Another Look at Most Dominant Player

[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...

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 occurence now when it was even more 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.

Statistically the channel slam may be as unusual today as it was back in Borg's time - but I suspect that the thing that sustains the rarity value is less to do with the surface difference than as you yourself pointed out.. winning back to back slams.

I maintain that qualitatively Borg's achievement was superior. Just my opinion.. but clay was almost a different sport then compared to now. Surface homogeneity has made a nonsense of things in my view..

 

[britbox]

Just my opinion.. but clay was almost a different sport then compared to now.

How so? (specifics)

 

[brokenshoelace]

clay was almost a different sport then compared to now.

What Britbox asked above.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

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.

We missed u. :snigger

 

[shawnbm]

Head hurting stats in the OP. Round and round we go, where it stops nobody knows. ...

 

[Luxilon Borg]

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.

I suggest you rexamine that. Career slam. 14-20 record against Sampras, far better than Feds against Nadal. Wake up and smell the coffee.

 

[Federberg]

Just my opinion.. but clay was almost a different sport then compared to now.

How so? (specifics)

Can't give you specifics. It just seems to me that clay (and to be honest I'm actually focussing on RG) doesn't play quite as slow as it used to back in the 80s and 90s. Again... just an opinion. Perhaps I'm wrong, just my gut

 

[Federberg]

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.

I suggest you rexamine that. Career slam. 14-20 record against Sampras, far better than Feds against Nadal. Wake up and smell the coffee.

But what does H2H have to do with career achievements? This is the difficulty I often have with focussing too much on Federer's record against Nadal.

Also, does Sharapova's career slam in anyway make her career achievements to date worthy of comparison with Seles' career achievements? In my view... no

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Just my opinion.. but clay was almost a different sport then compared to now.

How so? (specifics)

Can't give you specifics. It just seems to me that clay (and to be honest I'm actually focussing on RG) doesn't play quite as slow as it used to back in the 80s and 90s. Again... just an opinion. Perhaps I'm wrong, just my gut

The clay is no different. The streamlining of styles is the difference. Grips are less extreme. There is no equivalent of Carlos Costa,or Berusatagi. I think Carlos Moya ushered in a new era.

Also players don't protect their backhands as fiercely, like Muster did.

 

[Federberg]

Just my opinion.. but clay was almost a different sport then compared to now.

How so? (specifics)

Can't give you specifics. It just seems to me that clay (and to be honest I'm actually focussing on RG) doesn't play quite as slow as it used to back in the 80s and 90s. Again... just an opinion. Perhaps I'm wrong, just my gut

The clay is no different. The streamlining of styles is the difference. Grips are less extreme. There is no equivalent of Carlos Costa,or Berusatagi. I think Carlos Moya ushered in a new era.

Also players don't protect their backhands as fiercely, like Muster did.

You may well be right. As I said.. it was just my gut saying it was so :blush:

 

[shawnbm]

Just my opinion.. but clay was almost a different sport then compared to now.

How so? (specifics)

Can't give you specifics. It just seems to me that clay (and to be honest I'm actually focussing on RG) doesn't play quite as slow as it used to back in the 80s and 90s. Again... just an opinion. Perhaps I'm wrong, just my gut

The clay is no different. The streamlining of styles is the difference. Grips are less extreme. There is no equivalent of Carlos Costa,or Berusatagi. I think Carlos Moya ushered in a new era.

Also players don't protect their backhands as fiercely, like Muster did.

And let us not forget the change in string and racquet technology, to say nothing about how training techniques have advanced.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Just my opinion.. but clay was almost a different sport then compared to now.

How so? (specifics)

Can't give you specifics. It just seems to me that clay (and to be honest I'm actually focussing on RG) doesn't play quite as slow as it used to back in the 80s and 90s. Again... just an opinion. Perhaps I'm wrong, just my gut

The clay is no different. The streamlining of styles is the difference. Grips are less extreme. There is no equivalent of Carlos Costa,or Berusatagi. I think Carlos Moya ushered in a new era.

Also players don't protect their backhands as fiercely, like Muster did.

And let us not forget the change in string and racquet technology, to say nothing about how training techniques have advanced.

Yep. Exactamundo. The first time I ever saw Luxilon string was in 98. Both Moya and Alex Coretja had it at the US Open. It looked different and sounded different. Completely different.

 

[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.

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

I suggest you rexamine that. Career slam. 14-20 record against Sampras, far better than Feds against Nadal. Wake up and smell the coffee.

So head to head is what matters now? In that case, Nadal > Federer. Sampras has 6 more slams than Agassi AND leads him in head to head. Maybe YOU need to wake-up and smell coffee.

Your argument regarding Agassi being in Sampras' tier is that his H2H isn't as bad as Fed's H2H against Nadal? Am I the only one here who sees how this is a ridiculous argument?

 

[brokenshoelace]

OK, I'm out of this thread as it's giving me a headache, as most GOAT threads do.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

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.

I suggest you rexamine that. Career slam. 14-20 record against Sampras, far better than Feds against Nadal. Wake up and smell the coffee.

So head to head is what matters now? In that case, Nadal > Federer. Sampras has 6 more slams than Agassi AND leads him in head to head. Maybe YOU need to wake-up and smell coffee.

Your argument regarding Agassi being in Sampras' tier is that his H2H isn't as bad as Fed's H2H against Nadal? Am I the only one here who sees how this is a ridiculous argument?

What part don't you get that this is my opinion? Don't be a drama king.

A career slam for me is a HUGE stat. But wait, it is a GOLDEN career slam, with a gold medal.

Don't let the door...well you know the rest...

 

[Federberg]

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.

I suggest you rexamine that. Career slam. 14-20 record against Sampras, far better than Feds against Nadal. Wake up and smell the coffee.

So head to head is what matters now? In that case, Nadal > Federer. Sampras has 6 more slams than Agassi AND leads him in head to head. Maybe YOU need to wake-up and smell coffee.

Your argument regarding Agassi being in Sampras' tier is that his H2H isn't as bad as Fed's H2H against Nadal? Am I the only one here who sees how this is a ridiculous argument?

What part don't you get that this is my opinion? Don't be a drama king.

A career slam for me is a HUGE stat. But wait, it is a GOLDEN career slam, with a gold medal.

Don't let the door...well you know the rest...

Haha! I confess I agree that BS's reaction seems a bit dramatic, but I confess I'm with him. H2H has nothing to do with career achievements. Professional tennis players dream about winning slams and other titles. I'm not sure how concerned they are about achieving superior H2H's. Ask Roger if he would relinquish 3 or 4 slams in order to equalise his H2H with Rafa... guess what he would say...

 

[Luxilon Borg]

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

I suggest you rexamine that. Career slam. 14-20 record against Sampras, far better than Feds against Nadal. Wake up and smell the coffee.

So head to head is what matters now? In that case, Nadal > Federer. Sampras has 6 more slams than Agassi AND leads him in head to head. Maybe YOU need to wake-up and smell coffee.

Your argument regarding Agassi being in Sampras' tier is that his H2H isn't as bad as Fed's H2H against Nadal? Am I the only one here who sees how this is a ridiculous argument?

What part don't you get that this is my opinion? Don't be a drama king.

A career slam for me is a HUGE stat. But wait, it is a GOLDEN career slam, with a gold medal.

Don't let the door...well you know the rest...

Haha! I confess I agree that BS's reaction seems a bit dramatic, but I confess I'm with him. H2H has nothing to do with career achievements. Professional tennis players dream about winning slams and other titles. I'm not sure how concerned they are about achieving superior H2H's. Ask Roger if he would relinquish 3 or 4 slams in order to equalise his H2H with Rafa... guess what he would say...

actually, I NEVER said H2H was a factor. I simply noted that Sampras only had 6 more victories over Agassi, which is surprising, and something that is over looked.

 

[Kieran]

actually, I NEVER said H2H was a factor. I simply noted that Sampras only had 6 more victories over Agassi, which is surprising, and something that is over looked.

Why is it surprising?

 

[britbox]

Well, comparing Sampras and Agassi, we don't have the dilemna of doing a cross era comparison. I don't buy Agassi as being in the same tier when it comes to career greatness. The Career Slam counts for something but it's not enough to bridge the gap of 6 majors, all those years at #1 and in addition, Pete enjoyed periods of dominance that Andre never really matched. Pete's comfortably a tier above IMO.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

actually, I NEVER said H2H was a factor. I simply noted that Sampras only had 6 more victories over Agassi, which is surprising, and something that is over looked.

Why is it surprising?

I would have though the number would have been more lopsided. I guess it surprises me. Brad Gilbet likes to hold it as a badge of honor.