Roger Federer isn't the GOAT, and neither is Rafael Nadal nor Novak Djokovic / Bodo

[DarthFed]

I agree, let's not go around because I don't care all that much either...you couldn't help throwing in your little jab, and now you say "let's not talk about it, but here's why you're wrong." And then you call me arrogant? Haha.



I don't mind pushback - I just want it to be based upon actually understanding what people were actually pushing back against. Anyhow, you are misunderstanding that list. It is NOT a GOAT list; it is a list based upon a formula that I made up on the spot for shits and giggles that relates rankings to quantity of matches played. In baseball terms, it is more of a percentage stat like batting average than it is a counting stat like hits - and thus it would make sense that Roger is below Rafa and Nadal, as by other measures (e.g. ELO, win%) he is lower...mostly because he's played longer, has declined more. In the same sense that a great hitter will have a higher batting average the closer they are to their peak; once they start declining, their rate stats will also decline.

I'm not misunderstanding it, I stated clearly in my post that your list there is a rankings-based list. And since it is based on rankings it is clearly a wacky-ass list with Roger at 5.

The main "problem" is you are penalizing volume of matches when that points to a player who is consistently going deep in tourneys and therefore protecting his high ranking. In your formula a guy who goes 100-0 and is #1 all year will score lower than a guy who is 70-10 and is #1 all year. That really says it all.

 

[Federberg]

I'm not misunderstanding it, I stated clearly in my post that your list there is a rankings-based list. And since it is based on rankings it is clearly a wacky-ass list with Roger at 5.

The main "problem" is you are penalizing volume of matches when that points to a player who is consistently going deep in tourneys and therefore protecting his high ranking. In your formula a guy who goes 100-0 and is #1 all year will score lower than a guy who is 70-10 and is #1 all year. That really says it all.

just the common sense test before publishing is a great filter. Funnily enough this often happens with immature quantitative analysts who believe in the purity of mathematics but often don't realise when they're inserting their own biases into their work. The key difference with this situation is that they're smart enough to realise they've produced garbage when their errors are pointed out...

 

[El Dude]

I'm not misunderstanding it, I stated clearly in my post that your list there is a rankings-based list. And since it is based on rankings it is clearly a wacky-ass list with Roger at 5.

The main "problem" is you are penalizing volume of matches when that points to a player who is consistently going deep in tourneys and therefore protecting his high ranking. In your formula a guy who goes 100-0 and is #1 all year will score lower than a guy who is 70-10 and is #1 all year. That really says it all.

What you are misunderstanding is that it is not a GOAT list; it is a list of a certain statistic that gives us one angle of looking at the overall GOAT question.

So while I agree with your point--which is a good one--if I was using that list to determine the GOAT, that's not what I'm doing so there's no problem.

By the way, here's the list of just the rankings part of the formula, without dividing by matches:

1. Federer 499.37
2. Connors 421.74
3. Nadal 391.61
4. Lendl 387.88
5. Sampras 376.03
6. Djokovic 363.54
7. McEnroe 281.60
8. Laver 252.25
9. Agassi 235.95
10. Borg 217.42

Now the problem with this list is obvious: it helps players with greater longevity and penalizes players who were brilliant but for shorter periods of time (e.g. Borg). No one would say that Andre Agassi was a greater player than Bjorn Borg, or Connors better than Nadal, Sampras or Djokovic. This is the problem with any statistical based approaches: they tend to veer more towards quantity over quality.

 

[El Dude]

just the common sense test before publishing is a great filter. Funnily enough this often happens with immature quantitative analysts who believe in the purity of mathematics but often don't realise when they're inserting their own biases into their work. The key difference with this situation is that they're smart enough to realise they've produced garbage when their errors are pointed out...

Here we go again. Do you realize what an asshole you're being? On how you blatantly insulted me, and why? Because I pointed out that you weren't understanding me and you took offense? And what is this ridiculousness about "publish?" I posted this on an internet forum! I didn't "publish" it.

The ONLY "bias" in that formula was my choosing how to weigh the rankings. And yes, that is arbitrary.

What pisses me off about you, Federberg, is that you trash people that put themselves out there but never have the balls to offer your own list, to do anything but tear others down from your position of "expertise." Why don't you grow a pair and offer a list?

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

I think Bodo is almost making a case for Federer there, with all the talk about surfaces and stuff. Roger would have zero complaints if grass remained fast. I do not believe it is the same for Rafa or Nole. Roger at his best was the second best clay court player of his era right behind the best clay court player ever, for the longest time. That is serious versatility. He also had zero issues on slow or fast hard courts, indoor or outdoors for the longest time , whereas Rafa and Nole had their fair shares of struggles on fast hard courts. Roger, as far as I can tell, has not benefited from surface changes like the others have. When he was peak, it did not matter, except on clay Rafa would always have the upper hand. That's why peak Roger has to be the GOAT, without even looking at numbers.

 

[Federberg]

Here we go again. Do you realize what an asshole you're being? On how you blatantly insulted me, and why? Because I pointed out that you weren't understanding me and you took offense? And what is this ridiculousness about "publish?" I posted this on an internet forum! I didn't "publish" it.

The ONLY "bias" in that formula was my choosing how to weigh the rankings. And yes, that is arbitrary.

What pisses me off about you, Federberg, is that you trash people that put themselves out there but never have the balls to offer your own list, to do anything but tear others down from your position of "expertise." Why don't you grow a pair and offer a list?

offer a list? For GOAThood? Sigh... didn't I tell you already? I don't believe in GOATs. You're one sensitive bitch aren't you? I was just pointing out something that was obvious. Anyway I'll leave you to you pseudo science I would say no offence intended, but you and I both know I really don't give a sh1t. But for the record I don't find your telling me I don't understand something offensive. I find your lists stupid, and the idea they illuminate subjective matters is hilarious

 

[Federberg]

I think Bodo is almost making a case for Federer there, with all the talk about surfaces and stuff. Roger would have zero complaints if grass remained fast. I do not believe it is the same for Rafa or Nole. Roger at his best was the second best clay court player of his era right behind the best clay court player ever, for the longest time. That is serious versatility. He also had zero issues on slow or fast hard courts, indoor or outdoors for the longest time , whereas Rafa and Nole had their fair shares of struggles on fast hard courts. Roger, as far as I can tell, has not benefited from surface changes like the others have. When he was peak, it did not matter, except on clay Rafa would always have the upper hand. That's why peak Roger has to be the GOAT, without even looking at numbers.

Funny you say that, when I met him that was the first question I asked. Did he believe that the homogenisation of surfaces had worked against him. He denied it. He said that the surfaces were also to his benefit and it was a credit to his competitors that they were able to stop him winning more. Classy guy

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Funny you say that, when I met him that was the first question I asked. Did he believe that the homogenisation of surfaces had worked against him. He denied it. He said that the surfaces were also to his benefit and it was a credit to his competitors that they were able to stop him winning more. Classy guy

One more reason for GOATNESS !

 

[El Dude]

offer a list? For GOAThood? Sigh... didn't I tell you already? I don't believe in GOATs. You're one sensitive bitch aren't you? I was just pointing out something that was obvious. Anyway I'll leave you to you pseudo science I would say no offence intended, but you and I both know I really don't give a sh1t. But for the record I don't find your telling me I don't understand something offensive. I find your lists stupid, and the idea they illuminate subjective matters is hilarious

Again, why resort to the insults? That’s what I don’t get. If you find such lists stupid, fine, but why bother commenting? You just can’t help but jumping in every time I make any kind of statistical formula or list and telling me I’m stupid, while only illuminating your inability to understand where I’m coming from.

Again, why bother?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tented]

I think @nehmeth got it right several years ago when he came up with GOTE (Greatest Of Their Era) vs. GOAT. Given how long tennis has been around, and all of the changes that have happened, it’s impossible to crown a GOAT. @El Dude got it right above, with his Tribe list.

We can’t compare Laver’s GS with the career slams of Djokovic, Federer, and Nadal, if only because Laver was playing exclusively on grass and clay, whereas the current generation has also had to deal with HC in Australia and New York.

The ATP ranking system didn’t even exist until the early/mid 70s, so how do we compare players who only played prior to then, with players who have only played since? And then there’s the Laver Problem: one calendar GS pre-Open Era and one post, plus the issue of his not being able to play for several years. If the Open Era and the ranking system both dated back to the early 60s, Laver’s numbers could surpass Federer’s. But even if Laver’s weeks at No. 1 and/or GS trophy total topped Federer’s, there’s still the issue of the number of and the kinds of surfaces. There are too many variables to name a GOAT.

 

[Federberg]

Again, why resort to the insults? That’s what I don’t get. If you find such lists stupid, fine, but why bother commenting? You just can’t help but jumping in every time I make any kind of statistical formula or list and telling me I’m stupid, while only illuminating your inability to understand where I’m coming from.

Again, why bother?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lol! You call me an asshole and I return by calling you a bitch. But when I do that you whine that I resort to insults? Do you even see yourself?

 

[El Dude]

Lol! You call me an asshole and I return by calling you a bitch. But when I do that you whine that I resort to insults? Do you even see yourself?

You started with the insults, not I. Do I see myself? That is a bit outside the range of this discussion, is it not? I don't suspect you have the psycho-analytic tools to make such an assessment, especially on an internet forum. But I will say that I work hard on my own psychology and am pretty self-aware. I know enough about psychology to know that I cannot ever fully see myself. We're all always projecting our own shit on others.

 

[El Dude]

I think @nehmeth got it right several years ago when he came up with GOTE (Greatest Of Their Era) vs. GOAT. Given how long tennis has been around, and all of the changes that have happened, it’s impossible to crown a GOAT. @El Dude got it right above, with his Tribe list.

We can’t compare Laver’s GS with the career slams of Djokovic, Federer, and Nadal, if only because Laver was playing exclusively on grass and clay, whereas the current generation has also had to deal with HC in Australia and New York.

The ATP ranking system didn’t even exist until the early/mid 70s, so how do we compare players who only played prior to then, with players who have only played since? And then there’s the Laver Problem: one calendar GS pre-Open Era and one post, plus the issue of his not being able to play for several years. If the Open Era and the ranking system both dated back to the early 60s, Laver’s numbers could surpass Federer’s. But even if Laver’s weeks at No. 1 and/or GS trophy total topped Federer’s, there’s still the issue of the number of and the kinds of surfaces. There are too many variables to name a GOAT.

Good stuff (and thanks for getting us back on topic). And I like GOTE. This is one of the reasons I think rankings help a lot, because they are relative to the context in which a player played - even as emphasis on different tournaments shift (by the way, Ultimate Tennis Statistics offers rankings for the Open Era, so they fill in at least the few years before the ATP rankings came into play in 1973).

I see it as playing make believe, or "what if?" Thus the two approaches I mentioned above. While I think the tribe/herd approach is ultimately the better one, it is tempting to try a definitive ranking. The whole thing shouldn't be taken too seriously, but it can be fun to play around.

 

[Federberg]

You started with the insults, not I. Do I see myself? That is a bit outside the range of this discussion, is it not? I don't suspect you have the psycho-analytic tools to make such an assessment, especially on an internet forum. But I will say that I work hard on my own psychology and am pretty self-aware. I know enough about psychology to know that I cannot ever fully see myself. We're all always projecting our own shit on others.

nice try matey, but you started with the insults. Not that it bothers me mind you, as I'm not a whiney bitch You put out some nonsense numbers (that's not an insult, it's just what it was) and you presume to tell another poster and I that we just don't get it Puh-leeze... Anyway entertainment over...

 

[DarthFed]

What you are misunderstanding is that it is not a GOAT list; it is a list of a certain statistic that gives us one angle of looking at the overall GOAT question.

So while I agree with your point--which is a good one--if I was using that list to determine the GOAT, that's not what I'm doing so there's no problem.

By the way, here's the list of just the rankings part of the formula, without dividing by matches:

1. Federer 499.37
2. Connors 421.74
3. Nadal 391.61
4. Lendl 387.88
5. Sampras 376.03
6. Djokovic 363.54
7. McEnroe 281.60
8. Laver 252.25
9. Agassi 235.95
10. Borg 217.42

Now the problem with this list is obvious: it helps players with greater longevity and penalizes players who were brilliant but for shorter periods of time (e.g. Borg). No one would say that Andre Agassi was a greater player than Bjorn Borg, or Connors better than Nadal, Sampras or Djokovic. This is the problem with any statistical based approaches: they tend to veer more towards quantity over quality.

I said yet again that I understand that it was not a GOAT list. Part of your problem is that when someone disagrees it is automatic that "they don't understand". Yes, you made a list based on rankings and it is clear from your "findings" that it is an awful list. What I mentioned before pokes a gigantic hole in the formula. In general I don't think longevity should be considered a negative in tennis or any sport.

 

[tented]

In general I don't think longevity should be considered a negative in tennis or any sport.

I agree with your general concept, but the truth is the longer someone plays, the greater the chance of pulling down career stats. For example, Roger’s win/loss ratio in major finals would be very different if he had pulled a Borg, and retired early (around, say, 2008). Because he didn’t, he has lost several finals he probably would have won had he been younger. But that’s just math. It doesn’t take into account the full scope of his longevity.

 

[Federberg]

someone with greater longevity who has comparable stats to another player is surely superior, can anyone really argue with that?

Anyway, I only poked my nose in after seeing a "list" with Murray above Edberg and Becker :cuckoo:

 

[tented]

someone with greater longevity who has comparable stats to another player is surely superior, can anyone really argue with that?

It could also be argued that the player with greater longevity didn’t have the dominance and talent/skills to achieve what the other did in less time.

 

[Federberg]

It could also be argued that the player with greater longevity didn’t have the dominance and talent/skills to achieve what the other did in less time.

there are always exceptions. Borg is the obvious one. But for all his achievements his numbers and dominance don't really stack up against the current Big 3, certainly not Novak or Federer. And that's even though I think his channel slams are of a different order than those achieved in recent years, and his lack of interest in Australia. Perhaps an argument of some sort can be made against Sampras, but even that would seem sketchy to me, but that's only my personal opinion

 

[MikeOne]

Since when is height a prerequisite as being relevant measure of greatness?

do you even give your posts any thought?

mention one player who has been #1 or won slams thats 5'8 in past 25 years... It's an exception. The game has evolved. A person who is 5'8 would simply be at a massive physical disadvantage today...

Take Djokovic, who is listed at 6'2 or 6'3 and make him 5-6 inches shorter.... he would be a totally inferior player... his size/length combined with his speed, ball striking makes him formidable.. harder to ace, harder to blow past winners off him etc... it's night and day.