Time to crown Novak the GOAT?

[Jelenafan]

@ElDude, think for a moment about the following.

Even at the present moment Fed's career accomplishments are considered superior to that of Ralph. Assuming Novak wins Wimbledon, Novak's achievements from then on (assuming things don't change drastically) would be considered superior to that of Ralph.

In other words, Ralph was toiling under the shadows of Roger from 2005 to 2021 Wimbledon. From now on wards, he would be toiling under the shadows of Novak. Ralph would be eternally playing the role of second fiddle/also ran.

This would mean that it is conceivable that Ralph would NOT be considered THE greatest player even for a minute (you talk about micro eras) of his entire life.

.......and you want to call him a co-GOAT by coming with various complicated calculations!

I think most people agree with me that Ralph does not belong in the GOAT conversation for various (and very simple) reasons I have elucidated in this thread.

Again the arrogance of the Federer fan, “if we say itmust be the consensus.”

Uhhh…NO.

I get it, Federer or Rogelio or Roggie is probably “done” statistically so his cards are all on the table. So game over.

BtW since Grass matches account to perhaps 1/10 or 1/12 of tour tournament play shouldn't we discount Federer’s Majors by that overstated 8 Majors on grass. Two can play this silly agenda driven game.

 

[Moxie]

Don't talk about the bolded thing when you are quoting my post. I never underestimated it. In fact, I went on record saying that I am not only willing to anoint Rafa the "clay GOAT", I am also willing to anoint him the "single surface GOAT". However, you cannot consider the clay record alone when talking about general GOATs.

It appears that you are trying to be politically correct by calling all three of them clay GOATs. You can always appreciate all of them for their different contributions, but cannot call all of them co-GOATs.

Or perhaps, you are not willing to award the singular GOAT to Novak (contrary to appearing to be so) and thought it is best to call all three co-GOATs as opposed to just calling only Novak and Roger so that Nadalites will join you.

I think most people agree with me that Ralph does not belong in the GOAT conversation for various (and very simple) reasons I have elucidated in this thread.

This is patently unfair on El Dude, to say he's being "politically correct," or to say that he's not willing to award the singular GOAT to Novak, he who started this thread, at least to explore the idea. You discount his opinion as being dishonest when you say this. Just because you don't agree with it.

At the same time, you say you "think" that most people agree with you that Rafa doesn't belong in the conversation. If you're going to discredit what other people actively express as their opinion on this, I'm not sure you're the best judge of what people actually DO think about it.

 

[El Dude]

I won't parse "worse" v. "less great" with you, because I know you're trying to be fair. And you and I have done a round or two on clay dominance, in which you say it can't be any more "dominant," after a certain point. Where I differ on that is in how much Fed and Novak fans put weight on #1, for example, as it implies "dominance over the field." Well, if that is a requirement, none has shown as much dominance over the field than Rafa on clay. So his clay dominance does have value, even as he adds to it, IMO. And I very much appreciate what you say in the bolded above.

I hear you, although think there is an argument to be made that weeks at #1 is the single most important factor in assessing historic greatness. More than any other single metric, it tells us how good a player was in the context in which he played. Of course taken on its own it yields the occasional dubious choice (e.g. Wozniacki in whatever year she was #1, or Vilas being screwed out of #1).

My issue with Rafa adding more RGs to his record is that it doesn't address the deficiencies in his record: namely, weeks at #1 and World Tour Finals. I don't think more RGs are meaningless at all, mind you, I just don't think it fleshes out his record in the way that he needs it to be fleshed out to have a chance at singular GOATness.

I think it becomes inextricable what the 3 have done in the past 20 years, as you say. This has been an extraordinary period of time in men's tennis, and to cut Nadal out of the middle of it is like excising a kidney. I know some fans will find that self-interested, but I think some Federer fans, in particular, have more reason to shove Nadal out than include him, so that's fairly obvious, too. While Roger is losing control over absolute GOAT-ness, some fans want to erase his rivalry with Nadal, but I think that ship sailed a long time ago.

Yes, agreed. Game's logic is sound, but he's misapplying it (imo) - or rather, over-applying it.

And of course all of this implies that "GOATness" is solely a matter of results. Obviously results are most important, and if we go too far down the talent-and-style rabbit hole, we end up like dear old Cali. But my main contention is that any single metric or perspective will leave stuff out, and especially when we're talking about the so-called GOAT, we have to consider everything.

 

[El Dude]

@ElDude, think for a moment about the following.


Again the arrogance of the Federer fan, “if we say itmust be the consensus.”

Uhhh…NO.

I get it, Federer or Rogelio or Roggie is probably “done” statistically so his cards are all on the table. So game over.

BtW since Grass matches account to perhaps 1/10 or 1/12 of tour tournament play shouldn't we discount Federer’s Majors by that overstated 8 Majors on grass. Two can play this silly agenda driven game.

Ha ha. Hey, not all Federer fans are alike - similarly with Rafa and Novak fans. We shouldn't consider the fans of other players to be all in the same mold as their most ardent supporters. We all exist on a spectrum of bias, I'd say (aka fanboy/girlism). And GSM does acknowledge that Novak is the best candidate at this point, so his crusade is more against Rafa.

I don't like the agenda game either, but don't agree with you on grass (whether or not you're serious). As a whole, it isn't as significant as hards and clay, obviously, or at least not since the early 70s. Over the course of Roger's career it has fluctuated in the 10-12% range, actually more than the 90s. But we cannot understate the historic relevance of Wimbledon, and I think in terms of "greatness share," I'd allot at least 20% to grass.

 

[Fiero425]

Ha ha. Hey, not all Federer fans are alike - similarly with Rafa and Novak fans. We shouldn't consider the fans of other players to be all in the same mold as their most ardent supporters. We all exist on a spectrum of bias, I'd say (aka fanboy/girlism). And GSM does acknowledge that Novak is the best candidate at this point, so his crusade is more against Rafa.

I don't like the agenda game either, but don't agree with you on grass (whether or not you're serious). As a whole, it isn't as significant as hards and clay, obviously, or at least not since the early 70s. Over the course of Roger's career it has fluctuated in the 10-12% range, actually more than the 90s. But we cannot understate the historic relevance of Wimbledon, and I think in terms of "greatness share," I'd allot at least 20% to grass.

The "bias" of a few Djokovic fans will NEVER outweigh the megaphone of "tennis intelligentsia" that believe tennis begins & ends w/ Fedal!

 

[El Dude]

The "bias" of a few Djokovic fans will NEVER outweigh the megaphone of "tennis intelligentsia" that believe tennis begins & ends w/ Fedal!

Part of that is just the popularity factor. For whatever reason--probably a combination--Novak is just not as likable as Roger and Rafa. Maybe it is because he came later, maybe it is because he's a Slav, maybe it is all the shirt-pulling early on, maybe it is quirks in his personality. I think part of the issue is that people just like Roger and Rafa more, and don't like the idea of Novak being the GOAT.

On the other hand, there's a certain mythic symmetry to the three of them. Roger dominates the tour four a few years in a way unparalleled in at least Open Era history, but has a thorn in his side who eventually surpasses him. Then, almost under-the-radar, the perennial #3 breaks through and surpasses both.

I've equated it to Greek mythology, in which a new generation of gods (the Olympians) defeats the old generation (Titans).

What I find disappointing is that no young player(s) has risen up to take the crown. There's still time, but eventually even Novak will run out of steam and beating him will be like beating Roger is now: a nice memory, but not what it was.

 

[Moxie]

I hear you, although think there is an argument to be made that weeks at #1 is the single most important factor in assessing historic greatness. More than any other single metric, it tells us how good a player was in the context in which he played. Of course taken on its own it yields the occasional dubious choice (e.g. Wozniacki in whatever year she was #1, or Vilas being screwed out of #1).

My issue with Rafa adding more RGs to his record is that it doesn't address the deficiencies in his record: namely, weeks at #1 and World Tour Finals. I don't think more RGs are meaningless at all, mind you, I just don't think it fleshes out his record in the way that he needs it to be fleshed out to have a chance at singular GOATness.

I understand the argument about weeks at #1, but let's look at this: Roger and Novak combine for 636 weeks at #1. That's over 12 years. And Rafa has 209, and is #6 on the all-time list. (I got that wrong above...I said he was #8.) Rafa lost his #1 more than once to injury, but not always. But given that his 2 great rivals succeed best on HC, which is 2/3 of the calendar, it could be said to have been a mountain to climb, anyway, and he more than held his own. If you want to talk about the "field," we could examine how many players have a h2h edge over Nadal. There aren't that many.

As to "single GOATness," I've never campaigned for that, neither for Nadal, nor anyone. Used to be, I thought that, across eras, it was an unknowable thing. Too much to compare. I do get your point that the Big 3 have created rather a new level as to how greatness is measured, a new paradigm. I actually even resisted calling Nadal the "clay GOAT" for a long time, until Broken told me it was time to get over that. I was rather shocked recently when @britbox called Rafa merely the "clay GOAT...maybe?" Who else? Borg? Vilas?

As you yourself said the "deficiencies" in Nadal's record are only in regards to the heights that we're at right now. But he has other superlatives, so it becomes too difficult to parse.

Yes, agreed. Game's logic is sound, but he's misapplying it (imo) - or rather, over-applying it.

I think you are being more than generous about GSM's agenda. Or his logic.

And of course all of this implies that "GOATness" is solely a matter of results. Obviously results are most important, and if we go too far down the talent-and-style rabbit hole, we end up like dear old Cali. But my main contention is that any single metric or perspective will leave stuff out, and especially when we're talking about the so-called GOAT, we have to consider everything.

Good point about the talent-style rabbit hole and @calitennis127. We seem to be getting to the place where some consider that style-points count, and I think that is complicated in sports.

 

[Jelenafan]

Ha ha. Hey, not all Federer fans are alike - similarly with Rafa and Novak fans. We shouldn't consider the fans of other players to be all in the same mold as their most ardent supporters. We all exist on a spectrum of bias, I'd say (aka fanboy/girlism). And GSM does acknowledge that Novak is the best candidate at this point, so his crusade is more against Rafa.

I don't like the agenda game either, but don't agree with you on grass (whether or not you're serious). As a whole, it isn't as significant as hards and clay, obviously, or at least not since the early 70s. Over the course of Roger's career it has fluctuated in the 10-12% range, actually more than the 90s. But we cannot understate the historic relevance of Wimbledon, and I think in terms of "greatness share," I'd allot at least 20% to grass.

Eldude, my point is that in this day and age, the Majors have the same weight. From a few years before Sampras, all the top ATP started playing all Majosr every year. Like you said, Wimbledon has historical significance despite grass not being that relevant. But we don't discount grass, so why should clay be discounted or minimized either? However, the fact that both Rafa and Federer have 20 people can't suddenly discount one Major over another IMO.

What sort of chafes my hide is that *some* Federer fans have chanted the mantra of "Most Majors" as the ultimate measuring stick , suddenly the bar is changed which just strikes me as a double standard since it seems most likely Federer won't have the distinction anymore.

 

[El Dude]

I understand the argument about weeks at #1, but let's look at this: Roger and Novak combine for 636 weeks at #1. That's over 12 years. And Rafa has 209, and is #6 on the all-time list. (I got that wrong above...I said he was #8.) Rafa lost his #1 more than once to injury, but not always. But given that his 2 great rivals succeed best on HC, which is 2/3 of the calendar, it could be said to have been a mountain to climb, anyway, and he more than held his own. If you want to talk about the "field," we could examine how many players have a h2h edge over Nadal. There aren't that many.

This supports my view that no single metric works - not Slams, not weeks at #1. We have to put everything on the table, and as I think you saw above, that includes Rafa's time in the top 2, which is rather impressive.

Ultimate Tennis Statistics has a pretty good "GOAT Points" metric, which if you look at how they calculate it, is actually well thought out - it is hard to argue with it. But it also emphasizes accumulation over peak, so you end up with Connors and Lendl being greater than Sampras and Borg, which I don't think anyone would argue for. They seem to realize this, as they have a "Quick Picks" menu option that lets you adjust. the "GS, Big Titles and #1" option seems to be the most accurate.

But I think even that metric--as inclusive as it is--has problems, mainly due to the accumulation of all stats and points, which as I said, ends up favoring guys with greater longevity. That is obviously important, but I think it needs to be balanced with peak. There's a baseball metric called "JAWS" which averages out career WAR (Wins Above Replacement) with a player's best seven years, which I think works better than just looking at career WAR. Maybe I'll try for something like that with GOAT Points. Of course tennis isn't as easily quantifiable as baseball is.

As to "single GOATness," I've never campaigned for that, neither for Nadal, nor anyone. Used to be, I thought that, across eras, it was an unknowable thing. Too much to compare. I do get your point that the Big 3 have created rather a new level as to how greatness is measured, a new paradigm. I actually even resisted calling Nadal the "clay GOAT" for a long time, until Broken told me it was time to get over that. I was rather shocked recently when @britbox called Rafa merely the "clay GOAT...maybe?" Who else? Borg? Vilas?

Maybe he was trolling? I don't think there is an argument against Rafa...at all, in any way, and that has been true for at least seven years, after he won his 9th of 10 Roland Garros' in a row.

As you yourself said the "deficiencies" in Nadal's record are only in regards to the heights that we're at right now. But he has other superlatives, so it becomes too difficult to parse.

I think you are being more than generous about GSM's agenda. Or his logic.

Thanks...I guess .

Good point about the talent-style rabbit hole and @calitennis127. We seem to be getting to the place where some consider that style-points count, and I think that is complicated in sports.

I think it depends on what we mean by "greatest." If we're talking about career accomplishments only, then style shouldn't factor in at all - there is no way to quantify it, and statistics are what can be quantified. But in conversations around greatness, I think it is relevant.

 

[El Dude]

Eldude, my point is that in this day and age, the Majors have the same weight. From a few years before Sampras, all the top ATP started playing all Majosr every year. Like you said, Wimbledon has historical significance despite grass not being that relevant. But we don't discount grass, so why should clay be discounted or minimized either? However, the fact that both Rafa and Federer have 20 people can't suddenly discount one Major over another IMO.

What sort of chafes my hide is that *some* Federer fans have chanted the mantra of "Most Majors" as the ultimate measuring stick , suddenly the bar is changed which just strikes me as a double standard since it seems most likely Federer won't have the distinction anymore.

Yes, agreed. I have never been on the side of "most majors," even when it seemed unlikely that Roger would ever be surpassed. I think majors are the most important factor, but still probably only account for something like 50% of a player's record. I'd say rankings are about 30%, and everything else about 20%. But that's just off the top of my head and purely subjective.

 

[Moxie]

Ha ha. Hey, not all Federer fans are alike - similarly with Rafa and Novak fans. We shouldn't consider the fans of other players to be all in the same mold as their most ardent supporters. We all exist on a spectrum of bias, I'd say (aka fanboy/girlism). And GSM does acknowledge that Novak is the best candidate at this point, so his crusade is more against Rafa.

I don't like the agenda game either, but don't agree with you on grass (whether or not you're serious). As a whole, it isn't as significant as hards and clay, obviously, or at least not since the early 70s. Over the course of Roger's career it has fluctuated in the 10-12% range, actually more than the 90s. But we cannot understate the historic relevance of Wimbledon, and I think in terms of "greatness share," I'd allot at least 20% to grass.

I won't speak for @Jelenafan and how much he was kidding, but he has a point. Grass, in this era, is far more ghettoized that clay. And yet Wimbledon, that hallowed grass, get bonus points. Yet, no bonus points for the hallowed Olympics. It's just complicated, when we add sentiment.

 

[Moxie]

I think it depends on what we mean by "greatest." If we're talking about career accomplishments only, then style shouldn't factor in at all - there is no way to quantify it, and statistics are what can be quantified. But in conversations around greatness, I think it is relevant.

But this will forever be the Federer fan argument, and I don't completely have a problem with it. Federer fans, in general, and David Foster Wallace, in particular, who wrote the essay "Roger Federer as Religious Experience," and rather forever skewed/screwed the conversation, believe that, no matter the outcome, there will never be a more perfect, beautiful player of the game than Roger. At least to date. And that's the whole deal, right?

Djokovic is the GOAT. Statistically. Federer is the GOAT stylistically. Not sure where Rafa fits in...Clay GOAT, perhaps.

I thought this post was telling, from our dear Baron, who hasn't even been around in a while. Not just because he dismisses Nadal, in a way that doesn't even make sense, but because he dismisses Novak, basically on a technicality. If I were a Djokovic fan, I would have been insulted by this.

I'm not sure how to say this, but I do completely understand why Fed fans think that he's still the GOAT. And I understand why the agenda-driven arguments. I know that you yourself, Dude, have been trying to see the bigger picture. But still, yeah, style points, whether I think that's right or not. This is why the conversation will never end. I honestly don't think that there is enough that Rafa or Novak could do to end the conversation about this era. Nor do I particularly want to, and cut Roger out of it. Even if Rafa comes out ahead in Majors. Even if Novak blows out the field in the next two years, there will always be conversation. IMO.

 

[Moxie]

Yes, agreed. I have never been on the side of "most majors," even when it seemed unlikely that Roger would ever be surpassed. I think majors are the most important factor, but still probably only account for something like 50% of a player's record. I'd say rankings are about 30%, and everything else about 20%. But that's just off the top of my head and purely subjective.

Changing "most Majors" to 50% is rather new, and not consistent with what has ever been discussed across the years. Wouldn't you agree? So 30% to rankings. And then every thing that has been achieved, in terms of records, etc., is left to the last 20%? Does that really make sense to you? In an era when so many records have been achieved, you're going to leave that to the last 20%? And when 2 players dominated the rankings so completely, doesn't that seem like a fait a complit to weigh the #1 ranking at 30%? It's your opinion, but I'm just questioning it.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Let me simplify it. I'm talking about two different questions or paradigms:

Paradigm A - Herd of GOATs: Roger, Rafa, Novak, maybe Laver if we want to extend into pre-Open Era.
Paradigm B - Singular GOAT: Right now, Federer and Novak are co-GOATs, with Novak almost certainly to surpass him soon, and Rafa having a small but not-zero chance of surpassing both.

I am saying that I prefer Paradigm A because it allows for recognition of different flavors and contexts of greatness (not because it is PC...lol). But if we switch to B, I am OK with the idea that Novak is the likely eventual (and soon) answer. But that doesn't invalidate A. Meaning, I'm advocating for multiple perspectives and approaches to the question, while you seem to be deadset on coming to a singular GOAT is the only valid approach, and that it must be done through your conception of GOTEs.

I agree with your Paradigm B, but am not insisting that you should follow it.

However, if you choose to follow Paradigm A, you cannot be putting two players from the same generation in it (unless you think there is a real tie and you cannot say who is better than the other statistically). The only reason for going for Herd of GOATs (check with @nehemeth) is to allow for the notion that sometimes it is difficult to compare players from different eras due to various reasons; it should not be because it seems convenient and nobody will pick an argument with you and you will end up popular on the boards.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

This thread reminds of me an advertisement.

In a street famous for pizzeria in Italy,

one store advertises saying "We have the best pizza in the world";

another store advertises saying "We have the best pizza in the country";





and a third store makes a simple statement saying "We have the best pizza on this street".

 

[Moxie]

I agree with your Paradigm B, but am not insisting that you should follow it.

However, if you choose to follow Paradigm A, you cannot be putting two players from the same generation in it (unless you think there is a real tie and you cannot say who is better than the other statistically). The only reason for going for Herd of GOATs (check with @nehemeth) is to allow for the notion that sometimes it is difficult to compare players from different eras due to various reasons; it should not be because it seems convenient and nobody will pick an argument with you and you will end up popular on the boards.

So, you're still trying to put Nadal AND Novak out of Roger's era? That would be surprising. To almost everyone.

 

[El Dude]

Changing "most Majors" to 50% is rather new, and not consistent with what has ever been discussed across the years. Wouldn't you agree? So 30% to rankings. And then every thing that has been achieved, in terms of records, etc., is left to the last 20%? Does that really make sense to you? In an era when so many records have been achieved, you're going to leave that to the last 20%? And when 2 players dominated the rankings so completely, doesn't that seem like a fait a complit to weigh the #1 ranking at 30%? It's your opinion, but I'm just questioning it.

It was just a spur of the moment thing. How would you weigh the various factors? I can't come up with a distribution that makes more sense to me, as far as assessing overall greatness. What about 50/25/25? Or 40/30/30? Less than 50% for Slams doesn't seem right, but more also doesn't seem right - thus my original 50.

I think 50% is a lot for Slams, but that's just how they're viewed. Some casual fans ignore everything else, and I can tell you that since the pandemic hit, my focus has been more on my first love, baseball, and less so on tennis, and I'm only been really following the Slams.

 

[El Dude]

I agree with your Paradigm B, but am not insisting that you should follow it.

However, if you choose to follow Paradigm A, you cannot be putting two players from the same generation in it (unless you think there is a real tie and you cannot say who is better than the other statistically). The only reason for going for Herd of GOATs (check with @nehemeth) is to allow for the notion that sometimes it is difficult to compare players from different eras due to various reasons; it should not be because it seems convenient and nobody will pick an argument with you and you will end up popular on the boards.

I don't follow either, but entertain both. I don't think any single paradigm encapsulates all perspectives, which is kind of my point.

But yeah, I disagree with your point there. Let's imagine a hypothetical: Let's say Roger is done, but Rafa and Novak plug along for a few more years. Let's say Novak retains a slight edge on the overall record, but Rafa surpasses Roger's Slam count by 2 or 3 and comes close on titles. Would you then still focus on Roger vs. Novak, even if Rafa's record was arguably better than Roger's? And would you then say that the "GOTE Club" includes Laver, Connors, Borg, Lendl, Sampras, Federer, and Djokovic, because all were the best of their generations (what you are calling "eras")? And thus leave Rafa out?

Meaning, I can see the argument for ranking it 1. Novak, 2. Roger, 3. Rafa (at least right now), but if we're looking at any kind of "herd" view, I don't see how you can leave out Rafa.

It may be that, in the end, Roger is seen as the "father GOAT" and Rafa and Novak as the "offspring GOATs," with Rafa being the single surface GOAT and Novak being the generalist GOAT.

 

[Moxie]

It was just a spur of the moment thing. How would you weigh the various factors? I can't come up with a distribution that makes more sense to me, as far as assessing overall greatness. What about 50/25/25? Or 40/30/30? Less than 50% for Slams doesn't seem right, but more also doesn't seem right - thus my original 50.

I think 50% is a lot for Slams, but that's just how they're viewed. Some casual fans ignore everything else, and I can tell you that since the pandemic hit, my focus has been more on my first love, baseball, and less so on tennis, and I'm only been really following the Slams.

It makes so much sense that baseball is your first love...it's such a stats game, and you're such a stats guy. It was actually my first love, too. Tennis just overtook it.

I get that you were winging it on that. Interesting question. It's just that the Majors have always been said to weigh so heavily, in this era. As Roger was accumulating Majors, that was always said to be the thing to pass him on. And, he was only there to pass Pete at Slams. No other consideration was on the table, except, yes, Pete's weeks at #1.

Tennis is kind of like golf, where the Majors count is the be all and end all. We've ever made that the measure in this era, so I would give Majors a weight of like 60-70%. If you weigh it less, you're moving the goal-posts, IMO. Let's go with 60%, and say the other 40% is a discussion of the rest. I think that's fair, though you may not. You want to make weeks at #1 it's own percentage. I've made my argument for why there is a lot in the hopper beyond weeks at #1 and you've made your argument why this isn't that easy to parse out, so, yeah, making them into percentages isn't that easy. But to make the Majors weigh no more than 50% I think is to betray all of the conversations we've had over the past 15 years or so.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

But yeah, I disagree with your point there. Let's imagine a hypothetical: Let's say Roger is done, but Rafa and Novak plug along for a few more years. Let's say Novak retains a slight edge on the overall record, but Rafa surpasses Roger's Slam count by 2 or 3 and comes close on titles. Would you then still focus on Roger vs. Novak, even if Rafa's record was arguably better than Roger's? And would you then say that the "GOTE Club" includes Laver, Connors, Borg, Lendl, Sampras, Federer, and Djokovic, because all were the best of their generations (what you are calling "eras")? And thus leave Rafa out?

I am not going to waste time arguing over hypotheticals. When that happens remind me, I will be happy to break my head over it then.