What does Nadal need to do to overtake Federer as the GOAT?

[the big bambino]

The idea that Hobbs etc didn't face fast men bowling bouncers is one of the more stupid and intransigent modern idiocies. What more does a champion like Hobbs have to do to prove he was adaptable btw? He played tests over 3 decades. But bcos he didn't live forever and preserve himself in his cricketing prime he can't be rated apparently.

 

[sledger]

The idea that Hobbs etc didn't face fast men bowling bouncers is one of the more stupid and intransigent modern idiocies. What more does a champion like Hobbs have to do to prove he was adaptable btw? He played tests over 3 decades. But bcos he didn't live forever and preserve himself in his cricketing prime he can't be rated apparently.

It's funny how this doesn't stop Tendulkar being proclaimed as the greatest ever, mind you.

 

[Cabinet96]

The implications of this logic are pretty spectacular. As it stands, Federer is a great. But if, fifty years after Federer's retirement, tennis changes in a way that would have made Federer's game much less effective, he goes back to being not-a-great. To remain a great he would have to have anticipated these changes 50 years in advance, and developed a game that could deal with them.

Love it when you make posts like these.

 

[Jono]

From now on I will forever link Nadal detractors with those that say Bradman, Hobbs etc. are no good because of the era they played in.

Brilliant.

 

[sledger]

Btw Jono, Bret Hart was ****e when he wrestled at WM a few years back. Obvs not a "great". Sorry.

 

[Jono]

You're either a Rafa or Roger guy.

Your'e either a Bret Hart or Shawn Michaels guy.

What's the head-to-head of Bret Hart vs. Shawn Michaels excluding the clay ring canvas matches?

 

[sledger]

 

[Jono]

 

[Jono]

Remember the days when pretty much every pro wrestler had long hair. Was the best.

 

[sledger]

 

[Jono]

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[the big bambino]

Well just to clarify I'm neither a Rafa or a Fed guy...well yeah I cheer for Fed when the 2 play but sheesh they are both champions and uppercut brilliantly put down the suggestion either one of them isn't bcos of the era they played in.

 

[Uppercut]

this is amazing. Looks like Nadal is threatening to fart.

 

[Jono]

Well just to clarify I'm neither a Rafa or a Fed guy...well yeah I cheer for Fed when the 2 play but sheesh they are both champions and uppercut brilliantly put down the suggestion either one of them isn't bcos of the era they played in.

Yeah back in 2007-08 I used to scream that you could be a fan of both. By about 2009-10 I just got annoyed at Federer being praised as a humble person when he clearly was a bad loser at times, (like many players mind you) and became a massive Rafa fan because of the way he raised his game on other surfaces. But ultimately Fed is still the greatest tennis player I've ever seen and probably the most watchable athlete in the world. Have no problem with anyone saying he's GOAT. I will have an issue if Rafa has like 19 slams (unlikely I know) and people say Fed is greater than Rafa just because they don't like Rafa's gamestyle or the fact he used to wear long shorts, picks his arse, doesn't volley much etc. That's just picking the player you like/like to watch better and saying they are greater. It doesn't work like that.

Off topic - I wonder how Novak and Murray would have gone had they debuted around 2001 instead of when they did. They are seriously stiff to play in their peak in this era.

 

[the big bambino]

Djoker is top drawer obvs but Murray may still have struggled imo...his head space mainly. If they debuted in 2001 they'd still have run into a rampant Roger and found the French tricky to win. I think Djoker will accelerate into double figure slams fairly soon Roger continues to wind down and the whatever it is that keeps Nadal standing begins to wear out.

 

[Muloghonto]

The implications of this logic are pretty spectacular. As it stands, Federer is a great. But if, fifty years after Federer's retirement, tennis changes in a way that would have made Federer's game much less effective, he goes back to being not-a-great. To remain a great he would have to have anticipated these changes 50 years in advance, and developed a game that could deal with them.

No, the logic is simple. The greatest at anything is the person who represents the apex development of the said persuit. If in 50 years, every single tennis player is bionic and can serve at 200mph, make a 20 year old Rafa look like sluggish, then yes, *THEY* are the apex development of the sport, capable of annihilating anyone before them into nothingness, thereby diminshing the prior greats in their standing.
That is only fair. You are the sum total of your parts. Not sum total of your parts and speculation of how you would've fared 500 years ago or 500 years into the future.
On a side note, Hammond, Hobbs, Hutton, Sutcliffe are not greats in my book because what they represent, is what the average competent opener today represents: someone like Cook for example: great against spin, great against fast-medium but not great against extreme pace.

One is not a great if one cannot make the top 5% cut represented by the most challenging level of the sport.

 

[Muloghonto]

The idea that Hobbs etc didn't face fast men bowling bouncers is one of the more stupid and intransigent modern idiocies. What more does a champion like Hobbs have to do to prove he was adaptable btw? He played tests over 3 decades. But bcos he didn't live forever and preserve himself in his cricketing prime he can't be rated apparently.

Show me one bowler Hobbs faced that routinely targeted his body or his head at 90mph, which is a common occurence amongst batsmen post 1970s. FYI, if you look up the scorecards and the bowling style of the opening bowlers Jack Hobbs faced, its evident that some of them were spinners and some of them were slow medium bowlers. There was another opening batsman, who ate every single spinner alive for lunch and clobbered the bejeezus out of every single medium pacer out there, only to look completely out of sorts against searing pace. His name was Navjyot Sidhu. I am yet to see any evidence of how he was not the modern incarnation of Jack Hobbs, who actually rarely, probably never, faced a 90mph man trying to decapitate him.

 

[Muloghonto]

From now on I will forever link Nadal detractors with those that say Bradman, Hobbs etc. are no good because of the era they played in.

Brilliant.

Bradman is an exception because of his statistical anomaly and his ability to average 50+ against bowling directed at his body. True, Larwood was no Marshall or Donald. But it does give Bradman the benefit of the doubt that he would've handled the four-prong without dying in the middle. I cannot objectively say that for an 'opener' like Hobbs, who faced more spinners opening than bowlers capable of breaking 85mph- and those who were, were consumed by the 'sporting, amatuer persuit called cricket' where it was 'not cricket' to try and bowl at a batsman's head in those days.

 

[the big bambino]

Oh ffs just read about Hobbs for yourself. And the difference btwn Donald's and Larwood's averages is solely down to the fact the latter played his strongest opponent far more often than the former. And gavaskar fortuitously missed playing the WI pacemen throughout his career. Despite that no one would retrospectively deny him his claim to greatness.

 

[Jono]

Bradman is an exception because of his statistical anomaly and his ability to average 50+ against bowling directed at his body. True, Larwood was no Marshall or Donald. But it does give Bradman the benefit of the doubt that he would've handled the four-prong without dying in the middle. I cannot objectively say that for an 'opener' like Hobbs, who faced more spinners opening than bowlers capable of breaking 85mph- and those who were, were consumed by the 'sporting, amatuer persuit called cricket' where it was 'not cricket' to try and bowl at a batsman's head in those days.

Hobbs batted without a helmet. Ponting didn't. Neither did Sachin. There is no proof Ponting or Tendulkar could ever bat without a helmet.

Therefore by your logic we must assume they could not.