[BLOG] Open Era Gens, Part Thirteen: Gen 11 (1984-88) - Reign of Spain, err, Serbia
- Thread starter El Dude
- Start date
RE: [BLOG] Open Era Gens
I agree that one has to look beyond slam count when reviewing the history of the game. In the examples you gave, Kodes won WD because of the boycott, and McEnroe played in a time when there were basically only three majors a year not four because the top players didn't play the AO, whereas Agassi played in an era of 4 majors a year. The thing is, the Novak/Rafa debate is different to those examples you gave because both are playing in the same era. It's a level playing field. Both have four chances a year to win a slam. There are 4 slams that are considered the top four tournaments, and all the top players play them.
I understand that you want to reward consistency, but maybe we can look at it like this: you are trying to rate players in terms of who has the most consistently great career, but I think that that is a different thing from who has the greatest career. i.e. As things stand right now, Novak has certainly had the more consistently great career than Rafa (mainly due to Rafa's injuries - I don't mean because he wouldn't have won if Rafa was there, I mean because Rafa's injury plagued career puts him out of the running for those 'consistency' awards like weeks at no.1 and consecutive slam SFs and QF s.), But I think that Rafa has had the greater career to date. I mean, I'm just not bothered if Rafa went out in R1 of a slam and Novak got to the semis. You don't get to be a great player by getting to slam semis. If you did, Andy Murray would be considered a great player.
Here is another hypothetical:
Imagine if player A gets to 4 slam finals, loses them all, but wins a bunch of Masters and the WTFs. Imagine if player B doesn't win any Masters or the WTFs, but wins 2 slams but crashes out early in the other two slams. Now, for my money, player B has had the better year, even though player A would be world no.1, whereas you - correct me if I'm wrong - would see player A as having had the better year, because world no1 and the WTFs is more important to you than the difference of a few majors.
I think that if a player has three more slams than another player it outweighs things like no.1 - because no.1 can be gained by doing well in slams but not winning them and by doing well in smaller events - see Novak's 2012, where he had the same number of slams as Roger, Rafa and Andy, but was no.1 because of his consistency in majors rather than winning them, and by winning Masters.
But you don't get to be a great player by winning Masters. Otherwise Andy would be considered a great player, because he has 11 Masters titles to date (that's no.5 on the all-time list!). You also don't get to be a great player by losing in grand slam SFs or Fs, or by winning the WTFs, but those things can get you to no.1, which devalues the no.1 ranking as a measure of greatness.
So we disagree, but fair enough, I think we've both outlined our reasoning pretty well.
I agree that one has to look beyond slam count when reviewing the history of the game. In the examples you gave, Kodes won WD because of the boycott, and McEnroe played in a time when there were basically only three majors a year not four because the top players didn't play the AO, whereas Agassi played in an era of 4 majors a year. The thing is, the Novak/Rafa debate is different to those examples you gave because both are playing in the same era. It's a level playing field. Both have four chances a year to win a slam. There are 4 slams that are considered the top four tournaments, and all the top players play them.
I understand that you want to reward consistency, but maybe we can look at it like this: you are trying to rate players in terms of who has the most consistently great career, but I think that that is a different thing from who has the greatest career. i.e. As things stand right now, Novak has certainly had the more consistently great career than Rafa (mainly due to Rafa's injuries - I don't mean because he wouldn't have won if Rafa was there, I mean because Rafa's injury plagued career puts him out of the running for those 'consistency' awards like weeks at no.1 and consecutive slam SFs and QF s.), But I think that Rafa has had the greater career to date. I mean, I'm just not bothered if Rafa went out in R1 of a slam and Novak got to the semis. You don't get to be a great player by getting to slam semis. If you did, Andy Murray would be considered a great player.
Here is another hypothetical:
Imagine if player A gets to 4 slam finals, loses them all, but wins a bunch of Masters and the WTFs. Imagine if player B doesn't win any Masters or the WTFs, but wins 2 slams but crashes out early in the other two slams. Now, for my money, player B has had the better year, even though player A would be world no.1, whereas you - correct me if I'm wrong - would see player A as having had the better year, because world no1 and the WTFs is more important to you than the difference of a few majors.
I think that if a player has three more slams than another player it outweighs things like no.1 - because no.1 can be gained by doing well in slams but not winning them and by doing well in smaller events - see Novak's 2012, where he had the same number of slams as Roger, Rafa and Andy, but was no.1 because of his consistency in majors rather than winning them, and by winning Masters.
But you don't get to be a great player by winning Masters. Otherwise Andy would be considered a great player, because he has 11 Masters titles to date (that's no.5 on the all-time list!). You also don't get to be a great player by losing in grand slam SFs or Fs, or by winning the WTFs, but those things can get you to no.1, which devalues the no.1 ranking as a measure of greatness.
So we disagree, but fair enough, I think we've both outlined our reasoning pretty well.
RE: [BLOG] Open Era Gens
Thanks for outlining your system above, I can certainly see where you are coming from.
I agree that one has to look beyond slam count when reviewing the history of the game. In the examples you gave, Kodes won WD because of the boycott, and McEnroe played in a time when there were basically only three majors a year not four because the top players didn't play the AO, whereas Agassi played in an era of 4 majors a year. The thing is, the Novak/Rafa debate is different to those examples you gave because both are playing in the same era. It's a level playing field. Both have four chances a year to win a slam. There are 4 slams that are considered the top four tournaments, and all the top players play them.
I understand that you want to reward consistency, but maybe we can look at it like this: you are trying to rate players in terms of who has the most consistently great career, but I think that that is a different thing from who has the greatest career. i.e. As things stand right now, Novak has certainly had the more consistently great career than Rafa (mainly due to Rafa's injuries - I don't mean because Novak wouldn't have won if Rafa was there, I mean because Rafa's injury- plagued career puts him out of the running for those 'consistency' awards like weeks at no.1 and consecutive slam SFs and QF s.), But I think that Rafa has had the greater career to date. I mean, I'm just not bothered if Rafa went out in R1 of a slam and Novak got to the semis. You don't get to be a great player by getting to slam semis. If you did, Andy Murray would be considered a great player.
Here is another hypothetical:
Imagine if player A gets to 4 slam finals, loses them all, but wins a bunch of Masters and the WTFs. Imagine if player B doesn't win any Masters or the WTFs, but wins 2 slams but crashes out early in the other two slams. Now, for my money, player B has had the better year, even though player A would be world no.1, whereas you - correct me if I'm wrong - would see player A as having had the better year, because world no1 and the WTFs is more important to you than the difference of a few majors.
I think that if a player has three more slams than another player it outweighs things like no.1 - because no.1 can be gained by doing well in slams but not winning them and by doing well in smaller events - see Novak's 2012, where he had the same number of slams as Roger, Rafa and Andy, but was no.1 because of his consistency in majors rather than winning them, and by winning Masters. But you don't get to be a great player by winning Masters. Otherwise Andy would be considered a great player, because he has 11 Masters titles to date (that's no.5 on the all-time list!). And you also don't get to be a great player by losing in grand slam SFs or Fs, or by winning the WTFs, but those things can get you to no.1, which devalues the no.1 ranking as a measure of greatness.
So we disagree on this one point, but fair enough, I think we've both outlined our reasoning pretty well, and as I say, I can see where you're coming from.
El Dude said:
Thanks for outlining your system above, I can certainly see where you are coming from.
I agree that one has to look beyond slam count when reviewing the history of the game. In the examples you gave, Kodes won WD because of the boycott, and McEnroe played in a time when there were basically only three majors a year not four because the top players didn't play the AO, whereas Agassi played in an era of 4 majors a year. The thing is, the Novak/Rafa debate is different to those examples you gave because both are playing in the same era. It's a level playing field. Both have four chances a year to win a slam. There are 4 slams that are considered the top four tournaments, and all the top players play them.
I understand that you want to reward consistency, but maybe we can look at it like this: you are trying to rate players in terms of who has the most consistently great career, but I think that that is a different thing from who has the greatest career. i.e. As things stand right now, Novak has certainly had the more consistently great career than Rafa (mainly due to Rafa's injuries - I don't mean because Novak wouldn't have won if Rafa was there, I mean because Rafa's injury- plagued career puts him out of the running for those 'consistency' awards like weeks at no.1 and consecutive slam SFs and QF s.), But I think that Rafa has had the greater career to date. I mean, I'm just not bothered if Rafa went out in R1 of a slam and Novak got to the semis. You don't get to be a great player by getting to slam semis. If you did, Andy Murray would be considered a great player.
Here is another hypothetical:
Imagine if player A gets to 4 slam finals, loses them all, but wins a bunch of Masters and the WTFs. Imagine if player B doesn't win any Masters or the WTFs, but wins 2 slams but crashes out early in the other two slams. Now, for my money, player B has had the better year, even though player A would be world no.1, whereas you - correct me if I'm wrong - would see player A as having had the better year, because world no1 and the WTFs is more important to you than the difference of a few majors.
I think that if a player has three more slams than another player it outweighs things like no.1 - because no.1 can be gained by doing well in slams but not winning them and by doing well in smaller events - see Novak's 2012, where he had the same number of slams as Roger, Rafa and Andy, but was no.1 because of his consistency in majors rather than winning them, and by winning Masters. But you don't get to be a great player by winning Masters. Otherwise Andy would be considered a great player, because he has 11 Masters titles to date (that's no.5 on the all-time list!). And you also don't get to be a great player by losing in grand slam SFs or Fs, or by winning the WTFs, but those things can get you to no.1, which devalues the no.1 ranking as a measure of greatness.
So we disagree on this one point, but fair enough, I think we've both outlined our reasoning pretty well, and as I say, I can see where you're coming from.
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 10,331
- Reactions
- 6,100
- Points
- 113
Good reply, Great Hands, and I can also see where you are coming from: what could be called Slam Bias . It seems to me that your argument for Nadal having the greater career thus far hinges entirely on Slam count which, again, I agree is the most important indicator of greatness, but as I see it you too easily negate the other differences.
The point of my rankings, as I said, is to rank players according to their overall career accomplishments and greatness in as comprehensive manner as possible, which to me includes but goes beyond Slam trophies. And yes, I think part of that is consistency. That's a part of greatness. So when Novak goes out in the SF and Rafa gets upset in the 1R, that has some bearing. Not a huge amount, but it matters - especially when it all adds up (e.g. the difference in their SF totals).
Here's a hypothetical for you. Let's say Rafa continues on his current course, doesn't win another Slam, maybe another clay Masters or two at most and several smaller titles. No more Slams, no more #1s, and retires within a year or two. Let's take a perhaps overly modest approach to Novak, saying that he wins a bunch more titles, finishes #1 this year and wins one more WTF, but only wins two more Slams, and starts declining next year, losing the #1 ranking even. So let's say we finish this way:
Rafa: 14 Slams, 28 Masters, 65 titles, 2 #1s, 0 WTFs
Novak: 13 Slams, 33 Masters, 70 titles, 5 #1s, 6 WTFs
Would you still consider Rafa the greater player, because he has more Slams?
Anyhow, as I said, this is really a moot point because regardless of how we compare the players right now, Novak will almost certainly surpass Rafa.
. It seems to me that your argument for Nadal having the greater career thus far hinges entirely on Slam count which, again, I agree is the most important indicator of greatness, but as I see it you too easily negate the other differences.The point of my rankings, as I said, is to rank players according to their overall career accomplishments and greatness in as comprehensive manner as possible, which to me includes but goes beyond Slam trophies. And yes, I think part of that is consistency. That's a part of greatness. So when Novak goes out in the SF and Rafa gets upset in the 1R, that has some bearing. Not a huge amount, but it matters - especially when it all adds up (e.g. the difference in their SF totals).
Here's a hypothetical for you. Let's say Rafa continues on his current course, doesn't win another Slam, maybe another clay Masters or two at most and several smaller titles. No more Slams, no more #1s, and retires within a year or two. Let's take a perhaps overly modest approach to Novak, saying that he wins a bunch more titles, finishes #1 this year and wins one more WTF, but only wins two more Slams, and starts declining next year, losing the #1 ranking even. So let's say we finish this way:
Rafa: 14 Slams, 28 Masters, 65 titles, 2 #1s, 0 WTFs
Novak: 13 Slams, 33 Masters, 70 titles, 5 #1s, 6 WTFs
Would you still consider Rafa the greater player, because he has more Slams?
Anyhow, as I said, this is really a moot point because regardless of how we compare the players right now, Novak will almost certainly surpass Rafa.
RE: [BLOG] Open Era Gens
Oh I agree it's almost certainly a moot point, with the caveat that sport is inherently unpredictable and that just because a player seems likely to achieve this, that and the other, it's not the same thing as them actually having done so - injuries can affect things for example. I would also add that this discussion is not really a moot point because it goes beyond this specific Rafa/Novak debate and is actually about how you measure greatness, how much slams are worth in the context of other things, and whether slams decrease in value the more you have etc.
It's funny that you pose the hypothetical above, because I was actually thinking when debating with you that if Novak had only one less slam than Rafa, I could understand you ranking him over Rafa because of his greater consistency, but somehow having three more slams just seems too big a difference in slams total to ignore (I'm sure many Fed fans would agree). I also agree wtih Kirijax that Novak really could do with that FO to really seal his superiority over Rafa. The Career Grand Slam is quite an accomplishment, and Rafa currently has that over Novak as well as the three slams difference.
But if you really do see winning slam titles as over-rated and regard consistency at the slams and Masters titles etc as being very important in determining greatness, then maybe it's time my fave Andy Murray (so far: 25 slam QFs, 18 slam SFs, 9 slam Fs, 2 slam titles, Olympic champion, Davis Cup champion, the first non-winner to achieve five finals at the Australian Open in the Open Era, only the seventh player in the Open Era to reach the semis of all four slams in one year, only the tenth man to reach two or more semis at each of the four slams, 18 consecutive slam QFs, 5th in the all-time list for Masters trophies with 11 titles so far, plus 16 Masters Fs, 27 SFs, and 45 QFs) was considered a great player then!
El Dude said:Good reply, Great Hands, and I can also see where you are coming from: what could be called Slam Bias
The point of my rankings, as I said, is to rank players according to their overall career accomplishments and greatness in as comprehensive manner as possible, which to me includes but goes beyond Slam trophies. And yes, I think part of that is consistency. That's a part of greatness. So when Novak goes out in the SF and Rafa gets upset in the 1R, that has some bearing. Not a huge amount, but it matters - especially when it all adds up (e.g. the difference in their SF totals).
Here's a hypothetical for you. Let's say Rafa continues on his current course, doesn't win another Slam, maybe another clay Masters or two at most and several smaller titles. No more Slams, no more #1s, and retires within a year or two. Let's take a perhaps overly modest approach to Novak, saying that he wins a bunch more titles, finishes #1 this year and wins one more WTF, but only wins two more Slams, and starts declining next year, losing the #1 ranking even. So let's say we finish this way:
Rafa: 14 Slams, 28 Masters, 65 titles, 2 #1s, 0 WTFs
Novak: 13 Slams, 33 Masters, 70 titles, 5 #1s, 6 WTFs
Would you still consider Rafa the greater player, because he has more Slams?
Anyhow, as I said, this is really a moot point because regardless of how we compare the players right now, Novak will almost certainly surpass Rafa.
Oh I agree it's almost certainly a moot point, with the caveat that sport is inherently unpredictable and that just because a player seems likely to achieve this, that and the other, it's not the same thing as them actually having done so - injuries can affect things for example. I would also add that this discussion is not really a moot point because it goes beyond this specific Rafa/Novak debate and is actually about how you measure greatness, how much slams are worth in the context of other things, and whether slams decrease in value the more you have etc.
It's funny that you pose the hypothetical above, because I was actually thinking when debating with you that if Novak had only one less slam than Rafa, I could understand you ranking him over Rafa because of his greater consistency, but somehow having three more slams just seems too big a difference in slams total to ignore (I'm sure many Fed fans would agree
). I also agree wtih Kirijax that Novak really could do with that FO to really seal his superiority over Rafa. The Career Grand Slam is quite an accomplishment, and Rafa currently has that over Novak as well as the three slams difference.But if you really do see winning slam titles as over-rated and regard consistency at the slams and Masters titles etc as being very important in determining greatness, then maybe it's time my fave Andy Murray (so far: 25 slam QFs, 18 slam SFs, 9 slam Fs, 2 slam titles, Olympic champion, Davis Cup champion, the first non-winner to achieve five finals at the Australian Open in the Open Era, only the seventh player in the Open Era to reach the semis of all four slams in one year, only the tenth man to reach two or more semis at each of the four slams, 18 consecutive slam QFs, 5th in the all-time list for Masters trophies with 11 titles so far, plus 16 Masters Fs, 27 SFs, and 45 QFs) was considered a great player then!
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 10,331
- Reactions
- 6,100
- Points
- 113
Haha, not quite. Let me get back to that in a moment.
Just to clarify, it is a matter of balance. Most seem to think that Slam titles are like 95% of the picture. I'm saying they're more like 70% of the picture. I'm trying to bring balance to the Force.
As for Andy, it is hard to say how he'll be viewed historically, but I wouldn't be surprised if he's a bit underrated - assuming he doesn't win any more Slams. But I've said elsewhere, maybe in this article (I can't remember, and am too lazy to check) that Andy is at least on par with players like Arthur Ashe, Guillermo Vilas and Jim Courier, all of whom won more Slams. But Andy is far, far way from Roger, Rafa, and Novak - not least because of the vast difference in Slams.
Just to clarify, it is a matter of balance. Most seem to think that Slam titles are like 95% of the picture. I'm saying they're more like 70% of the picture. I'm trying to bring balance to the Force
.As for Andy, it is hard to say how he'll be viewed historically, but I wouldn't be surprised if he's a bit underrated - assuming he doesn't win any more Slams. But I've said elsewhere, maybe in this article (I can't remember, and am too lazy to check) that Andy is at least on par with players like Arthur Ashe, Guillermo Vilas and Jim Courier, all of whom won more Slams. But Andy is far, far way from Roger, Rafa, and Novak - not least because of the vast difference in Slams.