Tweet
All during Wimbledon 2012, as the way opened up for Federer to win his 17th grand slam title, the pundits, at least over here on the BBC, couldn’t leave the Greatest Of All Time topic alone. And McEnroe, who commentates on high profile matches for the BBC, was the worst culprit. He finally declared Federer must be the GOAT on the 8th July 2012.
Along the way, pundits also mused over Rod Laver and what he might have achieved had he not been locked out of grand slams for five years. Fair comment.
But I dislike all the whole GOAT debate and find it meaningless. I mean if you take the two men in question, Federer and Laver, and ponder certain scenarios, the whole GOAT debate becomes questionable:
Suppose Nadal and Djokovic had been around at the start of Federer’s career, do you think he would still hold the 17 grand slams that he has today...hmm...seems unlikely. Odds are Nadal or Djokovic would have helped themselves to a handful of those 7 Wimbledon titles of his. Come to think of it Djokovic might have helped himself to a couple of Nadal’s French titles too. Out of the 34 slams the three players have so far won between them, it’s probably fair to say they would by now have an even split of the rewards...had they all risen on to the tour at the same point in time.
But what about Laver? Pundits argued his plight during the whole Wimbledon fortnight. But it’s conceivable Laver might have won fewer than 11 slams rather than more. Why? Because Laver won six of those slams as an amateur in the early sixties. Had Gonzales and Hoad been eligible to play, it’s likely they would have snatched those titles from under Rod’s nose. After all, Hoad and Gonzales beat Laver convincingly once he finally joined the pro tour. No one ever seems to consider this scenario, certainly not McEnroe.
Laver avoided other greats of his era because of the pro/amateur divide. Federer kicked off his career in a duff era and managed to get 7 slams under his belt before Nadal came along...followed by Djokovic who has slowly become better and better. It’s not Federer’s or Laver’s fault, of course. You can only play who’s in front of you. But you understand my point here...
What saddens me is the name Pete Sampras never featured once in the GOAT debate during the whole Wimbledon fortnight. He could play a bit that bloke. How quickly time forgets....
If I had to choose a GOAT then I choose Rosol. No one has ever played tennis like his fifth set against Nadal...the highest standard ever seen...makes him as good a candidate as any.
Along the way, pundits also mused over Rod Laver and what he might have achieved had he not been locked out of grand slams for five years. Fair comment.
But I dislike all the whole GOAT debate and find it meaningless. I mean if you take the two men in question, Federer and Laver, and ponder certain scenarios, the whole GOAT debate becomes questionable:
Suppose Nadal and Djokovic had been around at the start of Federer’s career, do you think he would still hold the 17 grand slams that he has today...hmm...seems unlikely. Odds are Nadal or Djokovic would have helped themselves to a handful of those 7 Wimbledon titles of his. Come to think of it Djokovic might have helped himself to a couple of Nadal’s French titles too. Out of the 34 slams the three players have so far won between them, it’s probably fair to say they would by now have an even split of the rewards...had they all risen on to the tour at the same point in time.
But what about Laver? Pundits argued his plight during the whole Wimbledon fortnight. But it’s conceivable Laver might have won fewer than 11 slams rather than more. Why? Because Laver won six of those slams as an amateur in the early sixties. Had Gonzales and Hoad been eligible to play, it’s likely they would have snatched those titles from under Rod’s nose. After all, Hoad and Gonzales beat Laver convincingly once he finally joined the pro tour. No one ever seems to consider this scenario, certainly not McEnroe.
Laver avoided other greats of his era because of the pro/amateur divide. Federer kicked off his career in a duff era and managed to get 7 slams under his belt before Nadal came along...followed by Djokovic who has slowly become better and better. It’s not Federer’s or Laver’s fault, of course. You can only play who’s in front of you. But you understand my point here...
What saddens me is the name Pete Sampras never featured once in the GOAT debate during the whole Wimbledon fortnight. He could play a bit that bloke. How quickly time forgets....
If I had to choose a GOAT then I choose Rosol. No one has ever played tennis like his fifth set against Nadal...the highest standard ever seen...makes him as good a candidate as any.
What a fool.
Comment