Fedalovic Wars

[Kieran]

I cannot understand any POV that says winning more Majors was a poor strategy.

I think brother @Fiero425 is thinking of the Bjorn Borg/Greta Garbo Swedish option here, of bowing out at the top. As Bjorn himself once said, ‘I vonna be alone, for sure.’

There’s a lot of merit in this argument. Both Mozart and Schubert benefited from the early death career move. Neither withered on the vine, touring a greatest hits nostalgia package around Bohemia, and ancient foggy London. I think there’s something perfect about Bjorn Borg’s career, something tantalising in a way that other greats could never achieve. Even the fact that he actually played on in 1981, after the USO, beating Mats 6-1 6-1 along the way, and then briefly in 1982 and 1983 - and even more subversively, and somehow dismissively, with a wooden racket in 1991 - only emphasised the fact that he’d really retired that night in New York when McEnroe handled him. His desultory presence on court told us he was already gone. It was a ghost we seen.

He’s tennis’ great Romantic figure, mysterious and unapproachable. He stands as the giant benchmark of the first generation professionals - and somehow he still feels like he’s the real undeposed king of the sport. Even his iconography is immaculate..

 

[Moxie]

I think brother @Fiero425 is thinking of the Bjorn Borg/Greta Garbo Swedish option here, of bowing out at the top. As Bjorn himself once said, ‘I vonna be alone, for sure.’

There’s a lot of merit in this argument. Both Mozart and Schubert benefited from the early death career move. Neither withered on the vine, touring a greatest hits nostalgia package around Bohemia, and ancient foggy London. I think there’s something perfect about Bjorn Borg’s career, something tantalising in a way that other greats could never achieve. Even the fact that he actually played on in 1981, after the USO, beating Mats 6-1 6-1 along the way, and then briefly in 1982 and 1983 - and even more subversively, and somehow dismissively, with a wooden racket in 1991 - only emphasised the fact that he’d really retired that night in New York when McEnroe handled him. His desultory presence on court told us he was already gone. It was a ghost we seen.

He’s tennis’ great Romantic figure, mysterious and unapproachable. He stands as the giant benchmark of the first generation professionals - and somehow he still feels like he’s the real undeposed king of the sport. Even his iconography is immaculate..

I'm not buying the Mozart or Schubert analogy. At least Borg isn't dead...he just quit playing tennis.

But he is tennis' great Romantic figure, as you say. Rafa's numbers still compared to his at RG. Roger's 5-in-a-row still just tied with Borg. @El Dude saying it's not fair to use his GS win % as a measure, since he quit so early.

"Only" 11 Majors, but he "died" young, and left a beautiful corpse. And an excellent Grand slam winning percentage. This is what folks like Fiero complain about...why hang in there, when you could walk away a winner, like Pete? They all have different endings, and they're not all so poetic.

 

[El Dude]

Imagine if Djoker was two players, who both ended their careers with the 12 slams he won in both parts of his career. Novak Djokovic, 2008-2017, and Djovak Nokovic from 2018-2023.

Which would you say was better? This is the thing, we know he was better when he was younger, so how are his stats better now?

His stats aren't better now, unless you focus only on Slams - which I don't. I hear what you are getting at - the early period had peak Rafa, peak Andy, and close-to-peak Roger. Oh, and Stanimal. The later period only has a bit of latter-day Roger and Rafa still playing well, and peak Next Gen which didn't have any all-time greats. But Novak was also a different player, approaching the game differently. Meaning, the point you're trying to make has to include other factors. For instance, he played fewer tournaments from 2020 on. Covid, Vaxgate, etc.

And yes, Slam count has a lot to do with opportunity. But over longer periods of time and especially two decade careers, this sort of evens out.

 

[El Dude]

I couldn't understand why you were saying that Kieran and I were arguing semantics with you on this issue, but perhaps there is a semantics problem, though some of it is still "philosophical," at least for me. We've said there is no GOAT. What you are talking about, as per above, is the greatest collection of career stats. Well, now we're getting somewhere. But I agree with Kieran when he says that you have to dig into it in human terms.

Here is a place I have a problem with your classifications. You glide past "Development Phase." 2004-2010. He won one Major in 2008, then not another for 3 years. Why is that? He won a Major, so it wasn't all wheat gluten allergies. He had a Roger and Rafa problem, too. I don't see how it makes sense to discount what he couldn't do against them in their more salad days, if you're going to glorify all he did as they waned.

"Late-Prime/Plateau (2018-23": Bizarre to think that a player could still be classified in his "prime" at 30-31. Sure, he has played great, once he got out of the doldrums he was in. (You genteelly skipped 2017+.) But his main competition was even longer in the tooth, and miles on the body. Other than that, he was playing against the Manila Folders. Not so hard to look "prime" against most of them.

You find it self-interested of us to delve into the varying eras and phases of the Big 3, while at the same time ignoring them yourself.

Moxie, I'm not going to reply to this or the last because frankly it isn't worth the energy. I find it too much of a hassle to parse out the reasonable points you make from all the Fedalian nonsense, because you assume that everyone is operating at the same level as you; i.e. a "Fedal Warrior," (e.g. your ridiculous comment in the other post about me chomping at the bit to crown Novak because I can't give it to Roger? My lord).

It is a classic case of projection and I'd rather just ignore it.

 

[El Dude]

I'm not buying the Mozart or Schubert analogy. At least Borg isn't dead...he just quit playing tennis.

But he is tennis' great Romantic figure, as you say. Rafa's numbers still compared to his at RG. Roger's 5-in-a-row still just tied with Borg. @El Dude saying it's not fair to use his GS win % as a measure, since he quit so early.

"Only" 11 Majors, but he "died" young, and left a beautiful corpse. And an excellent Grand slam winning percentage. This is what folks like Fiero complain about...why hang in there, when you could walk away a winner, like Pete? They all have different endings, and they're not all so poetic.

See, I like what you have to say when it isn't about Rafa or you aren't assuming everyone is out to get Rafa.

And similarly what Kieran said about Borg. His career is what it was, perfect in a way - but also flawed, I think. Why? Well, while he retired in his prime, he also quit when Mac had gotten the upper edge. 1981 wasn't 1978-80...the peak had crested and started to dip. .It might have been like if Roger retired after 2008, not after 2007. But there'd be the ghost of saying, "But Roger would have bounced back in 2009." He sort of did, but not to what he was in 2004-07.

I suspect the same would have been true of Borg in 1982 and beyond. We'll never know, of course, but my sense is that he would have won more Slams, but as the overall second best player on tour. In his best years, 1978-80, Mac was still maturing. By 1981 he had arrived. Bjorn and Mac might have see-sawed a bit for a few years, and maybe their rivalry would have sent them both to Australia and maybe taken a few Slams away from others. But I think his very best was behind him.

 

[Moxie]

His stats aren't better now, unless you focus only on Slams - which I don't. I hear what you are getting at - the early period had peak Rafa, peak Andy, and close-to-peak Roger. Oh, and Stanimal.

The early period had peak Roger and peak Rafa, which he didn't really master. I don't think you can get away with "close-to-peak" Roger. They played 6 matches between 2006-07, and you just can't say that Roger was past his peak by then. Look at your own timelines. Peak Andy wasn't until your "Peak Years." Nor was the Stan rivalry a feature until then.

His serving stats are better, for sure. Credit to him. I'm not sure what other stats you mean.

The later period only has a bit of latter-day Roger and Rafa still playing well, and peak Next Gen which didn't have any all-time greats. But Novak was also a different player, approaching the game differently. Meaning, the point you're trying to make has to include other factors. For instance, he played fewer tournaments from 2020 on. Covid, Vaxgate, etc.

And yes, Slam count has a lot to do with opportunity. But over longer periods of time and especially two decade careers, this sort of evens out.

Well, over two decade careers, the ways that they led and didn't lead each other should also count. Right? Sure, it evens out, rather, but how long did it take Novak to pass the other two in lots of categories? Even now, he only leads the h2h v Nadal by one. And he had to win 23 Majors to finally lead both.

You're not going to win any arguments by saying that he missed a few Majors due to his choices about vaccination, given how many Rafa has missed due to injury, and still has 22. That one is weak.

 

[El Dude]

The early period had peak Roger and peak Rafa, which he didn't really master. I don't think you can get away with "close-to-peak" Roger. They played 6 matches between 2006-07, and you just can't say that Roger was past his peak by then. Look at your own timelines. Peak Andy wasn't until your "Peak Years." Nor was the Stan rivalry a feature until then.

I was talking about Kieran's framing, which was 2008-17. While Roger was still great in 2008 and after, he wasn't quite as good as he was in 2004-07, thus "close-to-peak."

 

[Moxie]

Moxie, I'm not going to reply to this or the last because frankly it isn't worth the energy. I find it too much of a hassle to parse out the reasonable points you make from all the Fedalian nonsense, because you assume that everyone is operating at the same level as you; i.e. a "Fedal Warrior," (e.g. your ridiculous comment in the other post about me chomping at the bit to crown Novak because I can't give it to Roger? My lord).

It is a classic case of projection and I'd rather just ignore it.

As I said to you, you have no problem "projecting" on to me, but don't like it when it comes back to you. You can choose not to reply, but I have left a few questions on the table that you're ignoring. You're happy to manipulate stats that don't suit you. You're happy to brush off Novak's early years. You call me a Fedal Warrior to blow me off. It's easy enough to just choose one point to respond to, and ignore the rest, you know.

 

[Moxie]

I was talking about Kieran's framing, which was 2008-17. While Roger was still great in 2008 and after, he wasn't quite as good as he was in 2004-07, thus "close-to-peak."

Ah, the theoretical if Novak were two players. Got it. I still have a bit of a problem with the Federer fans always saying Roger was "past peak" by 2008. He was 26/27. What ages would you say that Rafa and Novak were "past peak?" Just to remind me.

 

[Kieran]

His stats aren't better now, unless you focus only on Slams - which I don't. I hear what you are getting at - the early period had peak Rafa, peak Andy, and close-to-peak Roger. Oh, and Stanimal. The later period only has a bit of latter-day Roger and Rafa still playing well, and peak Next Gen which didn't have any all-time greats. But Novak was also a different player, approaching the game differently. Meaning, the point you're trying to make has to include other factors. For instance, he played fewer tournaments from 2020 on. Covid, Vaxgate, etc.

And yes, Slam count has a lot to do with opportunity. But over longer periods of time and especially two decade careers, this sort of evens out.

Explain that to me, how it ‘sort of evens out.’ It only evens out of you have the opportunity, if you’re left alone long enough with the rabble to grab the things they don’t have the strength to…

 

[Kieran]

As I said to you, you have no problem "projecting" on to me, but don't like it when it comes back to you. You can choose not to reply, but I have left a few questions on the table that you're ignoring. You're happy to manipulate stats that don't suit you. You're happy to brush off Novak's early years. You call me a Fedal Warrior to blow me off. It's easy enough to just choose one point to respond to, and ignore the rest, you know.

Novaks early years were spent developing naturally in the shade, waiting until the gladiators were getting tired…

 

[Kieran]

See, I like what you have to say when it isn't about Rafa or you aren't assuming everyone is out to get Rafa.

And similarly what Kieran said about Borg. His career is what it was, perfect in a way - but also flawed, I think. Why? Well, while he retired in his prime, he also quit when Mac had gotten the upper edge. 1981 wasn't 1978-80...the peak had crested and started to dip. .It might have been like if Roger retired after 2008, not after 2007. But there'd be the ghost of saying, "But Roger would have bounced back in 2009." He sort of did, but not to what he was in 2004-07.

I suspect the same would have been true of Borg in 1982 and beyond. We'll never know, of course, but my sense is that he would have won more Slams, but as the overall second best player on tour. In his best years, 1978-80, Mac was still maturing. By 1981 he had arrived. Bjorn and Mac might have see-sawed a bit for a few years, and maybe their rivalry would have sent them both to Australia and maybe taken a few Slams away from others. But I think his very best was behind him.

It’s hard to know. Remember, McEnroe dipped in 1982, pining for his Lord Byron. And then Mac was done winning big in 1984. I was thinking about this the other day in the bath. Remember, a big part of Bjorn’s problem was that the stupid powers that be told him if he took time off he’d have to play qualies at the slams. But imagine a world where he took time off and came back refreshed at the FO in 1982.

Let’s say McEnroe didn’t dip, but Jimmy still resurged, and off course Lendl that year became a threat. Bjorn might not have had to beat John to win the majors, he’d have gone back to the top beating the others. Not long in that kind of world and he’d be facing a loss cocksure McEnroe.

It’s the great thing about Bjorn’s early departure, he’s left us filled with only potential imaginings of his later years. I agree it’s a given that if he played until he was say, 30 - 1986 - he’d have won more slams, particularly the French, but I think there’s also Wimbledon and yes, USO titles in there too. We’ll never know!

 

[atttomole]

The putative GOAT is Federer. Djokovic is the statistical GOAT. Nadal is the GOAT in the grit department. He is the clay GOAT as well. The likes of Sampras and Borg shouldn’t be forgotten. They contributed significantly to the game.

The Serb’s numbers are insane. His game has improved. This is a guy who used to miss the easiest smashes not so long ago. Overall, he has the best game after the improvements.

 

[El Dude]

Ah, the theoretical if Novak were two players. Got it. I still have a bit of a problem with the Federer fans always saying Roger was "past peak" by 2008. He was 26/27. What ages would you say that Rafa and Novak were "past peak?" Just to remind me.

This is where doing some actual research will help you, Moxie, rather than just re-arranging reality to fit your preferred narrative.

 

[El Dude]

Explain that to me, how it ‘sort of evens out.’ It only evens out of you have the opportunity, if you’re left alone long enough with the rabble to grab the things they don’t have the strength to…

Sorry, my bad. Rafa has had less opportunity, more injury, and really should have 80 Slams and 6,000 titles. He's the GOAT.

But more seriously, over the course of a 20-year career you'll have opportunities to grab some (relatively) easy, or at least easier, titles. It may not be exactly even, but my point is that all of the Big Three have had opportunities and mostly made good on them.

 

[Moxie]

This is where doing some actual research will help you, Moxie, rather than just re-arranging reality to fit your preferred narrative.

I have researched it, and I know the Federer fans' arguments. I'm asking for your opinion, because that's what you're offering on Federer's peak.

Here's the thing...you're acting like those 3 guys were running a foot race, where they all started at the same line, at the same time, and you're impressed because Novak ran the furthest.

 

[El Dude]

I have researched it, and I know the Federer fans' arguments. I'm asking for your opinion, because that's what you're offering on Federer's peak.

Here's the thing...you're acting like those 3 guys were running a foot race, where they all started at the same line, at the same time, and you're impressed because Novak ran the furthest.

I'm stating the obvious: Novak has the best career resume. Do you actually disagree with that? We can nitpick all we want, talk about opportunity, injury and mental fortitude, but in the end, Novak has the greatest overall career record. Again, this isn't a slight on Roger and Rafa, nor is it saying that Novak was greater than them in all ways, just that when you tally up everything they did, his "total" is the greatest.

As for Roger, he peaked in 2006 and started slipping a bit after, even a bit in 2007 (at least relative to 2006) when he started losing more often to lesser players. The actual numbers support this view, if you look at who he lost to in 2007 and 2008. He was still great 2008 and after, but a solid notch below his 2004-07 level.

And no, this isn't just the rise of Rafa and Novak. As I said, he was losing to non-Djokodal players more often starting in 2007, with his overall win% against everyone going down.

For example, against everyone other than Novak and Rafa, Roger Federer lost only 9 matches in 2004-06: 5 in 2004, 3 in 2005, and 1 in 2006. In 2007 he lost 6 matches to non Djokodal players, and in 2008 it was 10, and in 2009 it was 8. In other words, 9 in 2004-06 vs. 24 in 2007-09.

 

[Kieran]

Sorry, my bad. Rafa has had less opportunity, more injury, and really should have 80 Slams and 6,000 titles. He's the GOAT.

But more seriously, over the course of a 20-year career you'll have opportunities to grab some (relatively) easy, or at least easier, titles. It may not be exactly even, but my point is that all of the Big Three have had opportunities and mostly made good on them.

I don’t think they’ve had the same opportunities. We’ve had this discussion. Rafa never had a few free years to get frisky with the field…

 

[Moxie]

Sorry, my bad. Rafa has had less opportunity, more injury, and really should have 80 Slams and 6,000 titles. He's the GOAT.

But more seriously, over the course of a 20-year career you'll have opportunities to grab some (relatively) easy, or at least easier, titles. It may not be exactly even, but my point is that all of the Big Three have had opportunities and mostly made good on them.

I love you, Dude, and I love to debate with you. So forgive me for saying, but you're being a bit pissy, as above.

In your original post (2 pages back) that started this line of discussion you said this: "Let's be honest: the only folks that still say that [there can never be a GOAT debate] are a few Rafa diehards. I think most Roger fans have ceded to Novak's overwhelming record, and probably most Rafa fans at least admit that Novak has the edge. My guess is that 99% of non-tribalists would say Novak gets the GOAT crown. So really, there are only a few holdouts...you, Kieran, anyone else? I mean anyone? (I'm not counting certain folks)." (In brackets are for clarification.)

Your position seems to be that you find the GOAT discussion settled, and, with prejudice, that anyone who disagrees with you is just a die-hard Nadal fan, therefore, their argument has no merit. And whatever arguments we make that there is no ultimate GOAT, you dismiss as fannishness and tribalism. It's clear you have your view, but you're being very dismissive of others'.

I think we discussed above that perhaps Greatest List of Career Stats (or whatever) might work better for some, did we not? Novak's resume is sterling, for sure. Some of still believe there is context to the overall discussion, and also that you'll never arrive at ONE GOAT. You can pretend to speak for Roger fans, but most are long-gone, so that is conjecture. Even @atttomole above calls Roger the "putative" GOAT. Today.

I think the best you can do is by eras, and I still think that this era has 3 greats, and that each is the sine qua non of each other. Even for Roger, who helped make the other two great...I don't know that he'd have stuck around as long without great competition, and more left to prove.

 

[Moxie]

I'm stating the obvious: Novak has the best career resume. Do you actually disagree with that? We can nitpick all we want, talk about opportunity, injury and mental fortitude, but in the end, Novak has the greatest overall career record. Again, this isn't a slight on Roger and Rafa, nor is it saying that Novak was greater than them in all ways, just that when you tally up everything they did, his "total" is the greatest.

As for Roger, he peaked in 2006 and started slipping a bit after, even a bit in 2007 (at least relative to 2006) when he started losing more often to lesser players. The actual numbers support this view, if you look at who he lost to in 2007 and 2008. He was still great 2008 and after, but a solid notch below his 2004-07 level.

And no, this isn't just the rise of Rafa and Novak. As I said, he was losing to non-Djokodal players more often starting in 2007, with his overall win% against everyone going down.

For example, against everyone other than Novak and Rafa, Roger Federer lost only 9 matches in 2004-06: 5 in 2004, 3 in 2005, and 1 in 2006. In 2007 he lost 6 matches to non Djokodal players, and in 2008 it was 10, and in 2009 it was 8. In other words, 9 in 2004-06 vs. 24 in 2007-09.

Yes, I've heard this argument before from Roger fans...that his peak was 2004-2007, and who he lost to. In his peak he suffered very few losses, and I know why the fans see it as a comedown that there were a few more after. For the sake of clarifying terms, I think we both understand the difference between "peak" and "prime" years.

So, according to you:

Roger: Peak years are 2004-2007. That's 4 years. Ages 22-26.

Novak: Peak years 2011-2016. That's 6 years. Ages 24-30.

You haven't said which are Rafa's peak, but 2008-2010, definitely, except for his first big injury break in 2009.

But look at this. Only 4 peak years for Roger, and 6 for Novak? What are Nadal peak years? That doesn't really explain 20+ Majors for each. Of course, years when they are still in their prime can stretch out beyond extended peak performance, and did. But obviously the bleed-across needs addressing. Not that I don't think you've already done more than one chart for that. I'm sure you have, but this is a bit stark.