A pointless between tournaments topic

There has been a lot of talk in recent days about personality traits in tennis players. Are they allowed to express human emotions or should they be automatons? Is smiling and joking on court essential or could it be said you are not taking work seriously enough?

My question is what traits do you think are beneficial to a player and why? True, they could probably design a robot in a few years that could win all the majors without breaking a sweat or leaking oil but is that really the point?

Don't the players character flaws add to them as competitors because they are easier to relate to as human beings?

If you could take character traits from any players in history, what combination do you think would make the perfect player? It may be that you don't think it matters and it is all about the shots. Can the two really be separated?

What do you think?

To see Gonzalez play, said Gussy Moran, the flamboyant women's tennis star of the '40s, was to watch "a god patrolling his personal heaven." Writers compared Gonzalez's movement to that of a jungle cat, his strokes to music or poetry. His serve—falling as straight and deadly as an executioner's blade—was so clean that other players beheld it with wonder, and generations of coaches held it up as the paragon. In 1969 Danish pro Torben Ulrich lost to Gonzalez in the third round of the U.S. Open but seemed grateful to have been on the receiving end of genius. "Pancho gives great happiness," he said. "It is good to watch the master."


http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1026099/index.htm

http://www.budcollinstennis.com/?p=1321

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/295913-a-portrait-of-pancho-gonzales-wimbledon-1969

A perfect example LF

Described by fellow Aussie and former rival John Newcombe as one of "the most humble champions you'd ever want to meet," Laver has turned to golf to satisfy his competitive urge.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1157667/index.htm

As many know, discussion of GOAT status demonstrates sporting ignorance. As this youtube clip indicates, the game of tennis today is significantly different to the game of tennis of the past. When a player is denied entry into grand slams because he has turned professional in order to make a bit of money (peanuts compared to todays game), numbers of GS titles is meaningless when comparing tennis players of different generations:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oaZ-49eebo&feature=endscreen

Well said, NS. My mention of Pancho and Laver and avoiding the current generation is intended to avoid this acrimony of GOATness.

The part AT of GOAT is lost on most observers in the media. Their mental gymnastics to anoint someone a GOAT are exercises in futility, but it is rather peculiar to see them pursued with such vehemence and undying emotion, almost to the point of idiocy.

History in school doesn't really have much status nowadays - I focussed on the sciences. It's only later I have become aware of the importance of history primarily from a philosophical and then from a societal - human cultural perspective.

Anyway the history of tennis should be view as a history rather than a GOAT debate. Viewed as a history we see how tennis has evolved, the rules, the equipment, the status (from amateur to mixed to professional), the commercialisation, the techniques, the strategies, the diets, the participation ... widening participation, the tournaments etc.

In this chronology there are the innovators, the followers, the specialists, the generalists, those that were dominant in their eras, those that were less dominant. I think much of the energy spent in the GOAT debates would have been more productively spent considering what each player brought to the sport - in terms of innovations, techniques, styles, strategies etc - and how these relate to developing the game or taking advantage of opportunities and conditions prevalent at the time.

However I realise not all of us are historians of the game (I am not) and that type of debate is probably a little too academic for most members that contribute to this and other forums.

LF I have never watched those players you have mentioned and yes even statistically impossible to compare with them to determine who holds the best stats as well, so yes its very difficult to even say who the best in grass is coz 3 players now holds 7 Wimbledon titles.

It all boils down eventually to stats and personal opinion, but lets be frank most would agree Fed as GOAT including you, I am not ruling other candidates out but not every candidate will have a CV like Federer do, its very close between Laver and Fed, I would still call it a tie btw the two

I admit I have yet to read through all the articles - but QVOR from 606 wrote a history of the sport - the first article is given below and this links to the rest:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/A49785916

QVoR, a wonderful poster. QV does appear once in a while on another board I visit. Like his favourite Neil Young, QV seems to take long breaks. Thanks NS for the reminder.

iC... Current athleticism levels aside, the intangible talent aspect may perhaps be comparable.

I agree, in recent memory, Federer and Laver. Very few remember players like Hoad, Budge, Kramer, Pancho, Segura, Crawford, et al.

At least, with advances in technology, we have better video evidence for future generations to continue the GOAT debate.

LF, don't worry the GOAT debate will be long settled by then - if there's one thing I know it's that tennis fans are an unargumentative bunch and seek to attain a communally held understanding based on mutual respect at all times.

reckoner wrote:LF, don't worry the GOAT debate will be long settled by then - if there's one thing I know it's that tennis fans are an unargumentative bunch and seek to attain a communally held understanding based on mutual respect at all times.

Nah, plenty of room for a good argument whilst still having mutual respect. Its called debate.................

carrieg4 wrote:

reckoner wrote:LF, don't worry the GOAT debate will be long settled by then - if there's one thing I know it's that tennis fans are an unargumentative bunch and seek to attain a communally held understanding based on mutual respect at all times.

Nah, plenty of room for a good argument whilst still having mutual respect. Its called debate.................

seriously carrie, read what I said

Oops, missed the sarcasm

I am clearly being really thick today

laverfan wrote:QVoR, a wonderful poster. QV does appear once in a while on another board I visit. Like his favourite Neil Young, QV seems to take long breaks. Thanks NS for the reminder.

I second that, QVOR lived up to their name and wasa great poster.