Originally Posted by Samoon
Lol. Nadal won less grandslams. Federer won the 16 grandlslams, more than anyone, hence he is the GOAT. Nadal wont overtake him as the GOAT. hopefully
Nadal has had Federer in his pocket for years
He also hasn't finished his career and could well bank another 7 or 8 slams. He's also had much more competition than Federer had when he was winning a huge chunk of his slams - i.e. Fed himself, as well as Djokovic, even Murray is a better player than Roddick, JCF and, erm, whoever else was losing in finals.
Winning the most doesn't automatically make you the GOAT either, not many people consider Schumacher a better driver than Senna despite the latter winning less titles.
Originally Posted by FrayedEndsOfSanity
Re the first set of points, have encountered plenty of people who have begged to differ from me on the points mentioned hence why I listed them. Reason why I lumped Cech in there is the same, come across a lot of people that seem to believe he is still the best GK in the world. IMO he may have had a case a few years back but not anymore and not for a while TBH.
Second set of points which you labelled 'embarrasing'
1) Quaresma was a very talented prospect when he first started out and I believed was going to be a hell of a player. Never happened but the potential was there IMO.
2) Raul was more of a skillful player than Morientes that I accept but as an out and out goalscorer I always thought Morientes was lethal when on form and never got the credit that Raul did.
3) Why is this embarrasing? I never said England would have won the series just that it would not have been a whitewash. England had chances to win a test in the series but due to their ability to collapse it never happened. Just as much to do with England being shite in the series as Australia being brilliant. For the record Australia would still have won the ashes and series IMO.
4) Personal preference. I think if Lee had not been injury prone he would have been an immense bowler on the level of the Aussie bowling greats before him. Thought he was a very accurate and lethal bowler when on form.
Cech has been pants post helmet, he's gone back to being shit now after a brief return to form which coincided with RDM taking over at Chelsea.
The potential was never there for Quaresma to be scoring 50-60 goals a season.
Morientes was nowhere near Raul. Ever. Even despite being underrated by Madrid.
England were pants but that Australia side had the talent to whitewash anyone and were at the peak of their game.
Suggesting Lee was a better bowler than McGrath is laughable and doesn't even deserve a retort.
I actually agree with a fair few of your other opinions, especially the one's I highlighted in my last post, and the rest are arguable, but these one's are really just silly to me.