Another Look at Most Dominant Player

[Kieran]

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).


What do you guys think?

I looked back through the thread and didn't find one complaint.

What I think is, you oft try slip in a sly one.

As for the rest of it, I'm not sure what streaks have to do with GOATs. A streak only tells us what a guy did in his own time, not how he'd do in another time.

And what about Rafa's streak: 9 successive seasons winning a slam, which must be the single most impressive streak in pro tennis...

 

[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).


What do you guys think?

I looked back through the thread and didn't find one complaint.

What I think is, you oft try slip in a sly one.

As for the rest of it, I'm not sure what streaks have to do with GOATs. A streak only tells us what a guy did in his own time, not how he'd do in another time.

And what about Rafa's streak: 9 successive seasons winning a slam, which must be the single most impressive streak in pro tennis...

1. I agree that nobody complained about injury in this thread. But, that is one of the
general complaint Rafa fans have had in the past. I am trying to point out that the streak
definition allows for injury misses and so, Rafa fans do not have to worry about the fairness
of it.

2. If you are asking what streak has to do with GOAT, it means you have not read
the article carefully. The author of the article starts with slam count as the criteria
and then gradually changes it pointing out the weakness of the successive criteria
and finally ends up with streak.

3. There is no way to figure out how one player would have done in another time.
So, instead of getting into that kind of pointless discussion, we can try to figure out
how well each player did in their times. That is where the streaks that different
players had in their times becomes important.

 

[Riotbeard]

RE: Another take on GOAT

GOAT Discussion... :gross:

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

RE: Another take on GOAT

3. There is no way to figure out how one player would have done in another time.
So, instead of getting into that kind of pointless discussion, we can try to figure out
how well each player did in their times. That is where the streaks that different
players had in their times becomes important.

Aren't you then basically saying we can only determine a GOTOT (greatest of their own time) as opposed to GOAT?

 

[Kieran]

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).


What do you guys think?

I looked back through the thread and didn't find one complaint.

What I think is, you oft try slip in a sly one.

As for the rest of it, I'm not sure what streaks have to do with GOATs. A streak only tells us what a guy did in his own time, not how he'd do in another time.

And what about Rafa's streak: 9 successive seasons winning a slam, which must be the single most impressive streak in pro tennis...

1. I agree that nobody complained about injury in this thread. But, that is one of the
general complaint Rafa fans have had in the past. I am trying to point out that the streak
definition allows for injury misses and so, Rafa fans do not have to worry about the fairness
of it.

2. If you are asking what streak has to do with GOAT, it means you have not read
the article carefully. The author of the article starts with slam count as the criteria
and then gradually changes it pointing out the weakness of the successive criteria
and finally ends up with streak.

3. There is no way to figure out how one player would have done in another time.
So, instead of getting into that kind of pointless discussion, we can try to figure out
how well each player did in their times. That is where the streaks that different
players had in their times becomes important.

1. They're not complaints, they're facts.

2. I read the article and gave my conclusions above.

3. So you agree with me, there is no GOAT, there's only greatness in their own era.

Good...

 

[GameSetAndMath]

RE: Another take on GOAT

3. There is no way to figure out how one player would have done in another time.
So, instead of getting into that kind of pointless discussion, we can try to figure out
how well each player did in their times. That is where the streaks that different
players had in their times becomes important.

Aren't you then basically saying we can only determine a GOTOT (greatest of their own time) as opposed to GOAT?

Yes and no. If you read the article, carefully again you will notice that the
word GOAT does not appear in it anywhere. The author instead uses the term
"most dominant player". That is exactly what I wanted to discuss as well i.e., GOTOT.
I named the thread loosely so that people can easily identify what kind of thread it is.

While there is no way to compare how a player from one era would fare against a
player of a different era in a meaningful way (This is exactly the reason I did not jump
into the discussion when Luxilon said Murray can beat Sampras etc.), I think we can
certainly compare the extent to which each GOTOT was dominant in their own era,
in a meaningful way. Do you agree with me on this.

I am willing to change the title of the thread to "Most Impressive GOTOT" from
"GOAT".

 

[GameSetAndMath]

In the grand scheme of life in tennis, players start playing professional tennis, after
some time some of them become a major force, and then they deteriorate and eventually
retire.

If somebody was not a major force at any time, then it is clear that he is not worthy
of any special mention. However, when we have different players who have been major
force at various points of time, the question is whether we can compare them in a
meaningful way.

Obviously we cannot speculate as to who would have won if two players who
were major players at different times were pitted against each other. We also cannot
speculate as to how much one player would have accomplished if he had instead
played in a different era. These are all pointless discussions.

However, we can meaningfully compare the extent to which the players
who have become major players at some point of time, dominated others
during their peak. This is exactly what this article is attempting to.

So, basically the author sets out two criteria. The first criteria is the length of domination.
This is the length of streak that the authordefined (length of a continuous sequence of
grand slams in which a player participated and never got dismissed before finals two
times in a row). That certainly seems to be a reasonable measure. The second criteria is the
strength of the domination. This is the average number of points per grand slam obtained
by these players, during the streak. If you want a single criteria, that would be the
total number of points accumulated by the player in Grand Slams during the streak.

Even though players may belong to different era, it is meaningful to compare their
relative length and strength of domination. That is the whole point of the article.

It is important to realize that the fact that wooden racquets are used in one era
and nowadays the racquet technology has changed fundamentally etc, have nothing
to do with this way of comparison. Why this way of comparison is fair? We are only
talking about dominating your peers. The same technology was also available to
your peers whom you are trying to dominate.

Similarly, the argument that the strength and condition of players have changed
due to improved Gyms etc also does not hold water. Why? We are talking about
dominating your contemporaries. Whatever weakness a era was having in terms
of Gyms or something else is applicable to all players of the same era.

Also, the fact that many players did not participate in AO during one era
does not affect this argument. This is again because, if AO was considered
stupid tournament in an era, most top players would have skipped that
and once again we are only talking about dominating your contemporaries.

Also, the fact that in some era there were only two surfaces etc., also
does not affect this argument. Even if it was just once surface, it was the
case for all players. If the courts were fast or slow, it was same for all
players. We are only talking about dominating your peers and so any
condition does not affect the logic of this argument as the same conditions
apply to all the players of the same era. When you lose a tennis
match you cannot legitimately complain saying I lost because it is windy.
It is absurd excuse as it is also windy for the other player. Same story
applies in dominating your own peers. The peers have the same conditions
as you, whether it be one surface, two surface, three surface, fast court,
slow court. All that we are talking about is how good you are in dominating
your peers.

To summarize, even though players may belong to different eras, it
is completely meaningful and fair to compare them based on the extent
(length and strength) to which they were able to dominate their peers.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

And what about Rafa's streak: 9 successive seasons winning a slam, which must be the single most impressive streak in pro tennis...

While it is true that Rafa has won at least one slam for nine year from 2005 to 2013,
nobody in the right mind would say that Rafa dominated the tennis world from 2005 to
2013.

Here, I am talking about how long and how strong a player is able to dominate
his peers.

 

[Kieran]

And what about Rafa's streak: 9 successive seasons winning a slam, which must be the single most impressive streak in pro tennis...

While it is true that Rafa has won at least one slam for nine year from 2005 to 2013,
nobody in the right mind would say that Rafa dominated the tennis world from 2005 to
2013.

Here, I am talking about how long and how strong a player is able to dominate
his peers.

Well, there's one peer he's dominated quite handily, but I suppose that doesn't fit your reckonings either, eh?

 

[Front242]

3. There is no way to figure out how one player would have done in another time.
So, instead of getting into that kind of pointless discussion, we can try to figure out
how well each player did in their times. That is where the streaks that different
players had in their times becomes important.

Aren't you then basically saying we can only determine a GOTOT (greatest of their own time) as opposed to GOAT?

Remember Nadal is the undisputed GOTOT (GO TO TOILET), which he proved at Indian Wells 2012 in the final.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

And what about Rafa's streak: 9 successive seasons winning a slam, which must be the single most impressive streak in pro tennis...

While it is true that Rafa has won at least one slam for nine year from 2005 to 2013,
nobody in the right mind would say that Rafa dominated the tennis world from 2005 to
2013.

Here, I am talking about how long and how strong a player is able to dominate
his peers.

Well, there's one peer he's dominated quite handily, but I suppose that doesn't fit your reckonings either, eh?

This does not deserve a reply. But, I am anyway giving one. Ferrer has a 14-0 record
against Almagro. So, he thoroughly dominated one of his peers. So, let us anoint him
as the GOAT/GOTOT/MDP.

 

[Kieran]

Oh, of course it deserves a reply, because it's in the spirit of the thread. It's a remarkable and unprecedented run of actual success.

Also: Newsflash - Federer didn't "dominate his tennis world" (as you put it) for the duration of his streaks...

 

[Kieran]

3. There is no way to figure out how one player would have done in another time.
So, instead of getting into that kind of pointless discussion, we can try to figure out
how well each player did in their times. That is where the streaks that different
players had in their times becomes important.

Aren't you then basically saying we can only determine a GOTOT (greatest of their own time) as opposed to GOAT?

Remember Nadal is the undisputed GOTOT (GO TO TOILET), which he proved at Indian Wells 2012 in the final.

He was at home watching that match on telly. You must have a hidden camera! uzzled

 

[Federberg]

It's an interesting article, but as with others I have reservations. For one thing I think that surface homogeneity makes a nonsense of comparing Borg's achievements with modern day players. Winning the channel slams when he did was a truly ridiculous thing. Now? Not so much...

I'll always believe that the big 4 in this era have been hugely assisted by slower courts.. thus I'm unwilling to participate in GOAT discussions anymore. I'm only willing to say that Federer is the most talented player I've ever seen... closely followed by Mac. That doesn't mean I'm not in awe of Rafa, or indeed Novak, I just don't get that from watching those fellas play. I'll add one final thing... when the Pistol was on... no one ever looked more unbeatable than that...

 

[Front242]

3. There is no way to figure out how one player would have done in another time.
So, instead of getting into that kind of pointless discussion, we can try to figure out
how well each player did in their times. That is where the streaks that different
players had in their times becomes important.

Aren't you then basically saying we can only determine a GOTOT (greatest of their own time) as opposed to GOAT?

Remember Nadal is the undisputed GOTOT (GO TO TOILET), which he proved at Indian Wells 2012 in the final.

He was at home watching that match on telly. You must have a hidden camera! uzzled

Nope. You must have a broken tv/pc! Ah yes, it was the SF, not the final though.

[video=youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Jjqa22PTeBw[/video]

 

[brokenshoelace]

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.

How are Agassi, Connors, Lendl and Mac in the same tier as Nadal, Borg and Sampras?

 

[brokenshoelace]

It's an interesting article, but as with others I have reservations. For one thing I think that surface homogeneity makes a nonsense of comparing Borg's achievements with modern day players. Winning the channel slams when he did was a truly ridiculous thing. Now? Not so much...

Really? And how many players have been able to do it nowadays? Oh right, Federer and Nadal...only two of the greatest ever. People talk about it as if it's some common occurrence now when it was just as common in Borg's heyday. Difference is, Borg was the only one doing it then. It so happens that we have two players who were good enough to do it these days.

Not debating that surfaces have been homogenized but it's still a ridiculous achievement today. Winning back-to-back slams is an incredible achievement as it is...let alone RG followed by Wimbledon.

 

[brokenshoelace]

And what about Rafa's streak: 9 successive seasons winning a slam, which must be the single most impressive streak in pro tennis...

While it is true that Rafa has won at least one slam for nine year from 2005 to 2013,
nobody in the right mind would say that Rafa dominated the tennis world from 2005 to
2013.

Here, I am talking about how long and how strong a player is able to dominate
his peers.

Well, there's one peer he's dominated quite handily, but I suppose that doesn't fit your reckonings either, eh?

Four consecutive years at world number one outweighs failing to dominate one particular rival.

 

[brokenshoelace]

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.

This post... Oh my god.

There's a reason I haven't been posting as much recently.

 

[britbox]

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.

Agassi's not in the same bracket as Sampras buddy, under any criteria. Sampras and Nadal are Tier 1 IMO.