Another Look at Most Dominant Player

[GameSetAndMath]

February is a little slow. So, let us take another look at most dominant player. I found the following
blog on most dominant player interesting.


http://regressing.deadspin.com/which-tennis-player-was-really-the-most-dominant-in-maj-1507503924

The only downside that can be said about the article is that it does not take anything
other than grand slam performance into account (such as years at #1, weeks at #1,
total number of titles won, WTF, Masters etc.). However, assuming you agree that grand slams
are the "be all and end all" of tennis, the article certainly provides a different
and intriguing perspective on the performance of different players in GSs.

The article was written before the finals of AO was over. But, it does not change anything.

p.s. Take the gloves off. We never had such a thread, at least not since Tennis Frontier
was founded.

 

[Haelfix]

RE: Another take on GOAT

Thats a pretty good article. For my money, you can throw a coin and pick between Laver and Federer and not be wrong. The very next but close tier is Sampras/Nadal/Borg and you can throw a coin there too.

Rafa has a chance at moving into the first tier by the time his career is done.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

RE: Another take on GOAT

Feb. is a little slow. So, let us take another look at GOAT. I found the following
blog on GOAT interesting.


http://regressing.deadspin.com/which-tennis-player-was-really-the-most-dominant-in-maj-1507503924

The only downside that can be said about the article is that it does not take anything
other than grand slam performance into account (such as years at #1, weeks at #1,
total number of titles won etc). However, assuming you agree that grand slams
are the "be all and end all" of tennis, the article certainly provides a right way of
looking at the different players performance in them.

p.s. Take the gloves off. We never had a goat thread, at least not since Tennis Frontier
was founded.

No matter how technical you get, no matter how it is spun..Federer is the GOAT in my book.

Results on all surfaces, consistency in slams that defies mortals.

Second tier Nadal, Sampras, Agassi, Connors, Borg, Mac, Lendl

Laver is a tough one. The competition in early rounds was completely different, and the surfaces were unified, 3 out of the four slams were on grass. In the 60s, there were guys with day jobs who played main draws in slams.

 

[Moxie]

RE: Another take on GOAT

p.s. Take the gloves off. We never had a goat thread, at least not since Tennis Frontier
was founded.

That may well be true. I would put to you that it finds its way into lots of thread, but go for it, if you like…gloves off. :spacecadet:

 

[GameSetAndMath]

RE: Another take on GOAT

p.s. Take the gloves off. We never had a goat thread, at least not since Tennis Frontier
was founded.

That may well be true. I would put to you that it finds its way into lots of thread, but go for it, if you like…gloves off. :spacecadet:

Well, this way at least we can keep the other threads clean and goat-free.

 

[Moxie]

RE: Another take on GOAT

p.s. Take the gloves off. We never had a goat thread, at least not since Tennis Frontier
was founded.

That may well be true. I would put to you that it finds its way into lots of thread, but go for it, if you like…gloves off. :spacecadet:

Well, this way at least we can keep the other threads clean and goat-free.

Oh, what are the chances? :nono :laydownlaughing

 

[Moxie]

RE: Another take on GOAT

Feb. is a little slow. So, let us take another look at GOAT. I found the following
blog on GOAT interesting.


http://regressing.deadspin.com/which-tennis-player-was-really-the-most-dominant-in-maj-1507503924

The only downside that can be said about the article is that it does not take anything
other than grand slam performance into account (such as years at #1, weeks at #1,
total number of titles won etc). However, assuming you agree that grand slams
are the "be all and end all" of tennis, the article certainly provides a right way of
looking at the different players performance in them.

p.s. Take the gloves off. We never had a goat thread, at least not since Tennis Frontier
was founded.

No matter how technical you get, no matter how it is spun..Federer is the GOAT in my book.

Results on all surfaces, consistency in slams that defies mortals.

Second tier Nadal, Sampras, Agassi, Connors, Borg, Mac, Lendl

Laver is a tough one. The competition in early rounds was completely different, and the surfaces were unified, 3 out of the four slams were on grass. In the 60s, there were guys with day jobs who played main draws in slams.

So you've put it down, Luxilon Borg…Federer is the GOAT for you. I'm not sure what it means, though, when you say "no matter how technical you get," or when you say "results on all surfaces." I think this is where things get tough, and Nadal gets in the conversation. Since GSM wants the gloves off, how will you feel if Nadal gets to 17 or 18 in Majors? (Speculative, I understand, but isn't GSM asking us to debate it?)

 

[Luxilon Borg]

RE: Another take on GOAT

Feb. is a little slow. So, let us take another look at GOAT. I found the following
blog on GOAT interesting.


http://regressing.deadspin.com/which-tennis-player-was-really-the-most-dominant-in-maj-1507503924

The only downside that can be said about the article is that it does not take anything
other than grand slam performance into account (such as years at #1, weeks at #1,
total number of titles won etc). However, assuming you agree that grand slams
are the "be all and end all" of tennis, the article certainly provides a right way of
looking at the different players performance in them.

p.s. Take the gloves off. We never had a goat thread, at least not since Tennis Frontier
was founded.

No matter how technical you get, no matter how it is spun..Federer is the GOAT in my book.

Results on all surfaces, consistency in slams that defies mortals.

Second tier Nadal, Sampras, Agassi, Connors, Borg, Mac, Lendl

Laver is a tough one. The competition in early rounds was completely different, and the surfaces were unified, 3 out of the four slams were on grass. In the 60s, there were guys with day jobs who played main draws in slams.

So you've put it down, Luxilon Borg…Federer is the GOAT for you. I'm not sure what it means, though, when you say "no matter how technical you get," or when you say "results on all surfaces." I think this is where things get tough, and Nadal gets in the conversation. Since GSM wants the gloves off, how will you feel if Nadal gets to 17 or 18 in Majors? (Speculative, I understand, but isn't GSM asking us to debate it?)

Good questions.

Federer is the greatest of all time for me results wise in majors, masters 1000s, and subjectively due to his versatility, match winning percentage, and the ease with which he has won many of his matches.

Here is a question that is almost never asked..who is the SECOND best player on clay from 2005 to 2010? The answer is Federer. Nadal's dominance over shadowed this simple fact. He has I believe achieved multiple semis at the French and FOUR finals, and has won numerous Hamburg and other red clay titles.

If Nadal surpasses Federer with 18 slams, with his Masters 1000 record, he will be my GOAT.

P.S. I have been lucky enough to see every #1 in person since 1981..Borg, Mac, Connors, Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Courier, Sampras, Kafelnikov, Agasssi, Muster, Safin all the way down the line.

Fed and Rafa are the two best tennis players I have ever seen, bar none. Joker and Murray right behind, by a hair.

 

[Kieran]

RE: Another take on GOAT

P.S. I have been lucky enough to see every #1 in person since 1981..Borg, Mac, Connors, Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Courier, Sampras, Kafelnikov, Agasssi, Muster, Safin all the way down the line.

Fed and Rafa are the two best tennis players I have ever seen, bar none. Joker and Murray right behind, by a hair.

Wait - are you saying you think Murray and "Joker" are ahead of Sampras, Borg and Lendl, Connors and Mac?

 

[Kieran]

RE: Another take on GOAT

Looking at the link, it proves how difficult it is to claim GOAThood for a player, if we base it purely upon graphs and charts. A number-cruncher approach shows Djoker ahead of his idol Pete in a couple of categories, although not even Mastoor would say that Djoker was a greater player than Sampras.

It's interesting to view these trends, but I'm not sure they give the whole picture...

 

[Luxilon Borg]

RE: Another take on GOAT

P.S. I have been lucky enough to see every #1 in person since 1981..Borg, Mac, Connors, Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Courier, Sampras, Kafelnikov, Agasssi, Muster, Safin all the way down the line.

Fed and Rafa are the two best tennis players I have ever seen, bar none. Joker and Murray right behind, by a hair.

Wait - are you saying you think Murray and "Joker" are ahead of Sampras, Borg and Lendl, Connors and Mac?

No, not in results and historical standing. In physicality, yes, maybe with Borg as the exception, who was a phenom.

 

[Kieran]

RE: Another take on GOAT

P.S. I have been lucky enough to see every #1 in person since 1981..Borg, Mac, Connors, Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Courier, Sampras, Kafelnikov, Agasssi, Muster, Safin all the way down the line.

Fed and Rafa are the two best tennis players I have ever seen, bar none. Joker and Murray right behind, by a hair.

Wait - are you saying you think Murray and "Joker" are ahead of Sampras, Borg and Lendl, Connors and Mac?

No, not in results and historical standing. In physicality, yes, maybe with Borg as the exception, who was a phenom.

Okay, cos what I read was that you said "Fed and Rafa are the two best tennis players I have ever seen, bar none. Joker and Murray right behind, by a hair."

Nothing about physicality - you said best tennis players.

There's no measure on earth has Murray ahead of - or equal to - Mac or Connors or Lendl, etc. Djoker can duke it out with them boys some day.

Let's not even go there with Sampras...

 

[Luxilon Borg]

RE: Another take on GOAT

P.S. I have been lucky enough to see every #1 in person since 1981..Borg, Mac, Connors, Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Courier, Sampras, Kafelnikov, Agasssi, Muster, Safin all the way down the line.

Fed and Rafa are the two best tennis players I have ever seen, bar none. Joker and Murray right behind, by a hair.

Wait - are you saying you think Murray and "Joker" are ahead of Sampras, Borg and Lendl, Connors and Mac?

No, not in results and historical standing. In physicality, yes, maybe with Borg as the exception, who was a phenom.

Okay, cos what I read was that you said "Fed and Rafa are the two best tennis players I have ever seen, bar none. Joker and Murray right behind, by a hair."

Nothing about physicality - you said best tennis players.

There's no measure on earth has Murray ahead of - or equal to - Mac or Connors or Lendl, etc. Djoker can duke it out with them boys some day.

Let's not even go there with Sampras...

They ARE better players than those you mention. And mind you, I worship at the alter of connors mac and borg. Saying they are better players is NOT the same thing as saying they historically are better or their place in the pantheon of greatness is equal.

If Murray and Joker played Sampras or Lendl or Mac they would pulverize them on anything but chewed grass.

 

[Kieran]

RE: Another take on GOAT

They ARE better players than those you mention. And mind you, I worship at the alter of connors mac and borg.

If Murray and Joker played Sampras or Lendl or Mac they would pulverize them on anything but chewed grass.

Well that's interesting, because above you wrote that "Federer is the greatest of all time for me results wise in majors, masters 1000s, and subjectively due to his versatility, match winning percentage, and the ease with which he has won many of his matches."

Now, how is Murray better than Sampras, based upon the same criteria?

 

[Luxilon Borg]

RE: Another take on GOAT

They ARE better players than those you mention. And mind you, I worship at the alter of connors mac and borg.

If Murray and Joker played Sampras or Lendl or Mac they would pulverize them on anything but chewed grass.

Well that's interesting, because above you wrote that "Federer is the greatest of all time for me results wise in majors, masters 1000s, and subjectively due to his versatility, match winning percentage, and the ease with which he has won many of his matches."

Now, how is Murray better than Sampras, based upon the same criteria?

Let me make it super clear..having seen Sampras et all IN PERSON on numerous occassions, Murray is an overall better player, not in the standings of time and not on the above criteria, strictly by the level he plays at. The only area sampras is superior in on a PHYSICAL level (not historical standing) is first serve and volley, and running forehand. Otherwise Murray is a far more complete player.

Listen I cling to past like everybody else, but I can't deny what I see with my own eyes.

 

[Kieran]

RE: Another take on GOAT

They ARE better players than those you mention. And mind you, I worship at the alter of connors mac and borg.

If Murray and Joker played Sampras or Lendl or Mac they would pulverize them on anything but chewed grass.

Well that's interesting, because above you wrote that "Federer is the greatest of all time for me results wise in majors, masters 1000s, and subjectively due to his versatility, match winning percentage, and the ease with which he has won many of his matches."

Now, how is Murray better than Sampras, based upon the same criteria?

Let me make it super clear..having seen Sampras et all IN PERSON on numerous occassions, Murray is an overall better player, not in the standings of time. The only area sampras is superior in is first serve and volley, and running forehand. Otherwise Murray is a far more complete player.

Listen I cling to past like everybody else, but I can't deny what I see with my own eyes.

I think you musta been watching tennis from behind the sofa if you think Murray is better than Sampras. And with your hands over your eyes.

The fact is, you changed your criteria as you went along, which shows how difficult you found it to make a workable comparison. No worries, it happens to everyone who believes in GOATs...

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

RE: Another take on GOAT

The GOAT debate sooner or later gets stuck at the "How do you compare different generations?" issue. How do you compare a Laver to a Roger?. In a forum somewhere, 40 years from now, some guy is going to write something like " Well, when Federer won his slams, the courts were all playing the same, so he cannot be that versatile of a player" or " Well, look at Nadal's 17 slams...11 were on clay..there is no way he can be a great player" etc... You know how I know? Because we are doing it to Laver all the time...We say "The field was limited, they were all club players, etc..."

I don't want to hijack GSM's thread, but I would also like to know one thing from posters: What is the one criteria that you think is most important when determining a goat?

 

[Kieran]

RE: Another take on GOAT

You hit the nail on the head, Murat. It gets messy and blurred trying to shoehorn criteria together, some of which never even occurred to players back in the day. Bear in mind as well, although 3 slams were on grass in Laver's day, the grass was different in each slam. What do I mean? Well, look at Oz and Wimbo in the early 80's: Wilander won Oz on grass (twice!), beating McEnroe en route, because the grass there was more suitable to his game.

At Wimbledon, Mats never got beyond the quarters.

The surface talk is only a part of it. We need to factor in technology, and so forth. Luxilon has hit on something when he mentions physicality - except if that becomes a criteria, we end up believing JJ is higher up the tennis pantheon than Laver, because he'd bash him off the court... :nono

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

RE: Another take on GOAT

Agreed Kieran, and if you believe the game is constantly improving, the GOAT will always come from the current generation...in 20 years, Rafa or Roger will mean nothing.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

RE: Another take on GOAT

Let me try to put things back on track w.r.t. discussing the article. According to the definition
of streak by the author of the articles, it is a sequence of slams in which a player has
not missed reaching final two times consecutively (you get excused if you don't play at
all in a slam, so Nadal fans can stop complaining that he had injuries and so he could not
even play).

Under this definition, the longest streak of Fed is 19.

Under this definition, there are two players who have active streaks going on
and their active streaks have the exact same length viz. 14. They are obviously
Rafa and Novak.

To reach Roger's streak length, they just have to make sure that they navigate
the next five slams without reaching final two times consecutively. It does not
look like an impossible or difficult task for either of them to achieve. Note that
it is ok if one does not reach final in a slam as long as one does not do it two
times in a row. For example, if Novak does not reach the final at FO, his
streak would have ended as he did not reach final in AO also. On the other
hand if Rafa wins FO and then exits in 1st round in Wimby, that does not
end his streak provided he can manage to reach final in USO.

Actually speaking, there seems to be good likelihood that both of these
players might reach Fed's streak. This is because they are currently ranked
#1 and #2 and there is a huge gap between them and players ranked
#3 to #8 in points accumulated. So, there is no reason to believe
that these two cannot continue their streaks for 5 more slams especially
given that missing slams is OK and having a hiccup in one slam is OK.

What do you guys think?