Fedalovic Wars

[El Dude]

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…

I don't think there's really such a thing as "free years" in professional tennis. Sure, talent ebbs and flows with varying degrees of "talent density," but it is never free. No player reaches a Slam final without playing very good tennis. Some years (and draws) are easier than others, but none are easy or "free." Similarly with eras: it was obviously tougher to win a Slam when the Big Four were all playing well, but it isn't exactly a free ride now.

Rafa has had his version of advantage, or "privilege," if you will - but obviously that doesn't figure into your thinking. For instance, a lot is made by some about his record vs others at Slams, which is certainly impressive, but some of that is due to his high proportional rate of playing them on clay. Meaning, his high win % vs others at Slams is partially due to opportunity.

But my point, again, is that while opportunity is part of the larger discussion around greatness, it doesn't (or shouldn't) move the needle too much when trying to come up with GOAT rankings. GOATness, imo at least, should be about actual accomplishments. Context matters, but if a football team loses their star quarterback for the Super Bowl and loses, we can recognize that that greatly impacted their chances, but the winning team still gets (and deserves) the trophy.

Or look at baseball. The Texas Rangers won the World Series despite being tied for the 6th best record in baseball. In baseball it is recognized that the playoffs are a bit of a crap-shoot: the best regular season team doesn't always (or even usually) win; it is the team that plays best during the playoffs that wins - that seizes the opportunity.

Now I personally think too much is made of Slam count. McEnroe and Wilander both won 7 Slams, but literally no one with any knowledge of the game would speak about them in the same category. Once you get to 20 Slams, the differences become slim and, as you say, are impacted by opportunity. I have even agreed with Moxie in the past that of the Big Three, Rafa has had the overall hardest context because he overlapped with peak Roger and peak Novak, in a similar way that Ivan Lendl overlapped with two eras of great players - Connors, Borg, and Mac on one end, and Becker, Edberg, Wilander, Agassi, Courier, and Sampras on the other.

But again, Rafa's specialty on clay allowed him to at least partially--if not fully--make up the difference. The point being, let's look at everything, not just focus on how he was disadvantaged, because that at least looks like selective viewing.

 

[El Dude]

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.

You're misunderstanding what I'm saying - don't get too hung up on definitions. These terms are ultimately artificial (peak, prime, etc). So I'll put it differently. Roger was a truly great player from 2003 until 2019, with the usually ups and down between. But he was at his best in 2004-07, and never quite as good after, though still great.

Furthermore, and more importantly, while there are general patterns, every player's career unfolds differently - and that is true of the Big Three. There are some similarities, but also some differences. Comparing Roger and Rafa, for instance, Roger had a higher peak, but Rafa's was stretched out longer, with his three best seasons---2008, 10, 13--spanning a period of six years, and probably his fourth and fifth best seasons way after, in 2017-18. Roger had his four best seasons right in a row (2004-07), with his fifth just a bit after (2009). You could make an argument that 2017 was better than 2009, though, but obviously his best years were more clustered than Roger's.

 

[El Dude]

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.

I see it and feel as sassyness, rather than pissyness.

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.

You're still playing semantical games with the term "GOAT," wanting it to mean anything other than what is actually quantifiable. To me this implies a bit of inflexibility, as if "GOAT" must mean certain things but not others, or because it can be used in a variety of ways it shouldn't be used in specific ways. Or because there are so many complex factors involved, we can't come to any meaningful differentiations.

And yes, of course there is context, but the record is the record, no?

I might have used this analogy before, but it is sort of like being able to take two different perspectives, or lenses:

One, black and white - with maybe shades of gray.
Two, chromatic, with every possible color involved.

The are somewhat synonymous with quantitative vs. qualitative, respectively.

I have said, time and time again, that both have merit, both are valid, and if you look at things from the perspective of the first, it is hard to refute that Novak is the GOATATCR (GOAT According to Career Resume/Record). You find any and all ways to either say "Yeah, but that view is fake news" to applying the logic of two to one. From my perspective, this is being a bit slippery.

Or back to the gun to head analogy. You refuse to play, or say "well, let's use rubber bullets." The point of the gun to the head analogy is that you can't squeeze out of it. Sort of like, "What are your top five desert island films?" I don't know if I can easily separate five films I like more than any other, but the point is to play make-believe. "As if."

But one thing you are right to call me on: I can't speak for all Roger fans, and it could be that many of them would be doing what you and Kieran are doing. It may be that the phenomena that i have observed is only because Rafa fans have stuck around because, well, Rafa has stuck around. It is too bad that people are so tied to their favorite player, though, as if tennis isn't much more than any one player. I mean, I'm still here, and I mostly don't talk about Roger.

Anyhow, I do appreciate what Attamole said because he differentiated "types" of GOATs. I have also said what I think it means, or should mean, which is the player with the greatest overall career, who at this point in time is clearly Novak (unless you want to do mental gymnastics). All you've done is to basically say the term has no meaning, and to disagree with my determination because you don't agree with my definition of the term, so it becomes largely a matter of semantics.

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.

As I've said before, I don't disagree with what you say here. But we're back to chromatics vs. grayscale and reducing the latter to the former, whether because you dislike the whole premise of grayscale or because you don't like the conclusions they logically arrive at.

I mean, I sort of get it because I take a similar approach to politics, at least in certain discussions. My father and I endlessly argue about voting for the "lesser of two evils;" that's what he's always done and will always do (assuming he has more elections in him). I used to think that way, but now feel that voting for the lesser of two evils just yields more evil; and more importantly, it doesn't hold whoever your preferred party is to actually offer a good choice - just one slightly better than the "greater evil." So I won't vote for the lesser evil, but instead only for a candidate who I actually feel good voting for, based upon their actual principles and political positions, which generally means third party/independent (and yes, I voted for Jill Stein in 2016 and might do so again in 2024).

In other words, I refuse to play the game of duopoly - that we have to choose between two shit choices. As Nina Turner said in the last election, Biden vs. Trump was like having to choose between shit and diarrhea. I refuse to play that game, partially because I hate "having to" choose between two crappy choices.

Tennis is lower stakes, with clearer statistical metrics, so I don't mind playing grayscale games, or considering gun-to-head questions. Some are even pretty fun to consider (e.g. Gabriela Sabatini or Ana Ivanovic ;-)).

p.s. I love you too, Moxie. I guess we're a bit like squabbling siblings .

 

[Moxie]

I don't think there's really such a thing as "free years" in professional tennis. Sure, talent ebbs and flows with varying degrees of "talent density," but it is never free. No player reaches a Slam final without playing very good tennis. Some years (and draws) are easier than others, but none are easy or "free." Similarly with eras: it was obviously tougher to win a Slam when the Big Four were all playing well, but it isn't exactly a free ride now.

Now I think you're playing semantics. No one means "completely free" that I can imagine, but even you say it was obviously tougher when the Big 4 (or 3) were there and playing well. It's just easier when the competition is lesser. Here's an example: USO 2017. Some Federer fans complained quite bitterly that Rafa didn't have to play much of anyone to win that title. But even I said going in it that USO was like a "win 15+ Slams, get one free!" 6 of the top 11 men didn't even enter, including Djokovic, who was the previous year's finalist, nor did Stan play, who was defending. Sure, opportunities present themselves, but that was latter days of the big 4, and pretty weird.

Rafa has had his version of advantage, or "privilege," if you will - but obviously that doesn't figure into your thinking. For instance, a lot is made by some about his record vs others at Slams, which is certainly impressive, but some of that is due to his high proportional rate of playing them on clay. Meaning, his high win % vs others at Slams is partially due to opportunity.

He had the highest win % at Slams of active players until this year, and only one of them is played on clay. I'm not sure what you mean about "opportunity" because he was so much better than everyone else on clay. Novak and Roger are better on HC and grass, which gives them 75% more "opportunity" at Majors.

But my point, again, is that while opportunity is part of the larger discussion around greatness, it doesn't (or shouldn't) move the needle too much when trying to come up with GOAT rankings. GOATness, imo at least, should be about actual accomplishments.

But that's because you believe in a GOAT. And because you love your cold, hard numbers. I prefer the prose version, which has more nuance, and admits there is no GOAT.

Context matters, but if a football team loses their star quarterback for the Super Bowl and loses, we can recognize that that greatly impacted their chances, but the winning team still gets (and deserves) the trophy.

I do not like this analogy at all...team sport v. individual sport. In tennis, if you lose your star QB, you don't get to play the Super Bowl. Maybe you're saying that history won't put an asterisk on it, nor should they...ok. I'm not into asterisks, either. But I don't much like teams sports to analogize an individual one.

Or look at baseball. The Texas Rangers won the World Series despite being tied for the 6th best record in baseball. In baseball it is recognized that the playoffs are a bit of a crap-shoot: the best regular season team doesn't always (or even usually) win; it is the team that plays best during the playoffs that wins - that seizes the opportunity.

This one I really don't get. When was the last time the 6th best player in men's tennis won a Major, with all the rest playing. Or even without most of them?

Now I personally think too much is made of Slam count. McEnroe and Wilander both won 7 Slams, but literally no one with any knowledge of the game would speak about them in the same category. Once you get to 20 Slams, the differences become slim and, as you say, are impacted by opportunity. I have even agreed with Moxie in the past that of the Big Three, Rafa has had the overall hardest context because he overlapped with peak Roger and peak Novak, in a similar way that Ivan Lendl overlapped with two eras of great players - Connors, Borg, and Mac on one end, and Becker, Edberg, Wilander, Agassi, Courier, and Sampras on the other.

I can't definitively speak for @Kieran on this, but this is really all I'm trying to say. That once you get to 20+, the differences are slim; that they ARE impacted by opportunity; and that Rafa has been sandwiched in the middle of peaks of both. That's it. So we agree!

 

[Moxie]

You're misunderstanding what I'm saying - don't get too hung up on definitions. These terms are ultimately artificial (peak, prime, etc). So I'll put it differently. Roger was a truly great player from 2003 until 2019, with the usually ups and down between. But he was at his best in 2004-07, and never quite as good after, though still great.

Furthermore, and more importantly, while there are general patterns, every player's career unfolds differently - and that is true of the Big Three. There are some similarities, but also some differences. Comparing Roger and Rafa, for instance, Roger had a higher peak, but Rafa's was stretched out longer, with his three best seasons---2008, 10, 13--spanning a period of six years, and probably his fourth and fifth best seasons way after, in 2017-18. Roger had his four best seasons right in a row (2004-07), with his fifth just a bit after (2009). You could make an argument that 2017 was better than 2009, though, but obviously his best years were more clustered than Roger's.

Kinda hard not to get hung up on the definitions when you describe them so definitively, but OK, will take with a grain of salt, hereafter.

I'm not sure what you mean by Rafa's best years were more "clustered" than Roger's. Perhaps you mean more spread out? It's Roger who had more of a "cluster" of years, no?

 

[Moxie]

I see it and feel as sassyness, rather than pissyness.

I'll allow that, in the spirit of friendship.

p.s. I love you too, Moxie. I guess we're a bit like squabbling siblings .

Indeed we are. The off-season is nearly upon us, and this may be the only argument we've got, so gird your loins!

I'm not ignoring the rest of your post, though my above covers some. I'm just giving it a breather for now.

 

[nehmeth]

Djokovic clinches eighth year end #1 and guaranteed 400 weeks as #1. With people differentiating terms of ‘goathood’, I guess he is the statistical GOAT.

 

[El Dude]

Kinda hard not to get hung up on the definitions when you describe them so definitively, but OK, will take with a grain of salt, hereafter.

I'm not sure what you mean by Rafa's best years were more "clustered" than Roger's. Perhaps you mean more spread out? It's Roger who had more of a "cluster" of years, no?

That's what I meant - that Roger's were more clustered.

 

[El Dude]

Now I think you're playing semantics. No one means "completely free" that I can imagine, but even you say it was obviously tougher when the Big 4 (or 3) were there and playing well. It's just easier when the competition is lesser. Here's an example: USO 2017. Some Federer fans complained quite bitterly that Rafa didn't have to play much of anyone to win that title. But even I said going in it that USO was like a "win 15+ Slams, get one free!" 6 of the top 11 men didn't even enter, including Djokovic, who was the previous year's finalist, nor did Stan play, who was defending. Sure, opportunities present themselves, but that was latter days of the big 4, and pretty weird.

He had the highest win % at Slams of active players until this year, and only one of them is played on clay. I'm not sure what you mean about "opportunity" because he was so much better than everyone else on clay. Novak and Roger are better on HC and grass, which gives them 75% more "opportunity" at Majors.

There are different variations on "opportunity," and different contexts of analysis. I was using the context of records at Slams vs. each other (not overall Slam count) to point out that Rafa's edge is partially due to a higher proportion of their matchups (vs. both Roger and Novak) were on clay than on grass or hards.

But that's because you believe in a GOAT. And because you love your cold, hard numbers. I prefer the prose version, which has more nuance, and admits there is no GOAT.

Again, I like both: statistical and prose. It doesn't have to be either/or. And it isn't a matter of "belief," but addressing questions like: Which player is the best candidate for GOAT? Who has had the best overall career resume? Etc. You make it sound like a belief in God that I'm trying to prove, when all I'm doing is playing a mental puzzle of how to address a question.

I do not like this analogy at all...team sport v. individual sport. In tennis, if you lose your star QB, you don't get to play the Super Bowl. Maybe you're saying that history won't put an asterisk on it, nor should they...ok. I'm not into asterisks, either. But I don't much like teams sports to analogize an individual one.

This one I really don't get. When was the last time the 6th best player in men's tennis won a Major, with all the rest playing. Or even without most of them?

You're being quite literal with 6th best. That's just an example of how the Rangers had the 6th best record but won the WS. Meaning, how often does the favorite at a given Slam not win? It happens. It is less frequent once you get out of the top few players, but has happened. To some extent, any first-time Slam winner is an example of it. In recent years, Cilic was probably the biggest outlier or surprise Slam winner. Before the Big Four era, all sorts of guys won Slams - and even before the "Wild West" of 1998-2003ish.

I can't definitively speak for @Kieran on this, but this is really all I'm trying to say. That once you get to 20+, the differences are slim; that they ARE impacted by opportunity; and that Rafa has been sandwiched in the middle of peaks of both. That's it. So we agree!

And you've said this a million times, and used it like its some kind of golden ticket that forever disproves the notion of Novak as GOAT. But it doesn't, imo. It is one factor among many. And yes, once you get to 20+ (or even 15+) the differences are slim, but that's why you don't stop with Slams. Other factors - big titles, rankings, etc - all shine light on various aspects of greatness.

 

[Moxie]

Djokovic clenches eighth year end #1 and guaranteed 400 weeks as #1. With people differentiating terms of ‘goathood’, I guess he is the statistical GOAT.

I gave your post a "LOL" because several Fed fans have used that one, while still brandishing "putative" GOAT or "stylistic" GOAT for Roger. I thought it was a backhanded compliment, but maybe that IS it. He's the statistical GOAT. He's got the stats. And that just leaves the rest of this era to be debated.

 

[nehmeth]

I gave your post a "LOL" because several Fed fans have used that one, while still brandishing "putative" GOAT or "stylistic" GOAT for Roger. I thought it was a backhanded compliment, but maybe that IS it. He's the statistical GOAT. He's got the stats. And that just leaves the rest of this era to be debated.

It’s good with me. Stylistically, Federer was the embodiment of everything about classic tennis in a modern form. He won everything. Nadal will forever be clay GOAT I don’t see anyone ever matching his record. More than that, no one has fought harder to win all the time than Rafa. Together, they forged the Djokovic juggernaut. They share a part in all of his successes.

 

[Moxie]

There are different variations on "opportunity," and different contexts of analysis. I was using the context of records at Slams vs. each other (not overall Slam count) to point out that Rafa's edge is partially due to a higher proportion of their matchups (vs. both Roger and Novak) were on clay than on grass or hards.

OK, I'll give that a look, but you have shifted the goalposts there, as I was talking about Slam win %, overall, in more than one post. I wasn't talking about h2h. I wasn't aware any of us were talking about h2h, in this portion of the thread.

Again, I like both: statistical and prose. It doesn't have to be either/or. And it isn't a matter of "belief," but addressing questions like: Which player is the best candidate for GOAT? Who has had the best overall career resume? Etc. You make it sound like a belief in God that I'm trying to prove, when all I'm doing is playing a mental puzzle of how to address a question.

No, I'm making it about a belief in a GOAT, which is not god. But, IMO, is as difficult to qualify or quantify. Do you not understand that? And try not to think it's just a partizan attitude. But didn't you see my above to Nehmeth? Djokovic as GOAT of the statistics. He clearly is. Doesn't make him the GOAT of all-time, but it makes him the GOAT of the resume. I was unwilling for a long time to say that Nadal was the GOAT of Clay, because I don't think there is a GOAT, and then Broken told me it was time to get over it. Eventually, you can lead the stats so far in one category that it's undeniable. I'm OK with that. Is that enough for you, even if I still say you can't arrive at one GOAT of all time?

You're being quite literal with 6th best. That's just an example of how the Rangers had the 6th best record but won the WS. Meaning, how often does the favorite at a given Slam not win? It happens. It is less frequent once you get out of the top few players, but has happened. To some extent, any first-time Slam winner is an example of it. In recent years, Cilic was probably the biggest outlier or surprise Slam winner. Before the Big Four era, all sorts of guys won Slams - and even before the "Wild West" of 1998-2003ish.

Cilic is a good answer. But he IS an outlier. I'm just saying that it happened pretty rarely in the Fedalovic era. I even gave my own example of a "weak" field. But they have gotten weaker as the 3 of the big 4 waned.

And you've said this a million times, and used it like its some kind of golden ticket that forever disproves the notion of Novak as GOAT. But it doesn't, imo. It is one factor among many. And yes, once you get to 20+ (or even 15+) the differences are slim, but that's why you don't stop with Slams. Other factors - big titles, rankings, etc - all shine light on various aspects of greatness.

And you agree with me. And yes, other factors shine a light on greatness. I've got a million of them. I could bore you to tears.

 

[Moxie]

It’s good with me. Stylistically, Federer was the embodiment of everything about classic tennis in a modern form. He won everything. Nadal will forever be clay GOAT I don’t see anyone ever matching his record. More than that, no one has fought harder to win all the time than Rafa. Together, they forged the Djokovic juggernaut. They share a part in all of his successes.

And of each others'. I just don't see how you have one without the other two, especially pushing each other. Roger said that he didn't feel like he needed a rival, until he had one in Rafa. Then there was Novak to work as a counter to Rafa. I firmly believe that each, in a vacuum, would have quit long ago. Pass Pete and retire out of boredom. They are/were, let's face it, head-and-shoulders above basically everyone for the past 20 years. They needed each other for competition and benchmarks.

 

[nehmeth]

And of each others'. I just don't see how you have one without the other two, especially pushing each other. Roger said that he didn't feel like he needed a rival, until he had one in Rafa. Then there was Novak to work as a counter to Rafa. I firmly believe that each, in a vacuum, would have quit long ago. Pass Pete and retire out of boredom. They are/were, let's face it, head-and-shoulders above basically everyone for the past 20 years. They needed each other for competition and benchmarks.

In my opinion, these three guys would have crushed it an any era.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

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.

Nadal never reached his peak due to hundreds of setbacks and injuries.

 

[Kieran]

I don't think there's really such a thing as "free years" in professional tennis. Sure, talent ebbs and flows with varying degrees of "talent density," but it is never free. No player reaches a Slam final without playing very good tennis. Some years (and draws) are easier than others, but none are easy or "free." Similarly with eras: it was obviously tougher to win a Slam when the Big Four were all playing well, but it isn't exactly a free ride now.

Rafa has had his version of advantage, or "privilege," if you will - but obviously that doesn't figure into your thinking. For instance, a lot is made by some about his record vs others at Slams, which is certainly impressive, but some of that is due to his high proportional rate of playing them on clay. Meaning, his high win % vs others at Slams is partially due to opportunity.

But my point, again, is that while opportunity is part of the larger discussion around greatness, it doesn't (or shouldn't) move the needle too much when trying to come up with GOAT rankings. GOATness, imo at least, should be about actual accomplishments. Context matters, but if a football team loses their star quarterback for the Super Bowl and loses, we can recognize that that greatly impacted their chances, but the winning team still gets (and deserves) the trophy.

Or look at baseball. The Texas Rangers won the World Series despite being tied for the 6th best record in baseball. In baseball it is recognized that the playoffs are a bit of a crap-shoot: the best regular season team doesn't always (or even usually) win; it is the team that plays best during the playoffs that wins - that seizes the opportunity.

Now I personally think too much is made of Slam count. McEnroe and Wilander both won 7 Slams, but literally no one with any knowledge of the game would speak about them in the same category. Once you get to 20 Slams, the differences become slim and, as you say, are impacted by opportunity. I have even agreed with Moxie in the past that of the Big Three, Rafa has had the overall hardest context because he overlapped with peak Roger and peak Novak, in a similar way that Ivan Lendl overlapped with two eras of great players - Connors, Borg, and Mac on one end, and Becker, Edberg, Wilander, Agassi, Courier, and Sampras on the other.

But again, Rafa's specialty on clay allowed him to at least partially--if not fully--make up the difference. The point being, let's look at everything, not just focus on how he was disadvantaged, because that at least looks like selective viewing.

I think that @Moxie is pretty much correct. The Novak fans who were once Rafa fans but then jumped onto the bandwagon used to give huge love-like my posts about Roger only facing “Gonzo, Baggy and Fozzy Bear” to speed his race to catch Pete. They loved the line when I said he was basically “rolling drunks got chump change.” They understood what I meant. They knew the distance between a greenhorn Rafa facing peak Roger and Roger facing players with no pedigree at that level…

 

[the AntiPusher]

I see it and feel as sassyness, rather than pissyness.


You're still playing semantical games with the term "GOAT," wanting it to mean anything other than what is actually quantifiable. To me this implies a bit of inflexibility, as if "GOAT" must mean certain things but not others, or because it can be used in a variety of ways it shouldn't be used in specific ways. Or because there are so many complex factors involved, we can't come to any meaningful differentiations.

And yes, of course there is context, but the record is the record, no?

I might have used this analogy before, but it is sort of like being able to take two different perspectives, or lenses:

One, black and white - with maybe shades of gray.
Two, chromatic, with every possible color involved.

The are somewhat synonymous with quantitative vs. qualitative, respectively.

I have said, time and time again, that both have merit, both are valid, and if you look at things from the perspective of the first, it is hard to refute that Novak is the GOATATCR (GOAT According to Career Resume/Record). You find any and all ways to either say "Yeah, but that view is fake news" to applying the logic of two to one. From my perspective, this is being a bit slippery.

Or back to the gun to head analogy. You refuse to play, or say "well, let's use rubber bullets." The point of the gun to the head analogy is that you can't squeeze out of it. Sort of like, "What are your top five desert island films?" I don't know if I can easily separate five films I like more than any other, but the point is to play make-believe. "As if."

But one thing you are right to call me on: I can't speak for all Roger fans, and it could be that many of them would be doing what you and Kieran are doing. It may be that the phenomena that i have observed is only because Rafa fans have stuck around because, well, Rafa has stuck around. It is too bad that people are so tied to their favorite player, though, as if tennis isn't much more than any one player. I mean, I'm still here, and I mostly don't talk about Roger.

Anyhow, I do appreciate what Attamole said because he differentiated "types" of GOATs. I have also said what I think it means, or should mean, which is the player with the greatest overall career, who at this point in time is clearly Novak (unless you want to do mental gymnastics). All you've done is to basically say the term has no meaning, and to disagree with my determination because you don't agree with my definition of the term, so it becomes largely a matter of semantics.

As I've said before, I don't disagree with what you say here. But we're back to chromatics vs. grayscale and reducing the latter to the former, whether because you dislike the whole premise of grayscale or because you don't like the conclusions they logically arrive at.

I mean, I sort of get it because I take a similar approach to politics, at least in certain discussions. My father and I endlessly argue about voting for the "lesser of two evils;" that's what he's always done and will always do (assuming he has more elections in him). I used to think that way, but now feel that voting for the lesser of two evils just yields more evil; and more importantly, it doesn't hold whoever your preferred party is to actually offer a good choice - just one slightly better than the "greater evil." So I won't vote for the lesser evil, but instead only for a candidate who I actually feel good voting for, based upon their actual principles and political positions, which generally means third party/independent (and yes, I voted for Jill Stein in 2016 and might do so again in 2024).

In other words, I refuse to play the game of duopoly - that we have to choose between two shit choices. As Nina Turner said in the last election, Biden vs. Trump was like having to choose between shit and diarrhea. I refuse to play that game, partially because I hate "having to" choose between two crappy choices.

Tennis is lower stakes, with clearer statistical metrics, so I don't mind playing grayscale games, or considering gun-to-head questions. Some are even pretty fun to consider (e.g. Gabriela Sabatini or Ana Ivanovic ;-)).

p.s. I love you too, Moxie. I guess we're a bit like squabbling siblings .

If and when Rafa wins AO and RG 24 for #24...it will be interesting to give post like this a bump or has Novak's dominance put the GOAT discussion out of reach ..

 

[El Dude]

If and when Rafa wins AO and RG 24 for #24...it will be interesting to give post like this a bump or has Novak's dominance put the GOAT discussion out of reach ..

Talking about stats only (not narrative elements), Rafa's biggest problem relative to Novak is highlighted by weeks at #1 -- not just the stat itself, but the sustained dominance and underlying accomplishments it represents. What is striking about Novak's career resume is how full it is: he has some of everything, and a lot of most things (see list above). But the weeks at #1 might actually be his most mind-boggling stat: I mean, 400+...he just needs about four or five months more to have two years worth on Roger, and has a chance to more than double Rafa's total. That speaks not only to peak level, but sustained dominance.

Even if you ignore rankings and focus only on accomplishments, like me "PEP" system, you still have the problem of Novak having more big years. 20 PEP is basically an elite year - there are usually 3-4 guys in that range, in a given year; it is the type of season that 2nd tier guys dream of having but usually don't have, or a typical Andy Murray prime season. 30 is great (about top 100 Open Era), and 40 is probably the best player on tour (top 50 Open Era), with 50+ being rare historic seasons (about top 20 in the Open Era).

To compare Roger, Rafa, and Novak, here is how many seasons they have at the 50, 40, 30, and 20 thresholds:

RF: 4/7/11/15
RN: 3/5/12/13
ND: 5/8/11/16

Note that Novak's current season is at 49 through today's result; chances are that "5" becomes a "6."

Anyhow, as you can see, Novak and Roger have more 50 and 40 seasons than Rafa. Rafa has one more 30+ PEP season than either one, but two and three fewer 20 seasons than Roger and Novak, respectively. But this points to the fact that in terms of tour dominance, Roger and even more so Novak, reigned more prominently.

If Rafa wins a couple more Slams and gets to #24, it might distance himself enough from Roger to make him a solid #2. Due to what I described above, Roger's still a bit ahead of him in career PEP, but I'm not a "PEP Absolutist." Haha.

But to pass Novak he needs a lot more, because of the completeness of Novak's resume. Meaning, even if you focus on Slams, you have to look at everything else as a tiebreaker, and Novak's "everything else" is a lot...more. The big gap in YECs (Novak 6, Rafa 0) and widening gap in Masters (Novak 40, Rafa 36) is hard to make up, even if he ties Novak's Slam count. Not only is Rafa running out of time, but Novak is still a moving target. Meaning, even if Rafa resurges, he'd really need Novak to collapse in order to have a chance of equalling his overall resume...and really, he needs more than one year's return to form.

Not to go on too long, but another way to look at is that using GOAT points, Novak's at 1094, Roger at 926, and Rafa at 885. Rafa's 41 points behind Roger; that's Rafa's 2018 season. Meaning, another really good (but not one of his very best) seasons and he equals Roger; or it could merely be a couple merely decent ones (by Rafa's standards), like his 2020 year.

But he's 209 GP behind Novak - which is the equivalent of five 2018 seasons. That is really hard to make up, especially going into a season in which Rafa turns 37 years old.

(It should go without saying but I'm not advocating for GOAT points as an absolute measurement of greatness; I'm just using it as a tool to illustrate the point...and it does a fairly good job of accumulation of records).

 

[shawnbm]

Yes, Roger had the most elite years of anyone until Nole came along, particularly with the last five years or so. He has really added to his resume since turning thirty, which is astounding. Rafa and Roger also did very well in their thirties, but nowhere near what Novak did (and continues to do).

 

[Moxie]

Yes, Roger had the most elite years of anyone until Nole came along, particularly with the last five years or so. He has really added to his resume since turning thirty, which is astounding. Rafa and Roger also did very well in their thirties, but nowhere near what Novak did (and continues to do).

I'm curious if that's true, or what you mean by that..."most elite years." Meaning most years of elite play, or years that are more "elite" than anyone else's. Which years are we talking about, for Roger and Novak? I don't mean to sound facetious, I am just genuinely curious to define those years and terms.

The post-30 accomplishments are off-the charts, I think, especially Novak's. Doesn't it tell you anything, though, that of 24 Majors, he's won half since he turned 30?

Players with most grand slam titles in their 30s as Novak Djokovic breaks record

Serena Williams is the only other player to win 10 majors in her 30s.

www.independent.co.uk

(Note that since that article was written, Djokovic has won one more Major.)