Another Look at Most Dominant Player

Kieran

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
17,139
Reactions
7,410
Points
113
Luxilon Borg said:
Kieran said:
Luxilon Borg said:
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.

Ah okay, you thought it would be greater, I getcha...
 

Luxilon Borg

Major Winner
Joined
Jul 22, 2013
Messages
1,665
Reactions
0
Points
0
britbox said:
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.

Fair enough. Although Agassi had much more balanced results across surfaces. The 6 slam difference is certainly big.
 

Kieran

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
17,139
Reactions
7,410
Points
113
Agassi, ironically, is the better model of the modern player than Pete was. Andre's style endures, as a prototype for the modern all-court baseline game.

But yeah, you knew it when you watched them play, there was a difference in class...
 

Luxilon Borg

Major Winner
Joined
Jul 22, 2013
Messages
1,665
Reactions
0
Points
0
Kieran said:
Agassi, ironically, is the better model of the modern player than Pete was. Andre's style endures, as a prototype for the modern all-court baseline game.

But yeah, you knew it when you watched them play, there was a difference in class...

Absolutely true. Agassi is a drop in for the modern game, with basically no adjustments.

Pete? Not so much. This observations has no bearing on his standing obviously.
 

Kieran

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
17,139
Reactions
7,410
Points
113
Luxilon Borg said:
Kieran said:
Agassi, ironically, is the better model of the modern player than Pete was. Andre's style endures, as a prototype for the modern all-court baseline game.

But yeah, you knew it when you watched them play, there was a difference in class...

Absolutely true. Agassi is a drop in for the modern game, with basically no adjustments.

Pete? Not so much. This observations has no bearing on his standing obviously.

Obviously. I mean, he's still worse than Murray, right? :snigger
 

Luxilon Borg

Major Winner
Joined
Jul 22, 2013
Messages
1,665
Reactions
0
Points
0
Kieran said:
Luxilon Borg said:
Kieran said:
Agassi, ironically, is the better model of the modern player than Pete was. Andre's style endures, as a prototype for the modern all-court baseline game.

But yeah, you knew it when you watched them play, there was a difference in class...

Absolutely true. Agassi is a drop in for the modern game, with basically no adjustments.

Pete? Not so much. This observations has no bearing on his standing obviously.

Obviously. I mean, he's still worse than Murray, right? :snigger

He ain't worse than anybody, but Murray puts a beat down on him.
 

Kieran

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
17,139
Reactions
7,410
Points
113
Luxilon Borg said:
Kieran said:
Luxilon Borg said:
Kieran said:
Agassi, ironically, is the better model of the modern player than Pete was. Andre's style endures, as a prototype for the modern all-court baseline game.

But yeah, you knew it when you watched them play, there was a difference in class...

Absolutely true. Agassi is a drop in for the modern game, with basically no adjustments.

Pete? Not so much. This observations has no bearing on his standing obviously.

Obviously. I mean, he's still worse than Murray, right? :snigger

He ain't worse than anybody, but Murray puts a beat down on him.


I've thought about it.

You're wrong, sorry... ;)
 

Luxilon Borg

Major Winner
Joined
Jul 22, 2013
Messages
1,665
Reactions
0
Points
0
Kieran said:
Luxilon Borg said:
Kieran said:
Luxilon Borg said:
Kieran said:
Agassi, ironically, is the better model of the modern player than Pete was. Andre's style endures, as a prototype for the modern all-court baseline game.

But yeah, you knew it when you watched them play, there was a difference in class...

Absolutely true. Agassi is a drop in for the modern game, with basically no adjustments.

Pete? Not so much. This observations has no bearing on his standing obviously.

Obviously. I mean, he's still worse than Murray, right? :snigger

He ain't worse than anybody, but Murray puts a beat down on him.


I've thought about it.

You're wrong, sorry... ;)

The thing is, dammit, we will never know..:nono
 

Kieran

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
17,139
Reactions
7,410
Points
113
Sampras, or Murray?

We know, believe me...
 

I.Haychew

Major Winner
Joined
Apr 15, 2013
Messages
1,148
Reactions
176
Points
63
federberg said:
Luxilon Borg said:
Broken_Shoelace said:
Luxilon Borg said:
britbox said:
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...

He (Phederer) could've "killed two birds with one stone" iph only he'd have beaten Pholks in a phew more major phinals. Three or phour more majors AND a slightly less lop-sided head-to-head. Can you imagine? Would there even be a GOAT debate?
 

Moxie

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
43,821
Reactions
14,981
Points
113
^ If only. Yes, there will always be a GOAT debate, because of Laver. And, frankly, because of Nadal. Oh…and Sampras. Personally, I don't believe there will ever be one GOAT. Everyone has a version of how to slice-and-dice the stats, (like GSM's graphs,) but eventually, you run up against too many mitigating factors, and the various notions of what matters more. Though, I do agree with GSM: it's February, and arguing about it is a guilty pleasure. :blush: :angel:
 

Luxilon Borg

Major Winner
Joined
Jul 22, 2013
Messages
1,665
Reactions
0
Points
0
I. Haychew said:
federberg said:
Luxilon Borg said:
Broken_Shoelace said:
Luxilon Borg said:
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...

He (Phederer) could've "killed two birds with one stone" iph only he'd have beaten Pholks in a phew more major phinals. Three or phour more majors AND a slightly less lop-sided head-to-head. Can you imagine? Would there even be a GOAT debate?

Um, yeh, like winning that Del Potro US Open Final up two sets to one..or stealing one of those French Open finals..maybe the one he was up one set then disappeared..or winning either one of the semis against Joker in the US Open final up two match points. :angel:
 

Luxilon Borg

Major Winner
Joined
Jul 22, 2013
Messages
1,665
Reactions
0
Points
0
Moxie629 said:
^ If only. Yes, there will always be a GOAT debate, because of Laver. And, frankly, because of Nadal. Oh…and Sampras. Personally, I don't believe there will ever be one GOAT. Everyone has a version of how to slice-and-dice the stats, (like GSM's graphs,) but eventually, you run up against too many mitigating factors, and the various notions of what matters more. Though, I do agree with GSM: it's February, and arguing about it is a guilty pleasure. :blush: :angel:

I think you are right, there will never be one GOAT. Laver's game was crafted and developed for the time, in which 3 out of the four slams were played on grass and long ground stroke rallies were an oddity. He had nothing like a modern forehand, although his backhand was very much a modern stroke when chose to come over it. And on the other end, Borg and Vilas's games were developed at a time in Europe and South America where clay was the surface of choice, and heavy spin was the fashion.
 

DarthFed

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
17,724
Reactions
3,477
Points
113
Luxilon Borg said:
I. Haychew said:
federberg said:
Luxilon Borg said:
Broken_Shoelace said:
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...

He (Phederer) could've "killed two birds with one stone" iph only he'd have beaten Pholks in a phew more major phinals. Three or phour more majors AND a slightly less lop-sided head-to-head. Can you imagine? Would there even be a GOAT debate?

Um, yeh, like winning that Del Potro US Open Final up two sets to one..or stealing one of those French Open finals..maybe the one he was up one set then disappeared..or winning either one of the semis against Joker in the US Open final up two match points. :angel:

The DP Debacle was a big time match, more than just a typical major final in retrospect. That one might bite him badly when all is said and done, would've been 6 straight at a major, would've made him King of New York and, assuming he would've still won AO 2010, he would've had a non calendar year grand slam.

As for the article it is just one of many ways to look at it. Roger has the greatest career to date, the only reasonable argument against that would be giving Laver a ton of extra slams for winning the calendar year.

But who was "better" between Roger and Laver, Borg, Sampras, can't be compared due to the different eras.
 

Moxie

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
43,821
Reactions
14,981
Points
113
DarthFed said:
The DP Debacle was a big time match, more than just a typical major final in retrospect. That one might bite him badly when all is said and done, would've been 6 straight at a major, would've made him King of New York and, assuming he would've still won AO 2010, he would've had a non calendar year grand slam.

As for the article it is just one of many ways to look at it. Roger has the greatest career to date, the only reasonable argument against that would be giving Laver a ton of extra slams for winning the calendar year.

But who was "better" between Roger and Laver, Borg, Sampras, can't be compared due to the different eras.

Interesting point about the Fed loss to Del Potro. I hadn't thought about him having that hole which would have been the "Roger Slam."

As to your litany after as to who was better, I'm sure you just accidentally omitted Nadal. :cool: :snigger
 

DarthFed

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
17,724
Reactions
3,477
Points
113
Roger and Rafa played in the same era even though they are a generation apart. Their achievements are easier to compare, much different story with the others mentioned, thus the omission.
 

Luxilon Borg

Major Winner
Joined
Jul 22, 2013
Messages
1,665
Reactions
0
Points
0
DarthFed said:
Luxilon Borg said:
I. Haychew said:
federberg said:
Luxilon Borg said:
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...

He (Phederer) could've "killed two birds with one stone" iph only he'd have beaten Pholks in a phew more major phinals. Three or phour more majors AND a slightly less lop-sided head-to-head. Can you imagine? Would there even be a GOAT debate?

Um, yeh, like winning that Del Potro US Open Final up two sets to one..or stealing one of those French Open finals..maybe the one he was up one set then disappeared..or winning either one of the semis against Joker in the US Open final up two match points. :angel:

The DP Debacle was a big time match, more than just a typical major final in retrospect. That one might bite him badly when all is said and done, would've been 6 straight at a major, would've made him King of New York and, assuming he would've still won AO 2010, he would've had a non calendar year grand slam.

As for the article it is just one of many ways to look at it. Roger has the greatest career to date, the only reasonable argument against that would be giving Laver a ton of extra slams for winning the calendar year.

But who was "better" between Roger and Laver, Borg, Sampras, can't be compared due to the different eras.

Debacle is the right word...good call. There are several matches that could have gone into his W column.the 5 set loss to Rafa in Aussie, er CryingGate...the 5 set loss in the dark at Wimby.
 

Moxie

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
43,821
Reactions
14,981
Points
113
Luxilon Borg said:
Moxie629 said:
^ If only. Yes, there will always be a GOAT debate, because of Laver. And, frankly, because of Nadal. Oh…and Sampras. Personally, I don't believe there will ever be one GOAT. Everyone has a version of how to slice-and-dice the stats, (like GSM's graphs,) but eventually, you run up against too many mitigating factors, and the various notions of what matters more. Though, I do agree with GSM: it's February, and arguing about it is a guilty pleasure. :blush: :angel:

I think you are right, there will never be one GOAT. Laver's game was crafted and developed for the time, in which 3 out of the four slams were played on grass and long ground stroke rallies were an oddity. He had nothing like a modern forehand, although his backhand was very much a modern stroke when chose to come over it. And on the other end, Borg and Vilas's games were developed at a time in Europe and South America where clay was the surface of choice, and heavy spin was the fashion.

If you take the more simple example of "GOAT on clay": I think most would agree that Borg and Nadal are head-and-shoulders above the historic field. And when Nadal won his 7th/8th RG, some, including commentators and journalists, wanted to concede the clay GOAT to Rafa. But Borg and Nadal will never play each other on even terms. I think, if it's even possible to get to the two best, you have to stop there. Which is why I would say, across the exponential differences between surfaces and eras, you'll never get to one person as the overall Greatest of All Time. In this era of very stunning players, it will just be where they come to rest, in terms of history.
 

DarthFed

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
17,724
Reactions
3,477
Points
113
Luxilon Borg said:
DarthFed said:
Luxilon Borg said:
I. Haychew said:
federberg said:
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...

He (Phederer) could've "killed two birds with one stone" iph only he'd have beaten Pholks in a phew more major phinals. Three or phour more majors AND a slightly less lop-sided head-to-head. Can you imagine? Would there even be a GOAT debate?

Um, yeh, like winning that Del Potro US Open Final up two sets to one..or stealing one of those French Open finals..maybe the one he was up one set then disappeared..or winning either one of the semis against Joker in the US Open final up two match points. :angel:

The DP Debacle was a big time match, more than just a typical major final in retrospect. That one might bite him badly when all is said and done, would've been 6 straight at a major, would've made him King of New York and, assuming he would've still won AO 2010, he would've had a non calendar year grand slam.

As for the article it is just one of many ways to look at it. Roger has the greatest career to date, the only reasonable argument against that would be giving Laver a ton of extra slams for winning the calendar year.

But who was "better" between Roger and Laver, Borg, Sampras, can't be compared due to the different eras.

Debacle is the right word...good call. There are several matches that could have gone into his W column.the 5 set loss to Rafa in Aussie, er CryingGate...the 5 set loss in the dark at Wimby.

3-7 in 5 set matches in GS semis and finals. Aside from the Rafa H2H that is the worst stat of his career. As awesome as his career has been, had he held tough in the tightest moments you're looking at 20+ slams in all likelihood.
 

Luxilon Borg

Major Winner
Joined
Jul 22, 2013
Messages
1,665
Reactions
0
Points
0
DarthFed said:
Luxilon Borg said:
DarthFed said:
Luxilon Borg said:
I. Haychew said:
He (Phederer) could've "killed two birds with one stone" iph only he'd have beaten Pholks in a phew more major phinals. Three or phour more majors AND a slightly less lop-sided head-to-head. Can you imagine? Would there even be a GOAT debate?

Um, yeh, like winning that Del Potro US Open Final up two sets to one..or stealing one of those French Open finals..maybe the one he was up one set then disappeared..or winning either one of the semis against Joker in the US Open final up two match points. :angel:

The DP Debacle was a big time match, more than just a typical major final in retrospect. That one might bite him badly when all is said and done, would've been 6 straight at a major, would've made him King of New York and, assuming he would've still won AO 2010, he would've had a non calendar year grand slam.

As for the article it is just one of many ways to look at it. Roger has the greatest career to date, the only reasonable argument against that would be giving Laver a ton of extra slams for winning the calendar year.

But who was "better" between Roger and Laver, Borg, Sampras, can't be compared due to the different eras.

Debacle is the right word...good call. There are several matches that could have gone into his W column.the 5 set loss to Rafa in Aussie, er CryingGate...the 5 set loss in the dark at Wimby.

3-7 in 5 set matches in GS semis and finals. Aside from the Rafa H2H that is the worst stat of his career. As awesome as his career has been, had he held tough in the tightest moments you're looking at 20+ slams in all likelihood.

2 of those were up 40-15 match point against Nole in the 5th.