To Arturo Hernandez...I was unable to answer your thread for some reason. Sabotage?

[don_budge]

The GOAT...Richard Gonzalez with the Don Budge backhand. AKA...Roger Federer as the GOOT.

G.O.A.T. musings are just that. It is wind. Vanity. But it does not exist in a sport such as tennis. The game has been compromised. Engineered. Comparisons over different eras are invalid. Even within eras...that same is true. I wouldn't argue with you and your admiration of Roger Federer. Perhaps you could begin with a leaner version of the "Greatest Of All Time" and narrow it down to the "Greatest Of Our Time" and eliminate some of the obstructions to objectively compare the legacy of certain tennis players.

The sport of tennis underwent a radical change when it went "Open" in or around 1968. The "Open" aspect was with regard to professionals participating in Grand Slam events. This is the first line of demarcation. Grand Slam victory totals were going to undergo a radical change for obvious reasons. The more insidious aspect of the sport of tennis going "Open" was the influx of money that was going to pour into the sport. With large amounts of money goes the accompanying corruption and the sport was going to be gutted and corrupted beyond recognition in just ten years or so.

What followed the opening up of the game to professionals in the traditional tournaments happened very quickly. But first there was an accelerated evolution of the sport with the initial financial incentives. In the years that followed 1968, the first year that I picked up a racquet ironically, was the golden age of tennis that culminated in the John McEnroe/Bjorn Borg rivalry. Unfortunately the powers that be at the time saw a short cut to the slower evolutionary route and they introduced a new game...bangball. The use of oversized racquets revolutionized or rather destroyed the original game by the time the 1984 U. S. Open was played. It was at this tournament where all four men's semifinalists used over-sized graphite racquets for the first time in tennis history. Ironically, I was there on the September day in New York. Bud Collins called it the greatest day of tennis ever. It was spectacular to be sure. But the illusion was cast. He never mentioned that it was indeed the first time that the use of over-sized racquets was complete. Even the ladies were on board. Marina and Chris both used over-sized graphite on that day of crossing the rubicon.

Which brings us to Roger Federer and his standing in tennis history...GOAT or GOOT. There is no reason to try and equate his standing over the long haul...due to the complete overhaul in the conditions of the game under the title of controllable conditions. Racquets, strings, court surfaces and even foot wear have to be taken into account. I remember seeing the tennis sneakers that Richard Gonzalez wore...the flimsiest of canvas tennis shoes one could imagine wearing from our perspective. There is even an issue when considering whether or not Roger was indeed the "Greatest Of Our Time" in that he made an equipment change rather late in his career that sort of threw those Grand Slam numbers for a flooey. When he switched to the larger racquet from his 90 square inch frame to his 98 square inch frame his game went through the most amazing transformation. Suddenly he could drive his backhand with impunity...for example. The rest of his game also was elevated by a corresponding percentage as the area of his tennis frame. As tennis is a game of small windows and margins...well you get the picture.

After switching to the bigger frame Roger defeated his closest rival of the years seven of the eight times he last played him. Rafael Nadal. Roger went from 9-23 to 16-24 Head to Head just like that. If that is not one of the greatest tells in sports history...well, I'll be a monkey's uncle. So much for the GOAT discussion. It just isn't possible due to a real lack of meaningful data. The sport over time opened itself up to the greatest skewing in history.

For the record...I wrote about nearly every single Roger Federer tennis match over a span of ten or eleven years. As far as tennis goes...Roger was tennis. He was the face of tennis for that period of time. Of course there was Rafa Nadal and Novak Djokovic and not to mention Andy Murray as his foremost competitors. But I think that historically the depth of the draws of this era were very shallow in comparison to the draws of the past. Another factor is the use of highly undetectable Performance Enhancing Drugs. But the biggest factor is one of illusion. The illusion that the game is played under even conditions over the years. The illusion that Roger Federer became that much of a better player after changing equipment. The illusion that the the players of today are superior physically over the players of yesterday. That is sheer nonsense. Consider the fact that the game used to have the possibly of being played as a never ending marathon before the use of the tie-break.

GOAT discussions are sheer and utter nonsense and usually carried on by modern day tennis aficionados who lack historical perspective. But once certain tennis historians pass on the control of the narrative be will be left to the modern liberal tennis fans who will make a joke of the players of the past with a smug sense of superiority of the modern player. I often wonder what Roger would do with a Dunlop Maxply Fort racquet. Or even a Spalding Smasher aluminum number that Richard Gonzalez was playing with along with his flimsy canvas sneakers.

So all that being said...my GOAT evaluation reads like my tennis teaching paradigm. William Tilden II is the book. Richard Gonzalez is the model with the Don Budge backhand. Harry Hopman is the coach. Roger Federer is the Living Proof.

[arturohernandez]

Wow! Great to hear such a thoughtful analysis. I always think about what happened to tennis and compare it to baseball which I still watch, albeit not as often as when I was a kid. Well, when I watch baseball it still looks and feels like the game I grew up with. The pitchers are taken out a little earlier. They hit more home runs. But all in all the game looks and feels like it did before.

And when I watch it, I am transported back to my childhood. When I watch tennis, I feel that some alien clone race descended from the heavens with advanced weaponry. It does not feel anything like the game I grew up with. I am sure the game would still be exciting if they had just regulated the equipment some. Maybe there is a chance they will once they see how homogenized it has become.

And on Fed. Yes, his "crisis" started around 2009. He started losing to all these players he hadn't lost to before. Well, it most likely was just when all pros went to 100 sq in rackets. Had he switched to 97 at that point, I think the records might have been different. Not radically so, but not so one sided. On clay against Nadal, in 2006, 90 vs. 95 was not so bad. Once Nadal went to 100 he began to dominate. Until, as you noted, he did not.

Whether he is the GOAOT, is not the real question. It is that he is the synthesis of old and new. A game that still reminded me of what I grew up with. Now only Dimitrov remains, as a reminder. Unfortunately, he can't stay healthy enough to make it through a season these days. But when I watch him I still remember the game I grew up with.

That is why I just turn to Youtube these days. There is enough of the old matches to last me the rest of my life...

[admin]

Apologies for the hiccups in the forum this evening. Everything should be back to normal...

[stroke]

I would certainly say that Fed technique wise is the best ever. For me though, it is hard to get past the Majors AND Masters 1000's won by Novak. Heck, he even won all the Master's 1000's twice. And the Master's 1000's were more difficult to win during the reign of the Big 3. There were no 1st round byes, and the tournament ran for only 1 week, no days off from Thusday. Now players get 1st round byes and days off. Along with his longevity and head to head record vs Fed and Nadal, a very strong argument for the best ever. The real question to me is who is number 2, Fed or Nadal. They both have great arguments.

[don_budge]

Wow! Great to hear such a thoughtful analysis. I always think about what happened to tennis and compare it to baseball which I still watch, albeit not as often as when I was a kid. Well, when I watch baseball it still looks and feels like the game I grew up with. The pitchers are taken out a little earlier. They hit more home runs. But all in all the game looks and feels like it did before.

And when I watch it, I am transported back to my childhood. When I watch tennis, I feel that some alien clone race descended from the heavens with advanced weaponry. It does not feel anything like the game I grew up with. I am sure the game would still be exciting if they had just regulated the equipment some. Maybe there is a chance they will once they see how homogenized it has become.

And on Fed. Yes, his "crisis" started around 2009. He started losing to all these players he hadn't lost to before. Well, it most likely was just when all pros went to 100 sq in rackets. Had he switched to 97 at that point, I think the records might have been different. Not radically so, but not so one sided. On clay against Nadal, in 2006, 90 vs. 95 was not so bad. Once Nadal went to 100 he began to dominate. Until, as you noted, he did not.

Whether he is the GOAOT, is not the real question. It is that he is the synthesis of old and new. A game that still reminded me of what I grew up with. Now only Dimitrov remains, as a reminder. Unfortunately, he can't stay healthy enough to make it through a season these days. But when I watch him I still remember the game I grew up with.

That is why I just turn to Youtube these days. There is enough of the old matches to last me the rest of my life...

The baseball analogy is interesting. My father was a professional baseball player in the farm system of the Detroit Tigers. Hank Greenberg recruited him. Something of a baseball icon himself. I loved baseball and as a boy I wanted to be like my father. Then I met tennis. Interestingly...baseball took a huge turn in its history around the same time tennis was going open in 1968 or so. The free agent status hit baseball right in the teeth. After that the game was never quite the same either. The money...it was "Money Ball" after that. But baseball has its own problems with PED's and other scandals. Money has truly proven to be the root of all evil...in sports. Gambling. The rest of it. I lost interest in baseball too. By 1984 when the Tigers were winning the World Series my interest was minimal at best. Dad raised me to be a traditionalist...of sorts. Just imagine if professional baseball were to resort to graphite sticks. Holy Moly!

Another sport of real interest in terms of equipment engineering is hockey. Hockey sticks have been engineered in the same sense as tennis racquets. Graphite. Over-sized. Modern hockey players are rendered rather pathetic in comparison when they try out the old sticks. They look baffled and confused. How did those old guys do it, is the expression on their faces. Hockey is a FAKE sport too. The modern records cannot be compared to the old school game.

Interestingly...lately I have been reading of Roger Federer's bout with mononucleosis. Apparently around 2008 he contracted the disease. Some speculated that hurt his performance for some time. Robin Soderling contracted mono and he was gone after that. Never recovered. I agree about the old matches on youtube. Oops...I said it. Agree. I try never to do that. Still, the old tennis really suits my eye. The skill required to play with the "magic wand", as good old John McEnroe put it, was far greater than the new howitzers. The athleticism was actually greater in those days...yet it was a totally different athlete. Yesterday's athlete was evolving. The modern athlete is being engineered. There is a fundamental difference there.

Federer a synthesis of the old and the new? Not sure what that actually means...but it surely sound reasonable. I believe that is why I refer to him as "The Living Proof" in my tennis coaching paradigm. I'm really glad he changed racquets before it was all over. I was writing for a number of years that he should. If I had been his coach he would have done it years before he actually did. Grigor Dimitrov is such an interesting character now that you mention it. He is well past his prime now. Hanging by a thread actually. Yet his results are rather outstanding here and there. Maybe he validates my point that the draws are dramatically watered down as well.

I think that other than the contribution to the demise of the sport from the tinkering of the equipment...the coaching was hijacked as well. I don't see that improving either. The new trend is coaches are all trying to one up each other. The old school concept of tennis as a family and community endeavor was more successful in developing the game. The local tournaments, competitions in public school and growing the game in the community was ideal. Demographically it made a lot of sense. Then it was off to college and the best training ground ever.

The road going forwards is going to be interesting or not. Personally...I have lost interest. So the only remaining interesting thing that may occur is something that would make it halfway interesting again. I don't see that happening in the future. The future looks bleak...from my point of view. But good luck. I wish the game well. But on the other hand...back in the 80's I said, "I told you so".