Fedalovic Wars

[El Dude]

An addendum, to the above and for @Moxie as well. Despite what Moxie might think about me changing my tune, I still basically agree with the view that, overall, the Big Three are so close in talent that a lot of the differences in their resumes comes down to, well, opportunity -- but also match-up dynamics and other contextual factors - like where and when they played, etc. And there are a lot of them. Shift things around a bit, and their resumes could look different - in any number of ways. And that goes for past greats, as well. All players, really. But given that, when considering quantifiable greatness, it comes down to--for me, at least--what has actually been accomplished. The historic statistical record.

Believe it or not, I agree with the idea that "greatness" cannot simply and only be a statistical matter. But I do think that the more nebulous, qualitative stuff should be minimized when we're actually ranking players historically. So when I rank players and come up with systems, it is with the understanding that it is based on what can be ranked - that is, actual results. What we could call "talent" or "brilliance"--which I think you both focus on--cannot be ranked, except symptomatically through results. In other words, there is a kind of filter between "talent/brilliance" on one hand, and "results" on the other. In that filter are all those nebulous factors (like opportunity, drive, health, focus, mentality, context, etc). I am merely saying that any system of ranking can only ever take into accounts the "post-filter" results.

There are problems with a "results-only" approach. When trying to figure out the "best" system, I frequently run into two issues that I don't really have solutions for, or at least solutions that I feel good about:

1. How to weigh peak level with accumulative career accomplishments, or quality vs. quantity (e.g. Connors vs. Borg).
2. The problem of different eras (e.g. Borg only playing three Slams in most years or the varying prestige and depth of Slams at different times, such as Kriek's AO titles).

The worst of focusing only on career accumulation isn't ranking Novak over Roger and Rafa, which is only mildly problematic, but comes about when just about any complex system ends up ranking Connors and Lendl over Borg and Sampras, or Murray over Wilander. My current view is that such systems yield an important, if partial, truth: that players like Connors and Lendl were better relative to, say, Sampras than mere Slam titles implies. This is not to say that I don't think Sampras was (or was not) better, just that "14" vs "8" isn't at all an accurate depiction of their relative greatness. On the other hand, it tells me that the system isn't fully adequate in accounting for peak dominance vs. career accumulation (point 1 above). And it may be that no system will ever truly be able to accurately assess Bjorn Borg relative to everyone else.

 

[Kieran]

An addendum, to the above and for @Moxie as well. Despite what Moxie might think about me changing my tune, I still basically agree with the view that, overall, the Big Three are so close in talent that a lot of the differences in their resumes comes down to, well, opportunity -- but also match-up dynamics and other contextual factors - like where and when they played, etc. And there are a lot of them. Shift things around a bit, and their resumes could look different - in any number of ways. And that goes for past greats, as well. All players, really. But given that, when considering quantifiable greatness, it comes down to--for me, at least--what has actually been accomplished. The historic statistical record.

Believe it or not, I agree with the idea that "greatness" cannot simply and only be a statistical matter. But I do think that the more nebulous, qualitative stuff should be minimized when we're actually ranking players historically. So when I rank players and come up with systems, it is with the understanding that it is based on what can be ranked - that is, actual results. What we could call "talent" or "brilliance"--which I think you both focus on--cannot be ranked, except symptomatically through results. In other words, there is a kind of filter between "talent/brilliance" on one hand, and "results" on the other. In that filter are all those nebulous factors (like opportunity, drive, health, focus, mentality, context, etc). I am merely saying that any system of ranking can only ever take into accounts the "post-filter" results.

There are problems with a "results-only" approach. When trying to figure out the "best" system, I frequently run into two issues that I don't really have solutions for, or at least solutions that I feel good about:

1. How to weigh peak level with accumulative career accomplishments, or quality vs. quantity (e.g. Connors vs. Borg).
2. The problem of different eras (e.g. Borg only playing three Slams in most years or the varying prestige and depth of Slams at different times, such as Kriek's AO titles).

The worst of focusing only on career accumulation isn't ranking Novak over Roger and Rafa, which is only mildly problematic, but comes about when just about any complex system ends up ranking Connors and Lendl over Borg and Sampras, or Murray over Wilander. My current view is that such systems yield an important, if partial, truth: that players like Connors and Lendl were better relative to, say, Sampras than mere Slam titles implies. This is not to say that I don't think Sampras was (or was not) better, just that "14" vs "8" isn't at all an accurate depiction of their relative greatness. On the other hand, it tells me that the system isn't fully adequate in accounting for peak dominance vs. career accumulation (point 1 above). And it may be that no system will ever truly be able to accurately assess Bjorn Borg relative to everyone else.

Here’s the thing. You try analyse tennis through the best way you know how. I analyse it differently. We’re not referring to opposing values but different values. You try to concretise it, which is fair enough, but as you say, has limits. There’s limits also to me applying my experience as a coach - years ago - player and spectator. But to simply brush off the difference as being due to partisanship or bias is to not really listen.

As I say, I’m probably the only Rafa fan to say the 14 is inflated. And Rafa’s 14 is the only thing even Federer and Djokovic fans agree on. The whole tennis world agrees on - and I do to an extent - but I insist it’s inflated. And I say all the modern records are inflated. I’ve said this for years. And so if they’re inflated then they’re not the only way we can understand the sport. We overlook the context behind things. For instance, a lot of people think Agassi blew a six inch putt against Gomes. Gomes, meanwhile, was World #4 with a pedigree. Lazy thinking, lack of inquisitiveness, agenda driven narratives. Everybody can be guilty of it. The most guilty are the ones who don’t think there’s any context other than what the umpire announces at the end of play.

Enjoyable posts, by the way…

 

[shawnbm]

These are enjoyable posts. Rafa's 14 RG titles is evidence of inflation! Wow!

 

[El Dude]

Here’s the thing. You try analyse tennis through the best way you know how. I analyse it differently. We’re not referring to opposing values but different values. You try to concretise it, which is fair enough, but as you say, has limits. There’s limits also to me applying my experience as a coach - years ago - player and spectator. But to simply brush off the difference as being due to partisanship or bias is to not really listen.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on how much partisanship influences opinions, and what we choose to focus on or highlight. We're all biased, but to different degrees and in different ways about different things. It isn't crazy to think that a person who loves one player and hates another will have some degree of bias at play, whether consciously or not. I'm not brushing off what you have to say, btw--and apologize if I gave that impression--but at the very least think it is influenced by your partisanship, at least with regards to Rafa and Novak. I can hear what you are saying, while feeling it is a bit over-emphasized. Anyhow, I would suggest that we're at a bit of an impasse on this one and move on.

As I say, I’m probably the only Rafa fan to say the 14 is inflated. And Rafa’s 14 is the only thing even Federer and Djokovic fans agree on. The whole tennis world agrees on - and I do to an extent - but I insist it’s inflated. And I say all the modern records are inflated. I’ve said this for years. And so if they’re inflated then they’re not the only way we can understand the sport. We overlook the context behind things. For instance, a lot of people think Agassi blew a six inch putt against Gomes. Gomes, meanwhile, was World #4 with a pedigree. Lazy thinking, lack of inquisitiveness, agenda driven narratives. Everybody can be guilty of it. The most guilty are the ones who don’t think there’s any context other than what the umpire announces at the end of play.

And I agree 100% with the gist of what you are saying, which I tried to express above with my "two problems" (among others, but those are the two biggest ones) with coming up with a good system of ranking. In that sense, it is hard to compare different eras. I like my PEP system (I'll include it below) that I've mentioned, but it has limited value when comparing, say, Novak's peak years with Borg's. For one, Novak played four Slams, Borg only three - there's your opportunity. Secondly, Masters were more emphasized in Novak's era than in Borgs. In most peak years, Novak played 8+ Masters, while Borg played 4 in '79 and 2 in '80 (or 5 and 2, if you add in the equivalent WCT championship). Or to put that more clearly, compare the tournaments played by Borg and Djokovic in their best years (by PEP):

Borg 1979 (52 PEP): 3 GS, 1 TF, 5 Masters (incl WCT), 7 ATP 500, 4 ATP 250
Djokovic 2015 (75 PEP): 4 GS, 1 TF, 8 Masters, 2 ATP 500, 1 ATP 250

Borg won 13 titles in 1979, but "only" 5 of what we now call "big titles." Djokovic won 11 titles, but 10 of them were big titles - so that inflates his PEP.

Borg did play more tournaments (20) than Novak (16), but the total possible PEP value for those 20 tournaments was 74, while for Novak it was 83. Before a couple adjustments I make for multiple Slams and court types, Borg's sub-total is 49, so he had a PEP% of 66.2 (that is, he won 66.2% of total possible PEP for the tournaments he played in). Novak's sub-total was 71, so he had a PEP% of 85.5%....so it was still a better year by Novak, but the difference is smaller than the raw PEP numbers. To put it another way:

Raw PEP: Novak (75) was 44% better than Borg (52).
PEP %: Novak (85.5) was 29% better than Borg (66.2).

And that's just quantitative factors. There are certainly other factors that might bring the two closer that you cannot find in the historical record.

As a side note, Borg's "pound for pound" performance (PEP%) in 1980 was better and very close to Novak's 2015 at 80%. Meaning, while he had more raw numbers (PEP) in 1979, he had a higher rate of converting those tournaments into titles (PEP%). We can see a similar dynamic comparing Roger's 2009 and 2017:

2009: 46 PEP, 54 PEP%
2017: 45 PEP, 71 PEP%

Enjoyable posts, by the way…

Yes, likewise!

______________
PEP (Premier Event Points)
Grand Slam W/F/SF/QF: 10, 5, 3, 1
Tour Finals: +1 per win, +1 for title (max 6, or usually 4 for Alt Tour Finals)
Masters W/F/SF or Olympics G/S/B medals: 4, 2, 1
ATP 500 W/F: 2, 1
ATP 250 W: 1
Davis/Team Cup win in final round: +1 per match win

Grand Slam adjustments (within calendar year):
Four Slams: +5
Three Slams: +3
Two Slams: +1
Two surfaces: +1
Three surfaces: +2
All finals (at least three played): +1

 

[shawnbm]

I don't know how you do it, El Dude. Amazing and compelling stuff! Thank you.

 

[El Dude]

I don't know how you do it, El Dude. Amazing and compelling stuff! Thank you.

I'm a chronic procrastinator, so work on stuff like this while I'm avoiding more creative or work-related endeavors. Plus, I find making charts and crunching numbers sort of relaxing and fun. Plus, there's a sort of "aesthetic harmony" to the numbers - and trying to make them work as best I can (e.g. what to include in a formula and how to weigh it).

 

[shawnbm]

My take on all of these things is intuitive--visceral if you will. Loved Connors warring nature on court and never say die attitude--I see the same in Rafa and Carlitos. Nadal--prolly the most genuinely nice guy of the modern era and someone I like very much for who he is. Tremendous admiration in the day and outright treasuring as time has gone by of the Angelic Assassin from Sweden. Watching Borg during his heyday is one of tennis' great pleasures. Was not a fine of Agassi or Pete, but admired Sampras because he came up with the goods when it mattered more than the others and he too showed grit.

McEnroe--never seen anyone like him before or since. Totally unorthodox and mesmerizing, even if I could not stand his outbursts. The most innate talent on a court I ever saw until ...

(no, not David Nalbandian or Marat Safin LOL) ... the Swiss Maestro. When I really started following tennis again almost twenty years ago (meaning watching and getting back into playing regularly), he was the first artist on court to my eyes since Johnny Mac. He had orthodox strokes but was a throwback to the all court tennis days I was missing after the boom-boom nineties.

At any rate, love the sport. Love all you guys and the back and forth. Good stuff!

 

[shawnbm]

I did not mention Novak--le machine. An ongoing master class in tennis from the backcourt. The best service return I have seen since Agassi. Mental fortitude that is likely unrivalled--hence the stats.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

Hmmm I wonder who is the GOAT... Here's a picture montage to answer that question...

Thank you for reading.

 

[Moxie]

An addendum, to the above and for @Moxie as well. Despite what Moxie might think about me changing my tune, I still basically agree with the view that, overall, the Big Three are so close in talent that a lot of the differences in their resumes comes down to, well, opportunity -- but also match-up dynamics and other contextual factors - like where and when they played, etc. And there are a lot of them. Shift things around a bit, and their resumes could look different - in any number of ways. And that goes for past greats, as well. All players, really. But given that, when considering quantifiable greatness, it comes down to--for me, at least--what has actually been accomplished. The historic statistical record.

If you say that you haven't changed your position, I'm not here to tell you what you think. I will say that there is a difference between our conversation as to best of this era, and your digging deeper into all times. Try to remember that I, for one, am talking about this era. As you say, there's a lot that goes into discussing the 3 of them. I'm not sure what you mean when you say, "shift things around a bit." Is that theoretical, or practical? But, we do agree that when they played matters, based on your above.

Believe it or not, I agree with the idea that "greatness" cannot simply and only be a statistical matter. But I do think that the more nebulous, qualitative stuff should be minimized when we're actually ranking players historically.

Again, this is about your digging into the historical, which is a different conversation than this particular one, but I get why you do it. I do appreciate that you say that "greatness" isn't simple nor statistical. I do understand why you try, though.

So when I rank players and come up with systems, it is with the understanding that it is based on what can be ranked - that is, actual results. What we could call "talent" or "brilliance"--which I think you both focus on--cannot be ranked, except symptomatically through results. In other words, there is a kind of filter between "talent/brilliance" on one hand, and "results" on the other. In that filter are all those nebulous factors (like opportunity, drive, health, focus, mentality, context, etc). I am merely saying that any system of ranking can only ever take into accounts the "post-filter" results.

There are problems with a "results-only" approach. When trying to figure out the "best" system, I frequently run into two issues that I don't really have solutions for, or at least solutions that I feel good about:

1. How to weigh peak level with accumulative career accomplishments, or quality vs. quantity (e.g. Connors vs. Borg).
2. The problem of different eras (e.g. Borg only playing three Slams in most years or the varying prestige and depth of Slams at different times, such as Kriek's AO titles).

The worst of focusing only on career accumulation isn't ranking Novak over Roger and Rafa, which is only mildly problematic,

IMO, it's more than "mildly problematic," and thus the thread.

but comes about when just about any complex system ends up ranking Connors and Lendl over Borg and Sampras, or Murray over Wilander. My current view is that such systems yield an important, if partial, truth: that players like Connors and Lendl were better relative to, say, Sampras than mere Slam titles implies. This is not to say that I don't think Sampras was (or was not) better, just that "14" vs "8" isn't at all an accurate depiction of their relative greatness. On the other hand, it tells me that the system isn't fully adequate in accounting for peak dominance vs. career accumulation (point 1 above). And it may be that no system will ever truly be able to accurately assess Bjorn Borg relative to everyone else.

And there you tell us why the systems fail, or at least falter. The numbers fall into place, and they tell us a story that our eyes did not see, at least sometimes. But I DO agree that the exercise is instructive in many ways. I appreciate your efforts, and those of others. And I say with all respect, regarding the bolded above: it's not that it MAY be that no system will every truly be able to accurately assess Bjorn Borg relative to everyone else. There absolutely will never be a system to tell you that. I feel I can guarantee you that. The very fact that you're picking out Borg to compare with Novak, (in another post,) speaks not to 1:1 statistical relevance, but to mystique, does it not? Why Borg? He has only 11 Majors. Why do we still talk about Bjorn Borg? He won a lot, but not so much. He only won in 2 of the 4 Majors. He had a relatively short career. You said this above: "But I do think that the more nebulous, qualitative stuff should be minimized when we're actually ranking players historically." And yet you've focused on Borg. IMO, Borg is the definition of "nebulous, qualitative stuff." He's the great "What If...."

I really do understand your impetus to quantify it all. But I do wish you'd give more understanding to those of us who don't believe that you ultimately can, and not just call us out as partisans. (Which you did, again.)

 

[shawnbm]

The original Big Three of tennis in the Open Era were Connors-Borg-McEnroe and they did not really play Australia all that much and the rise of rival tours and the politics of the time may have cost Connors the calendar year grand slam in 1974 (he did beat Borg twice on Har-Tru--green clay). Australia began its rebirth after Borg stepped away from the game and even the French was a distant third in popularity around the world and in prestige compared the big daddy of them all in London and the second biggest in New York City. Those three actually helped to make the other two get the respect they deserved by playing in them and winning them (in the case of the wildly popular Borg in Paris), along with Melbourne succeeding in getting moved to earlier in the year to make it even more necessary to go "down under" for all top players (easy to skip if at end of the year and nobody has a chance at the slam--at least back in the Seventies).

Borg likely would have won more in Paris, multiple time me thinks. SW19 or US Open? Tough to say after the rise of McEnroe and a rejuvenated Connors after his marriage in 1979. Maybe. Down Under? Not likely, so his pool of majors (along with Connors and McEnroe since they started playing there regularly after their peak years) was always going to be much smaller than that of the modern players. But he was Federeresque /Djokovicesque in showing up and going deep to semis and finals in practically every major he played. He was something that Swede.

 

[El Dude]

If you say that you haven't changed your position, I'm not here to tell you what you think. I will say that there is a difference between our conversation as to best of this era, and your digging deeper into all times. Try to remember that I, for one, am talking about this era. As you say, there's a lot that goes into discussing the 3 of them. I'm not sure what you mean when you say, "shift things around a bit." Is that theoretical, or practical? But, we do agree that when they played matters, based on your above.

By "shift things around a bit," I mean contextual stuff - the factors of opportunity, so to speak. There are a lot of them, and they aren't just things that detracted from Rafa.

Again, this is about your digging into the historical, which is a different conversation than this particular one, but I get why you do it. I do appreciate that you say that "greatness" isn't simple nor statistical. I do understand why you try, though.

Well, I'm a bit "Fedalovicked" out and like to look at the larger, historical context.

IMO, it's more than "mildly problematic," and thus the thread.

And there you tell us why the systems fail, or at least falter. The numbers fall into place, and they tell us a story that our eyes did not see, at least sometimes. But I DO agree that the exercise is instructive in many ways. I appreciate your efforts, and those of others. And I say with all respect, regarding the bolded above: it's not that it MAY be that no system will every truly be able to accurately assess Bjorn Borg relative to everyone else. There absolutely will never be a system to tell you that. I feel I can guarantee you that. The very fact that you're picking out Borg to compare with Novak, (in another post,) speaks not to 1:1 statistical relevance, but to mystique, does it not? Why Borg? He has only 11 Majors. Why do we still talk about Bjorn Borg? He won a lot, but not so much. He only won in 2 of the 4 Majors. He had a relatively short career. You said this above: "But I do think that the more nebulous, qualitative stuff should be minimized when we're actually ranking players historically." And yet you've focused on Borg. IMO, Borg is the definition of "nebulous, qualitative stuff." He's the great "What If...."

I think we can say that Borg reached similar heights of dominance as the Big Three, but obviously for a shorter period of time. That's why I have no problem ranking him below them. I mean, they all equalled him in most ways (though only Novak surpassed his peak Elo), but also all surpassed him in terms of longevity.

I haven't focused on Borg, but just used him as an example of someone who is hard to rank due to a relatively short career, which both limits his accumulation of titles but also doesn't include a real decline phase.

I really do understand your impetus to quantify it all. But I do wish you'd give more understanding to those of us who don't believe that you ultimately can, and not just call us out as partisans. (Which you did, again.)

Moxie, I also believe that you ultimately cannot quantify things, but I think we can get closer to it. We can make more accurate assessments and rankings, and while stats can never tell the whole picture, they provide a certain grounding that minimizes bias and partisanship. As for the partisan thing, well, would you rather I lie? I can hold my tongue, but it is also hard to ignore how your arguments (almost) always lean in a certain direction. I mean, is that false?

 

[El Dude]

The original Big Three of tennis in the Open Era were Connors-Borg-McEnroe and they did not really play Australia all that much and the rise of rival tours and the politics of the time may have cost Connors the calendar year grand slam in 1974 (he did beat Borg twice on Har-Tru--green clay). Australia began its rebirth after Borg stepped away from the game and even the French was a distant third in popularity around the world and in prestige compared the big daddy of them all in London and the second biggest in New York City. Those three actually helped to make the other two get the respect they deserved by playing in them and winning them (in the case of the wildly popular Borg in Paris), along with Melbourne succeeding in getting moved to earlier in the year to make it even more necessary to go "down under" for all top players (easy to skip if at end of the year and nobody has a chance at the slam--at least back in the Seventies).

Borg likely would have won more in Paris, multiple time me thinks. SW19 or US Open? Tough to say after the rise of McEnroe and a rejuvenated Connors after his marriage in 1979. Maybe. Down Under? Not likely, so his pool of majors (along with Connors and McEnroe since they started playing there regularly after their peak years) was always going to be much smaller than that of the modern players. But he was Federeresque /Djokovicesque in showing up and going deep to semis and finals in practically every major he played. He was something that Swede.

Nice assessment. As a side note, I didn't realize that Borg and Wilander had just one match. Borg slaughtered him 6-1 6-1 at Geneva on clay. Of course it was 1981 and he was at peak level, and Mats was just a pup. But when I think about whether Borg would have added to his Roland Garros tally, I think there's a good chance he would have won at least the next two, with a very young Wilander and then a second tier guy Noah winning in 82-83. I think once you get to peak-level Lendl in 1984, and a more mature Wilander, it would have been harder. As you say, USO and Wimbledon would have been harder. So for me the likely addition would have only been 2-3 Slams. Possibly more, but it would have been difficult (unless he went Down Under, but then so too might have Mac and maybe Lendl).

 

[shawnbm]

^ yep, no way of knowing. He still was a helluva threat at Wimbledon too having gone to six straight finals--a record that stood for almost thirty years. New York would have always been tough for the Andelic Assassin me thinks. By the way, Borg played Wilander BEFORE the 1982 French Open as part of the yound swede's training. He said Bord destroyed him 1 and love and that he harbors no illusions that the Swede would have won his 7th trophy in Paris. Says something.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Seeing Borg has been mentioned, my all time favorite player
Can someone give me a reasonable theory why he could not win the USO?
I think at times he was physically spent by the time he got there, also I recall he didnt like the lights and said he could not see the ball clearly?
As a Borg fan every time he made the final there, I could not watch his matches, as I kind of knew the outcome already

 

[shawnbm]

New York was a mighty quick hard court and it is brutally hot in NYC in the late summer. You then have the raucous pro American crowd (he lost all four of his US Open finals to none other than Connors and McEnroe two times as to each! Those were wild times! it is also true he was not fond of night tennis and had trouble in some early rounds of the US Open during his peak years but he managed to get through. Borg is not alone in disliking night tennis. No matter how you cut it, it is quite different from playing during the day, to say nothing of the wind conditions at night and airplane noise on top of you!

 

[Kieran]

Seeing Borg has been mentioned, my all time favorite player
Can someone give me a reasonable theory why he could not win the USO?
I think at times he was physically spent by the time he got there, also I recall he didnt like the lights and said he could not see the ball clearly?
As a Borg fan every time he made the final there, I could not watch his matches, as I kind of knew the outcome already

He retired too young. Martina had a similar issue there and she won it in 1983. I think Bjorn didn’t like the lights and maybe he didn’t like the bounce but I think if he’d persevered, the stars would eventually have aligned. He was still excellent on that cement, and wasn’t far off going up 3-1 in the fifth in 1980, after being 2 sets down…

 

[Moxie]

By "shift things around a bit," I mean contextual stuff - the factors of opportunity, so to speak. There are a lot of them, and they aren't just things that detracted from Rafa.

It doesn't really clarify what you mean, so an example could help. And I didn't say "things that detract from Rafa," you did.

Moxie, I also believe that you ultimately cannot quantify things, but I think we can get closer to it. We can make more accurate assessments and rankings, and while stats can never tell the whole picture, they provide a certain grounding that minimizes bias and partisanship.

As I've said, they can be helpful, but I'm glad we agree that you can't ultimately quantify it all.

As for the partisan thing, well, would you rather I lie? I can hold my tongue, but it is also hard to ignore how your arguments (almost) always lean in a certain direction. I mean, is that false?

This is where I get frustrated. You know who my favorite is, so you (almost) always read bias into everything I say on this subject, even where none is intended. I've been a tennis fan for a long time. (I'm sure longer than you, because I'm older.) I was a tennis fan long before there was a Nadal, and I'll be one after he retires. At the beginning of this particular line of discussion, you refused to take any response by me or by Kieran as other than biased. As if we don't have actual and valid opinions. Sometimes a cigar IS just a cigar, and sometimes an opinion comes without agenda. So, yes, it is false to say that it is "(almost) always" underlying what I have to say. It would be sporting of you to recognize that.

 

[nehmeth]

2005 Safin defeated Hewitt. But still pretty incredible.

 

[shawnbm]

Marat Safin--oh how things could have been if he were more disciplined back then.