Time to crown Novak the GOAT?

[Moxie]

Yeah but now you’re reacting to what Rafa said by not giving him the benefit of the doubt. I don’t mind that he said this, he’s been an exceptional role model for kids, and remember he has this great foundation in Mallorca, so he’s probably now looking at his legacy from that direction…

And, to be fair, (though that's asking a lot of @Fiero425 when it comes to Nadal,) he has always talked like this about setting an example for kids. AND he puts his money where his mouth is. Besides his academy in Mallorca, there is one in India and one in an underserved neighborhood in Valencia that are both set up more as charities, as a way to get kids in an educational and mentoring setting, with tennis as a side-benefit to give focus and purpose.

 

[Andy22]

Well if you want to go back, let's go "all the way" back where Tilden was probably the GOAT & only limited by his lack of competition & tourns.!

Yes Tilden ATG has as well hes the US Open Goat with 7 titles. and I don't have anything Against these players being in hall of frame or being called ATGs I'm not Karen I count everything. Of course Goat different story that would be too much even for me it's Clearly Djokovic.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Honestly my head was Explodes everything I watch Sampras highlights I would even have borg over him. Honestly laver above everyone but Nadal, Djokovic

Give me a playing example why you think Emerson should be placed above Borg for starters
I hope you are aware what he achieved in his playing career.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Yeah but now you’re reacting to what Rafa said by not giving him the benefit of the doubt. I don’t mind that he said this, he’s been an exceptional role model for kids, and remember he has this great foundation in Mallorca, so he’s probably now looking at his legacy from that direction…

and playing golf tournaments,he won another one outright and came 2nd in the players doubles yesterday.

 

[Andy22]

Give me a playing example why you think Emerson should be placed above Borg for starters
I hope you are aware what he achieved in his playing career.

Honestly it's pretty close they both won 12 majors, but Roy.Emserson got the Double slam all majors twice plus 100 titles overall. You place borg, Sampras Emerson where you want to nobody stopping you

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Honestly it's pretty close they both won 12 majors, but Roy.Emserson got the Double slam all majors twice plus 100 titles overall. You place borg, Sampras Emerson where you want to nobody stopping you

It is no way close........Emerson won 12 GS singles.16 doubles titles

Borg career tournament's 64 609-27.....83% percentage across all surfaces
First player to win 6 RG titles
First player to win 5 successive Wimbledon titles....
I have just got started.
I think he wins above Emerson.

 

[Kieran]

and playing golf tournaments,he won another one outright and came 2nd in the players doubles yesterday.

I wish he’d been resting that foot

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

I wish he’d been resting that foot

You know Rafa he can't sit still for long.

 

[Fiero425]

I wish he’d been resting that foot

.....As the top players are constanting kvetching about the season being too long; they're creating events like the Laver Cup and ATP Cup!

 

[Moxie]

Exactly. It’s an era without precedent, ultimately impossible to define correctly since we’re still in it. Once the Big 3 have retired, and a few years have passed, we’ll have a better feel for what will happen in their wake, and how much what we’re now in the midst of is as aberrant as it seems, or the new normal.

There’s an American question-and-answer game show called “Jeopardy!” To win, a contestant needs to have knowledge of an array of categories. A couple of years ago, a guy named James Holzhauer played it in a manner no one ever had before. He typically bet everything when he had the opportunity, accumulating huge amounts of money. It was a new way of playing the game, showing everyone a path to success no one had ever tried. As it was happening, I was convinced everyone who would be on the show after he finally lost would use his methods as a template to succeed, but that didn’t happen at all. Everything went back to normal. I’m wondering if Rafa, Roger, and Novak are going to be the James Holzhauer of tennis: everything will go back to a series of average accomplishments, even though the Big 3 have shown what’s needed to win. My guess is that’s exactly what’s going to happen, given the paltry number of significant wins from players much younger than the Big 3.

The "Jeopardy!" analogy is so interesting. And I concur with your conclusion, that it seems that others have not copped to embracing what it takes. Certainly Roger, Rafa and Novak are splendidly talented players. And part of "talent," IMO, is being committed and having a great competitive drive. Not everything can be taught, but everything has to be nurtured and worked on. One would think that the younger generations, playing now, can see that part of it, at least. Maybe they do, and eventually it may spawn a new breed, but I agree with you that it will take time to see how much was these 3, and how much was going to be the new way forward. Like you, I do think we'll eventually realize that this was a special era, though I hope we also see a greater ambition, seeing what they have to reach for.

Well, I think that a large part of "what's needed to win" at their level is another great rival or two to push you to extremes. They've hauled each other along in a helter skelter dash to break records, and I don't think we've seen that before. Aided and abetted - I insist - by a compliant and largely star-struck and gormless field, but even still, the magic ingredient might be having strong rivalries. When Borg retired, it had an instant effect on McEnroe's motivation in 1982. It also energised Jimmy Connors. I'd swear on a stack of World of Tennis Yearbooks that Sampras would have benefitted from being harassed by a Rafa. It's the law of the jungle, applied to a sophisticated world...

When I was thinking about tented's above post on my run this morning, I did think, as you have, about how much the great competition has meant. If you had each one in their own era, would they have had enough way before this age, and "settled" at breaking Pete's record, or, would they even have played as well? I have to think it's a factor in these dizzying achievements that we had 3 meteors cross the sky in such proximity to each other. McEnroe has always bemoaned the loss of his great rival in Borg, and he begged him to come back, even knowing that he was mostly the lesser player. Water finds its level. Greatness inspires greatness.

You have both said that it will take this era being over, them all retired, to really assess it properly, and I agree with that completely.

 

[Kieran]

You know Rafa he can't sit still for long.

Unfortunately true, I don’t know what gets into him sometimes…

 

[El Dude]

Ultimate tennis statistics.com is tennis history it ranks Roy.Emserson 13th all time and laver is still the Goat sorry to tell you this.

Huh? No it doesn't. It ranks Murray 13th, and Emerson 145th...because it only ranks Open Era. I don't know where you're getting that it ranks Emerson 13th.

 

[El Dude]

Nadal and Djokovic was baby's in Fakerer weak mug era so that's silly point by you. Also I put Emerson as one of the greatest players of all time regardless of your pre open hate. I first say Roy Emerson era is weak than you try to make out Federer useless mug weak era is strong that's double standard Hypocrite right there. You can't have it both ways little girl either their both strong eras or there weak eras. I honestly would have Roy.Emserson above both borg, Sampras and even most Federer majors. Something tell me your a troll because real tennis fans don't undercut pre open era players. And also your never going to get be believe Fakerer weak era was anything but useless because it had baby Nadal or Djokovic doesn't make to strong era they early 20s to teens all of Fakerer weak mug era. Don't because now Djokovic is also has he's own weak mug era so it's fair now?.

I don't understand why you don't understand a basic fact: Emerson played on the amateur tour, while the best players played on the pro tour. Whether or not Roger's prime was weak, he played against the very best players in the world at that time, something that cannot be said of Emerson.

 

[El Dude]

Andy Murray is not the 13th greatest tennis player to ever play the game..

A couple things. One, Ultimate Tennis Statistics is not about "to every play the game" - it only uses stats from the Open Era.

Two, it is just a statistical metric. It is not necessarily saying that he is the 13th greatest player of the Open Era, just that he's 13th in GOAT points, which are based on statistics that--as you and others have said--really only make sense for the last 25-30 years (that is, since AO has become comparable and the Slams have been so esteemed).

That doesn't mean the GOAT points system doesn't have value, it just shouldn't be taken as absolute. Actually, it is a pretty nifty formula, that takes into account all that you could ask of such a formula, and does so in a balanced way.

One thing it does tell us about Murray is that he is better than his "mere" 3 Slams indicate. This is illustrated by the fact that he's reached 11 Slam finals - the same as Edberg, McEnroe, and Wilander. I am not NOT saying he was as great as those three, but it does tell us how often he was in the mix for a Slam title. Unfortunately for him, he played alongside three 20-Slam winners.

Anyhow, if you consider Open Era records only, how many players ranked below Murray in GOAT points are clearly considered to have greater careers? I'd say Wilander is the only clear-cut case, with his 7 Slams. But the rest of the top 20--Vilas, Nastase, Rosewall, Ashe, Newcombe, Hewitt--all had inferior Open Era accomplishments (most of Rosewall's best years were before the Open Era; Newcombe's career as split, etc).

So if I were ranking players of the Open Era, I'd probably have Murray at #14, just pushing Wilander higher. I'd say he's pretty comparable to Vilas and Nastase (who was also better than his Slam count). If we expand to all time, then he's probably not in the top 30. Off the top of my head, Tilden, Perry, Budge, Riggs, Kramer, Pancho, Rosewall, Newcombe, Cochet, Vines, Trabert, Sedgman, Wilding, Renshaw, Doherty, and probably a bunch of others.

I mean, if we really want to give all of tennis history weight, we have to remember that there were over 90 years of tennis before the Open Era.

 

[El Dude]

Wikipedia has an interesting page in which it gives the world number one player going back to 1877, based upon the consensus of sportswriters. Obviously this is a highly subjective system, but it does at least give us a sense of who were the most dominant player in any given year.

I don't agree with all of it (for instance, ATP points aside, I think Roger deserves at least the shared #1 with Rafa in 2017 - he was the overall better player, just played less), but it at least gives us something that spans all of tennis history.

Some years ago I put this into a system, giving 5 points for #1, 3 points for shared #1, 2 point for #2, and 1 point for shared #2. Here is the updated list, through 2021 (I'm going to go ahead and give Novak the #1 for this year, Medvedev #2):

1. Novak Djokovic 42
2. Pancho Gonzales 40
3t. Bill Tilden 39
3t. Roger Federer 39
5. Rafael Nadal 37
6. William Renshaw 35
7t. Rod Laver 33
7t. Ken Rosewall 33
9. Pete Sampras 31
10. Don Budge 27
11. Jack Kramer 26
12t. Laurence Doherty 25
12t. William Larned 25
14t. Reggie Doherty 24
14t. Ivan Lendl 24
16. Bjorn Borg 23
17. Fred Perry 21
18. Ellsworth Vines 20
19t. Joshua Pim 19
19t. Bobby Riggs 19
19t. Jimmy Connors 19
19t. John McEnroe 19
23t. William Baddeley 18
23t. Anthony Wilding 18
25. Henri Cochet 17
26. Ernest Renshaw 15
27t. B Johnston 14
27t. Rene Lacoste 14
29. Stefan Edberg 13
30t. Norman Brookes 12
30t. Andre Agassi 12

And just to clarify, I am NOT saying that this is any more definitive than any other list--it obviously has major weaknesses, mostly because it is consensus subjective opinion, and of course doesn't reward players who were consistently top 5 but never or rarely one of the top 2 (e.g. Boris Becker), but it does give us another angle on it. I don't think any list or criteria can reign absolute, but we can look at a variety of angles and come to our own conclusions.

p.s. The list includes about 75 players who were at one time considered either the best, tied for best, second best, or tied for second best. Andy Murray ranks just at the edge of the top 50. Roy Emerson has literally zero points, as he was never considered as one of the top 2 players in the sport.

 

[Kieran]

A couple things. One, Ultimate Tennis Statistics is not about "to every play the game" - it only uses stats from the Open Era.


That doesn't mean the GOAT points system doesn't have value, it just shouldn't be taken as absolute.



I mean, if we really want to give all of tennis history weight, we have to remember that there were over 90 years of tennis before the Open Era.

this system has no value in terms of determining a goat, if it only includes the Open era. I know we can safely say that the game became more worldwide and therefore the pool became stronger, but still.

It’s an interesting system, though who would have thunk that Emerson would be ranked so low?

 

[Fiero425]

Wikipedia has an interesting page in which it gives the world number one player going back to 1877, based upon the consensus of sportswriters. Obviously this is a highly subjective system, but it does at least give us a sense of who were the most dominant player in any given year.

I don't agree with all of it (for instance, ATP points aside, I think Roger deserves at least the shared #1 with Rafa in 2017 - he was the overall better player, just played less), but it at least gives us something that spans all of tennis history.

Some years ago I put this into a system, giving 5 points for #1, 3 points for shared #1, 2 point for #2, and 1 point for shared #2. Here is the updated list, through 2021 (I'm going to go ahead and give Novak the #1 for this year, Medvedev #2):

1. Novak Djokovic 42
2. Pancho Gonzales 40
3t. Bill Tilden 39
3t. Roger Federer 39
5. Rafael Nadal 37
6. William Renshaw 35
7t. Rod Laver 33
7t. Ken Rosewall 33
9. Pete Sampras 31
10. Don Budge 27
11. Jack Kramer 26
12t. Laurence Doherty 25
12t. William Larned 25
14t. Reggie Doherty 24
14t. Ivan Lendl 24
16. Bjorn Borg 23
17. Fred Perry 21
18. Ellsworth Vines 20
19t. Joshua Pim 19
19t. Bobby Riggs 19
19t. Jimmy Connors 19
19t. John McEnroe 19
23t. William Baddeley 18
23t. Anthony Wilding 18
25. Henri Cochet 17
26. Ernest Renshaw 15
27t. B Johnston 14
27t. Rene Lacoste 14
29. Stefan Edberg 13
30t. Norman Brookes 12
30t. Andre Agassi 12

And just to clarify, I am NOT saying that this is any more definitive than any other list--it obviously has major weaknesses, mostly because it is consensus subjective opinion, and of course doesn't reward players who were consistently top 5 but never or rarely one of the top 2 (e.g. Boris Becker), but it does give us another angle on it. I don't think any list or criteria can reign absolute, but we can look at a variety of angles and come to our own conclusions.

p.s. The list includes about 75 players who were at one time considered either the best, tied for best, second best, or tied for second best. Andy Murray ranks just at the edge of the top 50. Roy Emerson has literally zero points, as he was never considered as one of the top 2 players in the sport.

WIthout a doubt, Murray's the most unlucky having to deal with Fedalovic and unable to fulfill his promise with them standing in the way! He was able to steal a few titles from Novak and the #1 YE ranking in 2016, but never really challenged Fedal in majors but once! I'd give Murray 2 or 3 good years as #1 if not for the Big 3, but his major count probably would only double! His defensive game made him vulnerble where all that running does little good but shorten a career!

 

[tented]

The "Jeopardy!" analogy is so interesting. And I concur with your conclusion, that it seems that others have not copped to embracing what it takes. Certainly Roger, Rafa and Novak are splendidly talented players. And part of "talent," IMO, is being committed and having a great competitive drive. Not everything can be taught, but everything has to be nurtured and worked on. One would think that the younger generations, playing now, can see that part of it, at least. Maybe they do, and eventually it may spawn a new breed, but I agree with you that it will take time to see how much was these 3, and how much was going to be the new way forward. Like you, I do think we'll eventually realize that this was a special era, though I hope we also see a greater ambition, seeing what they have to reach for.

When I was thinking about tented's above post on my run this morning, I did think, as you have, about how much the great competition has meant. If you had each one in their own era, would they have had enough way before this age, and "settled" at breaking Pete's record, or, would they even have played as well? I have to think it's a factor in these dizzying achievements that we had 3 meteors cross the sky in such proximity to each other. McEnroe has always bemoaned the loss of his great rival in Borg, and he begged him to come back, even knowing that he was mostly the lesser player. Water finds its level. Greatness inspires greatness.

You have both said that it will take this era being over, them all retired, to really assess it properly, and I agree with that completely.

Exactly. No matter what people may think of the Big 3 as individuals (they each have their fan bases and detractors), everyone needs to acknowledge their accomplishments, which embody the word “extraordinary” — they have been extra ordinary.

I agree that competitiveness has been a huge factor for all three. For example, one of Rafa’s greatest accomplishments, as odd as this may sound, was being No. 2 from July, 2005, through August, 2008, while Federer was No. 1 the whole time. A lot of players would have been too frustrated to maintain that position for years. How long can you take a battering ram to the castle gate before giving up? Djokovic must also be credited for rising to the occasion in an era so thoroughly dominated by Fedal. They’re players who didn’t win one major, then disappear. They didn’t win a major, then lose in the first round of the next one (I don’t think?), mentally and physically exhausted. They would arrive at the next one (when not injured), ready to go all the way — and almost always did.

I haven’t seen that kind of physical and mental commitment by anyone else on the tour. The Big 3 have demonstrated it takes a high level of fitness, combined with a specific mentality. Too many matches have been lost in the locker room, so to speak, because too many players have walked on court thinking they’re going to lose. Not that they would have won, even if they had played their best — it’s still the Big 3, after all — but it’s as if so many others didn’t even try. And the few who did come at them full force, such as Juan Martin del Potro and Andy Murray, weren’t able to keep up due to injuries. Imagine the impact a healthy JMDP would have had over the last decade.

Sadly, I think that even if the Big 3 were to die in a plane crash today, there would still be a vacuum in the aftermath. At least for a while.

 

[Kieran]

Exactly. No matter what people may think of the Big 3 as individuals (they each have their fan bases and detractors), everyone needs to acknowledge their accomplishments, which embody the word “extraordinary” — they have been extra ordinary.

I agree that competitiveness has been a huge factor for all three. For example, one of Rafa’s greatest accomplishments, as odd as this may sound, was being No. 2 from July, 2005, through August, 2008, while Federer was No. 1 the whole time. A lot of players would have been too frustrated to maintain that position for years. How long can you take a battering ram to the castle gate before giving up? Djokovic must also be credited for rising to the occasion in an era so thoroughly dominated by Fedal. They’re players who didn’t win one major, then disappear. They didn’t win a major, then lose in the first round of the next one (I don’t think?), mentally and physically exhausted. They would arrive at the next one (when not injured), ready to go all the way — and almost always did.

I haven’t seen that kind of physical and mental commitment by anyone else on the tour. The Big 3 have demonstrated it takes a high level of fitness, combined with a specific mentality. Too many matches have been lost in the locker room, so to speak, because too many players have walked on court thinking they’re going to lose. Not that they would have won, even if they had played their best — it’s still the Big 3, after all — but it’s as if so many others didn’t even try. And the few who did come at them full force, such as Juan Martin del Potro and Andy Murray, weren’t able to keep up due to injuries. Imagine the impact a healthy JMDP would have had over the last decade.

Sadly, I think that even if the Big 3 were to die in a plane crash today, there would still be a vacuum in the aftermath. At least for a while.

Great post, T. And another powerful feature of the Big 3 has been their determination and ability to reboot their games to counter each other, if a whiff of dominance is in the air. They're examples of great players who constantly learn, rather than rely on what they already have...

 

[El Dude]

Great post, T. And another powerful feature of the Big 3 has been their determination and ability to reboot their games to counter each other, if a whiff of dominance is in the air. They're examples of great players who constantly learn, rather than rely on what they already have...

Yes, this. What comes to mind is one instant/time period for each. For Rafa, it is his rise in 2008 and finally beating Roger at Wimbledon and taking the #1, in the "point heard around the world." For Novak, it is him saying in 2011, "wait a minute, guys, I belong here too." For Roger it is his resurgence in 2017 and dominance of Rafa that year. All point to a degree of greatness that you just don't see in lesser players.