Define The GOAT

View previous topic View next topic Go down

20120807

Post 

Define The GOAT




On another tennis forum I frequent somebody has stirred up emotions by suggesting that Andy Murray would have beaten Federer at his best the way he played in the Olympic Final. Roger's fans opinion on this is that Federer (at his best) beats anybody. It had me thinking to myself that I find that erroneous but then if that is the case then what is it that makes Roger Federer the GOAT. Well here is my theory.

Roger Federer holds the GOAT tag as he has that wonderful knack of finding a consistently high standard when it is needed most and hence helps him to amass such a huge amount of slam wins. Federer's fans seem to think GOAT means he plays his best and he beats everyone but I beg to differ. After all when we break down various aspects of players things look interesting. If we think of who is the greatest returner of serve in the game today I wouldn't say it was Roger Federer - in fact I'd put Djokovic, Murray and Nadal above him. If we think who is the best server around today you wouldn't say it was Federer. Likewise on other aspects of the game so how is Roger the GOAT?

Well like I said Roger has such a great knack of finding his best when it matters most and remaining at a consistently high level which most opponents can't match over five sets. Other top players such as Djokovic and Nadal can reach that consistently high level I speak of and is why they have beaten Federer on a number of occasions in slams. However, they don't or can't find that level as much as Federer can and has hence his superior slam record. I am trying to think of any slam final when Federer has been at his best and lost (perhaps Wimbledon 2009 V Nadal) but let me know if you can think of such occasions.

Thoughts?



Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Share this post on: diggdeliciousredditstumbleuponslashdotyahoogooglelive

Define The GOAT :: Comments

Post on Tue 7 Aug 2012 - 23:50 by Jubbahey

Interesting topic CC.

I've always maintained that Federers greatness lay in his poise and execution of shots. That does indeed include consistency, which he seems to have acquired a high degree of very early in his career. I also believe he has a natural talent to keep focus, but he nurtured this aspect in every slam he played in. He literally burst onto the scene way back in 2002 or thereabouts, having not done anything spectacular, but he suddenly made the leap into greatness very quickly and remained there. How he managed this, forms the basis of endless arguments, but as you say, consistency is a requirement of champions, esp great ones, in any sport really.

So yes, you could reduce Roger's longitude to that of one aspect of his game, but he is an animal of many gifts, which taken as a whole has made him who he is, one of the best players ever to grace a tennis court.

Back to top Go down

Post on Wed 8 Aug 2012 - 8:06 by Guest

Oh yes he has many attributes that make up the whole package - mental strength is one of his biggest strengths. Longevity without serious injuries at the top of the sport has enabled him to build his legacy along with that wonderful backhand. However, others have succeeded many times against him so why is that the case?

Back to top Go down

Post on Wed 8 Aug 2012 - 10:48 by Jubbahey

I suppose consistency is not absolute. I would think it is made up of various constituents that produce a whole CC. Fitness, stamina would be basic requirements coupled with ability and talent and finished off with mental agility/toughness. There are some other aspects that come into play, but if any or only one prerequisites are low or missing, then you are weaker than normal.

Federer has managed to maintain as many attributes as possible for a greater length of time to enable his longevity. He has been beaten because he is not perfect, and that has always been a weakness of his, a determined effort to be the most consummate player ever..Trying to beat every one at all levels and styles was a great aspiration, but as soon as he got out of his comfort zone, he was beatable, and Murray was one of the first players to expose this weakness, in many of the masters 3 setters they played way back in 2006/2007.

Delboy beat Roger at the US open because Federer tried to out hit Potro, a fine example of him trying to emulate and beat the guy at his own game, he was not in his comfort zone and was soundly beaten. Isnt that what happened at the Olympic final ? A Federer out of sorts ?

Back to top Go down

Post  by Sponsored content

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum