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

[benchmark00]

 

[the big bambino]

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.

Hilarious. There you have it. Hannibal is not a great general. Newton an inferior scientist. Michaelangelo a hack. Anyone who isn't living in this era is a chump. Its a wonder we are so good considering that no one in the past has done anything.

On a side note, Hammond, Hobbs, Hutton, Sutcliffe are not greats in my book

Oh well that's it then. This is where we are probably ahead of the game. We wont need a retrospective review to decide your book appears to be rubbish.

 

[Riggins]

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

Remember Ponting getting pinned in the face without a helmet and batting on. wafg.

Must be a clay ring. Doesn't count.

 

[OverratedSanity]

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.

Try again. Ponting actually faced Akhtar without a helmet in an ODI once. And scored a hundred.
He also got smashed in the face by Mohammad Sami, a 150kph bowler and kept batting. And he scored a hundred against Ambrose, Walsh and Bishop in the 96 WC... Again, you guessed it, without a helmet

Ponting > Tendulkar. Ponting>you.

 

[Jono]

Ponting may be better than Tendulkar but not me. I batted without a helmet for most of my career. I also never copped one on the head.

#4thsmatting

 

[vic_orthdox]

I've seen you play, Jono.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Ponting may be better than Tendulkar but not me. I batted without a helmet for most of my career. I also never copped one on the head.

#4thsmatting

Refuse to believe you've never taken balls to your face

 

[Jono]

I've seen you play, Jono.

To be fair I looked like Bradman batting and Marshall bowling compared to Pasag trying to play cricket in his jeans.

 

[the big bambino]

Pasag? Now there's a famous name.

 

[Muloghonto]

Hilarious. There you have it. Hannibal is not a great general. Newton an inferior scientist. Michaelangelo a hack. Anyone who isn't living in this era is a chump. Its a wonder we are so good considering that no one in the past has done anything.

Reductio ad absurdum. That is what your above comment boils down to. Generalship, science, etc. are all differnt topics, worth different methods of evaluation. We are talking about cricket here. And yes, anyone who played in the amatuer era in any sport, is simply not worth comparing to with the professionals, except for those select few who are statistical absurdities - Bradman, Joe Louis, Babe Ruth to name a few.

Oh well that's it then. This is where we are probably ahead of the game. We wont need a retrospective review to decide your book appears to be rubbish.

What is rubbish is the idea that Jack Hobbs would've been competent against two or three men bowling 90mph or more at his head. I have read many a cricket book, have never read one describing Hobbs opening the batting against the type of 90mph bowlers who are 'expected' in the opposition ATG team.
What is also rubbish, is the mindless PR-speak that you have borrowed from PR friendly journalists, who peddle the sheer absurdity that adaptability of oldies in a more competetive setting is a 'given', rather than assumed. You may hold the notion that a great in one era is a great in any, I don't. For I am unwilling to make such carte-blanche assumptions.

 

[Muloghonto]

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.

If Ponting and Tendulkar faced opening bowlers who were spinners and Hansie Cronje-esque medium pacers, they wouldn't have required a helmet either.

 

[Muloghonto]

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.

Not to nitpick but where did you get the idea that humility equates to gracious losers ? One can be humble and a terrible sport at the same time. And if you think one can't why can't they be ? Politeness is not humility. Humility is about keeping yourself grounded and realizing the big and small in all of us.

And yes, the fact that Rafa does not volley well will count against him. There is no way Rafa would've lasted 3 sets against the likes of McEnroe, Becker, Edberg, Sampras in their pomp on grass (Which, FYI, 3 of the 4 majors were played on till mid 1980s).

Besides, given that Tennis is one sport where lefties have a clear advantage ( Lefties have won far more slams disproportionate to the righties in tennis and the all-important Ad-side game-finisher side of the court massively favours the lefties), a leftie with limited tools in his armory (Nadal) simply does not have a game good enough to be considered the GOAT.

 

[the big bambino]

Reductio ad absurdum. That is what your above comment boils down to. Generalship, science, etc. are all differnt topics, worth different methods of evaluation. We are talking about cricket here. And yes, anyone who played in the amatuer era in any sport, is simply not worth comparing to with the professionals, except for those select few who are statistical absurdities - Bradman, Joe Louis, Babe Ruth to name a few.

It is indeed. But highlighting your own absurdity with the scorn it deserves. They are different fields its true. But after highlighting that obvious point you don't explain why they should be treated differently. Hannibal is a great general but a modern army would slaughter his. Your argument is based on a skepticism of an ancient to adapt to modern circumstances. If its no more possible for a Fed to combat the players 50 years hence explain why why Hannibal could successfully adapt to an era of warfare more than 2200 years ahead of his own.

As an aside Hobbs played as a professional. But that is a recent excuse (and even then you got it wrong) and not your original point. You said he couldn't have made it in the modern game. Yet if he he had all the modern improvements available to him there is no reason to say he couldn't adapt.

What is rubbish is the idea that Jack Hobbs would've been competent against two or three men bowling 90mph or more at his head. I have read many a cricket book, have never read one describing Hobbs opening the batting against the type of 90mph bowlers who are 'expected' in the opposition ATG team.
What is also rubbish, is the mindless PR-speak that you have borrowed from PR friendly journalists, who peddle the sheer absurdity that adaptability of oldies in a more competetive setting is a 'given', rather than assumed. You may hold the notion that a great in one era is a great in any, I don't. For I am unwilling to make such carte-blanche assumptions.

To paraphrase Jamie Lee Curtis' comment to Kevin Kline in a Fish called Wanda, any ape can read a book but does it understand it? (Sorry about the use of the word ape. Nothing is intended by it. It is just the analogy used in the movie). If you did understand you would know that Hobbs faced fast bowlers and they bounced him. I suggest you read them again.

I'm not sure what you are getting at about PR friendly journos. If you are attempting to belittle the chroniclers of the time who actually saw Hobbs play then I have a shock for you: Yes I would clearly favour their experience over your opinion. Who wouldn't? Its pretty vain to think otherwise.

The last sentence is a contradiction btw. If you are sceptical about an ancient adapting to the modern world why any allowance for a scientist, artist or a general but not a cricketer?

 

[Jono]

Not to nitpick but where did you get the idea that humility equates to gracious losers ? One can be humble and a terrible sport at the same time. And if you think one can't why can't they be ? Politeness is not humility. Humility is about keeping yourself grounded and realizing the big and small in all of us.

Not going to get into a pedantic debate, even if you are right and being described humble doesn't mean you can't be a **** loser, just replace "humble" with "classy act" and "generous to his opponent" and other descriptions often given. I don't consider Fed at Wimbledon 2007, Wimbledon 2010 and US Open 2011 fitting those descriptions.

Ironically, I rank Federer winning the 5th set against Nadal at Wimbledon 2007 final as one of his greatest achievements. Why? I've never seen a guy who was in such a tin foil hate state (i.e. believing hawkeye was cheating him over ) actually mentally recovered and clawed his way back from defeat.

Also to nitpick, you said Nadal does not volley well. Not choosing to volley doesn't mean you don't volley well for the record. He is more than capable at the net.

 

[morgieb]

Nadal >>> Djokovic at the net.

 

[benchmark00]

What does Federer need to do to overtake Michael Chang as the GOAT?

 

[Jono]

What does Federer need to do to overtake Michael Chang as the GOAT?

This:

 

[Jono]

Also this: Michael Chang Underhand Serve vs Ivan Lendl (French Open 1989) [HD] on Vimeo

 

[Muloghonto]

It is indeed. But highlighting your own absurdity with the scorn it deserves. They are different fields its true. But after highlighting that obvious point you don't explain why they should be treated differently. Hannibal is a great general but a modern army would slaughter his. Your argument is based on a skepticism of an ancient to adapt to modern circumstances. If its no more possible for a Fed to combat the players 50 years hence explain why why Hannibal could successfully adapt to an era of warfare more than 2200 years ahead of his own.

You have answered your own question. They are different fields, therefore, are subject to different benchmarks. My skepticism is based on the fact that adaptation is a chance, not a given. To assume that A would adapt to superior conditions, is simply an assumption I am not willing to make, period.

As an aside Hobbs played as a professional. But that is a recent excuse (and even then you got it wrong) and not your original point. You said he couldn't have made it in the modern game. Yet if he he had all the modern improvements available to him there is no reason to say he couldn't adapt.

The 'no reason he couldnt adapt' is simply, a speculation, not a fact. Maybe he could've. Maybe he'd have ended up as Navjot Sidhu. What garantee do you have that he would have adapted for sure ? if there is no garantee, then i am not going to take such rose-tinted optimistic views steeped in ancestor worship and put those people, who actually played in lesser circumstances, on the same pedestral as those who actually were tried and tested in the highest standards. To do so, is a severe injustice to those who have faced superior conditions.

To paraphrase Jamie Lee Curtis' comment to Kevin Kline in a Fish called Wanda, any ape can read a book but does it understand it? (Sorry about the use of the word ape. Nothing is intended by it. It is just the analogy used in the movie). If you did understand you would know that Hobbs faced fast bowlers and they bounced him. I suggest you read them again.

I am yet to find a single passage in any book talking about fast bowlers aiming at his head repeatedly. Occasional 'shock value bouncers' are not the issue here. Facing 10 outta 12 bouncers in a row delivered by someone like Mikey Holding is. Hobbs has zero experience in that.

I'm not sure what you are getting at about PR friendly journos. If you are attempting to belittle the chroniclers of the time who actually saw Hobbs play then I have a shock for you: Yes I would clearly favour their experience over your opinion. Who wouldn't? Its pretty vain to think otherwise.

Chorniclers of the time of Hobbs are not privvy to the 1970s era of much harder conditions facing opening batsmen.

The last sentence is a contradiction btw. If you are sceptical about an ancient adapting to the modern world why any allowance for a scientist, artist or a general but not a cricketer?

Because its apples to oranges. I am stating what i said applies to cricket. You are trying to find a 'one glove fits all' approach, which is clearly a fallacy and a reductio ad absurdum directed towards the argument, thus reducing your comments to simple hubris.

 

[Muloghonto]

Not going to get into a pedantic debate, even if you are right and being described humble doesn't mean you can't be a **** loser, just replace "humble" with "classy act" and "generous to his opponent" and other descriptions often given. I don't consider Fed at Wimbledon 2007, Wimbledon 2010 and US Open 2011 fitting those descriptions.

Ironically, I rank Federer winning the 5th set against Nadal at Wimbledon 2007 final as one of his greatest achievements. Why? I've never seen a guy who was in such a tin foil hate state (i.e. believing hawkeye was cheating him over ) actually mentally recovered and clawed his way back from defeat.

Also to nitpick, you said Nadal does not volley well. Not choosing to volley doesn't mean you don't volley well for the record. He is more than capable at the net.

Nadal is a finisher at the net. Ie, like Agassi, he knows when to come to the net to finally kill a point. But he still sucks at the net, like Agassi. Because, if Nadal's kill-shot at the net is returned, he almost invariably messes it up or ends up being passed because ultimately, Nadal does not have much beyond the basics of volleying. He is incapable of hanging around the net and putting away a point after 2-3 difficult volleys, which is what Federer still demonstrates occasionally and is the essential skill to all non-clay surfaces prior to the early 2000s, when the surfaces started to slow down.