GOAT Thread 2018

[Moxie]

Slams aren't everything, especially when assessing greatness. They might be the biggest prize, but we can't assess greatness on Slam trophies alone.

When looking at a player's total resume, I'd say Slam titles should account for something like 50-60% of total greatness, with the other 40-50% being rankings--especially weeks at #1 and YE1s--but also other titles, tour finals, Masters, Slam results other than wins (F, SF, QF), etc.

I see Novak and Rafa as neck and neck at this point, with very little difference between the two. If held at gun point I'd probably give the edge to Rafa, but it is closer than the Slam count entails. Novak has more weeks at #1, more YE1s, a bunch of tour finals, etc. All other things being equal, I see the tipping point being somewhere between 1 and 3 Slam difference. With Rafa at +3, I give him a slight edge--especially with his added weeks at #1. with Rafa at +1 I'd give it to Novak; at +2 it is too close to call.

You may call this a Nadal-fan trope, but I don't think that the weeks at #1 should feature as much as you (and others) put weight on them. Nadal has lost #1 more than once due to injury. Ok, injury is a feature of a career, like bowing out early (as I said of Borg.) But I will still point out that Nadal has been sandwiched in between Roger and Novak, when each has had a bit of a breather for having it all to themselves, and Rafa never has. Also, I could be wrong, but I think Rafa and Novak are tied for YE#1 slots at 4 each. This year might break the tie. YEC, obviously in Novak's favor. MS1000s now back in Rafa's. But still...3 Majors difference and you're on the fence? Personally, I think you're pushing it a bit in Novak's favor, because I don't think it takes a gun to your head for Rafa to have the edge. But Novak is back on the hunt, so we shall see.

 

[monfed]

How can Laver/Borg be above Sampras, Nadal and Djokovic?

Laver is still the only player to this day who won the CYGS, the original greatest record a player could have. I have an issue with his height as he's below 6 feet and would probably not have anywhere near the same level of success in the current era. If he was 6 ft or above I would've placed him even above Federer.

Borg revolutionized tennis. Laver, Borg, Federer took tennis to unseen heights, their records transcend tennis. GOAT is all about that, someone who takes tennis to new heights. Djokovic/Nadal/Sampras never did that.

 

[Moxie]

Laver is still the only player to this day who won the CYGS, the original greatest record a player could have. I have an issue with his height as he's below 6 feet and would probably not have anywhere near the same level of success in the current era. If he was 6 ft or above I would've placed him even above Federer.

Borg revolutionized tennis. Laver, Borg, Federer took tennis to unseen heights, their records transcend tennis. GOAT is all about that, someone who takes tennis to new heights. Djokovic/Nadal/Sampras never did that.

I don't see how Laver's height has anything to do with it. He played in the time he did. Are you trying to make some notion of how he'd have worked across eras? That's probably another discussion, but he did win 2 CYGS's at his actual height. (One being in the Open Era.) As to revolutionizing the game, I think you do have to put Nadal in there. You may not like his game, but it is a 21st C. game, invented almost out of whole cloth. Who played the way he does, before he came on the scene? Most can't do it now, but his game is changing the way kids play.

 

[El Dude]

You may call this a Nadal-fan trope, but I don't think that the weeks at #1 should feature as much as you (and others) put weight on them. Nadal has lost #1 more than once due to injury. Ok, injury is a feature of a career, like bowing out early (as I said of Borg.) But I will still point out that Nadal has been sandwiched in between Roger and Novak, when each has had a bit of a breather for having it all to themselves, and Rafa never has. Also, I could be wrong, but I think Rafa and Novak are tied for YE#1 slots at 4 each. This year might break the tie. YEC, obviously in Novak's favor. MS1000s now back in Rafa's. But still...3 Majors difference and you're on the fence? Personally, I think you're pushing it a bit in Novak's favor, because I don't think it takes a gun to your head for Rafa to have the edge. But Novak is back on the hunt, so we shall see.

I hear you, but don't think it is as clear-cut as you are saying. I also think that, if anything, rankings are under-estimated when considering GOAT. Rankings take everything into account and, yes, staying healthy and longevity are aspects of greatness. We cannot give Borg credit for years he never played, even if it is one of the biggest questions of the Open Era: what might have been for Borg (and Mac) if Bjorn hadn't bowed out. But the thing is, he might not have won any more Slams.

I recommend you check out the GOAT List on Ultimate Tennis Statistics. Here's a snapshot of the current top 20 (Open Era only stats).

Now I don't agree with a lot of this list--Lendl and Connors ahead of Sampras being the first thing that comes to mind as just being intuitively wrong--but it at least uses an objectively-based scoring system. But it does over-emphasize longevity over peak, and thus quantity over quality. You can also fiddle with variants in the "Quick Picks" drop-down menu. I think the "Minimalist" option is more accurate, personally (and has Rafa ahead of Novak).

But the main thing is how close Rafa and Novak are, that Rafa's +3 Slam titles are balanced out by Novak's +5 Tour Finals and superior ranking points from more weeks at #1. Either way, these two could dog-fight it out over the next year or two, both having an outside chance of catching Roger.

 

[Moxie]

I appreciate the graphic and will give it a good look tomorrow. In fairness, I don't think I ever said anything between Rafa and Novak was "clear-cut." I get that they're close, though I was making my arguments and I do still think any reasonable person would still put Nadal ahead. I don't actually buy your notion that majors are worth 50-60%. I would argue that they're worth more, given that everyone plays (now) and, on the men's side, it's Bo5. Additionally, we've talked about the MS, and they are almost harder, given that everyone plays, and there are practically no days off, and fewer places to hide in early rounds. Djokovic has a diverse resume, but Nadal has the Majors, and is the undisputed GOAT on clay.

 

[monfed]

I don't see how Laver's height has anything to do with it. He played in the time he did. Are you trying to make some notion of how he'd have worked across eras? That's probably another discussion, but he did win 2 CYGS's at his actual height. (One being in the Open Era.) As to revolutionizing the game, I think you do have to put Nadal in there. You may not like his game, but it is a 21st C. game, invented almost out of whole cloth. Who played the way he does, before he came on the scene? Most can't do it now, but his game is changing the way kids play.

It is a BIG part in the GOAT discussion, arguably the biggest. GOAT = Greatest of ALL TIME. All time. Does that ring a bell?

Now you're talking like a tard. It's not about me liking or disliking someone's game, it's about the POSITIVE contribution that a given player makes to the game, and Nadal's game has been a detriment to tennis as much as you like his game. And don't make me laugh, nobody likes dull's game.

 

[monfed]

faker may have stolen a Wimbledon like Agassi in the 90s but dull definitely wouldn't have. Same for USO. The only thing Nadal would've won in the 90s is RG and possibly an AO and even that is a big if.

Conversely Sampras wouldn't have won anything in this era, maybe a Wimbledon but that's it. So that's why I don't consider these three to be in the same bracket as Borg/Laver/Fed. Strictly speaking, just Borg and Fed because Laver was too short to be successful in the modern game.

 

[Moxie]

It is a BIG part in the GOAT discussion, arguably the biggest. GOAT = Greatest of ALL TIME. All time. Does that ring a bell?

Now you're talking like a tard. It's not about me liking or disliking someone's game, it's about the POSITIVE contribution that a given player makes to the game, and Nadal's game has been a detriment to tennis as much as you like his game. And don't make me laugh, nobody likes dull's game.

Necessary to be snide? I still don't know what Laver's height has to do with it. You don't like Nadal's game, and it's rather hilarious that you're still willing to think that no one else does, but plenty do. And there are generations of kids learning to play like him. Sorry to tell you...the tide is coming.

 

[monfed]

Necessary to be snide? I still don't know what Laver's height has to do with it. You don't like Nadal's game, and it's rather hilarious that you're still willing to think that no one else does, but plenty do. And there are generations of kids learning to play like him. Sorry to tell you...the tide is coming.

Name me one player since Borg below 6 feet tall who's won as many slams as him or even Wilander. You can't so why dont you stick to the facts? I don't know if you genuinely don't know then in that case please pardon my tone but if you're being genuinely naive about this then I'm done discussing this topic with you.

As far as the future of tennis is concerned, it's never been bleaker. Apart from this slam chase that the ATP is desperately latching on to, tennis is a dead sport and everyone knows it.

 

[Moxie]

Name me one player since Borg below 6 feet tall who's won as many slams as him or even Wilander. You can't so why dont you stick to the facts? I don't know if you genuinely don't know then in that case please pardon my tone but if you're being genuinely naive about this then I'm done discussing this topic with you.

As far as the future of tennis is concerned, it's never been bleaker. Apart from this slam chase that the ATP is desperately latching on to, tennis is a dead sport and everyone knows it.

I still don't see the point. Are you arguing that we take all of the mitigating factors, like height and equipment and pretend they all play today, with the same equipment and against the same competition? That's one way of equalizing it, but I don't find that the most useful way of arguing it.

Tennis is dead? With a lively rivalry or two, I beg to differ. But I know how much you hate Nadal. To the point that you consider him the end of even the world. Well, it's hard to argue with that dystopian view of the future. That's on you.

 

[Moxie]

faker may have stolen a Wimbledon like Agassi in the 90s but dull definitely wouldn't have. Same for USO. The only thing Nadal would've won in the 90s is RG and possibly an AO and even that is a big if.

Conversely Sampras wouldn't have won anything in this era, maybe a Wimbledon but that's it. So that's why I don't consider these three to be in the same bracket as Borg/Laver/Fed. Strictly speaking, just Borg and Fed because Laver was too short to be successful in the modern game.

If you completely rewrite the history of tennis, you have no idea what would happen.

 

[monfed]

I still don't see the point. Are you arguing that we take all of the mitigating factors, like height and equipment and pretend they all play today, with the same equipment and against the same competition? That's one way of equalizing it, but I don't find that the most useful way of arguing it.

Tennis is dead? With a lively rivalry or two, I beg to differ. But I know how much you hate Nadal. To the point that you consider him the end of even the world. Well, it's hard to argue with that dystopian view of the future. That's on you.

I agree with you about the equipment. But I don't think Laver would've had great success with non-wooden rackets.

 

[monfed]

If you completely rewrite the history of tennis, you have no idea what would happen.

Noone can predict exactly what would happen but we can make an educated guess about their success by seeing their playing styles.

 

[Moxie]

I agree with you about the equipment. But I don't think Laver would've had great success with non-wooden rackets.

OK, and you've decided that he's too short, so is he still #2 on your list?

 

[monfed]

OK, and you've decided that he's too short, so is he still #2 on your list?

In terms of achievements I would say he's even greater than Federer because Laver's resume has no weaknesses, atleast not to my knowledge. But because he's short which would affect his cross-era versatility as we've discussed, I can't in good conscience put him above Fed but I wouldn't fight you on Laver being the GOAT either.

Overall, I tend to view Federer,Borg and Laver in tier 1.

 

[Mastoor]

I know you Serbians are really fanatical, but 7 more Majors? Really hard to picture.

Moxie, you can’t imagine Nole winning 7 more slams only because your subconsciousness doesn’t let you. That is because such a thought would cost you a new mobile phone.

 

[britbox]

In terms of achievements I would say he's even greater than Federer because Laver's resume has no weaknesses, atleast not to my knowledge. But because he's short which would affect his cross-era versatility as we've discussed, I can't in good conscience put him above Fed but I wouldn't fight you on Laver being the GOAT either.

Overall, I tend to view Federer,Borg and Laver in tier 1.

Problem with this cross-era versatility stuff is that it only seems to be discussed on a one-way basis... how would the old-timers do with modern equipment, racquets, strings etc... How about flipping it... how would modern players fare in previous eras with much smaller wooden racquets, completely different strings and a greater range of surface diversity. No way would they be able to take the cuts at the ball they do in the modern game.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

1. Nadal - 17 strong era slams, Olympics gold, La Undecima, 9-3 and 9-5 in slams vs his 2 biggest rivals, at least 2 slams on each surface, 10 consecutive years with a slam title, masters 1000 titles record, 4 davis cups, has never broken a racket, etc. etc.
2. Federer - 20 slams but at least 10 of them in a weak transitional era, Olympics silver, 3-9 and 6-9 in slams vs his 2 biggest rivals, only 1 clay slam out of 20 total, many weeks at no.1 (but a lot when Nadal was injured), consecutive SF record, wtf titles
3. Djokovic - 14 slams, Olympics bronze, 5-9 and 9-6 in slams vs his 2 biggest rivals, doesn't have much over Federer who basically covers him everywhere
4. Sampras - 14 slams, no clay slam and therefore no career slam, but clearly dominant in his era
5. Borg - 11 slams, great career but not enough slams to rank higher
6. Laver - 11 slams, great career but dinosaur era with much less competition, he's overall overrated but deserves to be in the Top 10 due to his calendar grandslam
7. Lendl
8. Connors
9. Agassi
10. McEnroe

 

[DarthFed]

1. Nadal - 17 strong era slams, Olympics gold, La Undecima, 9-3 and 9-5 in slams vs his 2 biggest rivals, at least 2 slams on each surface, 10 consecutive years with a slam title, masters 1000 titles record, 4 davis cups, has never broken a racket, etc. etc.
2. Federer - 20 slams but at least 10 of them in a weak transitional era, Olympics silver, 3-9 and 6-9 in slams vs his 2 biggest rivals, only 1 clay slam out of 20 total, many weeks at no.1 (but a lot when Nadal was injured), consecutive SF record, wtf titles
3. Djokovic - 14 slams, Olympics bronze, 5-9 and 9-6 in slams vs his 2 biggest rivals, doesn't have much over Federer who basically covers him everywhere
4. Sampras - 14 slams, no clay slam and therefore no career slam, but clearly dominant in his era
5. Borg - 11 slams, great career but not enough slams to rank higher
6. Laver - 11 slams, great career but dinosaur era with much less competition, he's overall overrated but deserves to be in the Top 10 due to his calendar grandslam
7. Lendl
8. Connors
9. Agassi
10. McEnroe

When Nadal won his first slam the total was 4-1 for Federer. Since then it is 16-16 with Nads being age 19-32 and Roger 24-37 and of course the fact that everything has been slowed down to the peasant's grinding delight. Roger still clearly #1 for all non-trolls. More majors and a clearly superior non-slam resume.

 

[monfed]

Problem with this cross-era versatility stuff is that it only seems to be discussed on a one-way basis... how would the old-timers do with modern equipment, racquets, strings etc... How about flipping it... how would modern players fare in previous eras with much smaller wooden racquets, completely different strings and a greater range of surface diversity. No way would they be able to take the cuts at the ball they do in the modern game.

Agreed but out of the modern players I believe Fed would've succeeded in the 60/70s conditions.