Fedalovic Wars

[El Dude]

I know we co-opted the RG thread with the Fedalovic wars, so I'll make some small attempt to move it over here. @britbox: Years ago, you said the Nadal/Federer H2H would only matter if they ever tied in the Slams race. Does that mean we can talk about the significance of it now?

 

[Kieran]

Paris screwed themselves last season when Nadal was lowly seeded at #5, but ended up matching up w/ #1 Djokovic in the QF's! Rafa was still trying get over such a rotten end to 2021 season, losing early and finally shutting it down after USO! He took AO only b/c Novak wasn't allowed to play! Novak might have played himself into shape after missing Masters events in the States in March!

Actually he played only 2 matches after Paris, and shut it down before the USO.

Have a guess!

And by the way, you’re letting yourself down as an actual Djokovic fan who’s also a tennis fan by saying that Rafa won Australia because Novak was absent. All this while you’re celebrating an FO title win while Rafa was absent. Do better, brother! You’re not the typical Djokoloyte who only sings when he’s winning…

 

[Fiero425]

Actually he played only 2 matches after Paris, and shut it down before the USO.

Have a guess!

And by the way, you’re letting yourself down as an actual Djokovic fan who’s also a tennis fan by saying that Rafa won Australia because Novak was absent. All this while you’re celebrating an FO title win while Rafa was absent. Do better, brother! You’re not the typical Djokoloyte who only sings when he’s winning…

I keep saying I'm not a Djokovic fan! Why can't that sink in? I just appreciate he broke up the tennis intelligentsia contingent mind-think who believe tennis begins and ends w/ Fedal! I'm also giving it back to the people who will say Novak only won his 3rd FO due to Nadal being injured and out of the tournament! They've saying silly stuff like Novak started winning after Fedal's PRIME and we're now in a weak era! Hypocrisy reigns w/ just about everyone depending on who we're pulling for! I wasn't a fan of Lendl's, but again, I appreciated what he did to break up "the love" of Connors & McEnroe! I can't be understood so I won't be surprised by the attacks from all sides! It happens in RT all too often! I'm about as misunderstood as Dokovic so we have that in common!

 

[Kieran]

I keep saying I'm not a Djokovic fan! Why can't that sink in? I just appreciate he broke up the tennis intelligentsia contingent mind-think who believe tennis begins and ends w/ Fedal!

But who thinks that? Some of us here have actually heard of Pancho Gonzales, and are into our fifth decades of tennis memories. You’re a Djoker fan. That’s nothing to be ashamed of. Ish. There are a lot of shady things to ignore. But so what, if you’re a fan? And you are one. You use this Fedal stuff as cover.

I'm about as misunderstood as Dokovic so we have that in common!

Oh Djoker is not misunderstood, brother, believe me on that one. He’s quite transparent, you know..

 

[Moxie]

You asked me that question at the time. I stood by it.

Will Novak pass Rafa?

By the way folks, I just think when I see the phrase “goat race” being used with regards to the Big 3, that it refers only to this era. I don’t apply it across the ages to include players of the past. Why? Because I think there’s huge recency bias at play, where people are counting up masters...

www.tennisfrontier.com

That was a brief, and begrudging (by your admission,) remark, and I suppose about Rafa passing Roger? That wasn't a discussion. Or even a concession that the H2H now matters. And that dates to when they were tied in Majors. But, in this 3-headed GOAT discussion, isn't it fair to bring in the H2H's? I think it is. I know they're hard to award specific point values to, which makes some stat nerds unhappy. But that's why discussion. Some aspects of dominance need more of a prose conversation.

Rafa has always dominated the H2H with Roger, even when basically no one else was beating him. In his salad days. That counts for something in the 3-headed GOAT race. And it took Novak quite a long time to even things with Rafa, (and Roger, for that matter) including with some long win-streaks, such was Rafa's dominance over him for many years. Even now, Novak leads their H2H by only 1 match.

I know the Pancho Gonzalez comment was a joke, but it IS funny that Pancho is catching on with those who actually believe in a GOAT, and fear their guy ain't it. (I saw that @Nadalfan2013 has jumped on that bandwagon. )

 

[Jelenafan]

..,

I know the Pancho Gonzalez comment was a joke, but it IS funny that Pancho is catching on with those who actually believe in a GOAT, and fear their guy ain't it. (I saw that @Nadalfan2013 has jumped on that bandwagon. )

 

[britbox]

That was a brief, and begrudging (by your admission,) remark, and I suppose about Rafa passing Roger? That wasn't a discussion. Or even a concession that the H2H now matters. And that dates to when they were tied in Majors. But, in this 3-headed GOAT discussion, isn't it fair to bring in the H2H's? I think it is. I know they're hard to award specific point values to, which makes some stat nerds unhappy. But that's why discussion. Some aspects of dominance need more of a prose conversation.

Rafa has always dominated the H2H with Roger, even when basically no one else was beating him. In his salad days. That counts for something in the 3-headed GOAT race. And it took Novak quite a long time to even things with Rafa, (and Roger, for that matter) including with some long win-streaks, such was Rafa's dominance over him for many years. Even now, Novak leads their H2H by only 1 match.

I know the Pancho Gonzalez comment was a joke, but it IS funny that Pancho is catching on with those who actually believe in a GOAT, and fear their guy ain't it. (I saw that @Nadalfan2013 has jumped on that bandwagon. )

The post was confirming the H2H matters with all other things being roughly equal. I'm not sure how you want to "discuss" it. It's a very simple proposition - not complicated at all.

As for GOAT talks... I know you want to keep this thing as a three-headed entity with Fed fans on board with you, but I think Djoker is putting a little bit of daylight between himself and Roger, and Rafa The guy who wins the 100m by a couple of milliseconds doesn't share the gold with the fella who came in second.

As it stands, Novak Djokovic is top of the pantheon. You don't have to be a fan or like it very much - and it's clear it doesn't sit very well with many, but it doesn't alter the fact.

 

[Jelenafan]

I look at GoAT discussions this way

With the survival of mankind in the balance:

Which QB you want for that last winning drive in the SB?

Which NBA player you pick to go up for that last winning drive?

Which soccer player do you pass to for that last goal?

Whst tennis player you want, for one match, for all the marbles?

 

[Moxie]

View attachment 8292

This is both funny, and delightfully smart-ass. The Alcaraz one was funnier, but you know they're also both inaccurate, for the record. You know that I have never believed in a GOAT, nor championed Rafa as IT. Like you, I believe that the 3 will always be in the same conversation. I don't think you can extract them from each other, no matter what Novak does. Would he have gotten there without the impetus from the other two, which he fully credits? Impossible to extricate ambition from incentive. Would Novak, in a vacuum, be an All-Time-Great? Yes, I believe so. That's the talent. Without the road map and high-bar, would he have changed his diet and done everything else required to be where he is? Who knows?

 

[Moxie]

The post was confirming the H2H matters with all other things being roughly equal. I'm not sure how you want to "discuss" it. It's a very simple proposition - not complicated at all.

I've told you how I want to discuss it. Engage or ignore.

As for GOAT talks... I know you want to keep this thing as a three-headed entity with Fed fans on board with you, but I think Djoker is putting a little bit of daylight between himself and Roger, and Rafa The guy who wins the 100m by a couple of milliseconds doesn't share the gold with the fella who came in second.

As it stands, Novak Djokovic is top of the pantheon. You don't have to be a fan or like it very much - and it's clear it doesn't sit very well with many, but it doesn't alter the fact.

I don't believe in a GOAT. If Novak is putting "a bit of daylight" between himself and Rafa and Roger, isn't that because he's had the space, in the latter years? Where was he in the great years of the Federer-Nadal rivalry? He's only 11 months younger than Nadal. Handy for him to to keep his wick dry until the other two were rather a bit spent.

 

[mrzz]

Ok, time to be sore a loser, but an extremely unpleasant one. By the way, I do admire, I do greatly admire, the two players that sit atop on the number of grand slam titles list.

For a long time my favorite player had more GS titles, and that was used as argument for GOATness, which I knew it was BS, but it was in favor of my favorite player, so why bother. Things have unfortunately changed, so I get a chance to annoy people. This is always fun.

Little mind experiment: assume that tomorrow some given player start winning all of his matches, all the sets that he plays, all the games that he plays. And it is all bagels. Once in a while someone can get to deuce, but that's all. Impossible, people will shout instantly. Yes, but it doesn't matter. It is a mind experiment, and its result will be regarded just as... a mind experiment, don't worry.

Ok, so this given imaginary player keeps winning matches for three years. He wins 12 majors in a row. All the masters, the WTF, etc. Then again, just out of the blue, he stops winning, and comes back to his previous level, around top 20. In the process he stays about 200 weeks as #1.

This guy, obviously, has played at the greatest level of all time. Nothing is even close to what he achieved, but still, by the numbers argument, he is out of the GOAT discussion. He is completely out, because, as people will quickly remember, 23 > 12. Also, in this period, he wins all his matches, but he does not meet some other players enough to reverse all H2H´s, so he is behind on that metric as well.

Oh, but this is impossible, this is not real. That is precisely the point: even an imaginary, impossible player that achieves an imaginary, impossible feat, is out of the GOAT conversation, if you only consider the numbers argument. So, if this imaginary player, that for three entire years could not lose a single game, this player that was imagined, tailored to be the GOAT, is so clearly not the GOAT (by the numbers based argument), then... the only possible conclusion is that the numbers based GOAT discussion is empty.

Is there a substitute for the numbers based GOAT argument? Of course not. This is our best shot at an objective argument. Problem is that it is not enough.

The (total) numbers based GOAT argument, in the end, privileges span of career and consistency over everything else. We could try to define "domination" statistics, but we would need to chose one (or a few) over the others, and this would be... subjective. So, no, the numbers based argument it is still our best shot, but still not sufficient.

When you look at the sky, you look at the brightest stars, not the ones which have stood there long enough. It is not the total, accumulated brightness that catches the eye. It is peak brightness that matters -- and only when you are looking, by the way.

 

[Moxie]

Ok, time to be sore a loser, but an extremely unpleasant one. By the way, I do admire, I do greatly admire, the two players that sit atop on the number of grand slam titles list.

For a long time my favorite player had more GS titles, and that was used as argument for GOATness, which I knew it was BS, but it was in favor of my favorite player, so why bother. Things have unfortunately changed, so I get a chance to annoy people. This is always fun.

Little mind experiment: assume that tomorrow some given player start winning all of his matches, all the sets that he plays, all the games that he plays. And it is all bagels. Once in a while someone can get to deuce, but that's all. Impossible, people will shout instantly. Yes, but it doesn't matter. It is a mind experiment, and its result will be regarded just as... a mind experiment, don't worry.

Ok, so this given imaginary player keeps winning matches for three years. He wins 12 majors in a row. All the masters, the WTF, etc. Then again, just out of the blue, he stops winning, and comes back to his previous level, around top 20. In the process he stays about 200 weeks as #1.

This guy, obviously, has played at the greatest level of all time. Nothing is even close to what he achieved, but still, by the numbers argument, he is out of the GOAT discussion. He is completely out, because, as people will quickly remember, 23 > 12. Also, in this period, he wins all his matches, but he does not meet some other players enough to reverse all H2H´s, so he is behind on that metric as well.

Oh, but this is impossible, this is not real. That is precisely the point: even an imaginary, impossible player that achieves an imaginary, impossible feat, is out of the GOAT conversation, if you only consider the numbers argument. So, if this imaginary player, that for three entire years could not lose a single game, this player that was imagined, tailored to be the GOAT, is so clearly not the GOAT (by the numbers based argument), then... the only possible conclusion is that the numbers based GOAT discussion is empty.

Is there a substitute for the numbers based GOAT argument? Of course not. This is our best shot at an objective argument. Problem is that it is not enough.

The (total) numbers based GOAT argument, in the end, privileges span of career and consistency over everything else. We could try to define "domination" statistics, but we would need to chose one (or a few) over the others, and this would be... subjective. So, no, the numbers based argument it is still our best shot, but still not sufficient.

When you look at the sky, you look at the brightest stars, not the ones which have stood there long enough. It is not the total, accumulated brightness that catches the eye. It is peak brightness that matters -- and only when you are looking, by the way.

Very poetic, and it basically describes the whole problem of getting to one person. You wonder why your bright star in the constellation doesn't shine brightest. And I feel that mine does. There is no final answer.

 

[Moxie]

View attachment 8295

Wow, resorting to "old lady," my dear old gentleman? #ugotnoargument #asifanyonehereeversawgonzalezplay

 

[Jelenafan]

Wow, resorting to "old lady," my dear old gentleman? #igotnoargument #asifanyonehereeversawgonzalezplay

Mujer, en mi apogeo yo conquiste a todo otro tenista. A todos. Incluso Rod Laver.

Greatest Tennis Player Of All Time (Part 5) - Pat Cash Tennis

If you have not read Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 or Part 4 of this blog series please click on the links to check them out. This is the final article in my “Greatest Tennis Player Of All Time” series. Before you make a decision on who you believe is the G.O.A.T I’m going… Read more

www.patcash.co.uk

Here's one stat:

If this isn’t impressive enough, he also beat in head-to-head pro tours, all of the best amateurs who turned pro. This included every Wimbledon champion for 10 years in a row!

 

[Jelenafan]

Ok, time to be sore a loser, but an extremely unpleasant one. By the way, I do admire, I do greatly admire, the two players that sit atop on the number of grand slam titles list.

For a long time my favorite player had more GS titles, and that was used as argument for GOATness, which I knew it was BS, but it was in favor of my favorite player, so why bother. Things have unfortunately changed, so I get a chance to annoy people. This is always fun.

Little mind experiment: assume that tomorrow some given player start winning all of his matches, all the sets that he plays, all the games that he plays. And it is all bagels. Once in a while someone can get to deuce, but that's all. Impossible, people will shout instantly. Yes, but it doesn't matter. It is a mind experiment, and its result will be regarded just as... a mind experiment, don't worry.

Ok, so this given imaginary player keeps winning matches for three years. He wins 12 majors in a row. All the masters, the WTF, etc. Then again, just out of the blue, he stops winning, and comes back to his previous level, around top 20. In the process he stays about 200 weeks as #1.

This guy, obviously, has played at the greatest level of all time. Nothing is even close to what he achieved, but still, by the numbers argument, he is out of the GOAT discussion. He is completely out, because, as people will quickly remember, 23 > 12. Also, in this period, he wins all his matches, but he does not meet some other players enough to reverse all H2H´s, so he is behind on that metric as well.

Oh, but this is impossible, this is not real. That is precisely the point: even an imaginary, impossible player that achieves an imaginary, impossible feat, is out of the GOAT conversation, if you only consider the numbers argument. So, if this imaginary player, that for three entire years could not lose a single game, this player that was imagined, tailored to be the GOAT, is so clearly not the GOAT (by the numbers based argument), then... the only possible conclusion is that the numbers based GOAT discussion is empty.

Is there a substitute for the numbers based GOAT argument? Of course not. This is our best shot at an objective argument. Problem is that it is not enough.

The (total) numbers based GOAT argument, in the end, privileges span of career and consistency over everything else. We could try to define "domination" statistics, but we would need to chose one (or a few) over the others, and this would be... subjective. So, no, the numbers based argument it is still our best shot, but still not sufficient.

When you look at the sky, you look at the brightest stars, not the ones which have stood there long enough. It is not the total, accumulated brightness that catches the eye. It is peak brightness that matters -- and only when you are looking, by the way.

Mrzz, per your brightest star analogy:

Much as I'm loathe to admit this as a lifelong SF Giants fan, but damn it, the LA Dodgers pitcher Sandy Koufax in the mid 60's , from 1962-1966 had the most incredible 5 year stretch of a pitcher in my lifetime. The Dodgers were notoriously poor in batting offense team but had several stellar pitchers ( including Don Drysdale , no sluch) so no easy game victories for Koufax. Overall numbers he doesn't have even 200 career victories but those glorious years of Koufax, no one could touch him. He had five (count"em) NL ERA titles, four no-hitters (one of them a perfect game), three Cy Young Awards (when only one was given for both leagues) one NL MVP and two World Series MVPs. His strikeout rate was 9.5 per nine innings in a time when the major league average was half that. Nobody shined brighter than he. Yet he didn't have the overall numbers of many considered the contender for the GOAT of MLB pitching...

 

[Moxie]

Mujer, en mi apogeo yo conquiste a todo otro tenista. A todos. Incluso Rod Laver.

Perdona, pero inténtalo en inglés. La verdad es que no te entiendo. I'm sorry, but try again in English. That doesn't actually make sense in Spanish.

Greatest Tennis Player Of All Time (Part 5) - Pat Cash Tennis

If you have not read Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 or Part 4 of this blog series please click on the links to check them out. This is the final article in my “Greatest Tennis Player Of All Time” series. Before you make a decision on who you believe is the G.O.A.T I’m going… Read more

www.patcash.co.uk

Here's one stat:

Para leer más tarde, pero gracias.

 

[Moxie]

Mrzz, per your brightest star analogy:

Much as I'm loathe to admit this as a lifelong SF Giants fan, but damn it, the LA Dodgers pitcher Sandy Koufax in the mid 60's , from 1962-1966 had the most incredible 5 year stretch of a pitcher in my lifetime. The Dodgers were notoriously poor in batting offense team but had several stellar pitchers ( including Don Drysdale , no sluch) so no easy game victories for Koufax. Overall numbers he doesn't have even 200 career victories but those glorious years of Koufax, no one could touch him. He had five (count"em) NL ERA titles, four no-hitters (one of them a perfect game), three Cy Young Awards (when only one was given for both leagues) one NL MVP and two World Series MVPs. His strikeout rate was 9.5 per nine innings in a time when the major league average was half that. Nobody shined brighter than he. Yet he didn't have the overall numbers of many considered the contender for the GOAT of MLB pitching...

Ah, Sandy Koufax. And you dare to call ME an old lady, you old lady.

But here's the problem with @mrzz's analogy, and yours. Are we talking about a meteor that streaks across the sky, or are we talking about Federer, Nadal and Djokovic? For what it's worth, they were all 3 a meteor that streaked across the sky. And then they stuck around.

 

[britbox]

I've told you how I want to discuss it. Engage or ignore.

I don't believe in a GOAT. If Novak is putting "a bit of daylight" between himself and Rafa and Roger, isn't that because he's had the space, in the latter years? Where was he in the great years of the Federer-Nadal rivalry? He's only 11 months younger than Nadal. Handy for him to to keep his wick dry until the other two were rather a bit spent.

OK, seeing as you are scurrying around trying to put out the flames of significance relating to Djoker's 23rd title, then by all means, start discussing the H2H between Rafa and Roger. Happy to engage

As for GOATs, and seeing as we're bringing up old posts, you declared Rafa to be the Clay GOAT here:

Time to crown Novak the GOAT?

It is meant to be a bit provocative and to be clear, as I have said for years, I tend to take the "Herd of GOATs" view over the singular GOAT theory, mainly because I think you have to judge players by the era they play in, and there's no way to compare Bill Tilden, Pancho Gonzales, Rod Laver...

www.tennisfrontier.com

Seems odd you dragged up an old post of mine, berating me for saying the same. Anyway fire away.

 

[Fiero425]

Mrzz, per your brightest star analogy:

Much as I'm loathe to admit this as a lifelong SF Giants fan, but damn it, the LA Dodgers pitcher Sandy Koufax in the mid 60's , from 1962-1966 had the most incredible 5 year stretch of a pitcher in my lifetime. The Dodgers were notoriously poor in batting offense team but had several stellar pitchers ( including Don Drysdale , no sluch) so no easy game victories for Koufax. Overall numbers he doesn't have even 200 career victories but those glorious years of Koufax, no one could touch him. He had five (count"em) NL ERA titles, four no-hitters (one of them a perfect game), three Cy Young Awards (when only one was given for both leagues) one NL MVP and two World Series MVPs. His strikeout rate was 9.5 per nine innings in a time when the major league average was half that. Nobody shined brighter than he. Yet he didn't have the overall numbers of many considered the contender for the GOAT of MLB pitching...

Being acknowledged by you, the rest of baseball fandom, & sports' commentators should be good enough for Koufax & his family after 50+ years! In tennis, the true Greats aren't spoken of at all if even remembered! I personally think Tilden is right up there who owned tennis like no other for over a decade! Then there was Budge, Kramer, & Gonzalez! Laver cemented himself on a high pedestal b/c of 2 CYGS; 1 as an Am. in '62, then after being off the tour as a pro for 5-6 yrs., he did it again in Open Era tennis in '69! Rosewall gets an honorary mention due to his time rivaling Laver! Borg took over the mantle as the Greatest for a while taking 11 Majors in OE! Hard to believe that led the recordbook until Sampras at 14! Federer broke all the records in less than a decade and I thought his status would be secure for years to come! It didn't last long w/ Nadovic beating him like a drum early & often! Now it's Djokovic at the top; even over Nadal! As much talent as there is in this new gen., I just can't see any dramatic change! The game is brutal these days and most of these players are delicate flowers compared to Fedalovic! END Rant!

 

[britbox]

Ok, time to be sore a loser, but an extremely unpleasant one. By the way, I do admire, I do greatly admire, the two players that sit atop on the number of grand slam titles list.

For a long time my favorite player had more GS titles, and that was used as argument for GOATness, which I knew it was BS, but it was in favor of my favorite player, so why bother. Things have unfortunately changed, so I get a chance to annoy people. This is always fun.

Little mind experiment: assume that tomorrow some given player start winning all of his matches, all the sets that he plays, all the games that he plays. And it is all bagels. Once in a while someone can get to deuce, but that's all. Impossible, people will shout instantly. Yes, but it doesn't matter. It is a mind experiment, and its result will be regarded just as... a mind experiment, don't worry.

Ok, so this given imaginary player keeps winning matches for three years. He wins 12 majors in a row. All the masters, the WTF, etc. Then again, just out of the blue, he stops winning, and comes back to his previous level, around top 20. In the process he stays about 200 weeks as #1.

This guy, obviously, has played at the greatest level of all time. Nothing is even close to what he achieved, but still, by the numbers argument, he is out of the GOAT discussion. He is completely out, because, as people will quickly remember, 23 > 12. Also, in this period, he wins all his matches, but he does not meet some other players enough to reverse all H2H´s, so he is behind on that metric as well.

Oh, but this is impossible, this is not real. That is precisely the point: even an imaginary, impossible player that achieves an imaginary, impossible feat, is out of the GOAT conversation, if you only consider the numbers argument. So, if this imaginary player, that for three entire years could not lose a single game, this player that was imagined, tailored to be the GOAT, is so clearly not the GOAT (by the numbers based argument), then... the only possible conclusion is that the numbers based GOAT discussion is empty.

Is there a substitute for the numbers based GOAT argument? Of course not. This is our best shot at an objective argument. Problem is that it is not enough.

The (total) numbers based GOAT argument, in the end, privileges span of career and consistency over everything else. We could try to define "domination" statistics, but we would need to chose one (or a few) over the others, and this would be... subjective. So, no, the numbers based argument it is still our best shot, but still not sufficient.

When you look at the sky, you look at the brightest stars, not the ones which have stood there long enough. It is not the total, accumulated brightness that catches the eye. It is peak brightness that matters -- and only when you are looking, by the way.

I think such a player would enter the discussion. If they ever come along, I'm sure props would be given.

When I used to follow the Raiders in the NFL, a bright star called Bo Jackson appeared on the scene. Bo only played half a season as he was dual sport with Baseball factoring in. He set the NFL on fire. Unfortunately, a hip injury blew out his star. So, I get your point.