Best Player Ever

[mrzz]

Like this one @mrzz

I knew it! Only a few elected posters have access to all the emoticons! How can we have a fair debate like that, if some are deprived of very important argument tools as emoticons with a stick out tongue! This is perfect example of the IMORAL tactics that this site has no shame to deploy to stop us showing the TRUTH about this election!

 

[Ricardo]

There is no question who the best ever is - the player narrowly misses year end number 1 in the year he didn't practice.

there is no question what your default setting is - anything good, better, best ever.....it's Novak. anything else.....is someone else.

 

[Ricardo]

This is not about the GOAT (it is Federer as he has the titles and weeks as #1). This is about what player have you seen play the best tennis ever.

I consider it was Djokovic 2011, when I watched him owning Nadal on the clay it was amazing. Those rallies which ended with a cross corut backhand of Nole destroying one of the best forehands in the history of the game... it was incredible.

Of course others will claim Federer 2004-7 is highest level. I dont think so, I believe it tennis evolution and I simply think Federer was overpassed. Sure I love his tennis, his style and all. But I have seen better.

Novak 2011 was great, but even in that form Fed beat him at RG and i wouldn't say it was peak Fed that year. Not to mention that Fed had match point on him at USO, so it was a point away from being 2-1 in slams in Fed's favour. It's fair to say Novak played more consistent high level than anyone else, but not absolute levels.

So i guess it actually your theory of evolution, since past prime Fed was still able to beat peak form Novak and really hang with him for quite a few years after........if evolution was the case, then there is no business for Fed to even play close with Novak, let alone beat him. In fact i'd say evolution as you described is BS, bring back Nadal 2013 and i say he beat Novak at USO in any form.

 

[Moxie]

Marin Cilic at the 2014 US Open was unstoppable. In the second week he straight-setted Berdych, Federer, and Nishikori in the QF, SF, and F. He was about as dominant as I've seen over a few matches. But I bring him up not to be contrarian but to point out that any reasonably good player can play light's out for a few matches. Cilic earned his Slam trophy, but is really a second tier player who played really, really well for a week.

If cali were around he'd probably point to David Nalbandian at the end of 2007. Isn't he the only player in tennis history to beat Rafa, Novak, and Roger all in the same tournament?

But if we take the idea that tennis evolves, then the best players of the last decade or so are the best ever, in terms of absolute level. And that would be Novak in 2011/15/early16, Rafa in 2008/10/13, and Roger in 2004-07. On the other hand, I prefer relative peak because a player can only ever play in the context they played in. In that case, from what I've heard you have to look at Lew Hoad--whom I'm guessing no one saw play--as the player capable of the greatest level in tennis history.

We could also split it up by court type. The highest peak on clay is Rafa, on outdoor and slow hard courts is Novak, on grass, indoor, and fast hard courts is Roger.

So it comes down to the same thing over and again: in this era of immense riches in men's tennis, you can choose periods of time for Roger, Rafa and Novak, but you can't really settle on one, especially based on how they played against each other.

 

[Moxie]

Novak 2011 was great, but even in that form Fed beat him at RG and i wouldn't say it was peak Fed that year. Not to mention that Fed had match point on him at USO, so it was a point away from being 2-1 in slams in Fed's favour. It's fair to say Novak played more consistent high level than anyone else, but not absolute levels.

So i guess it actually your theory of evolution, since past prime Fed was still able to beat peak form Novak and really hang with him for quite a few years after........if evolution was the case, then there is no business for Fed to even play close with Novak, let alone beat him. In fact i'd say evolution as you described is BS, bring back Nadal 2013 and i say he beat Novak at USO in any form.

This is rather exactly my point above, and of the circular argument: Federer, (in his prime) beats basically everyone; Nadal (mostly) beats Federer; Djokovic, (not pre-2011 but post-2011) mostly beats Nadal; Federer (even late in his game) beats prime Djokovic often enough to mention. They are not an evolution, or any way linear. They've played each other a lot, and the results have definitely muddied the conversation.

 

[El Dude]

The evolution idea isn't either/or: either it is marked and substantial each year, or it doesn't happen at all. It likely happens on a very small level, bit by bit over years so that within a span of a few years, even a decade, there might not be any noticeable change, but over a couple decades it shows up.

The reason I think it happens in all sports is that it happens in athletics, where we can see records being broken (e.g. Usain Bolt breaking his own records). Humans keep pushing their own boundaries, bit by bit - but only in tiny fractions. Now sports like tennis are far more complex than pure athletics. In tennis there are a dozen and more factors that make up a player's ability, some of which may or may not evolve. But I don't see why the total gestalt of attributes wouldn't evolve over time, just as the individual athletic components do.

 

[britbox]

I knew it! Only a few elected posters have access to all the emoticons! How can we have a fair debate like that, if some are deprived of very important argument tools as emoticons with a stick out tongue! This is perfect example of the IMORAL tactics that this site has no shame to deploy to stop us showing the TRUTH about this election!

 

[Ricardo]

The evolution idea isn't either/or: either it is marked and substantial each year, or it doesn't happen at all. It likely happens on a very small level, bit by bit over years so that within a span of a few years, even a decade, there might not be any noticeable change, but over a couple decades it shows up.

The reason I think it happens in all sports is that it happens in athletics, where we can see records being broken (e.g. Usain Bolt breaking his own records). Humans keep pushing their own boundaries, bit by bit - but only in tiny fractions. Now sports like tennis are far more complex than pure athletics. In tennis there are a dozen and more factors that make up a player's ability, some of which may or may not evolve. But I don't see why the total gestalt of attributes wouldn't evolve over time, just as the individual athletic components do.

again El dude pretending to know it all. how do you know it's not either/or? first how do you define evolution in tennis? level of play? there are years when the general level of tennis is behind the previous year at the top level, which doesn't prove that evolution was taking place in that window frame.......for you to conclusively stating as if you know the 'either/or' as facts just show that you are being you again.

 

[Ricardo]

This is rather exactly my point above, and of the circular argument: Federer, (in his prime) beats basically everyone; Nadal (mostly) beats Federer; Djokovic, (not pre-2011 but post-2011) mostly beats Nadal; Federer (even late in his game) beats prime Djokovic often enough to mention. They are not an evolution, or any way linear. They've played each other a lot, and the results have definitely muddied the conversation.

yes so i was debunking their over-simplified evolution theory, i find it laughable that many would resort to such naive thinking when facts are against it. According to them, Fed and Nadal are simply 'over-passed' and Djoker is 'superior' due to 'evolution'.

such evolution theory would also have Wilander being better than Borg, Hewitt being better than Lendl, Murray being better than Sampras......and so on. laughable really!

 

[Mastoor]

there is no question what your default setting is - anything good, better, best ever.....it's Novak. anything else.....is someone else.

I don't know how to explain to BS that must be more pride in Novak's 10-1 record against Federer and Nadal in 2011 than in Federer's 2-4 record against Nadal in 2006. If he doesn't get it I don't know how would you.

 

[El Dude]

again El dude pretending to know it all. how do you know it's not either/or? first how do you define evolution in tennis? level of play? there are years when the general level of tennis is behind the previous year at the top level, which doesn't prove that evolution was taking place in that window frame.......for you to conclusively stating as if you know the 'either/or' as facts just show that you are being you again.

Is someone feeling a tad inferior today?

I don't "know" that it isn't either/or, but logic dictates such. And yes, it fluctuates, but I think the overall level improves over time - it just isn't noticeable from one year to the next, but is likely more evident over decades.

 

[El Dude]

yes so i was debunking their over-simplified evolution theory, i find it laughable that many would resort to such naive thinking when facts are against it. According to them, Fed and Nadal are simply 'over-passed' and Djoker is 'superior' due to 'evolution'.

such evolution theory would also have Wilander being better than Borg, Hewitt being better than Lendl, Murray being better than Sampras......and so on. laughable really!

On one hand you claim to "debunk over-simplified evolution theory" and then, in the next paragraph, you present an over-simplified view on what tennis evolution would look like.

This is why I was saying it isn't either/or: either it happens, and every year players are better and better in a noticeable way, or it doesn't happen. Rather, how about the idea that tiny changes happen over time, little innovations and developments so that the overall trajectory over decades is that of improvement, but it is less likely within, say, a five-year span.

 

[Moxie]

yes so i was debunking their over-simplified evolution theory, i find it laughable that many would resort to such naive thinking when facts are against it. According to them, Fed and Nadal are simply 'over-passed' and Djoker is 'superior' due to 'evolution'.

such evolution theory would also have Wilander being better than Borg, Hewitt being better than Lendl, Murray being better than Sampras......and so on. laughable really!

I wasn't speaking of evolution in the Darwinian sense, rather succession from Federer to Nadal to Djokovic. I do think El Dude is correct that there is an evolution over time, and that time is long. In tennis, it's not just that athletes get bigger and stronger. They train and eat differently and more carefully, which has to do with better information, and the incentive of higher prizes and stakes. They are also incentivized by each achieving more, and of course, our particular sport involves equipment, which also evolves and effects results. This isn't at all simplistic, and the facts aren't in contrast to that. Only you can't separate Djokovic from Federer and Nadal, (and I'm not sure anyone tried to,) as they are mostly in the same group. The difference between those 3 is more timing.

 

[Ricardo]

Is someone feeling a tad inferior today?

I don't "know" that it isn't either/or, but logic dictates such. And yes, it fluctuates, but I think the overall level improves over time - it just isn't noticeable from one year to the next, but is likely more evident over decades.

you've been playing the role of an expert, and that's what inferiority complex does to you. Logic doesn't dictate such, it's your logic. Overall level improves over time, that doesn't mean you can't go backwards in some of those years......and therefore it can be either/or.

 

[Ricardo]

On one hand you claim to "debunk over-simplified evolution theory" and then, in the next paragraph, you present an over-simplified view on what tennis evolution would look like.

This is why I was saying it isn't either/or: either it happens, and every year players are better and better in a noticeable way, or it doesn't happen. Rather, how about the idea that tiny changes happen over time, little innovations and developments so that the overall trajectory over decades is that of improvement, but it is less likely within, say, a five-year span.

dumbass, i didn't give evolution view (like you playing the expert) just examples. Overall upwards trajectory doesn't contradict the fact that in some of those years the level can regress. You need to get out of one-dimensional thinking.

 

[Ricardo]

I wasn't speaking of evolution in the Darwinian sense, rather succession from Federer to Nadal to Djokovic. I do think El Dude is correct that there is an evolution over time, and that time is long. In tennis, it's not just that athletes get bigger and stronger. They train and eat differently and more carefully, which has to do with better information, and the incentive of higher prizes and stakes. They are also incentivized by each achieving more, and of course, our particular sport involves equipment, which also evolves and effects results. This isn't at all simplistic, and the facts aren't in contrast to that. Only you can't separate Djokovic from Federer and Nadal, (and I'm not sure anyone tried to,) as they are mostly in the same group. The difference between those 3 is more timing.

of course there is evolution over time, but that doesn't validate his either/or claim which is what i argued against. And of course the opening poster tried to separate the trio with that evolution talk.

btw i am aware that equipment, training methods, player info improve constantly, but that is not all that guarantees incremental improvement in any given year. You get times when depth of talent actually dips quite significantly that even better equipment/training is not enough to make up for it, then overall level can actually regress over certain period of time. When that happens it defeats his claim of either/or.

 

[mrzz]

I get the evolution theory over long time spans, but Ricardo´s argument above is a good one. "Talent" is a random variable that complicates a lot the equation... The existence of a Roger Federer (and his talent) pushed another talent (Nadal) to extreme heights, and the whole tour had to deal with it for a decade. Would Djokovic be so good had not he face those two? And, while in his upward trajectory he probably forced other guys to raise their level... it has a domino effect. Now this guys are close to retiring. We will surely see a dip in overall form. We already seeing it.

Anyway, El Dude already acknowledged that fluctuation. So we have kind of a wayward upward curve... the point I would like to add is this: couldn´t this curve stagnate? Can´t we reach an absolute maximum? Maybe we can´t, but even so it could be like Zeno´s paradox (an asymptotic function, in mathematical terms), and we get closer and closer to a ceiling that we never reach... over time the increments get so small that we might not be able to notice it, or are simply overrun by random external factors).

 

[Moxie]

Perhaps we've muddied the waters of the OP by getting into a notion of the evolution of players over time. In some real way, we have 3 of the greatest ever playing now, in men's tennis. And, as you say, Mrzz, they have pushed each other, which they have all acknowledged. Clearly any of the 3 would have shone brightly in their accomplishments, but it would have been boring if they'd done it in more of a vacuum. Tennis legend is made in rivalries and great matches, not just on pure talent, or singular domination, if you ask me. Each of the 3 has had periods of greater and more immaculate tennis, but it has been the competition amongst them that has been the most compelling thing, IMO.

 

[El Dude]

Ricardo, did you actually read what I wrote or is your reading comprehension that poor? As mrzz pointed out, I acknowledged the fluctuation - in fact, that is exactly why it isn't either/or: either there is steady and continual evolution or none at all. It is far more complex than that, with ups and downs, steps forward and regressions in level. Please actually read what I say before spewing your vitriol and misunderstanding.

I mean, here's a good example: "Overall upwards trajectory doesn't contradict the fact that in some of those years the level can regress."

This is exactly what I've been saying. Now who is the dumbass?

 

[vjmtz]

BOAT is peak Djokovic. AO 2011 - AO 2012, Wimbledon 2014 - RG 2016