It’s not easy choosing the G.O.A.T. Like American Lit exams, it’s more essay question than multiple choice. And even if you’re tennis’s answer to Mark Twain, those snarky Sartre-types can always blow smoke in your eyes and snarl: “What a futile exercise. It’s obvious that the G.O.A.T. is a media construct and not reality.”
Can you pick a G.O.A.T. from the choices below?:
- Big Bill Tilden: He dominated like no other player ever has or maybe ever will. (Yeah, back when players wore pants and sipped brandy between games!)
- Rod Laver: He won the Grand Slam twice – as an amateur in 1962 and as a pro in 1969 (But 3 of the 4 Majors were on grass! How many would Roger or Pete have won if the surfaces hadn’t changed?)
- Bjorn Borg: He won six French Open and five consecutive Wimbledon titles. (But he bolted as soon as McEnroe reared his curly head! And he couldn’t master New York, either.)
- Pete Sampras: He held 14 major titles and was year end No. 1 for six consecutive years – an open era record that Roger will likely never break (The operative word is “held” as in Roger now holds a record 15 major titles – including one at the French Open. The best Pete ever did in Paris was the semi-finals – once.)
- Roger Federer: 15 majors and counting, career slam, best hair in history. (Oh, and that crappy 7-13 head-to-head against Rafael Nadal.)
Here’s a question to keep those philosophy majors smoking clove cigarettes past their bedtimes: How can Roger Federer be the greatest of all time, if he isn’t the (undeniable) greatest of his era?
Pete Sampras, who has praised Roger’s accomplishments, was recently asked about the Roger-Rafa G.O.A.T. conundrum. And I think he’s stumped:
“I do understand the argument as far as being the best ever. You have to be the man of your generation. He (Roger) has come up short against Nadal. I can see the point. It’s hard to answer that. I don’t know how to answer it. You know, it’s not done yet. Roger’s career isn’t done yet. He’s going to play Nadal a number of times over the next number of years, and he has to beat him. He has to beat him in the finals of majors. To be considered the greatest ever, he certainly in my book is (already that). But he has to figure this kid out. . .It would have bothered me if I had a losing record against Andre in majors.” (via tennis.com)
Just for the record: Sampras was 20-14 over Agassi, including a 6-3 head-to-head in slams.
Okay, maybe Pete’s on to something – maybe it’s just a matter of time before Roger turns that head-to-head around, dominates Rafa from the clay of Monte Carlo to the Cincinnati hard courts and treats his Spanish rival like Lleyton Hewitt in the US Open final. Or – and this seems more likely – things will continue more as less as they have been, with Roger winning some and losing more (and more) as he enters his twilight years on tour. And who knows how many majors Rafa will win before he’s forced to replace his knees with ball bearings? Few could argue Rafa’s G.O.A.T.ness if (still a big IF) he surpasses Roger’s trophy count.
This is about the time when I bum a cig and go brood in the corner. G.O.A.T., schmoat, as Descartes would say.
What do you think?
Loading ...G.O.A.T. line up: Getty Images via the Sydney Morning Herald.
Tags: Bill Tilden, Bjorn Borg, Federer, Nadal, Pete Sampras, Rod Laver, tennis, Wimbledon
RELATED ARTICLES ON GOTOTENNIS |
Stay up to date with us on Twitter.
judy
JFK
lorrie
Jess
Liz
ranjolie
LilyPop
lk28
Feed
Follow Me!
If ‘experts’ are claiming, that only Roger can only be CONSIDERED now… at 15 and with the french, then how is it possibly fair to even begin to consider Rafa as the GOAT now? Don’t get me wrong, Rafa is fantastic, but if we’re going to get an answer to the question, we need to measure everyone with the same yardstick.
That’s a good point. And right now I think the yardstick ends at 15!
1- I don’t think Roger Federer is the “greatest of all time” because I really don’t like to compare different eras and since I was born in 1981, I obviously never watched most of the greats, so how coul I even try to compare?
2 – I DO think Roger Federer is the best of his own time. I mean, even having a losing record agains his two main rivals, he managed to return to the n.1? Rafa was injured, sure. But avoiding injuries while a young player was an amazing Roger strenght. He may start to have more physical issues now, after all, he’s almost 28. I think remaining at #2 at his worst year (Djokovic had the chance to pass him – blew it. Murray had the chance to pass him – blew it) and returning to #1 after so much drama shows a consistency that no other player has. It’s great for Nadal that he has a winning record against Roger, but he hasn’t shown the same consistency yet. So to me the losing record against his main rivals is something that helps Federer’s case, instead of hurting it. I mean, even losing most matches to these guys, he manages to stay on top. That means he beats everyone else (to be the best, you have to beast as many players as you can, and not just beat Roger Federer or just beat Rafael Nadal). Overall, in average, and against anyone else, he’s better. He knows he has to keep winning matches to get to a Slam final – and he does it. So if instead of Nadal or Murray, it’s Roddick or Soderling there, well, “mala suerte”. Roger has been doing his job to reach at least the semis for more than 20 Slams in a row. Nadal and Murray haven’t. Not yet, at least.
Hi, C.F., that’s a very comprehensive argument, with, which I agree. If an “expert” asked me: “How can Roger Federer be the greatest of all time, if he isn’t the greatest of his era?” Then, I would answer: “If Roger Federer isn’t the greatest of his era, then who is? I think, right now, Roger Federer is the greatest of his era, and as for the G.O.A.T. coronation, we’ll wait until he retires (but, to me, he is).”
Yeah, it’s interesting to hear even Roger himself say he is most proud of that one stat: 20 consecutive Major semifinals. And Andy Roddick said in a recent interview that he thinks it’s the only relevant stat in tennis.
It’s an “insider” argument, not the kind of thing you necessarily see in record books or that casual fans know about, but it’s definitely a big part of the GOAT argument for Roger. Probably more so than Roger’s hair
I should have put it in my multiple choice list, above.
I can’t weigh in on the GOAT talk. I’m way too biased towards Roger (mainly for that whole ‘best hair in history’ thing he’s got going). But I will say that the rivalry between Rafa and Roger is one of the best things for tennis. I hope that Rafa’s knees will allow him to play for many years. It will be fun to watch the two of them clash and chase each other.
I agree! I love the Rafa/Roger rivalry and can’t wait for them to meet again in a Slam final. I hope Roger’s new confidence helps him improve that head-to-head – over Murray, too.
What is forgotten in the whole nadal-federer argument is that federer CONSISTENTLY wins through the finals of the majors, nadal and murray do not. So yes their games may match up well against federers but in terms of the whole mens game, federers results indicate he DOES in fact dominate his era
Macden, you make a very good point. Consistency is very important. Murray and (especially) Novak can get bounced from a tournament well before the finals. Rafa, not so much, but still vulnerable. Roger holds the record for making it to more slams finals then anyone.
Hah!
Fantastic Post ff!
Thanks for bringing to the fore what I had been screaming all the way through the French Open this year – and I’m glad Sampras said it too: that Fed needs to defeat Nadal in more Slam finals to be considered the undisputed GOAT (I already sorta think he’s made the cut as you well know).
I didn’t want to come across as a spoilsport by pressing the point home any further this year at Wimbledon – when yet again he faced neither Nadal, Murray nor Djoko.
Specially as I think as Wertheim said – anyone that breaks the all time SLam record deserves 24 hours of unconditional love.
As I’ve said many times before, I already believe he’s the GOAT, even though I don’t believe IN the GOAT (hope that makes sense).
But what makes your blog such a wonderful place, is that you can debate the point objectively, without being shot down as a Fed hater – which I SO am not – I just think the shift in his wardrobe post 2006 has been a mistake, out of kilter with what Federer has come to represent to me, and at odds with what drew me to being a fan of his in the first place. Surely any self-respecting fan would do the same if they felt their man was drifting in the wrong direction.
Sorry to dig up JacketGate again!
FED HATER! (just kidding
)
Top Spin, I agree that Roger needs to improve the head to heads against Rafa and Murray. Or maybe just one of them.
But I also wonder if it’s true that every GOAT has one hole in his/her resume – maybe it’s a clay phobia, or an opponent, or a lack of depth in their era.
That’s why Rafa makes such an intriguing GOAT prospect – he’s mastered hard, clay and grass, he’s won Davis Cup, he’s won an Olympic Gold Medal – if he can find a way to win “just” 9 or 10 more slams he’d be the undisputed GOAT in my opinion.
Of course, to even assume that this would be an easy task for him or any player is insulting to Rafa, Roger and all the other players. Just winning one is a titanic effort, as Roddick has shown in his efforts to win one more. So this Rafa thing is just speculation. And GOAT speculation is a totally different thing form GOAT identification.
Hmm I don’t know about the “Rafa winning 10 slams = undisputed GOAT” argument. It would definitely put him in GOAT terrain, there’s a lot of other things about Rafa that I don’t think are in the same universe as Laver, Sampras or Federer: ASTOUNDING consistency for one. Can Rafa be GOAT with only 10 slams if he never achieved the same number of years as the No 1 in the world? semifinals in a row etc.? Or if Federer ended his career with 17 or 18 slams? Can you really pick a winning H2H over a difference of 7 or 8 slams, given these two are 5 years apart in age? I think Rafa will get to 10 slams though. Beyond that, depends on how his body holds up.
‘Fed hater’ Topspin: hehehe agree. I think Fed needs a few slam wins over Top 4 opponents again to add weight to his records, not that his records don’t weigh enough as they stand.
It’s slightly hard for him to actually play the top 4 though, as he keeps turning up to semifinals and finals to find the rest of the top 4 eliminated. It’s not like we can make him play round robins with Nadal, Djokovic and Murray…
As for Jacketgate, BAH! *crawls into a hole*
I used to think Federer was the biggest bore before 2006. So do I think the whole clothes/gear focus by Nike was a marketing fail? no. Has it been overkill lately? yes.
Wait, Dootsiez, you thought Roger was a bore??? WHAT? You weren’t in love with him from the moment you saw him with his spotty face and ponytail???? WHA???
To be honest, I still remember one of the first times I watched Roger, he’d just won Wimbledon and cried during the trophy ceremony: “This is for all the people in BASEL!” My husband and I cracked up and used that as our catch phrase for the rest of the summer.
Oh, Roger! Thanks for the memories! He’s my GOAT, anyway.
Okay, back to the GOAT-talk. I said 9 or 10 “more” – so 15 or 16 total. I think if Rafa ties Roger or gets within a few slams he could be the GOAT. Consistency matters but in the end, does anyone remember consistency over big results? And Davis Cup and Olympic gold in singles ain’t nuthin’ Then again, head-to-heads aren’t that sexy either. Ack! This GOAT argument twists my brain. Which is why it’s so fun.
But the big thing is that Rafa still has to win many more slams to even get close. And that’s not easy and I shouldn’t assume it’s going to happen.
Ah silly me. Thought you said 10 slams, and went – woah!
I was a true Fed hater for a while, and had be firmly camped on the Rafa’s side of things. Then did a complete 180!
Fickle I know, hehehe…. but I’ve never been more wrong about a player initially as I was about Federer. Happy to admit my mistakes
Fed’s marketing did help. So people shouldn’t just look at all the negatives, some of Federer’s ads, clothes and appearances really have helped him get more fans.
I can’t believe it, Dootsiez!!!! A Fed HATER!
reformed Fed hater, I should say!
My take on the Rafa argument is that Rafa and Roger are from two different eras, two different generations of players. There’s a five year gap between them. Rafa just happened to be one of the earlier emergers of his generation which included Djokovic, Murray, Tsonga, Del Potro etc. When two players come up against each other on a number of occasions, over time the younger player is bound to have a better record against the older player. I doubt Rafa 2008 would have beaten Roger 2004-7 on grass or hard. You can’t say the same about Sampras and Agassi, that would be like comparing Roger to Roddick or Rafa to Murray. Roger himself has a 1-0 head to head against Sampras which he got back in 2001. Does that automatically make Roger, way back in 2001, already better than Sampras?
Roger Federer is the best player of his era, which contained the likes of Roddick, Hewitt, Safin and Ferrero. The fact that he could still compete, and beat, the players of the era after his just gives stronger evidence for the case of him being the GOAT.
my thoughts exactly! the fact that Roger manages to dominate his era and arguably Nadal/Djokovic/Murray era is just another example of his greatness.
Wow, Joey! You must be getting your doctorate in G.O.A.T.ology! This is a really interesting argument.
I often forget about the age difference between Rafa and Roger, mostly because both players are at peak mental and physical fitness. But there’s no denying that they have come of age during different eras, and Roger’s longevity and consistency has made the rivalry possible. It will be interesting to see if Rafa can enjoy a similarly long run at the top. It’s hard to say right now!
As I’ve said here before, I don’t like the GOAT argument: too many variables. That said, Roger has got to be up there. I don’t mind the H2H stats against Nadal. Over half of those matches are on clay, where I’m happy to admit that Rafa has the edge. He’s the GOAT on clay, without a doubt. But during those years when Roger was losing to Rafa on clay, he was getting to the finals and winning against everyone else on grass and hard court. Nadal often did not make it to the finals to challenge Roger on those surfaces. When he did, he usually lost. The exceptions are 08 Wimbledon and the 09 Australian Open. I think the most meaningful H2H matches will take place over the next two years, assuming both are healthy and playing their best. Let the games begin!
Hi lk28!
Good point about the head-to-head consisting of mostly clay court matches. And many of these have been in finals. If Rafa is the clay GOAT and Roger is consistently second best, that reflects quite well on Rog!
Like you, I’m really looking forward to a healthy Rafa and a happy Roger meeting in more finals.
i think this is the lamest discussion of all time! most tennis legends say that RF is the greatest… why not just go by that then? who are we or any other non pro player(which includes journalists!) to judge RF’s achievements? but when a another pro says anything, that’s ok… because they DO know what it takes to play tennis at the pro level…
freakyfrites, if i forgot to tell you i absolutely love your blog, your humorous and entertaining writing always makes me smile.
about the GOAT discussion – for me it’s not about the titles, slams or H2H with Rafa – it’s Federer, and only because the absolute mesmerizing beauty of his game. the fluency, the winners count, the grace…. poetry in motion.
i would be delighted to see him take out that ugly Nadal game, i sure hope in the next couple of years he will find an antidote agains his kryptonite – Nadal’s heavy topspin to the backhan side, and reverse that shameful record.
Gracias, FeddyBear! And you know I love your nickname
Yes, that’s why Roger is my personal GOAT, too – because I just love, love love, watching him play. And lately, I’ve loved watching him fight for these slams.
I’m sure some people feel the same way about Laver and others who aren’t even on the list.
To me Roger is the GOAT because:
237 consecutive weeks as number 1.
defended his Wimbledon for 4 consecutive years.
played on the finals of the 4 slams at least on 3 different years.
He is the best on “my book”.
Since most of the GOAT debates are between Federer and Sampras, or perhaps Laver, I will try to imagine Nadal never existed or that he’s not as good as he is. Had Federer defeated Nadal in the finals of 2006 and 2007 French Open, he would have won 2 consecutive GRAND SLAMS. Also had he defeated Nadal in the final of last year’s Wimbledon, together with this years victory, he would have won 7 consecutive Wimbledon titles. And the number would go from 15 to 18. That’s a scary thought. It gives me chill just to think of it. Federer, in my mind, is the true GOAT.