No Such Thing As G.O.A.T.

I can't be the only one who was annoyed by the G.O.A.T. signs for Roger Federer. Maybe even Roger was annoyed. If anyone deserves that title--shorthand for greatest of all time, it's Serena Williams.
Sure, Roger so far has won 20 Grand Slams (three less than Serena). But once he was a great sportsman. Not so much anymore. Certainly, his remarks after losing to Kevin Anderson didn't make him the greatest sportsman of all time. "I had my chances and I blew them," he said according to The Guardian. "So that's my problem." Charming! Hats off to the winner!
And he wasn't the greatest of all time on that day when he lost to Anderson in this year's quarters at Wimbledon. That day was part of "all time."
Rafa Nadal may have a shot at G.O.A.T. one day, if we're to accept the dehumanizing-sounding acronym. Already he has a record 11 French Opens and 17 Grand Slams total, and is a few years younger than Federer. But even he didn't win all the time on the clay at Roland Garros--Novak Djokovic and Robin Soderling have beaten him there. On those days, he wasn't the greatest of all time on clay!
Djokovic, greatest of all the time at this year's Wimbledon final, though not every point, is creeping up the Grand Slam list with 13, just behind Pete Sampras' 14: 4th on the Grand Slam list in the Open era. He eats grass after winning and yells a lot on the court after big points though. That's not so great.
Then there's Serena. It's harder to make a case for her not being G.O.A.T. Why doesn't she have those signs instead of Roger? Her 23 Grand Slam titles are more impressive than Margaret Court's 24: 11 of Court's 24 were at the Australian Open when many tennis players didn't compete there, as Chris Evert has pointed out.
Yes, Steffi Graf had 23 and a Golden Slam, but how many would she have had if Seles hadn't been stabbed? Maybe Monica Seles would have kept beating Graf and everyone else on tour with her game-changing angled shots that made her my personal G.O.A.T. on the women's side. Maybe everyone has a personal G.O.A.T. and there isn't really a one writ large for everyone. Mats Wilander would be my G.O.A.T. on the men's side. Such a winsome winner!
As for whether Serena is G.O.A.T., I have to wonder too,whether Martina Navratilova would have won 36 Grand Slams instead of her 18 had Chris Evert retired the moment she realized how great Navratilova would be. (Her equal--Evert had 18 too. And yet some would argue they weren't equals. The debate is part of the fun of considering their completely different approaches to the game. Navratilova was superior at net. Evert at the baseline.)
Angelique Kerber was G.O.A.T. at this year's Wimbledon final, just as she has been at two other Grand Slam finals. Like Evert commentated, every day is a new day in sport. And Navratilova noted that the seeds don't really matter--not on any given day.
So many different champions. Maybe they're all G.O.A.T.s in their own way.
No, that can't be! The acronym grates on my nerves too much for it to be true! It's part of the media hype surrounding tennis stars to boost ratings when matches aren't competitive, I suspect. I'd much rather watch close rivalries, sit back, enjoy the match and not root for either side to emerge as G.O.A.T. Just enjoy the tennis.
I wonder whether G.O.A.T. rubs any other spectators the wrong way.