This is the GOAT list constructed using primitive factual analysis which as a spectator is the best I can do. Point are awarded as follows:

- GS - 10 points
- GS RU - 5 points
- Weeks at no.1 - 1 point per 2 weeks
- Career Slam - 20 points
(N.B - Grandslam is not included in points but say if you have won all slams twice like Laver you get 2 career slams.)
- Other Tournaments - 1 point ea

GOAT
1. Laver 380
2. Connors 379
3. Lendl 356
4. Sampras 353
5. Federer* 264
6. McEnroe 245
7. Borg 240
8. Agassi 237
9. Edberg 157
10. Becker 129

* Active player

Comments:

N.B. I have not added Tilden Budge etc. cause I know Jack Shit about them and I did add Laver's pre-open results. However I did knock his 170 tournament wins to 100 as some of these really were the MM of MM tournaments by today's standards i.e. 4 man tournaments.

Federer prediction: 100 more weeks at number 1 - 50 points, 5 more GS, 2 more RU - 60 points, 30 more titles - 15 points, career slam - 20 points. Extra 145 points putting him at 409 so with or without career slam he would be no.1 GOAT.

I think the list agree is WRONG!
Connors and Lendl are too high!
How can i change the system.?

Maybe I should make it the top 8 as the bottom two have a significant drop in points and although GREATS that I worship are not quite on tier 1 GREAT status?

Borg is low but that's his own fault for retiring early.

McEnroe could have been higher too given his talent but he didn't work hard enough and I can't rate imperceptibles.

Agassi's career slam is GREAT yes but he is rightfully at 8 compared to the others.

So basically I want it to say:

1. Laver
2. Sampras
3. Federer*
4. Borg
5. McEnroe
6. Lendl
7. Connors
8. Agassi

*Actively on a mission. But how do I make the system do this? What do you think on my ideal order and the one that came out.

I think it's a valiant attempt to use stats to determine the GOAT, but i think the GOAT is more or less determined by the number of slams, to be honest.
While a slam count might not give an absolute unarguable result, stat methodology is far too subjective, one can give more weight to whatever criteria you want-so for example i see ATP titles other than slams havn't been included in your stats, Which seems odd. I personally don't give a great deal for weeks at no1 either.

Thankyou for the input. Yes it's tricky and people argue enough about Sampras not being GOAT when he has 14 slams though so I thought to try this.

Here are the reasons for the categories:

-Slams/RU - slams are slams they should be there cause they are the main facet.

- I did include ATP Tour titles 1 point each on the system although Master's don't have any extra points at the moment. It is also hard to put that in because they didn't have masters series a while back. They show consistency.

- Weeks at number 1 are to show dominance.

-Career slam is included to show variety.

So basically summed up the GOAT has been decided on slams, consistency, dominance and variety.

Still I think maybe consistent players like Connors and Lendl are a little too high given their slam count. Maybe I should increase slam points?

:D But that highlights the very problem i posed, now you want to change the weight given to certain stats to reach a conclusion you find more agreeable!
What is it they say about lies, damned lies and statistics? :wacko:

A very good attempt. As BT says, you shouldn't try to fit your system to the desired outcome.

However, it shows very clearly that, based on how you weight different things, you'll get different results. That's simply how it is, and I guess there will never be a real consensus. (Unless perhaps Fed wins the GS next year, but even that isn't going to convince everyone I guess.)

I think we all agree that there is no official and formal way to determine who is the greatest player. I have always said, it is a matter of opinion and that a big survey woudl simply be the only relevant way. Because what those players aim for is recognition by the numbers.

So as it is a subjective matter, I can only give my opinion and certainly not trying to guess what the others should believe is the goat.

In that respect, out of the 3 decades I have been watching tennis, Federer is the one that really stands out, even though I admired many of them during that time.

First, because Federer plays in the physically toughest era....and still dominates it with his human size frame.

2 - He is the only player that had huge creative talent coupled with consistent results. McEnroe, Mecir, Rios, Krajicek, Ivanisevc etc...were great players but all underachieved more or less. Federer not only achieves but in an unheard manner since Borg. It is like Borg and McEnroe in one player!!! Laver could well be the best player ever (or second best) but I have not seen enough nor has he faced such a competitve arena.

3 - His style is the most complete of all the greats. He can attack and defend better than most.

4 - If it wasn't for Federer facing the best player on clay ever (not the greatest, just the best), he would probably have have achieved 2 GS by now and this thread woudl not be necessary.

5 - I cannot see anyone in the near future dominate the tour like Federer has because we know it is extremely hard out there nowadays. An era where noone has done the Wimby/FO since the big frames have been available.

Again, this is just my view and Federer career is not over yet but frankly, for me, the big "title" is his already, whatever happens next. And it is only a question of time before his name replaces Borg or Laver in people's mind, as the GOAT.

5 Wimbies in a row
4 USOs in a row
3 AOs
most successive weeks at number 1.

Do we need to say more?

The GOAT at the moment is a mishmash of Sampras, Laver, Borg and Federer for me. But barring some kind of catastrophe Fed will clinch 3 more slams in his career and claim the GOAT title for himself for nearly everyone.

Federer Williams, I also agree with the others that you are trying to create the rules to suit the outcome you want, that will never work. I also disagree on your second list where you place Lendl below McEnroe. He contested many grand slam finals (19 I think), was hugely consistent and was majestic from the back of the court. You will hear many people call the late 80's the Lendl Era, because he was a dominant player indeed, yet in the middle of that Wilander came from nowhere to steal three slams in one year. In fact some would argue that Wilander should also be on your list above the likes of Becker and Edberg... tough list to make.

Wilander was just out of the top 10 Gav. But after the top 8 the scores aren't that good at all in comparison. I think he had just over 100.

And maybe your right he did win more slams than McEnroe and was way more consistent.

I wonder how CC could organise an international GOAT poll?

Put us on the map :bow:

This is what I find amusing in those debates. We all have an idea about it but we will only feel "comfortable" if the "majority" have a similar idea on the subject. This is why I think a poll is de rigueur.

Tough to set up though. Trisco? ;)

I was referring to the well known Federer doubters on the site Tenez :D

I doubt they will (admit that they) see Federer as the GOAT ever even if he was winning slams into his 80's! :o

True! but there is a difference between what those Anti-Fed fans are willing to acknowledge to the rest of us ...and what they already know! ;)

Do you remember someone called Lexi from the beeb board? She was really funny and was the "greatest" anti-fed fan of the bunch. To me, as she was quite knowledgeable, it was really clear that she recognised Federer as a great player but she spent huge amount of time and effort to convince us, in fact herself!!!, otherwise.

Lexi . . . ??? Never heard of her. :unsure: :lol:

Actually, I used to have some interesting discussions with Lexi and Apostate. They always wanted to argue that there was no subjectivity to determining the "GOAT". It was simply determined by number of Grand Slam titles won. So they'll be convinced that Federer is the best, as soon as he wins his 15th slam. :)

Yes, Lexi/Apos maintained that Federer wasnt good enough to reach 14 Slams, and his legs would give out before then anyway . :shrug:
Oh, musnt forget accusations of arrogance either ... :wacko:

Glad you two remember Learn-direct-from-Lexi!!! I think she disliked me even more than Federer (says a lot) cause I compared her to Salieri: She could clearly see Fed's genius but was simply jealous of it. She would spend her days trying to convince us that "talent" did not exist and winning was the only form of measurable "talent".
Apos was more of a joke. He came up once saying that Federer was lucky when winning. He created a long post about it and many were convinced at the end of its reading. :shrug: That's so good a sophist he was.

roflmao

Now there's an image that made me laugh. :D

Although I'm sure Mirka would have something to say about that ... You've spent enough decades playing tennis, how about paying some attention to me! :P