Fedalovic Wars

[Nadalfan2013]

and then ^ there is Nadal--I am still absolutely stunned he was even still around last year in light of injuries and whatnot. Yes, 14 of his 22 are on clay, but he won quite a few hard court titles much to my surprise. Grass has been the one he has had the least success on, not even making that many finals in London in the last decade. But, he is probably the first who comes to mind in terms of having a guy play with the family jewels on the line, especially on clay or slow hards. He is like Arnold Palmer was (according to Byron Nelson)--he willed himself to win. Love Rafa--a bigger, nicer version of my boyhood fave, Jimbo, back in the Seventies. I sure hope to get to see him hit it again next year in Miami. Hell, his practice sessions are better than most matches!

Nadal has made the SF of Wimbledon the last 3 times he has played it, losing to Djokovic, Federer and to injury. Don't underrate him on grass. In his prime he made 5 finals including 2 titles, sure he had a slump for a few years after that but then in the last few years he showed again that he still has what it takes on that surface.

 

[BratSrbin]

Olympic champion claims Djokovic can't be GOAT because of his "better body"

Yet another opinion that argues Djokovic's has an unfair physical advantage.

www.tennisworldusa.org

Tyson can not be World champion because he had a devastating punch.

 

[mrzz]

I like this, mrzz, though I will pull a few things out as caveats.

Regarding subjectivity, we're never going to avoid it - nor should we. Part of the fun is coming up with a solid subjective argument, but one that is backed up by (objective) statistics.

Meaning, it isn't subjective or objective, but both - and finding a good combination.

So in that sense, some kind of statistical formula that balances peak ("brightness") and overall career is what I've always tried to figure out. I've played with various formulas, and of course the subjective element is me deciding on what formula to use, and also how to balance peak and career. There is no perfect answer, but that's OK.

I also don't want to completely ignore career resume in favor of "brightness." The Big Three's incredible longevity is a major aspect of their greatness and what, I think, sets them apart from Borg and McEnroe, who shined just as brightly, but for shorter periods of time.

It took me a while, but I finally can reply, even if with less time than I wanted to have.

I agree with your point on subjectivity. But this is not against my original point. Let me rephrase: the more objective you get, more specific -- and less general, or far reaching -- is your conclusion. What does it mean to have won more majors than the rest? The 100% objective answer is: it means you won more majors. See my point?

As for your second paragraph, I am quite aware that you kept looking for such a formula. I do feel that it is an impossible task, but there are a very few things, if any, more rewarding than the quest for an impossible task (as paradoxical as it may sound). The fact that you so happily engage in such tasks is big virtue of yours, for which I take my hat off (or a bandana).

I understand the weight of career resume, but with time I started to give less and less weight for it. Other people will doubt (I am sure you won´t), but that was my opinion even when Federer was comfortably on top of those stats. Of course it matters, and of course it is a feat per se, that is, if you keep winning for 20 fucking years obviously have something pretty special inside you.

But there is a reason people were talking about Goatness when Federer had just two or three majors under his belt.

I know the argument here moved on quite a bit, there are quite a few interesting posts I would like to reply to. But I simply can't...

 

[Jelenafan]

Calendar Year Grand Slam has been the Holy Grail. The last time that happened was 1969 when 3 of the surfaces were on grass. This time it’s HC, red clay, grass, HC.

Djokovic nearly accomplished it in 2021, one match short. This year he’s halfway there. If he does it, the statistical data is certainly overwhelming in his corner , but as others have commented, it’s not definitive.

But let’s say he falls short again.

And a young player emerges to finally accomplish what eluded the Big 3 and win the CYGS. On the 3 different surfaces. Improbable perhaps, but certainly not impossible.

Doubt people are going to wait until he win 23+ to throw his hat in the ring for his star shines brightest performance.

 

[PhiEaglesfan712]

Calendar Year Grand Slam has been the Holy Grail. The last time that happened was 1969 when 3 of the surfaces were on grass. This time it’s HC, red clay, grass, HC.

Djokovic nearly accomplished it in 2021, one match short. This year he’s halfway there. If he does it, the statistical data is certainly overwhelming in his corner , but as others have commented, it’s not definitive.

But let’s say he falls short again.

And a young player emerges to finally accomplish what eluded the Big 3 and win the CYGS. On the 3 different surfaces. Improbable perhaps, but certainly not impossible.

Doubt people are going to wait until he win 23+ to throw his hat in the ring for his star shines brightest performance.

Not necessarily. One year doesn't make a career. I mean, were people throwing Mats Wilander's hat in the ring after his 1988 season? Or for Federer after the 2004 season? The Fed GOAT talk started in 2006 (when he passed Agassi), and really gained traction in 2007 (when he passed Laver).

 

[britbox]

Calendar Year Grand Slam has been the Holy Grail. The last time that happened was 1969 when 3 of the surfaces were on grass. This time it’s HC, red clay, grass, HC.

Djokovic nearly accomplished it in 2021, one match short. This year he’s halfway there. If he does it, the statistical data is certainly overwhelming in his corner , but as others have commented, it’s not definitive.

But let’s say he falls short again.

And a young player emerges to finally accomplish what eluded the Big 3 and win the CYGS. On the 3 different surfaces. Improbable perhaps, but certainly not impossible.

Doubt people are going to wait until he win 23+ to throw his hat in the ring for his star shines brightest performance.

The true Grand Slam would put it beyond any reasonable doubt.

 

[mrzz]

Not necessarily. One year doesn't make a career. I mean, were people throwing Mats Wilander's hat in the ring after his 1988 season? Or for Federer after the 2004 season? The Fed GOAT talk started in 2006 (when he passed Agassi), and really gained traction in 2007 (when he passed Laver).

Actually, no. I distinctively remember more than a few talking the GOAT talk about Federer back in 2004, early 2005 to say the least.

 

[Moxie]

Actually, no. I distinctively remember more than a few talking the GOAT talk about Federer back in 2004, early 2005 to say the least.

I also think it started very early with Roger...surprisingly early.

 

[PhiEaglesfan712]

Actually, no. I distinctively remember more than a few talking the GOAT talk about Federer back in 2004, early 2005 to say the least.

To me, that moment was the 2005 US Open final. Federer beating Agassi officially marked the end of the old guard. In early 2005, Federer lost to Safin in the Australian Open semifinals, and people still thought the 2nd half of the 2000s could be the Federer/Safin/Hewitt era (remember, Safin and Hewitt played in the 2005 AO final). Then, some teenager named Rafael Nadal came along and beat Federer in the French Open semifinals, forever changing the course of tennis.

But imagine how that GOAT conversation would have been altered if Federer had lost that 2005 US Open final to Agassi.

 

[tented]

Not necessarily. One year doesn't make a career. I mean, were people throwing Mats Wilander's hat in the ring after his 1988 season? Or for Federer after the 2004 season? The Fed GOAT talk started in 2006 (when he passed Agassi), and really gained traction in 2007 (when he passed Laver).

The GOAT talk about Federer didn’t take off just because he passed Agassi. It also reflected Roger’s incredible success in 2005/2006. He was barely losing matches: 81-4 (95.3%) in 2005, 92-5 (94.8%) in 2006 — still the third and fourth best winning percentages in a season in the entire Open Era.

But only 9 losses in two years? That’s crazy good. (BTW, 5 of those losses were to a young Nadal.)

 

[PhiEaglesfan712]

The GOAT talk about Federer didn’t take off just because he passed Agassi. It also reflected Roger’s incredible success in 2005/2006. He was barely losing matches: 81-4 (95.3%) in 2005, 92-5 (94.8%) in 2006 — still the third and fourth best winning percentages in a season in the entire Open Era.

But only 9 losses in two years? That’s crazy good. (BTW, 5 of those losses were to a young Nadal.)

View attachment 8324

I get that, but the 2005 US Open final was huge in expediting his name in mainstream GOAT conversation. Imagine how different things would have been (at the time) if peak Federer had lost that match to a 35-year-old Agassi. As good as Federer's 2005 season was, it would have only been a one-slam year. Not to mention, Federer would have ended 2006 behind Agassi in the slam count (with a 35-year-old Agassi owning a H2H win in a slam final over peak Federer). If Fed loses the 05 US Open final, Fed's name probably doesn't come up in mainstream GOAT conversations until 2007.

 

[mrzz]

I get your point, @PhiEaglesfan712 . It was an extremely important moment, but one thing does not exclude the other. Of course that after such moment -- that you described it well -- the GOAT talk would get louder, but the fact is that it was there already.

 

[Moxie]

@roberto mentioned this series on Tennis.com about the GOAT Race, 10 matches that Tignor says may have changed to Slam count, or when it "hung in the balance." He's listed 5 of his 10, so far, and they are fun matches to revisit, for sure. I also get that it's click-bait, and something to write about with Roger retired, and Rafa out for the season.

I'm reposting it on this thread, because I was hesitating to comment, and derailing the general news thread. Because I do have a bone to pick. Many posters will be "shocked" by that...shocked I say! But #3 on the list is the USO SF when Djokovic held off MPs to beat Federer. I get why he picked that match. It has a really pivotal moment. But, his implication is that it changed the Slam race. I'm sorry, but I don't think Roger was going to beat Rafa in that final, either.

His #4 is the RG SF 2011. Again, he assumes that a different finalist would have changed the Slam count. Certainly, it could have, but I doubt it.

It's a fun exercise, and mostly interesting to revisit those matches and those moments, but, if he's really arguing that the slam count could have changed, talking about semi-finals is trickier. I'm sure the 2013 FO SF is coming up. And I bet he'll talk about that net touch, which didn't really matter.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

@roberto mentioned this series on Tennis.com about the GOAT Race, 10 matches that Tignor says may have changed to Slam count, or when it "hung in the balance." He's listed 5 of his 10, so far, and they are fun matches to revisit, for sure. I also get that it's click-bait, and something to write about with Roger retired, and Rafa out for the season.

I'm reposting it on this thread, because I was hesitating to comment, and derailing the general news thread. Because I do have a bone to pick. Many posters will be "shocked" by that...shocked I say! But #3 on the list is the USO SF when Djokovic held off MPs to beat Federer. I get why he picked that match. It has a really pivotal moment. But, his implication is that it changed the Slam race. I'm sorry, but I don't think Roger was going to beat Rafa in that final, either.

His #4 is the RG SF 2011. Again, he assumes that a different finalist would have changed the Slam count. Certainly, it could have, but I doubt it.

It's a fun exercise, and mostly interesting to revisit those matches and those moments, but, if he's really arguing that the slam count could have changed, talking about semi-finals is trickier. I'm sure the 2013 FO SF is coming up. And I bet he'll talk about that net touch, which didn't really matter.

Which SF? Because Federer had 2 match points against Djokovic in TWO seperate semi finals at the USO, both 2010 and 2011. If it's the 2011 semi then yeah it did change something because if it would have been a Nadal/Federer final then Djokovic would have 1 less slam and Nadal or Federer would have 1 more.

 

[Moxie]

Which SF? Because Federer had 2 match points against Djokovic in TWO seperate semi finals at the USO, both 2010 and 2011. If it's the 2011 semi then yeah it did change something because if it would have been a Nadal/Federer final then Djokovic would have 1 less slam and Nadal or Federer would have 1 more.

Sorry, I should have said, but I also figured some might have clicked on the link. It was the 2010 USO SF, so my objection was any implication that had Federer won, it would have changed the slam race. I mean he could have, since the match was never played, but even Federer fans have said over the years they don't think anyone was going to beat Nadal in the 2010 USO.

His #7 is the RG SF 2013, and, as I predicted, Tignor makes it all about Djokovic stumbling into the net. It's a massive over-simplification, but I suppose it makes a good story. As @tented pointed out, when we debated that match (and that game) for ages around here, the net-touch happened on a neutral point, and, while Nadal won the point, he didn't win the next one, and the game when back to deuce. Djokovic still had plenty of time to win that match, but he didn't. Anyway, I understand that Tignor and tennis.com are just looking for Fedalovic stories to write about.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

Of course not.

 

[Fiero425]

Of course not.

Fed with inflated numbers due to playing local grass court tournament he'll probably own soon! They might even rename Halle after Roger!

 

[PhiEaglesfan712]

Of course not.

Fed really could've had 21 (and Novak would be at 6) if he didn't choke away the 2014 and 2019 Wimbledon finals.

 

[nehmeth]

Fed really could've had 21 (and Novak would be at 6) if he didn't choke away the 2014 and 2019 Wimbledon finals.

Coulda woulda shoulda. Fed choked away a lot more matches than those. Novak choked his share of matches too. Part of winning is controlling your nerves better than your opponent.

 

[Moxie]

Coulda woulda shoulda. Fed choked away a lot more matches than those. Novak choked his share of matches too. Part of winning is controlling your nerves better than your opponent.

Personally, I find insisting that someone "choked away" the match to be insulting to the opponent, especially if the one on the other side of the net is an ATG. The 2014 final was tight as a drum. I'm not sure how Federer "choked" that one. It was a tough match, and he lost. I actually do think that Federer choked when he was serving for the 2019 one, with 40-15. But it's a 5-set match and he had other chances. No long match is ever really about 2 points.