Rome Final: Nadal v. Federer

[djarvik]

End result stats, like:

Total Major tournaments,Total weeks at the top, consecutive weeks at the top...etc..

Basically, the ultimate goal in Tennis is to reach number 1. That is what everyone is striving to. Wining matches, tournaments are means by which a player reaches the ultimate goal.

Secondary and last criteria is the Grand Slams total wins.

I think anything beyond that is great stats, but are WAY less important then the first two, and without the first two, one cannot be considered a goat. A player can be in 100 Consecutive finals, but not winning them and not reaching number 1 - will mean he will never be considered the greatest. Same with Titles won, no matter how many, if you are not at the top, Number 1, it is irrelevant in GOAT terms.

[ICEMAN_9588]

The ATP world tour finals 2010 dropped in to say "Hello.. is it me you are looking for?" - Lionel Richie.

I give you that, nice match, not more than that. Federer globally played better than Rafa, but it was expected more.
Also we got to say that Nadal came from 3 hour SF against Murray.

[emate007]

Basically, the ultimate goal in Tennis is to reach number 1. That is what everyone is striving to. Wining matches, tournaments are means by which a player reaches the ultimate goal.

Secondary and last criteria is the Grand Slams total wins.

I disagree with this part. Number 1 is nice, but I think if you asked any player who's been #1 without a Grand Slam (obviously doesn't happen very often on the men's side) they would gladly trade the top spot for any of the 4 Slam titles.

[Rob ITST]

I'm with Emate - Slams are the ultimate goal.

[djarvik]

Fair enough.
So if you ask any player what would he like more, 1 major title or reaching #1, you saying a player would chose the later?

Maybe, maybe not. I guess it depends on a player. But if we talk about 4 of them as emate mentioned, than obviously - no contest, majors are better.

[Rob ITST]

I think it would depend greatly on the era. I remember Rod Laver saying that when he played, the Slams didn't matter as much as the ranking. But look at more modern players, like Sampras - in the last few years of his career, I don't think he cared much about his ranking - he was playing for Slams.

I'm sure both are important to any top player. I'd say they focus on their ranking more when they're young, and Slams when they get older. Sure, that has a lot to do with what it takes to accomplish either goal - the number 1 ranking is tougher physically, and the Slams are tougher mentally - but I think they also start to realize how much they cherish the memories of winning Slams.

[Florian]

I really think the last 10years have proved how hard it was to win a GS, basically only Fed and Nadal were able to win more than one of them, so this fact has enhanced the idea that winning a slam was the ultimate goal.
And by the way you can check out in the WTA how much respect did Safina and Wozniacki get for being #1 without a single slam...

[emate007]

And by the way you can check out in the WTA how much respect did Safina and Wozniacki get for being #1 without a single slam...

This is exactly what I was referring to. Add Jankovic in that list as well, all of them got a lot of (undeserved) criticism for being #1 without winning a major. I think the discussion really bugged all three to the point of hurting their confidence and careers. Safina to the point of total meltdown...
Of course it's not like it was their fault, the women's game rewards players who play A LOT of tournaments. Whereas the top 10 men can get away playing only the really big ones if they're always in the quarters.

[emate007]

Fair enough.
So if you ask any player what would he like more, 1 major title or reaching #1, you saying a player would chose the later?

Maybe, maybe not. I guess it depends on a player. But if we talk about 4 of them as emate mentioned, than obviously - no contest, majors are better.

I'm saying they would choose winning just 1 major over being #1 for any length of time. Didn't mean winning a career grand slam.
I've seen interviews with guys like Thomas Johannson and Gaudio who are extremely proud of their only title, even though they never came close to #1 or winning a second GS. A quote from Thomas went something like, "no matter what happens I won a Grand Slam, that's something nobody can take away from me."
I'm sure most players would feel the same way.

[djarvik]

Who was the last ATP player to hold number one and never have won a slam?

Marcelo Ríos

Unlike the WTA (they still exists?) - mans game's number ones and majors go hand in hand.

I like the way Rob put it, the first part of every players career and a cornerstone is to chase ranking. Once they reach a certain point, winning a major becomes the only way to actually go higher in the ranking. At that point they actually have good chance to win the major - so the concentration shifts to that goal.

[Cro Morgan]

Players are remembered and cherished for championships - their play on the court - not rankings.

Everyone remembers certain matches, great Grand Slam finals, fabulous five set wars. Never heard anyone say, "hey, remember that day, I think it was a Monday, when Joe Blow became number one in the world."

Because fans think this way, I'm guessing the players do to - putting much more weight on winning Slams than attaining some arbitrary number.

Ultimately the fans and the tennis press decide what (and who) is best.

[djarvik]

Of course from a Fan side it is like you described. But we are talking about the players side here and more importantly, how it factures into the GOAT discussion. I don't think anyone will ever be considered a GOAT without reaching Number One in the world.

Players worry about their rank all the time, rank is the Key to enter to any tournament and a crucial part to even getting to GS level.

It is important to note, that to reach number one in the first place, in mans game, you need to win tournaments, big ones, many, over and over. And to stay number one - you need to win majors, over and over.

So while the goal may not be to reach number one (which I still believe is for many, many professional players), you simply cannot get there without the big stage wins and major wins. It has been done once 30 years (?)

[emate007]

I don't think anyone will ever be considered a GOAT without reaching Number One in the world.

So while the goal may not be to reach number one (which I still believe is for many, many professional players), you simply cannot get there without the big stage wins and major wins. It has been done once 30 years (?)

I think you can boil this discussion down to these two sentences. Pro players want to win EVERY match. And it's nearly impossible to become #1 without a major title.

I guess the only debate is which is more important to each individual, I still think it's a big title over the top rank for both players and fans.

[Cro Morgan]

The rankings are arbitrary. I mean, why is a Slam victory worth 2,000 points and a Masters win 1,000? Why not 2,600 points for a Slam and 1,235 points for a Masters - or 1,789 versus 812, or 1,389 and 927.6 To me, the rankings are borderline bullshit. Don't mean much.

So, from this fan's perspective, the greatest players of all-time are the players who win the the biggest tournaments. The more big tournaments a player wins, the greater he should be considered.

With regard to the players and what they think, my guess, they all think a bit differently. Bottom line though, who cares what they think. The opinion of the tennis fan is the only opinion that matters.

[emate007]

Well said.