ATP GOAT Conversation

[Federberg]

Fair enough, but that could be said about anyone from the past playing in their future, and perhaps even a player from now playing in the past. Who knows, maybe Rafa would be all confused by the trickery of a Rosewall or Laver, and of course not know how to wield a wooden racket.

but that's exactly my point!

To me your definition of what GOAT implies is so beyond the realm of possibility as to be completely worthless and unattainable as a concept, so we might as well use the term in a different way! I actually don't think anyone is using it that way or having that argument. In other words, considering how you are understanding the term I can see why you would think all GOAT discussion is puerile - but I don't think anyone else is using the term thusly, but more along the lines of your "accomplishments."

So maybe we can talk about the Greatest of All Time According to Their Accomplishments, or GOATATTA...or how about just GOAT for short?
[/quote]

Fine with me! If it's about accomplishments then it's difficult to understand why there's much of a discussion. Just about the only significant record Federer doesn't own is total number of titles. You have to really clutch at straws, or come up with zany definitions of greatness not to pick him.

If it was just about accomplishments people wouldn't try to use Rafa as an argument against his GOAThood..

 

[britbox]

One of the issues with a GOAT comparison is it always seems to boil down to how "Player X" would do in the current era. How about putting some of the current players in past eras and comparing?

 

[brokenshoelace]

One of the issues with a GOAT comparison is it always seems to boil down to how "Player X" would do in the current era. How about putting some of the current players in past eras and comparing?

Federer is way too talented and way too good of an athlete not to be good in any previous era. He'd succeed in the 90's because in some ways he is a 90's player (as in grew up in that era and shaped his game accordingly). There's no reason why his touch, movement and serve would be any worse in any other era.

Nadal and Djokovic are just freak athletes. I don't see why Nadal wouldn't do well in say, the 80's when Bjorn Borg did. I mean, is there an era in which Nadal doesn't dominate the clay courts at least?

Djokovic would have been totally fine in the 90's too. It's not like baseliners had no success. He's better Agassi with elite movement IMO.

 

[Federberg]

To play in the 80's they would need completely different grips. I'm sure they are dextrous enough to do well with such a profound change. It's just not clear to me that everything will translate exactly. The difference between a top 10 or 20 player and a no 1 or 2 is at once slight and cavernous as well. The slightest change can mean the difference. Unfortunately it's not a simple linear exercise. For me the failure of Macenroe to translate his wood racquet dominance to the new materials is a classic example of the finer margins. He was still comfortably a top player, he just wasn't... Mac anymore. It was truly painful for me, I was just lucky that my favourite player of all time came along to distract me from my grief. Thank you Stefan!

 

[brokenshoelace]

To play in the 80's they would need completely different grips. I'm sure they are dextrous enough to do well with such a profound change. It's just not clear to me that everything will translate exactly. The difference between a top 10 or 20 player and a no 1 or 2 is at once slight and cavernous as well. The slightest change can mean the difference. Unfortunately it's not a simple linear exercise. For me the failure of Macenroe to translate his wood racquet dominance to the new materials is a classic example of the finer margins. He was still comfortably a top player, he just wasn't... Mac anymore. It was truly painful for me, I was just lucky that my favourite player of all time came along to distract me from my grief. Thank you Stefan!

I can never follow this line of thinking. It's not like Nadal is travelling back in time and having to re-learn tennis. If he played in the 80's, he'd be the product of that era.

 

[Federberg]

To play in the 80's they would need completely different grips. I'm sure they are dextrous enough to do well with such a profound change. It's just not clear to me that everything will translate exactly. The difference between a top 10 or 20 player and a no 1 or 2 is at once slight and cavernous as well. The slightest change can mean the difference. Unfortunately it's not a simple linear exercise. For me the failure of Macenroe to translate his wood racquet dominance to the new materials is a classic example of the finer margins. He was still comfortably a top player, he just wasn't... Mac anymore. It was truly painful for me, I was just lucky that my favourite player of all time came along to distract me from my grief. Thank you Stefan!

I can never follow this line of thinking. It's not like Nadal is travelling back in time and having to re-learn tennis. If he played in the 80's, he'd be the product of that era.

I struggle to understand the line of thinking where people can state with such certainty that a player who is successful in one era would be equally successful in another era. If only life were that simple. It's not clear to me that it is, there are many seemingly inconsequential things that make one player a great and another just an also ran. As an aside, I remember in the early 2000s, before Rogers ascendancy... it really looked like Xavier Malisse had as much talent as Roger, but here we are over a decade later and it seems like an absurdity, but at the time it felt like there were only fine margins between the two. You just never know what it takes to make that last big step to become a great in any era. As much as we all want to channel our inner boyish fantasies, reality is a much harsher place..

 

[brokenshoelace]

To play in the 80's they would need completely different grips. I'm sure they are dextrous enough to do well with such a profound change. It's just not clear to me that everything will translate exactly. The difference between a top 10 or 20 player and a no 1 or 2 is at once slight and cavernous as well. The slightest change can mean the difference. Unfortunately it's not a simple linear exercise. For me the failure of Macenroe to translate his wood racquet dominance to the new materials is a classic example of the finer margins. He was still comfortably a top player, he just wasn't... Mac anymore. It was truly painful for me, I was just lucky that my favourite player of all time came along to distract me from my grief. Thank you Stefan!

I can never follow this line of thinking. It's not like Nadal is travelling back in time and having to re-learn tennis. If he played in the 80's, he'd be the product of that era.

I struggle to understand the line of thinking where people can state with such certainty that a player who is successful in one era would be equally successful in another era. If only life were that simple. It's not clear to me that it is, there are many seemingly inconsequential things that make one player a great and another just an also ran. As an aside, I remember in the early 2000s, before Rogers ascendancy... it really looked like Xavier Malisse had as much talent as Roger, but here we are over a decade later and it seems like an absurdity, but at the time it felt like there were only fine margins between the two. You just never know what it takes to make that last big step to become a great in any era. As much as we all want to channel our inner boyish fantasies, reality is a much harsher place..

That analogy is baffling. Xavier Malisse looked like he had talent, but that's it. We then found out the extent of his talent.

The extent of Nadal or Djokovic's talent has been proven. Yes, I can state with certainty that if you put an athlete like Nadal in the 80's he would be just as successful. You mean to tell me he wouldn't dominate clay back then? Why not exactly?

"Because we can't know for sure" is not an acceptable answer. Yes, we can't know for sure, I'm well aware time travel and changing the past isn't possible. But I'm asking for actual concrete tennis reasons. Because last I checked, Mats Wilander won 3 Roland Garros titles, so yeah...

 

[Federberg]

That analogy is baffling. Xavier Malisse looked like he had talent, but that's it. We then found out the extent of his talent.

Haha! "As an aside" I put that in to help you... I was talking about a priori knowledge. Obviously a posteriori it's an absurdity.

You mean to tell me he wouldn't dominate clay back then? Why not exactly?

There is simply no way we can know if these guys would be able to perform at the same level with the extreme grip changes the different technology would necessitate. Yes we can speculate, but that's all it can be. What would Rafa's game be like without the extreme top spin for instance? Fine margins...

"Because we can't know for sure" is not an acceptable answer.

If you don't accept what is patently obvious, I'm not sure what I can do? We can speculate, I guess. It's fun, but trying to speak with certainty about what is essentially water-cooler chat is... amusing. Trying to supply concrete reasons? Hmmm... There's nothing concrete about what we're doing.

Ok try this for some creative speculation. Imagine a world where tennis players of the early 90s just play on clay. And Muster is the absolute beast of the bunch. People speculate on tennis forums that if tennis was played on grass Muster would crush everyone. It's obvious right? He dominates on the surface of that world, he's just better than all the others. It's crude, it's simplistic, it's fun, but it's just speculation... Now let's quickly get back to the real world

Because last I checked, Mats Wilander won 3 Roland Garros titles, so yeah...

I'm probably missing your point here. What does Wilander's record at RG have to do with anything?

 

[brokenshoelace]

Why wouldn't Rafa be able to produce the top spin that Borg was producing in the 80's, which at the time was looked at as revolutionary.

As far as my point about Mats Wilander, it's simple. If he's winning 3 RG titles, I'll put my house on Nadal doing very well at the French Open in the 80's too. Too much of a physical freak.

 

[Federberg]

Yup. I know that's your opinion. I'm just not sure about all this... "because player A is good in one era, it means they'll be good in another". Fun to talk about, but hard to take that seriously

 

[brokenshoelace]

The players we're talking about weren't just "good" in one era. That's where the disconnect is coming from. I actually find it borderline outrageous to suggest that someone who's won double digit grand slams would not be good in another era.

 

[Kirijax]

Mats Wilander is the greatest of all time.

We can close this thread now.

 

[Federberg]

Were these players good in other era's too? Is this Dr Who time now?

Don't mind me... I'm being a bit facetious there...

 

[britbox]

The players we're talking about weren't just "good" in one era. That's where the disconnect is coming from. I actually find it borderline outrageous to suggest that someone who's won double digit grand slams would not be good in another era.

^ How do you think Ken Rosewall would fare in this era?

 

[Front242]

The players we're talking about weren't just "good" in one era. That's where the disconnect is coming from. I actually find it borderline outrageous to suggest that someone who's won double digit grand slams would not be good in another era.

^ How do you think Ken Rosewall would fare in this era?

Depends....does he have to use this racquet ? :snicker

 

[brokenshoelace]

The players we're talking about weren't just "good" in one era. That's where the disconnect is coming from. I actually find it borderline outrageous to suggest that someone who's won double digit grand slams would not be good in another era.

^ How do you think Ken Rosewall would fare in this era?

Not too well, which is why my initial argument explicitly mentioned how "once in a lifetime athletes" like Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Borg, who have proved they have the talent, hard work, and insane resumes would succeed in any era.

 

[britbox]

One of the issues with a GOAT comparison is it always seems to boil down to how "Player X" would do in the current era. How about putting some of the current players in past eras and comparing?

Federer is way too talented and way too good of an athlete not to be good in any previous era. He'd succeed in the 90's because in some ways he is a 90's player (as in grew up in that era and shaped his game accordingly). There's no reason why his touch, movement and serve would be any worse in any other era.

Nadal and Djokovic are just freak athletes. I don't see why Nadal wouldn't do well in say, the 80's when Bjorn Borg did. I mean, is there an era in which Nadal doesn't dominate the clay courts at least?

Djokovic would have been totally fine in the 90's too. It's not like baseliners had no success. He's better Agassi with elite movement IMO.

I think you're being too simplistic but agree on some points.

But here's the thing... Advances in technology have changed the game and how it's played. Racquet composition, Head size, strings (probably the single biggest game changer), balls, courts... They impacted even on players of the same generation. Federberg made a good point about McEnroe (although I would also add McEnroe's outside issues had some impact).

 

[britbox]

The players we're talking about weren't just "good" in one era. That's where the disconnect is coming from. I actually find it borderline outrageous to suggest that someone who's won double digit grand slams would not be good in another era.

^ How do you think Ken Rosewall would fare in this era?

Not too well, which is why my initial argument explicitly mentioned how "once in a lifetime athletes" like Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Borg, who have proved they have the talent, hard work, and insane resumes would succeed in any era.

Yeah, but Rosewall had an insane resume as well mate - which is why I made the point.

 

[brokenshoelace]

One of the issues with a GOAT comparison is it always seems to boil down to how "Player X" would do in the current era. How about putting some of the current players in past eras and comparing?

Federer is way too talented and way too good of an athlete not to be good in any previous era. He'd succeed in the 90's because in some ways he is a 90's player (as in grew up in that era and shaped his game accordingly). There's no reason why his touch, movement and serve would be any worse in any other era.

Nadal and Djokovic are just freak athletes. I don't see why Nadal wouldn't do well in say, the 80's when Bjorn Borg did. I mean, is there an era in which Nadal doesn't dominate the clay courts at least?

Djokovic would have been totally fine in the 90's too. It's not like baseliners had no success. He's better Agassi with elite movement IMO.

I think you're being too simplistic but agree on some points.

But here's the thing... Advances in technology have changed the game and how it's played. Racquet composition, Head size, strings (probably the single biggest game changer), balls, courts... They impacted even on players of the same generation. Federberg made a good point about McEnroe (although I would also add McEnroe's outside issues had some impact).

Well, that's a given. Nobody can deny the above. But, my point is: These players wouldn't have to relearn tennis in another era, they'd just have to learn it. And that makes for a substantial difference. It's not like you'd be asking Nadal to play with a different grip, because he didn't travel back in time. He'd just be a product of that era, and therefore, just use whatever grip he feels comfortable with back then. Provided nothing's changed re: his dedication, will, surrounding, talent, and athleticism (and we shouldn't change these variables otherwise it's an endless conversation), why wouldn't he be great?

Am I saying he'd be hitting banana passing shots and inside out forehands with wooden rackets in the 80's? Of course not. But would his athleticism, physicality (and I realize he probably wouldn't be as bulked up in the 80's, but athleticism is athleticism), and style of play not allow him to be great on clay back then? I really don't see any reason why not. No, he wouldn't getting as many RPM's, but elite athletes pick up things incredibly quickly, and that won't change. Nadal didn't become a teenage sensation because of racket technology, otherwise everyone else would have been able to do the same, since every player of his generation has access to the same technology. The way in which he was able to demonstrate his talent was facilitated by technology. That's a big difference, though.

He became a teenage sensation because he's just that good, with a knack for improving, and the fact that his athleticism is almost unheard of. It's really not that that dissimilar to Borg in the 80's. Actually, it's almost exactly the same.

Guys like Laver and Rosewall are extreme examples because if obviously, they can't survive in an era of physical specimens. But guys like Sampras, Federer or Borg have no real physical limitations, so why would their "god-given" talent be any different in any other era? That's what I don't get.

 

[brokenshoelace]

^ How do you think Ken Rosewall would fare in this era?

Not too well, which is why my initial argument explicitly mentioned how "once in a lifetime athletes" like Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Borg, who have proved they have the talent, hard work, and insane resumes would succeed in any era.

Yeah, but Rosewall had an insane resume as well mate - which is why I made the point.

No, I understand that, but look at my initial post earlier. I limited it to a few players (Sampras, Borg, Federer, Nadal and Djokovic). Obviously I didn't name them in every post, but it's clear I was playing off that, and my discussion with Federberg mainly revolved around Nadal. So my point is: Elite athlete + elite resume + elite talent is too great a combination to question how it would fare in another era. Rosewall would only possess two out of these three, and his size would obviously be a major hindrance in modern eras. I know you understand this but I'm clarifying my point.