the same argument of whether he could be considered
GOAT would still exist because of Nadals record against him.

What could he of done , won Wimbledon last year ( which is too late
now ) and then retired after the US before things got ugly ?

Fact is Nadals record would of made any slam win irrelevant any way if
hes beating him all the time.







 
Date: 03 Feb 2009 09:23:30
From: Fan
Subject: Re: Roger would never have been GOAT any way
On Feb 3, 10:48=A0am, ghell666 <matt.tip...@gmail.com > wrote:
> Whether he won 14 or 15 the fact is Nadal , unless he get
> injuried ,would of been around for many years with many changes to
> beat Roger i.e. the same argument of whether he could be considered
> GOAT would still exist because of Nadals record against him.
>
> What could he of done =A0, won Wimbledon last year ( which is too late
> now ) and then retired after the US before things got ugly ?
>
> Fact is Nadals record would of made any slam win irrelevant any way if
> hes beating him all the time.

The "goat" argument is just as stupid and meaningless as the other
stupid and meaningless argument about one slam being more than another
slam.
All that counts is what the player does and may or may not do better
than anyone else may in that area.
The "goat" argument tries to make a player who wins a lot of slams on
grass declared the best all around, including clay, even if the player
sucks on clay.



 
Date: 03 Feb 2009 09:10:28
From:
Subject: Re: Roger would never have been GOAT any way
On Feb 3, 11:37=A0am, Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net > wrote:
> On Feb 3, 1:48=A0am, ghell666 <matt.tip...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Whether he won 14 or 15 the fact is Nadal , unless he get
> > injuried ,would of been around for many years with many changes to
> > beat Roger i.e. the same argument of whether he could be considered
> > GOAT would still exist because of Nadals record against him.
>
> > What could he of done =A0, won Wimbledon last year ( which is too late
> > now ) and then retired after the US before things got ugly ?
>
> > Fact is Nadals record would of made any slam win irrelevant any way if
> > hes beating him all the time.
>
> ++ It's golf, I know but a close enough example of head to head and
> legacy argument... Jack Nicklaus lost head to head to Tom Watson 3
> times in the only epic head to head matches where they finished 1-2 in
> majors... the 1977 Open Championship at Turnberry... 1981 Masters...
> 1984 US Open... and Nicklaus finished with 18 majors, Watson 8... NO
> ONE puts Watson ahead of Jack... but Jack couldn't take out Watson
> when it was mano et mano for a major... Tom was Mr. Clutch and loved
> the scrap against the great Nicklaus...
>
> And they are both still playing... both Rafa and Roger will be in more
> finals, one would think... we shall see what the final major totals
> are...
>
> P

Yes, I mentioned this in another thread to TT. No way is Rafa ahead of
Fed if in the overall Slam count they are
5-6 Slams apart. The Slam numbers would have to be very close - and
Rafa would have to have a big edge in big head to head matches - for
Nadal to be considered the era's best player, imo.


 
Date: 03 Feb 2009 08:37:40
From: Patrick Kehoe
Subject: Re: Roger would never have been GOAT any way
On Feb 3, 1:48=A0am, ghell666 <matt.tip...@gmail.com > wrote:
> Whether he won 14 or 15 the fact is Nadal , unless he get
> injuried ,would of been around for many years with many changes to
> beat Roger i.e. the same argument of whether he could be considered
> GOAT would still exist because of Nadals record against him.
>
> What could he of done =A0, won Wimbledon last year ( which is too late
> now ) and then retired after the US before things got ugly ?
>
> Fact is Nadals record would of made any slam win irrelevant any way if
> hes beating him all the time.

++ It's golf, I know but a close enough example of head to head and
legacy argument... Jack Nicklaus lost head to head to Tom Watson 3
times in the only epic head to head matches where they finished 1-2 in
majors... the 1977 Open Championship at Turnberry... 1981 Masters...
1984 US Open... and Nicklaus finished with 18 majors, Watson 8... NO
ONE puts Watson ahead of Jack... but Jack couldn't take out Watson
when it was mano et mano for a major... Tom was Mr. Clutch and loved
the scrap against the great Nicklaus...

And they are both still playing... both Rafa and Roger will be in more
finals, one would think... we shall see what the final major totals
are...


P


 
Date: 03 Feb 2009 12:08:20
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: Roger would never have been GOAT any way
"ghell666" <matt.tippen@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:fe64ec8d-e70e-4d17-afe0-2e4a19b0bc21@x10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> Whether he won 14 or 15 the fact is Nadal , unless he get
> injuried ,would of been around for many years with many changes to
> beat Roger i.e. the same argument of whether he could be considered
> GOAT would still exist because of Nadals record against him.
>
> What could he of done , won Wimbledon last year ( which is too late
> now ) and then retired after the US before things got ugly ?
>
> Fact is Nadals record would of made any slam win irrelevant any way if
> hes beating him all the time.

also as of Jan 1st 2009 it the GOAT thing finished really.