GOAT - debata

[DUN I LOVE]

W Erze dominacji Federera i Nadala debata na ten temat wydaje się nie mieć końca. Stworzyłem ten temat, żeby tutaj wrzucać różne artykuły na ten temat i oczywiście wygłaszać swoje poglądy odnośnie tego, kto jest najlepszym tenisistą wszech czasów.

Dla przypomnienia cykl artykułów Simona Reeda:

Who's the GOAT?



Eurosport-Yahoo! has set up a new tennis tournament to find who is the greatest men's tennis player of all time - and ultimately it will be up to you, the readers, to decide.

Who's the GOAT? (greatest of all time) is a 16-man knockout tournament that will pit the best of the best against each other every week.

Sixteen men have won four or more Grand Slam titles in the Open era and we have seeded our competitors based on those successes. Where players have won the same amount, the number of ATP titles they have won acts as a tie-break.

Each week we will present one match-up and get you the readers to vote on who would win if both players faced off against each other at the peak of their abilities.

To help stir debate, Eurosport tennis commentator and blogger Simon Reed will analyse each hypothetical match every Thursday and offer his opinion on how it might go.

Then the following Wednesday we will reveal the result of the match with a selection of your comments, before Simon presents the next match-up the following day.

When analysing each match, we'd urge you to consider the players playing one set on grass, one set on a clay court, and one set on a hard court before deciding who you think might win.

However, there are no hard and fast rules. Each match is its own unique event. You might think Roger Federer is the greatest, but also that an in-form John McEnroe would beat him every time. You might just be a big Boris Becker fan and want him to progress in the tournament. You might have never warmed to Pete Sampras and want him out straight away.

As we said, ultimately it is up to you. If you want to set up a Facebook page to drum up support for Bjorn Borg, or tweet all your friends to vote for Andre Agassi - go ahead.

It's all a bit of fun, and hopefully it will spark some great tennis debate.

Find the tournament draw below and log on to Eurosport-Yahoo! on Thursday when Simon Reed will run the rule over the first match - Roger Federer v Jim Courier - and you will be able to start voting.

WHO'S THE GOAT? - THE DRAW
1-Roger Federer - 16-Jim Courier
8-Mats Wilander - 9-Boris Becker
5-Ivan Lendl - 12-Rod Laver
13-John Newcombe - 4-Jimmy Connors
+++
3-Bjorn Borg - 14-Ken Rosewall
6-Andre Agassi - 11-Rafael Nadal
7-John McEnroe - 10-Stefan Edberg
15-Guillermo Vilas - 2-Pete Sampras

http://eurosport.yahoo.com/04022010/58/ ... -goat.html

[DUN I LOVE]

1.runda

Federer [1] def. Courier [16] 6-3 6-7 6-3
http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/tennis/si ... icle/1634/

Becker def. Wilander 2-6 6-2 7-6
http://eurosport.yahoo.com/tennis/simon ... icle/1839/

Laver [12] def. Lendl [5] 67 63 64
http://eurosport.yahoo.com/tennis/simon ... icle/1885/

Connors [4] def. Newcombe [13] 4-6 6-3 6-3
http://eurosport.yahoo.com/tennis/simon ... icle/1941/

Borg [3] def. Rosewall [14] 6-1 6-7 6-2
http://eurosport.yahoo.com/tennis/simon ... icle/1982/

Agassi def. Nadal 3-6 7-6 6-4
http://eurosport.yahoo.com/tennis/simon ... icle/2059/

McEnroe def. Edberg 4-6 7-6 7-5
http://eurosport.yahoo.com/tennis/simon ... icle/2199/

Sampras def. Vilas 5-7 6-3 6-3
http://eurosport.yahoo.com/tennis/simon ... icle/2228/

[DUN I LOVE]

1/4 finału

Federer [1] def. Becker [9] 6-4 7-6 7-6
http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/tennis/si ... icle/2287/

Laver [12] def. Connors [4] 6-4 7-5 7-6
http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/tennis/si ... icle/2429/

Borg [3] def. Agassi Borg wins 6-2 3-6 6-4
http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/tennis/si ... icle/2480/

Sampras [2] def. McEnroe [7] 7-6 5-7 7-6
http://eurosport.yahoo.com/tennis/simon ... icle/2560/

[DUN I LOVE]

1/2 finału

Federer [1] def. Laver [12] 6-3 7-5 6-3
http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/tennis/si ... icle/2628/

Sampras [2] def. Borg [3] 7-6 3-6 6-3
http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/tennis/si ... icle/2723/

[DUN I LOVE]

Finał:
Federer def. Sampras 67 63 76

Who's the GOAT? 1-Roger Federer v 2-Pete Sampras

It's the final everyone has been expecting: top seed Roger Federer against Pete Sampras in a bid to be crowned the Greatest of All Time.

Federer has already beaten the man many tipped to be his main contender - Aussie legend Rod Laver - as well as taking out Boris Becker and Jim Courier.

Sampras, meanwhile, booked his spot in the final by beating Guillermo Vilas, Stefan Edberg and the ice-cool Bjorn Borg.

Under our GOAT rules each match is three sets, one on each surface. Here's how the players' records compare at each of the Grand Slams.

Roger Federer
Nationality: Swiss
Seeded: 1
Grand Slam titles:
Australian Open winner (2004, 2006, 2007, 2010)
French Open winner (2009)
Wimbledon winner (2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009)
US Open winner (2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008)

Pete Sampras
Nationality: American
Seeded: 2
Grand Slam titles: 14
Australian Open winner (1994, 1997)
French Open semi-finalist (1996)
Wimbledon winner (1993, 1994, 1995, 1997, 1998, 1999, 200)
US Open winner (1990, 1993, 1995, 1996, 2002)

Real life head-to-head:
Federer 1-0 Sampras
Wimbledon 2001 - Federer won 7-6(7) 5-7 6-4 6-7(2) 7-5

Simon Reed's verdict
Let's start with the easy one - Federer wins at Roland Garros. He's a better clay court player than Sampras ever was. So that set can only go one way for me.

It becomes more tricky when you look at Wimbledon, but I think Sampras would just edge it. At his peak, Sampras was even more dominant at the All England Club than Federer has been.

But the win would be by the narrowest of margins - something like 22-20 in a tiebreak!

And I think Federer would win the hardcourt battle. Not by much and it may very well come down to a tie-break once again. But I think Federer just edges it.

It still seems odd to me that we're talking about the greatest player of all time who cant beat the second best player of his era often enough.

But I am happy to call Federer the greatest of all time. I do think that Sampras had more high quality opposition during his time. When Federer was at his most dominant only Nadal really emerged as a contender and since then he and the Spaniard have been head and shoulders above the rest.

But Federer is the more complete player when you compare him and Sampras. Sampras had undoubtedly the best serve of all time and he was totally unflappable. I think he was probably the better match player as well, as Federer sometimes seems to get by on sheer brilliance.

But Federer is the better player to watch and while I wouldn't go so far as to say Sampras's backhand was a weakness, it was definitely the weaker side of his game, whereas you don't want to go anywhere near Federer's backhand or forehand really!

Final verdict: Federer wins 6-7 (grass) 6-3 (clay) 7-6 (hard)

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/tennis/si ... icle/2824/

[Art]

Who's the GOAT?: Federer the greatest

Roger Federer would overcome Pete Sampras if the two men met at the peak of their powers in a Greatest Of All Time final.

That is the overwhelming verdict of Eurosport-Yahoo! readers after our poll to decide the finest player to pick up a tennis racket.

Out of 25,482 votes cast since last Friday, a whopping 22,809 (90%) of you said that the Swiss master would emerge the victor. Sampras received just 2,673 votes, which equates to 10%. (results as of 8:00am on Thursday)

Federer and Sampras only played each other once on the ATP Tour. That came in the fourth round of the 2001 Wimbledon tournament when Federer outwitted the defending champion in five sets. It seemed to mark a watershed moment in the rich history of the game.

Sampras would never add to his seven Wimbledon titles after such a seismic loss. It would also prove a noteworthy moment on Federer's journey to realising the first of his six triumphs at the All England club.

Of the Majors which Sampras won, the French Open managed to elude him. Federer has looked vulnerable on clay, but he finally completed the career Grand Slam at Roland Garros a year ago. The best Sampras could muster at Roland Garros was a run to the semi-finals.

Eurosport's tennis commentator Simon Reed agreed with the vast majority of your comments. He felt that Federer would have defeated Sampras on clay and hard courts with the American perhaps holding the edge on grass.

If Federer claims Wimbledon this year, he will equal Sampras's seven tournament wins at the venue. Enough of you are already convinced that the Swiss artist already occupies that elevated position.

WHO'S THE GOAT - FINAL POLL RESULTS:

We asked: In the final in our Greatest of All Time series between Roger Federer and Pete Sampras, who would win?

Roger Federer: 89%, 22,839 votes

Pete Sampras: 11%, 2,682 votes

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/20052010/ ... atest.html

[DUN I LOVE]

Tennis G.O.A.T. Debate: Roger Federer Trumps Rafael Nadal as US Open Looms



Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal are synonymous with the acronym "G.O.A.T.", or "Greatest of All Time". These two players are in the elite inner circle of tennis, along with Pete Sampras, Rod Laver, and Bjorn Borg. Yet, among these five stellar players is the true G.O.A.T. It's just that the population has not been able to determine one, and only one, player to be given the title G.O.A.T. I have my opinion that the person who is the true G.O.A.T. is the Swiss Maestro, Roger Federer. At his best, Roger Federer is the greatest of all time. At his worst, Roger Federer is the greatest of all time. All the evidence points to the fact that Federer is the best to ever hold a racket.

Grand Slams
Federer leads the pack with 16 grand slams, followed by Sampras at 14, Roy Emerson at 12, Borg and Laver at 11. Nadal is behind with 10. While some may contend that Federer competed in a weak era, this is untrue. Federer was such a strong player that he made others look weak, when they were actually part of one of the best generations of tennis players to date. Federer also has been to 23 straight semifinals at grand slams, and 23 finals at grand slams. Not only that, Federer has been to a record 29 straight quarterfinals at grand slams.

Who is the greatest of all time?
Roger Federer Pete Sampras Rod Laver Bjorn Borg Rafael Nadal Submit Vote vote to see results

World No. 1
Pete Sampras holds the record here, but Federer is close behind with 285 weeks occupying the top spot, compared to 286 weeks for Sampras. Meanwhile, Nadal has held the top spot for about 2 years, or 104 weeks. However, Federer does hold the record for most consecutive weeks, with 237 weeks. Sampras leads the pack in most year end no. 1 rankings, with 6, but Federer is at 5. Nadal has only had two years in which he ended the year at no. 1.

Tournaments
Federer has won 67 tournaments in singles, including grand slams. While far behind the record set by Jimmy Connors, Federer has among the most career titles. Nadal is over 20 tournaments behind at 46. The World Tour Finals, which pits the top 8 players against each other at the end of the season, has been won by Federer 5 times. Nadal, however, has only been to one final, where he was beaten by Federer in 3 sets.

Refuting Critics
How can a man be the greatest of all time if he cannot be the greatest of his generation?
Many critics point to Federer's losing head to head to Rafael Nadal as a legitimate reason Federer is not the G.O.A.T. However, Federer is the best in his generation, evidenced by his winning the most grand slams of his generation. A losing record to just one player does not equate to a fall from grace. Nadal is not all that there is to tennis. There are hundreds of other players in the tennis world; tennis is not a battle of Federer vs. Nadal.

Federer hasn't won a gold medal at the Olympics yet.
Federer has actually won a gold medal in the doubles event, which is a huge achievement. After all, tennis is not only about singles, but also about doubles. As for singles, Federer almost did get a bronze medal at the 2000 Sydney Olympics, but he lost the bronze medal match. Federer does have a chance to nab a double-whammy—Wimbledon and Olympic Gold—at the All England Club next year, since London will be hosting the Olympic Games.

Roger Federer, in my opinion, is the true G.O.A.T. And as the US Open looms, I will look to Federer to make a statement, and to prove, once and for all, that he at his best is the greatest of all time, and he at his worst is still the greatest of all time.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/7865 ... open-looms

[Joao]

Najlepszy zawodnik wg wyliczeń statystycznych (era Open): Jimmy Connors
http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/ ... urce=enews

Najlepszy zawodnik wg oceny punktowej (era Open): Ivan Lendl
http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=173222

[Joao]

Dare to Compare? Rod Laver vs. Roger Federer

Spoiler:

by Tim Ruffin

I come to you in the spirit of reason, and understanding. Fascinated by the constant debate over whether Roger Federer is the single greatest player of all-time or not, I have decided to examine the compare him to nine players who are also on that top level of all-time greats.

In the minds hearts and minds of millions of fans, Roger Federer is without peer. Federer is loved unconditionally, his dominance unquestioned and his humanity is often questioned. After-all, only a divine being, a son of the tennis god’s could do such things as he. Only a superior being could string together his run of Major finals and an even more ridiculous run of consecutive semifinal appearances.

If the people want to crown him, then let’s go ahead and crown him! Let us initiate the process of anointing Roger Federer the greatest tennis player of all time. But, before any coronation or inauguration, there must be a vetting process.

Numbers do not lie. They are constant and they are enduring. They are a traceable, quantifiable marker that can be used to substantiate any claim. But, while numerical statistics certainly have their role, we must not give in to the temptation to believe that they alone are capable of telling the whole story. Only the simplest mind would believe so. There are also intangibles to consider. Health, longevity, competition, heart and desire. All of these things factor into building a legend, a legacy.

Let’s meet the contenders. The ten players nearly universally agreed upon as the crème de la crème of the tennis world. To be fair, only player from the Open Era have been included. After-all, few have lived to see Bill Tilden or Don Budge play live. We honor their genius, but for the purposes of this exercise they will be excluded. The list looks like this: Laver, Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander, Becker, Agassi, Sampras, Federer .

The Maestro vs. The Rocket

Federer boasts 16 slam singles titles to Rod Laver’s 11. Federer enjoys 62 ATP titles, compared to 40 ATP wins for Laver. Both players have won all four majors. Federer has won four on four different surfaces, he is only the second man ever to do that (behind Agassi). Laver is the only player ever to have won the Calendar Slam twice, a feat that Federer has fallen shot by only one match in both 2006, and 2007 (both to Nadal). Both players have a career winning percentage of about 80%.

According to the ATP numbers, Federer has the edge. 16 is greater than 11, right? But wait, there’s more. After winning the calendar slam in 1962, Laver turned professional in 1963. As a pro, he faced the men considered to be the best players in the world at the time on the professional circuit. In these pre-open era days, only amateurs were permitted to compete in Grand Slam competition.

Therefore, Laver lost his Grand Slam eligibility during his best years from 1963-1968. However, during that span he managed to capture the Professional equivalent of Wimbledon, the Wembly Pro Championship (four times) and the U.S. Open, the U.S. Pro Championships (three times) as well as the French Pro Championship (one time). In these finals he defeated the likes of multiple slam winners Ken Rosewall, and Pancho Gonzales.

When the ATP was first established in 1973, Laver was already 34-years old. Despite his advanced age, he managed to win 40 events over the next six years (more than six titles a year from the age of 34 on). The 40 titles doesn’t tell half of Laver’s story. It is estimated that overall, the Australian won at least 198 events. Even more telling are his head to head records against his rivals. Laver’s greatest rival was the genius Ken Rosewall. Rosewall, an eight-time Grand Slam winner himself (plus 15 professional slams), won 33 of the pairs first 46 matches in 1963.

However, an older and more mature Laver turned the series around dramatically after that. Laver eventually went on to take over the overall head to head, 76-61. The Rocket also enjoyed a commanding 47-18 head to head edge against 12-time Major winner, Roy Emerson.

He also holds a 35-19 head-to-head lead over the older, but ever dangerous Pancho Gonzales, a two-time grand slam winner (with11 professional slams). Laver also enjoyed a dominant 37-16 head to head record against fellow Aussie and five-time grand slam winner, Lew Hoad (a man who stood 6’3 and nearly 200 pounds, Laver was 5’8” ).

All in all, Laver was the player of the 1960’s. If he’d been allowed to play the Majors from 1963 to 1968, he would have amassed a total 19 grand slam singles titles. Okay, the argument will always arise that the players from the 1960’s played three out of four Majors on grass. This is a true, somewhat valid argument. But to counter, answer this: which is an easier transition? Moving from fast grass, to hard courts? Or making the move from slow red clay to grass?

The latter has been proven tougher over and over again. Recently only Borg, Nadal, and Federer have accomplished this. Laver and Rosewall did this consistently . One must also not allow themselves to be duped into thinking that Laver never played on hard-courts. In fact, he won many tournaments on hard-courts even though the U.S. and Australian Open’s simply were not contested on hard court surfaces during his time.

Not to be outdone, Federer has a sterling resume of his own. Let's compare streaks. Federer won five consecutive Wimbledons and six consecutive U.S. Open finals (five titles). Rare air, no doubt. However, for anyone to claim that such a feat has never been approached before is slightly misleading. Laver won four consecutive U.S. Professional championships starting in 1966 at a time when the competition on the pro circut was far stiffer than at the Grand Slams.

Laver also won Wimbledon all three times he played it during the 1960’s (1962, 1968, 1969), as well as the Wembly Professional championships three times during his leave from the Grand Slams. This adds up to six titles in a ten year span.

Federer has set new marks in both grand slam final appearances (22) and consecutive semifinals appearances (23). Laver appeared in 17 grand slam finals with a record of 11-6, compared to Federer’s 16-6. But add in Laver’s professional “slam” finals record and the more realistic record is 19-12, with 31 finals appearances.

In essence, Roger frequently appears in Majors finals and has really only been stopped by a six-time slam winner, predominately on clay. Laver did the losing primarily on clay, to an eight-time slam winner and 23-time Major championship winner.

In examining the competition, a lot of the story can be told. Federer has benefited from modern physical training methods, racquet technology and footwear. However, at the same time, Roger has had to deal with a much deeper field. From #100 right on up to the very top (we’ll say #8 or #10) the competition is as strong as its ever been. Players are stronger and much more dangerous in the early rounds of tournaments.

Federer must receive special consideration for wading through the masses of potential upsets with alarming regularity. But for every pro, there is a con. At the business end of the big events, Roger has successfully faced a three- time or greater grand slam champion only six times. If we dig deeper, and see that his first victim was a 30-year old Pete Sampras who was well past his prime in 2001(only a year from retirement). Additionally, another three wins came over a 34+ year old Andre Agassi, who was forced out of the game by back problem.

Federer is left with exactly two grand slam victories over players who have serious grand slam credentials. Not so with Rod Laver. Laver’s Grand Slam final victories read like a who’s who of tennis legends. There were thee Finals victories over Roy Emerson, as well as wins over Neale Frasier, Ken Rosewall, John Newcombe and Tony Roche. Now those may not be names that ring a bell to the modern ear, but they were without question at the very top of the sport in their own era.

Laver’s battles with Rosewall are comparable to Federer’s wars with Nadal. Rosewall was the premier clay court player of the 1960’s. Laver lost four French Pro Championships and one French Open Final to Rosewall, as he, like Federer, had the experience of having to play a clay court genius during his career. The difference is that Rosewall’s dominance over Laver never extended past the clay.

Despite the fact that Rosewall himself was a very accomplished fast court player, probably second only to Laver during the 1960’s, Laver had the edge on the grass and hard courts. Federer has had no such luck, losing five of seven Majors finals to his greatest rival, including relinquishing his beloved Wimbledon title and a Major hard court loss at the Australian Open.

The major difference here is that Rosewall and Laver had an entire career of back and forth in their rivalry. But in the end, Laver came out the better. Federer currently trails Nadal 7-13 all time, but more notable, 2-6 in Grand Slam play. In all fairness, both Federer and Nadal are in their 20’s and should have many more opportunities to square off. Federer will have his chance to bridge the gap.

If we take a deep look at the past, how can we so quickly brush aside the accomplishments of it’s champions? For every John McEnroe and Pete Sampras who proclaim Roger Federer to be the Greatest of All Time, there are/were another generation who cries foul. Take long-time tennis journalist Bud Collins and multiple Grand Slam winner, Jack Kramer.

Both have actually lived long enough to see everyone who played from the Open era to now. While they have dubbed Federer one of the best that they have ever seen, they stop short of calling him the single greatest. It depends a lot on what era a person is coming from.

But how foolish would it be for a person, relatively new to the sport to attempt to proclaim that they know beyond the shadow of a doubt that this man, Roger Federer is the greatest ever, when they themselves have never seen the legends of yesterday perform?

At the end of the day, while Roger Federer’s choke hold on the sport seems unrepeatable, remember that the same things have been said about several other players. Bill Tilden in the 1920’s, Don Budge in the 1940’s, Rod Laver in the 1960’s and Pete Sampras in the 1990’s. Similar runs of dominance have happened before. They will happen again. The difficulty of declaring one player greater than the rest is beyond description.

For instance, if we go by Major Championships alone the Ken Rosewall has 23 Majors (8 grand slams, 15 pro slams) Laver sits second with 19 (11 grand slams, 8 pro slams) Federer is third on the list with 16 (all Grand Slams). Keep in mind that the Grand Slams were not as lucrative, or valued prior to 1968.

And while the pro slams had a much smaller field, they were comprised of all marquee players. There was no such thing as a second round upset of a top seed by a player ranked in the 1950’s. There was no playing your way into form. Players needed to ready to go with their best stuff from the start.

Players can only play in their own eras. Critics can only judge them based on what they have done in their own time. How then can it be said beyond the shadow of a doubt, that Federer is greater than Laver, or vise versa, for that matter?

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/3402 ... -of-lavers

[DUN I LOVE]

Novak Djokovic is one of the greatest tennis players ever, says Pat Cash

Novak Djokovic will arrive in London next month to play in the ATP World Tour Finals having already secured his place among the greatest tennis players of all time, says former Wimbledon champion Pat Cash.


Pat Cash admires how Novak Djokovic has totally dominated men’s tennis in 2011

Cash even believes the Serbian has proved himself to be better than Roger Federer at his best.

Djokovic has certainly had the most incredible of years, capturing three of the four grand slams, and securing the year-ending world No.1 spot.

And Cash would not be surprised if he rounds off a breathtaking year in style at the Barclays ATP World Tour Finals in the capital.

With 64 victories and just three losses for Djokovic during 2011, Cash said: ‘I don’t think many people saw it coming.

‘Novak has been phenomenal, winning the Australian Open, Wimbledon and the US Open and getting to the semis at Roland Garros.

‘That puts him right up there alongside the best who have ever played. I feel Djokovic is better than Federer in his prime because he has greater opposition.

‘[Andy] Murray and [Rafael] Nadal are also in great form and Juan Martin del Potro and others are always dangerous. There is more depth to the game at the moment and that gives Djokovic the edge in my opinion.’ Qualification for the O2 concludes at the Paris Masters next month and Cash expects Jo-Wilfried Tsonga to be a genuine threat.

The Frenchman holds the final qualifying spot to make it into the eight-man field, and Cash admits he is a big fan of the Wimbledon semi-finalist.

‘[Tsonga] is a dangerous player when he is on form and has shown he can live with the best of them. He has the game and the range to trouble the top four. He’s developing into a very good player.’

Cash, 46, is a big fan of the end of season-ending tournament at the O2, saying: ‘It has grown in stature since arriving in London. I don’t know where it is heading next but I hope it stays here for a while.’

http://www.metro.co.uk/sport/879710-nov ... s-pat-cash

[robpal]

Taaa, kopcie leżącego...
Nalbandian, Hewitt, Safin, Roddick to za to nie była opozycja

Zadziwia mnie, że ludzie tej klasy wygłaszają takie komentarze.

[Anula]

Taaa, kopcie leżącego...
Nalbandian, Hewitt, Safin, Roddick to za to nie była opozycja

Zadziwia mnie, że ludzie tej klasy wygłaszają takie komentarze.

Jeśli wziąć pod uwagę dotychczasowy dorobek tejże opozycji w stosunku do lidera, to rzeczywiście nie zwala z nóg. Wystarczy porównać dokonania i wagę tytułów powyższej czwórki i obecnych przeciwników Novaka. Przepaść.
Oczywiście, takie rozważania są czysto teoretyczne.

[robpal]

Wystarczy porównać dokonania i wagę tytułów powyższej czwórki i obecnych przeciwników Novaka. Przepaść.
Oczywiście, takie rozważania są czysto teoretyczne.

No przepaść, bo teraz prócz dwóch zawodników (a raczej półtora) to konkurencji nie ma żadnej.
Bo chyba nie uważamy 30-letniego Federera za jakąś nieludzkiego przeciwnika dla Serba (nota bene, jeśli on teraz potrafi wygrywać z Djokoviciem, to aż strach myśleć, co by z nim robił w tych czasach "bez konkurencji")?
I nie wiem, jak liczyć ów dorobek. Wygrane Szlemy? Trochę mało, bo to nie jest jedyna statystyka, która wyznacza klasę tenisisty. Jak popatrzeć na turnieje wygrane przez "czołówkę", to w 2003, 2004 roku zdaje się, że mieli ich znacznie więcej No i w takim razie Murray nie jest żadnym przeciwnikiem, bo nic poważnego nie wygrał

Nawet z ciekawości zerknąłem w ranking:
(stan na 15 września 2003)
1 Ferrero, Juan Carlos (ESP)
2 Roddick, Andy (USA)
3 Federer, Roger (SUI)
4 Agassi, Andre (USA)
5 Coria, Guillermo (ARG)
6 Moya, Carlos (ESP)
7 Hewitt, Lleyton (AUS)
8 Schuettler, Rainer (GER)
9 Nalbandian, David (ARG)
10 Grosjean, Sebastien (FRA)

(stan na 13 września 2004)
1 Federer, Roger (SUI)
2 Roddick, Andy (USA)
3 Hewitt, Lleyton (AUS)
4 Henman, Tim (GBR)
5 Coria, Guillermo (ARG)
6 Moya, Carlos (ESP)
7 Agassi, Andre (USA)
8 Gaudio, Gaston (ARG)
9 Massu, Nicolas (CHI)
10 Grosjean, Sebastien (FRA)

(stan na 24 października 2011)
1 Djokovic, Novak (SRB)
2 Nadal, Rafael (ESP)
3 Murray, Andy (GBR)
4 Federer, Roger (SUI)
5 Ferrer, David (ESP)
6 Soderling, Robin (SWE)
7 Berdych, Tomas (CZE)
8 Fish, Mardy (USA)
9 Tsonga, Jo-Wilfried (FRA)
10 Monfils, Gael (FRA)

Pogrubieni zostali (już na tamtą chwilę, choć żadna to różnica ) mistrzowie WS-a. Aż śmiesznie to teraz wygląda.

[DUN I LOVE]

Zapominamy o jednym. Największym rywalem Federera w czasach jego najlepszej gry był Rafael Nadal. Hiszpan siedział za plecami Rogera, na fotelu wicelidera, najdłużej w dziejach, przy okazji co chwila kąsając dominatora. Patrzę 6 lat wstecz, na sam środek trwania tzw. Ery Rogera:

24.10.2005
1 Federer, Roger (SUI)
2 Nadal, Rafael (ESP)
3 Roddick, Andy (USA)
4 Hewitt, Lleyton (AUS)
5 Safin, Marat (RUS)
6 Agassi, Andre (USA)
7 Coria, Guillermo (ARG)
8 Davydenko, Nikolay (RUS)
9 Puerta, Mariano (ARG)
10 Nalbandian, David (ARG)

E: W top-30 byli inni Mistrzowie turniejów WS: Gaudio, Johannson, Moya, Ferrero, a także tak niezapomniani zawodnicy jak Henman, Kiefer czy Grosjean.

Długo to nie trwało, ale te nazwiska robią na mnie większe wrażenie niż niektórzy dzisiejsi uczestnicy Top-10: Monfils, Berdych, Fish czy nawet Ferrer. Śmiało możemy podliczyć wartość i ilość tytułów top-10 z 2005 roku.

[robpal]

Zerknij sobie na rok 2001, to się przewrócisz - siedmiu mistrzów WS-a w Top 10

Niestety od 2005 roku był już zjazd "wielkich mistrzów", tylko Roddick się jeszcze jako tako trzymał. Teraz za to mamy dno i wodorosty. I dwóch (trzech?) wielkich tenisistów w czołowej 4 nie zmienia faktu, że rywalizacja w dzisiejszych czasach jest 3 razy słabsza niż 10 lat temu.

Kiedyś, w drodze do finału, mistrza turnieju wielkoszlemowego dostawało się w ćwierćfinale, a potem było tylko ciężej. Dzisiaj, przy szczęśliwych lotach, można mieć w drabince takowego dopiero w finale.

[DUN I LOVE]

Zerknij sobie na rok 2001, to się przewrócisz - siedmiu mistrzów WS-a w Top 10

Dla mnie takim ulubionym notowaniem jest notowanie z 31.08.1992. Jak pierwszy raz je zobaczyłem to faktycznie się przewróciłem. Nie chodzi już tylko o Top-10, ale o Top-20.

[Anula]

Wystarczy porównać dokonania i wagę tytułów powyższej czwórki i obecnych przeciwników Novaka. Przepaść.
Oczywiście, takie rozważania są czysto teoretyczne.

No przepaść, bo teraz prócz dwóch zawodników (a raczej półtora) to konkurencji nie ma żadnej.
Bo chyba nie uważamy 30-letniego Federera za jakąś nieludzkiego przeciwnika dla Serba (nota bene, jeśli on teraz potrafi wygrywać z Djokoviciem, to aż strach myśleć, co by z nim robił w tych czasach "bez konkurencji")?
I nie wiem, jak liczyć ów dorobek. Wygrane Szlemy? Trochę mało, bo to nie jest jedyna statystyka, która wyznacza klasę tenisisty. Jak popatrzeć na turnieje wygrane przez "czołówkę", to w 2003, 2004 roku zdaje się, że mieli ich znacznie więcej No i w takim razie Murray nie jest żadnym przeciwnikiem, bo nic poważnego nie wygrał


Pogrubieni zostali (już na tamtą chwilę, choć żadna to różnica ) mistrzowie WS-a. Aż śmiesznie to teraz wygląda.

Dobrze, że Andre załapał się w te zestawienia, bo zdecydowanie podniósł czołówce wyniki.
Rozumiem, że wg. Ciebie 33 letni Agassi i 30 letni Henman byli dla ówczesnych liderów rankingu nadludzkimi przeciwnikami.

Przejrzałam sobie pobieżnie statystyki turniejów wygrywanych przez panów z Twoich zestawień. Brałam pod uwagę pierwszą czwórkę i turnieje WS i MS. Wyniki są dość ciekawe. Wg. nich, to jednak Novak ma najciężej.

[robpal]

Tylko że w turnieju WS gra się 7 meczów a nie 2... Ja się zgadzam, że dzisiejszą czołową czwórkę można jakoś tam uznać za lepszą od wyżej wymienionych, ale nie tylko na tych czterech tenisistach opiera się rywalizacja. I co to znaczy "statystyki WS i MS"? Patrzyłaś na sumę tytułów i już?

Rozumiem, że wg. Ciebie 33 letni Agassi i 30 letni Henman byli dla ówczesnych liderów rankingu nadludzkimi przeciwnikami.

Podstarzały Agassi wciąż robił finały Szlemów i Mastersów, więc zapewne tak, był on poważnym przeciwnikiem. Nie mniej poważnym niż dzisiaj Federer. O Henmanie nie wspomniałem.
Każdorazowo jest w Top 10 także grupa innych utytułowanych zawodników. Nie wiem, czemu zapatrujesz się tak uparcie na pierwsze 4 miejsca

[Anula]

Tylko że w turnieju WS gra się 7 meczów a nie 2... Ja się zgadzam, że dzisiejszą czołową czwórkę można jakoś tam uznać za lepszą od wyżej wymienionych, ale nie tylko na tych czterech tenisistach opiera się rywalizacja. I co to znaczy "statystyki WS i MS"? Patrzyłaś na sumę tytułów i już? ......
Każdorazowo jest w Top 10 także grupa innych utytułowanych zawodników. Nie wiem, czemu zapatrujesz się tak uparcie na pierwsze 4 miejsca

Owszem, patrzyłam na zawodników przez pryzmat ilości wygranych turniejów WS, MS i pozostałych. Dlaczego tylko czwórka.? Zupełnie bez powodu.

Dla mnie dyskusja o wskazaniu, kto jest GOAT, a kto nie, nie ma sensu, ze względu na nieporównywalność warunków, sprzętu, technologii, itd. Unikam jak ognia takiego stwierdzenia i mam dość wygodnie, bo dla mnie ktoś taki nie istnieje. Jedyne czym mogę się posługiwać, to wskazaniami typu: wygrał najwięcej WS w karierze, wygrał .......... , był numerem 1 przez x tygodni, ......................... .
Nie mam jednak innym za złe poszukiwań GOAT, bo to emocjonujące zajęcie.

[Ranger]

Owszem, patrzyłam na zawodników przez pryzmat ilości wygranych turniejów WS, MS i pozostałych. Dlaczego tylko czwórka.? Zupełnie bez powodu.

Dla mnie dyskusja o wskazaniu, kto jest GOAT, a kto nie, nie ma sensu, ze względu na nieporównywalność warunków, sprzętu, technologii, itd. Unikam jak ognia takiego stwierdzenia i mam dość wygodnie, bo dla mnie ktoś taki nie istnieje. Jedyne czym mogę się posługiwać, to wskazaniami typu: wygrał najwięcej WS w karierze, wygrał .......... , był numerem 1 przez x tygodni, ......................... .
Nie mam jednak innym za złe poszukiwań GOAT, bo to emocjonujące zajęcie.

Całkowicie się z Tobą zgadzam .

Poza tym jest jeszcze jeden czynnik - niektórzy zawodnicy bez względu na to w jak kapitalnej są dyspozycji to nie potrafią pokonać swojego nemezis w najważniejszych meczach (na przykład starcia Federera z Nadalem, Roddicka z Federerem, Murraya z Federerem, itd..). Według mojej oceny "GOAT" powinien ogrywać swojego nemezis w meczach o największą stawkę. Przykładowy Federer tej sztuki potrafił dokonać tylko na trawie, a tu jest nie tylko mowa o nim, czy o zawodnikach grających w tenisa obecnie. Taka sytuacja w przeszłości też wielokrotnie się pojawiała i w przyszłości zapewne też będzie stąd ciężko jest wybrać jednoznacznego dominatora...