Fedalovic Wars

[El Dude]

Hope you don't mind me butting in, @nehmeth and @Kieran , but I'm going to try to split the difference and tease out two underlying perspectives that I hear from you:

Kieran: We cannot know how any player would perform in a different context, if they were a product of that context (e.g. Borg being born in 1996 instead of 1956, or Novak born in 1947 instead of 1987). Similarly, we cannot compare players across eras because of very different contexts.

Nehmeth: Over time, athletics improves. Players in just about any sport get better and better, even if only gradually. Over longer periods of time, the differences become larger.

Aren't both true and even complementary? In other words, I think you're both right, but talking about slightly different things. We can't compare players of different eras, because we can't know how they'd perform in a different context, which also means different training routines, tactics, norms, tech, etc. In other words, Novak Djokovic wouldn't be Novak Djokovic if he had born in 1947 rather than 1987. He'd be a different human being and player. Similarly if Borg had been born in 1996 vs. 1956.

On the other hand, if we took Novak and time-travelled him back to 1969, and of course given him some time to adjust to wooden rackets, he'd clean house. No one could beat him, probably not even Laver (I'd probably give Pancho Gonzales the best shot, on a good day, though he was rather old by then). Tennis evolves - players are bigger, stronger, faster, more athletic.

Moving over to baseball for a moment, I read somewhere that fastball speeds have gone up an average of something like 5 mph over the last couple decades. I think this has accelerated in recent decades, but that they've probably increased from the 19th century to the present. That means guys like Cy Young and Walter Johnson probably never threw a 90 mph pitch, when today the average is something like 93-94 and some guys get up to 104-105. If you put peak Mike Trout back to 1925, he'd absolutely feast on pitchers - not just with their slower pitches, but without the century of developments in breaking pitches, and of course Trout's athleticism. He'd make Babe Ruth look like a scrub.

That said, there are quantifiable changes that we can speculate on. I hate to say it, but if Rod Laver had been born in 1988 rather than '38, he'd probably be more like a David Ferrer or Nikolay Davydenko - a very good second tier type. As great as he was, the game of the 60s and early 70s was rather different, and today Laver (at 5'8") would be a boy among giants. He'd be a maxed out (more skillful) Diego Schwartzman. I think due to his incredible skill set, maybe he'd manage to sneak in a Slam or two, but he wouldn't be what he was back then - the GOAT. A bigger and more powerful guy like Pancho Gonzales probably would have been great in today's era.

But I don't think that diminishes Laver' historic stature, as one of the four or five best players of all time. He was as dominant during his prime as just about anyone. In that sense, I think players should always be judged against the context in which they played. This doesn't mean you cannot compare across eras, but that the best way is to compare "relative dominance" (that is, how dominant Laver was vs. his peers vs how dominant Roger was vs. his). This is why when the GOAT conversation goes broad, I think we have to include Laver, Gonzales, and Tilden in the conversation (there were other really great players, but Vines or Kramer didn't dominate for as long as those three).

As a side note, despite the deepened field, I'm not even sure that it was easier to win the calendar Slam back in 1969. Wilander, Nadal, Federer, and Djokovic all won three Slams in a year - and Novak even on three different surfaces in 2021. Laver's opponents weren't pushovers - it was the Open Era, so he had to beat the best in the game to win those four Slams. In 2021, Novak might have played in the more "advanced" context of contemporary tennis, but he was also a product of that context.

We could use the analogy of school grades. Having the best grades in 12th grade (or class 12 for the Europeans) isn't necessarily more impressive than having them in 9th grade. But of course a 12th grader would find 9th grade relatively easy and a 9th grader would struggle in 12th grade. But it isn't fair to compare a 9th and 12th grader, and if that 9th grader first went through 10th and 11th grade, they'd be prepared for the context of 12th grade. And if the 12th grade erased all physical and mental development and returned to their 9th grade self, they would be, well, a 9th grader. It isn't a perfect or even very good analogy, but I think kinda works.

This implies that when you are born and play within a specific context, you are in a sense the beneficiary of all that came before -- all the previous "grades."

 

[El Dude]

And I would agree about Stefanos. Nick has about the same disciplined regimen of the lads in the 80’s. He would have loved Studio 54.

Vitas Kyrgios?

 

[nehmeth]

Using this logic though, we’d have to say that Muhammad Ali is not comparable with even average fighters, and Pele is not one of the greatest of all footballers…

You’re being stupid. In the 30’s -60’s you had a dozen real tennis players interspersed among wealthy, upper crust who played tennis as a hobby. You should know this. In 1973 when the first ATP rankings came out, there were less than 185 professional players. Today there are ten times as many. The pool in boxing has possibly decreased with other similar sports. Pele was transcendent.

 

[Kieran]

You’re being stupid. In the 30’s -60’s you had a dozen real tennis players interspersed among wealthy, upper crust who played tennis as a hobby. You should know this. In 1973 when the first ATP rankings came out, there were less than 185 professional players. Today there are ten times as many. The pool in boxing has possibly decreased with other similar sports. Pele was transcendent.

Today there are more than ten times as many professional footballers today. Pele would be slow motion in the speeded up ultra-tight, ultra-tactical modern game. Legends of the past would be run off the pitch.

Likewise with any legends of any sport that has continued to develop and evolve.

You’re not understanding how sports evolve. To use the standard cliche, the modern stars are standing on the shoulders of giants. They have so many advantages that there’s no suitable way to directly compare. We can only imagine how greats from even the more recent past might do with the same modern advantages, or what our modern greats might be without them. It’s too difficult to imagine - but there is no straight comparison…

 

[nehmeth]

That said, there are quantifiable changes that we can speculate on. I hate to say it, but if Rod Laver had been born in 1988 rather than '38, he'd probably be more like a David Ferrer or Nikolay Davydenko - a very good second tier type. As great as he was, the game of the 60s and early 70s was rather different, and today Laver (at 5'8") would be a boy among giants. He'd be a maxed out (more skillful) Diego Schwartzman. I think due to his incredible skill set, maybe he'd manage to sneak in a Slam or two, but he wouldn't be what he was back then - the GOAT. A bigger and more powerful guy like Pancho Gonzales probably would have been great in today's era.

But I don't think that diminishes Laver' historic stature, as one of the four or five best players of all time. He was as dominant during his prime as just about anyone. In that sense, I think players should always be judged against the context in which they played. This doesn't mean you cannot compare across eras, but that the best way is to compare "relative dominance" (that is, how dominant Laver was vs. his peers vs how dominant Roger was vs. his). This is why when the GOAT conversation goes broad, I think we have to include Laver, Gonzales, and Tilden in the conversation (there were other really great players, but Vines or Kramer didn't dominate for as long as those three).

As a side note, despite the deepened field, I'm not even sure that it was easier to win the calendar Slam back in 1969. Wilander, Nadal, Federer, and Djokovic all won three Slams in a year - and Novak even on three different surfaces in 2021. Laver's opponents weren't pushovers - it was the Open Era, so he had to beat the best in the game to win those four Slams. In 2021, Novak might have played in the more "advanced" context of contemporary tennis, but he was also a product of that context.

Yes… Laver today would not achieved anything close to what he did back then. And it (in my opinion) should diminish his historic stature. Tennis and sport are not religion. Venerating past accomplishments makes the vision sepia toned with nostalgia. Laver was a runt. So was Rosewall. They did great in their era. But it wasn’t anything like what we have experienced with these 3.

 

[Kieran]

Vitas Kyrgios?

Actually you know, Nick would be a lightweight in that Studio 54 comparison. Most modern players would be…

 

[nehmeth]

Today there are more than ten times as many professional footballers today. Pele would be slow motion in the speeded up ultra-tight, ultra-tactical modern game. Legends of the past would be run off the pitch.

Likewise with any legends of any sport that has continued to develop and evolve.

You’re not understanding how sports evolve. To use the standard cliche, the modern stars are standing on the shoulders of giants. They have so many advantages that there’s no suitable way to directly compare. We can only imagine how greats from even the more recent past might do with the same modern advantages, or what our modern greats might be without them. It’s too difficult to imagine - but there is no straight comparison…

We’re talking about tennis. It was an elite and effete sport played by the upper crust on both sides of the pond. Not much of a competitive pool. In the late 50’s and 60‘s there was the first influx of professionals. Again the pool was not deep. Soccer always had the best athletes competing (outside of the USA). Tennis has not. I would say Nadal is one of the few truly great athletes who could have succeeded in any sport. Sampras? (maybe Volleyball?) Laver and Rosewall?

 

[Kieran]

Hope you don't mind me butting in, @nehmeth and @Kieran , but I'm going to try to split the difference and tease out two underlying perspectives that I hear from you:

Kieran: We cannot know how any player would perform in a different context, if they were a product of that context (e.g. Borg being born in 1996 instead of 1956, or Novak born in 1947 instead of 1987). Similarly, we cannot compare players across eras because of very different contexts.

Nehmeth: Over time, athletics improves. Players in just about any sport get better and better, even if only gradually. Over longer periods of time, the differences become larger.

Aren't both true and even complementary? In other words, I think you're both right, but talking about slightly different things. We can't compare players of different eras, because we can't know how they'd perform in a different context, which also means different training routines, tactics, norms, tech, etc. In other words, Novak Djokovic wouldn't be Novak Djokovic if he had born in 1947 rather than 1987. He'd be a different human being and player. Similarly if Borg had been born in 1996 vs. 1956.

On the other hand, if we took Novak and time-travelled him back to 1969, and of course given him some time to adjust to wooden rackets, he'd clean house. No one could beat him, probably not even Laver (I'd probably give Pancho Gonzales the best shot, on a good day, though he was rather old by then). Tennis evolves - players are bigger, stronger, faster, more athletic.

Moving over to baseball for a moment, I read somewhere that fastball speeds have gone up an average of something like 5 mph over the last couple decades. I think this has accelerated in recent decades, but that they've probably increased from the 19th century to the present. That means guys like Cy Young and Walter Johnson probably never threw a 90 mph pitch, when today the average is something like 93-94 and some guys get up to 104-105. If you put peak Mike Trout back to 1925, he'd absolutely feast on pitchers - not just with their slower pitches, but without the century of developments in breaking pitches, and of course Trout's athleticism. He'd make Babe Ruth look like a scrub.

That said, there are quantifiable changes that we can speculate on. I hate to say it, but if Rod Laver had been born in 1988 rather than '38, he'd probably be more like a David Ferrer or Nikolay Davydenko - a very good second tier type. As great as he was, the game of the 60s and early 70s was rather different, and today Laver (at 5'8") would be a boy among giants. He'd be a maxed out (more skillful) Diego Schwartzman. I think due to his incredible skill set, maybe he'd manage to sneak in a Slam or two, but he wouldn't be what he was back then - the GOAT. A bigger and more powerful guy like Pancho Gonzales probably would have been great in today's era.

But I don't think that diminishes Laver' historic stature, as one of the four or five best players of all time. He was as dominant during his prime as just about anyone. In that sense, I think players should always be judged against the context in which they played. This doesn't mean you cannot compare across eras, but that the best way is to compare "relative dominance" (that is, how dominant Laver was vs. his peers vs how dominant Roger was vs. his). This is why when the GOAT conversation goes broad, I think we have to include Laver, Gonzales, and Tilden in the conversation (there were other really great players, but Vines or Kramer didn't dominate for as long as those three).

As a side note, despite the deepened field, I'm not even sure that it was easier to win the calendar Slam back in 1969. Wilander, Nadal, Federer, and Djokovic all won three Slams in a year - and Novak even on three different surfaces in 2021. Laver's opponents weren't pushovers - it was the Open Era, so he had to beat the best in the game to win those four Slams. In 2021, Novak might have played in the more "advanced" context of contemporary tennis, but he was also a product of that context.

We could use the analogy of school grades. Having the best grades in 12th grade (or class 12 for the Europeans) isn't necessarily more impressive than having them in 9th grade. But of course a 12th grader would find 9th grade relatively easy and a 9th grader would struggle in 12th grade. But it isn't fair to compare a 9th and 12th grader, and if that 9th grader first went through 10th and 11th grade, they'd be prepared for the context of 12th grade. And if the 12th grade erased all physical and mental development and returned to their 9th grade self, they would be, well, a 9th grader. It isn't a perfect or even very good analogy, but I think kinda works.

This implies that when you are born and play within a specific context, you are in a sense the beneficiary of all that came before -- all the previous "grades."

Hey Rafa won slams on 3 different surfaces in 2010, Statboy!


I think that the smaller players benefited from the faster surfaces in Laver’s day. In todays game, players benefit from playing in different conditions, which suit the way they play. There’s so many variables that a simplistically straight comparison is pointless. It says nothing. It’s like saying a modern Ferrari is faster than a car in the 1950’s….

 

[Kieran]

We’re talking about tennis. It was an elite and effete sport played by the upper crust on both sides of the pond. Not much of a competitive pool. In the late 50’s and 60‘s there was the first influx of professionals. Again the pool was not deep. Soccer always had the best athletes competing (outside of the USA). Tennis has not. I would say Nadal is one of the few truly great athletes who could have succeeded in any sport. Sampras? (maybe Volleyball?) Laver and Rosewall?

It doesn’t matter. Soccer evolved, and the best teams now would handle 1970 Pele with ease. I remember Emlyn Hughes from the great Liverpool team of the ‘70’s saying that modern teams (this was in the 1990’s) would eventually run them off the park.

This increased athleticism and modern tactical nous doesn’t necessarily mean that the Liverpool team which conquered Europe routinely in the seventies was not to be compared with their predecessors…

 

[nehmeth]

It doesn’t matter. Soccer evolved, and the best teams now would handle 1970 Pele with ease. I remember Emlyn Hughes from the great Liverpool team of the ‘70’s saying that modern teams (this was in the 1990’s) would eventually run them off the park.

This increased athleticism and modern tactical nous doesn’t necessarily mean that the Liverpool team which conquered Europe routinely in the seventies was not to be compared with their predecessors…

I will let you get back on track with your Fedalovic wars. Statistical GOAT is Djokovic. Clay GOAT is Ralf. Fed is prettiest tennis GOAT.

 

[don_fabio]

I'm not sure if boxing evolved much in last 20-30 years. I'd like to see Iron Mike in his prime fight these Ukranian guys who rule heavy weight boxing in the last decade or so.

 

[Kieran]

I'm not sure if boxing evolved much in last 20-30 years. I'd like to see Iron Mike in his prime fight these Ukranian guys who rule heavy weight boxing in the last decade or so.

@britbox would be the man to tell us, but even if you look at the greatest legends of the fifties and sixties, they’re middleweights compared to the giants who inhabit the sport today. Tyson is one of the most compelling - and controversial - figures in any sport. His autobiography is hair raising!

 

[El Dude]

I don’t like Pep Guardiola, if that’s what you’re talking about. I can’t stand the bastard.

But when you’re talking about weeks at number 1, it’s definitely in the realm of opportunity, which he’s having now in ways that probably even Roger didn’t have, and certainly never Rafa. Someday when the 3 are gone we’ll hopefully understand this better. Novak is 36. He’s doing better than he did at his peak.

How?

Again, I think you over-emphasize this point, for obvious reasons. But more so, it is a certain framing I take issue with. I mean, all players take advantage of opportunities, and it isn't like Novak hasn't won lots of very hard Slams.

And he's not necessarily doing better now than at his peak, assuming you mean Slams, at least if you consider 2011 and 2015-16. Sure, he only won a Slam in each of 2012-14, but he still had great years - winning 5-6 big titles each year, including the YEC. Over the last three or four years he's doing a bit of a Roger in 2017 by playing a lighter schedule, focusing more on Slams.

I would rephrase with what I think is a more apt (and less loaded) question: How is Novak still so good at age 36? I know you want to say it is mostly due to opportunity, but I think the majority of it is Novak himself. Rafa was still quite good last year, and Roger had that resurgence in 2017, so it isn't entirely unheard of. In Roger's case, it was his last truly great year. In Rafa's, probably the last two-Slam year and maybe last Slam year (but we shall see). If Novak maintains this form into next year, he'll truly be treading new ground...and he just might.

How is he doing it? I think of what happened to Barry Bonds after he started taking steroids (around 1998 or 99). He was already the best player in baseball, and maintaining a high level into his 30s. What happened in 2001-04, when Bonds had probably the best four-year run in baseball history at age 36-39, is that he was able to combine a smarter, more experienced mental game--the product of 15+ years experience--with a revitalized body. Steroids didn't as much make players better in terms of skills; what they did is make their bodies stronger and shortened recovery time. Bonds was always a smart hitter, but by the time he was in his late 30s he really knew how to hit. What happens to every player in every sport, is a kind of race between their developing experience and understanding of the game and the decline of their body. By slowing--halting and even reversing--physical decline, Bonds combined the best of both worlds.

Now I'm not saying that I think Djokovic is taking steroids. Not at all. I am saying that what we're seeing is an older, wiser Novak in a fit and healthy body. It is what we saw from Roger in 2017, and Rafa for parts of 2017-22 (but specially in 2017 and 2019, and for half of 2022).

I think what happens with aging in general is not as much a decline in skills or hand-eye coordination. That doesn't really start until later, maybe not until 40ish or so. What happens is that the body starts breaking down in other ways and, more to the point, recovery takes longer, injuries become more frequent and linger, and eventually the will to fight father time diminishes (this is why I'm a bit surprised that Andy Murray keeps playing).

Novak has the best fitness resources in the world. He's smart, knows how to take care of himself, and has a lot of help from trainers and technology. At some point even he'll falter, and I think when it ends it will end quickly...he won't linger around after he's certain that he can't be at the top of the sport, or at least win Slams. Meaning, last Slam win plus a year or so. So if next year he doesn't win a Slam, even if he reaches a couple finals, I think he'll give it one more go in 2025 and then call it quits, regardless of results. But who knows...

 

[atttomole]

It doesn’t matter. Soccer evolved, and the best teams now would handle 1970 Pele with ease. I remember Emlyn Hughes from the great Liverpool team of the ‘70’s saying that modern teams (this was in the 1990’s) would eventually run them off the park.

This increased athleticism and modern tactical nous doesn’t necessarily mean that the Liverpool team which conquered Europe routinely in the seventies was not to be compared with their predecessors…

As a soccer fan, I disagree. Pele was a fast dribbler and I think he would have easily adapted to modern football. Physically he was a specimen, so there isn’t much of a discussion when it comes to how he would have fared in the modern game. Tennis is a bit different because the players are taller and the serve is important. You can’t say the same about football. Therefore, we can not apply the generalizations to different sports.

When it comes to boxing, based on what I have seen on video, the Ali era was full of top boxers. Maybe the best era!! You had Ali, Frazier, Foremnan, Lyle, Norton. Those guys were beasts.

 

[Kieran]

Again, I think you over-emphasize this point, for obvious reasons. But more so, it is a certain framing I take issue with. I mean, all players take advantage of opportunities, and it isn't like Novak hasn't won lots of very hard Slams.

Obvious reasons. Come on brother, you can do better than that. It’s not a very impressive way to argue. You that a bit with Moxie too. Obvious reasons. It’s not a strong argument if you have to throw shade at your opponents in lieu of logic. We could almost grow a complex in the face of such reasons that are pure and open.

Novak has won hard slams. And he’s won about 6 of his last seven easily. And others before that. What do I mean by easily? Look at the draw he faced.

Now Rafa has gotten his fair share of easy ones too, but it’s not comparable.

And he's not necessarily doing better now than at his peak, assuming you mean Slams, at least if you consider 2011 and 2015-16. Sure, he only won a Slam in each of 2012-14, but he still had great years - winning 5-6 big titles each year, including the YEC. Over the last three or four years he's doing a bit of a Roger in 2017 by playing a lighter schedule, focusing more on Slams.

He’s doing better than that. He’s winning slams like he did at his peak. Ten years later than that. But I’m getting ahead of myself. You mentioned Barry Bonds.

I would rephrase with what I think is a more apt (and less loaded) question: How is Novak still so good at age 36? I know you want to say it is mostly due to opportunity, but I think the majority of it is Novak himself. Rafa was still quite good last year, and Roger had that resurgence in 2017, so it isn't entirely unheard of. In Roger's case, it was his last truly great year. In Rafa's, probably the last two-Slam year and maybe last Slam year (but we shall see). If Novak maintains this form into next year, he'll truly be treading new ground...and he just might.

How is he doing it? I think of what happened to Barry Bonds after he started taking steroids (around 1998 or 99). He was already the best player in baseball, and maintaining a high level into his 30s. What happened in 2001-04, when Bonds had probably the best four-year run in baseball history at age 36-39, is that he was able to combine a smarter, more experienced mental game--the product of 15+ years experience--with a revitalized body. Steroids didn't as much make players better in terms of skills; what they did is make their bodies stronger and shortened recovery time. Bonds was always a smart hitter, but by the time he was in his late 30s he really knew how to hit. What happens to every player in every sport, is a kind of race between their developing experience and understanding of the game and the decline of their body. By slowing--halting and even reversing--physical decline, Bonds combined the best of both worlds.

Now I'm not saying that I think Djokovic is taking steroids. Not at all.

Well let’s not say it too loudly, eh?

The idea of opportunity playing a role in buffing up a resume is simple. When you have only 3 players with the gall and balls to win slams then you remove 2 of them you have opportunity knocking for the third. Like Roger from 2003-2007, facing a field that couldn’t touch him off clay. Once Rafa peaked then Roger had fewer opportunities. 2009 kind of emphasised that. Soon as Rafa was removed again Roger won 3 of the next 4.

Both Roger and Novak have had seasons like that, and Rafa hasn’t. He’s always had the other two bugging him. There’s no guarantee he’d have won six or seven more slams (even without the injuries there’s no guarantee). But then, if 2 of the 3 were absent, who else could win the slams?

 

[britbox]

@britbox would be the man to tell us, but even if you look at the greatest legends of the fifties and sixties, they’re middleweights compared to the giants who inhabit the sport today. Tyson is one of the most compelling - and controversial - figures in any sport. His autobiography is hair raising!

You're right with heavies -I think the heavyweight division is a little special in that you don't have the upper weight limit and there is the old maxim - a good big one beats a good little one. However, we also have fragmented world titles to consider. Some of the other weight divisions might be more comparable at an absolute level. Would Hagler, Leonard and Hearns be competitive in the modern era at those weight classes? I think so.

The era subject is quite fascinating because the tendency is to put a player of yesteryear into the modern era. How about reversing it? What if Djoker, Rafa or Roger had to play with wooden racquets, gut strings on surfaces that are less than well manicured... and they get no real sports science, no entourage, and not much (comparative) prize money. I actually think that's a more interesting scenario.

 

[the AntiPusher]

This is how to play Novak's game ..

Obvious reasons. Come on brother, you can do better than that. It’s not a very impressive way to argue. You that a bit with Moxie too. Obvious reasons. It’s not a strong argument if you have to throw shade at your opponents in lieu of logic. We could almost grow a complex in the face of such reasons that are pure and open.

Novak has won hard slams. And he’s won about 6 of his last seven easily. And others before that. What do I mean by easily? Look at the draw he faced.

Now Rafa has gotten his fair share of easy ones too, but it’s not comparable.

He’s doing better than that. He’s winning slams like he did at his peak. Ten years later than that. But I’m getting ahead of myself. You mentioned Barry Bonds.


Well let’s not say it too loudly, eh?

The idea of opportunity playing a role in buffing up a resume is simple. When you have only 3 players with the gall and balls to win slams then you remove 2 of them you have opportunity knocking for the third. Like Roger from 2003-2007, facing a field that couldn’t touch him off clay. Once Rafa peaked then Roger had fewer opportunities. 2009 kind of emphasised that. Soon as Rafa was removed again Roger won 3 of the next 4.

Both Roger and Novak have had seasons like that, and Rafa hasn’t. He’s always had the other two bugging him. There’s no guarantee he’d have won six or seven more slams (even without the injuries there’s no guarantee). But then, if 2 of the 3 were absent, who else could win the slams?

 

[El Dude]

Obvious reasons. Come on brother, you can do better than that. It’s not a very impressive way to argue. You that a bit with Moxie too. Obvious reasons. It’s not a strong argument if you have to throw shade at your opponents in lieu of logic. We could almost grow a complex in the face of such reasons that are pure and open.

You and Moxie are both diehard Nadalites and anti-Novaxxers and literally never argue for anything other than that which elevates Rafa, or at least puts him on equal footing, regardless of what the record says. Forgive me if the bias is obvious and I call it out. We're all just chatting on an internet forum, so I'm not going for rules of proper debate, and am not as much trying to win the argument as come to what seems true, and true beyond anyone's bias. That's always been my interest in the stats - using them to highlight different aspects of tennis, to better understand things. And yes, part of that is comparing players. What I see time and time again is when those stats don't say Rafa is Best! in come you and/or Moxie with "Stats are dumb...I prefer a poetic narrative, because in my poetic universe, Rafa is Best."

In other words, your continual focus on "opportunity" with regards to the GOAT debate points to the bias and "obvious reasons," as literally every time anything GOAT related comes up, or the adulation for Novak gets too high, in you both come again with your caveats and insinuations, and all towards the end of elevating Rafa.

I'm just being honest about what I see: that your bias for Rafa (and against Novak) colors your judgement.

And as I said to Moxie, I love poetic narratives too, and I really enjoy your Irish way with words and your thoughts on tennis in general. The above really only applies with All Things Rafa and GOAT, nothing the many other aspects of tennis discussion that we enjoy.

Novak has won hard slams. And he’s won about 6 of his last seven easily. And others before that. What do I mean by easily? Look at the draw he faced.

Now Rafa has gotten his fair share of easy ones too, but it’s not comparable.

He’s doing better than that. He’s winning slams like he did at his peak. Ten years later than that. But I’m getting ahead of myself. You mentioned Barry Bonds.


Well let’s not say it too loudly, eh?

The idea of opportunity playing a role in buffing up a resume is simple. When you have only 3 players with the gall and balls to win slams then you remove 2 of them you have opportunity knocking for the third. Like Roger from 2003-2007, facing a field that couldn’t touch him off clay. Once Rafa peaked then Roger had fewer opportunities. 2009 kind of emphasised that. Soon as Rafa was removed again Roger won 3 of the next 4.

Both Roger and Novak have had seasons like that, and Rafa hasn’t. He’s always had the other two bugging him. There’s no guarantee he’d have won six or seven more slams (even without the injuries there’s no guarantee). But then, if 2 of the 3 were absent, who else could win the slams?

Again, I get it - but as I've said, reducing it to opportunity is a bit myopic and just fuels the fanboy accusations, not to mention unnecessarily diminishes Novak.

I have agreed with Moxie that Rafa had the harder cross to bear in terms of overlap with Roger and Novak. And I recognize that he's lost more Slams to injuries, though I think that's a bit more nuanced than bad luck and has a lot to do with his style of play. But as I've said before, we can't give Rafa (or anyone) credit for what might have been, and all players have their own What If scenarios. Greatness in sports is ultimately about what is accomplished, not about what might have been. There are plenty of areas of possible conversation in that vein, as tennis is rife with interesting tales of unfulfilled potential and tragedy.

 

[Kieran]

You and Moxie are both diehard Nadalites and anti-Novaxxers and literally never argue for anything other than that which elevates Rafa, or at least puts him on equal footing, regardless of what the record says. Forgive me if the bias is obvious and I call it out.

That’s fake news. I’m probably the only Rafa fan who has constantly argued that his 14 is inflated. I apply the theory of weak opposition ecumenically to this era.

We're all just chatting on an internet forum, so I'm not going for rules of proper debate,

We should all apply the rules of standard debate, the Internet would be so much better off. Once we go low and make personal insults (you didn’t, so I’m not talking about you, you’re always enjoyable and reasonable to interact with), we lose the argument. Default setting.

In other words, your continual focus on "opportunity" with regards to the GOAT debate points to the bias and "obvious reasons," as literally every time anything GOAT related comes up, or the adulation for Novak gets too high, in you both come again with your caveats and insinuations, and all towards the end of elevating Rafa.

Fake news! I refer you to my answer above. Sometimes people are so invested in pigeonholing the person they argue with that they don’t see the whole of the point they’re making.

I'm just being honest about what I see: that your bias for Rafa (and against Novak) colors your judgement.

That’s right, I dislike Djoker, and people who are like him. I think he’s amoral, pretentious, unsporting, a cheat. He’d kill his Granny to get a W. He’d kill the rules too.

Great player though!

I have agreed with Moxie that Rafa had the harder cross to bear in terms of overlap with Roger and Novak. And I recognize that he's lost more Slams to injuries, though I think that's a bit more nuanced than bad luck and has a lot to do with his style of play.

People say that but I don’t fully believe it. I think that other players have more attritional styles of play, and they’re getting younger, never showing signs of natural wear and tear. I think when people say that about Rafa, they’re tending to recite what they believe is a simple truism.

But I believe it’s just simplistic, convenient thinking…

 

[El Dude]

That’s fake news. I’m probably the only Rafa fan who has constantly argued that his 14 is inflated. I apply the theory of weak opposition ecumenically to this era.


We should all apply the rules of standard debate, the Internet would be so much better off. Once we go low and make personal insults (you didn’t, so I’m not talking about you, you’re always enjoyable and reasonable to interact with), we lose the argument. Default setting.



Fake news! I refer you to my answer above. Sometimes people are so invested in pigeonholing the person they argue with that they don’t see the whole of the point they’re making.

That’s right, I dislike Djoker, and people who are like him. I think he’s amoral, pretentious, unsporting, a cheat. He’d kill his Granny to get a W. He’d kill the rules too.

Great player though!

People say that but I don’t fully believe it. I think that other players have more attritional styles of play, and they’re getting younger, never showing signs of natural wear and tear. I think when people say that about Rafa, they’re tending to recite what they believe is a simple truism.

But I believe it’s just simplistic, convenient thinking…

Fake news...funny.

Your point about opportunity is made (many times) and I see truth in it obviously, but just feel that it is, well "simplistic, convenient thinking" to overly focus on it, or any particular factor, especially those that cannot be quantified (in the same sense that I don't think of what I said about Rafa's style of play as being absolute but more of a partial truth, or at least a valid hypothesis). For one, it implies that Slams that are won against a weaker field (e.g. Roger's 2006 AO) wouldn't have been won against stronger competition; two, the inverse: it implies that absentee Slams would've been won, if given the opportunity; three, it gets us in a mode of asterisks and caveats, and away from the facts on the ground.

Take Rafa's 14 clay Slams - most of it is due to how good he is and, in the end, he won what he won: 14 Roland Garros titles. Why qualify that at all? I take issue with both the over-emphasis on opportunity (and other non-tangible elements) and applying it selectively - which ends up seeming agenda-driven, especially when it is so consistently in one direction. To be honest, I think it is a point that everyone gets, but is just a feature of tennis (and everything, really). A truism, really, sort of like saying "In my opinion." In other words, "opportunity" is an intrinsic factor in just about any title. The greater the player, the more they're able to exploit it (I think you said at one point that great players "vulture" opportunistically).

So back to your comparisons of 2011-16 Novak vs. recent Novak. I do think he was a better player back then but had more peak talent to contend with (Rafa, Andy, Roger, Stan), but this doesn't diminish what he's doing right now, or put an asterisk on his accomplishments. The other, and I think more meaningful side, is that he's so good that he can vulture these Slams in his mid-30s. In other words, it isn't just opportunity, but him being good enough to exploit it - and that, to me, is the more meaningful part of the equation.

Now if we were talking about Andy Murray changing his pronouns to she/her and joining the WTA, that would be a different thing...