Time to crown Novak the GOAT?

[Kieran]

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.

A lot of this points to how much bottle these guys have. They don't want to be second, and they get themselves back in the game through sheer grit. I remember when Novak dominated Rafa in 2011-12, the changes Rafa made to his game, and won 6 of the next seven. They've each done something like this, often more than once. But when we look at Andy, who I've been thinking of a lot today since I saw your stat of him losing 8 GS finals, 5 of them in Australia, 4 of them to Novak, and also a giant semi against Novak in 2012, is how little he changed, actually, over the years, to adapt to the great players. How little he worked on this bad habit of his in the crunch of waiting for the other bloke to miss, rather than throttling him until he'd taken away his opponents choices...

 

[El Dude]

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.

I wouldn't say "no value." I think a lot of critiques about statistics come down to a misperception, that they are meant to be definitive, or that their advocates see them as definitive. And further, as if they are either/or: either they perfectly define or they are useless.

As I've said before, I see any statistics or system as merely providing a perspective. When stat advocates view them as "the" definitive truth, they are in error. But so too are those that disregard them totally.

Now my biggest problem with GOAT points is that it is entirely cumulative - it doesn't weigh peak performance. For overall greatness, I'd probably average out total career points with best seven years for peak value, then take the average and compare that. That would probably bring guys like Wilander up and push guys like Ferrer down, and probably Andy too.

Anyhow, there is really no way to assess all eras of tennis using the same criteria. The further back you go, the less accurate current assessment tools become.

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

Ha. Of course to be fair to Emerson, it is only including his performance from 1968 on; he won all of his Slams before then.

 

[El Dude]

A lot of this points to how much bottle these guys have. They don't want to be second, and they get themselves back in the game through sheer grit. I remember when Novak dominated Rafa in 2011-12, the changes Rafa made to his game, and won 6 of the next seven. They've each done something like this, often more than once. But when we look at Andy, who I've been thinking of a lot today since I saw your stat of him losing 8 GS finals, 5 of them in Australia, 4 of them to Novak, and also a giant semi against Novak in 2012, is how little he changed, actually, over the years, to adapt to the great players. How little he worked on this bad habit of his in the crunch of waiting for the other bloke to miss, rather than throttling him until he'd taken away his opponents choices...

Yeah, I think it is partially that, and partially that he just didn't quite have the supernatural talent of the other three.

It is perhaps oversimplistic, but I think tennis accomplishments are a combination of two factors: Physical ability - talent, skills, etc, and mentality. Body and mind, in other words. Each can be developed, and are developed together, but every player has different challenges. But more to the point, I think there's a cap on physical ability, or at least more so than mentality. Andy, I think, just didn't have the physical gifts of the others and, coupled with the stubbornness you describe, kept him at a lower level. But even if he had worked on his "bad habit," I could see him taking a Slam or two from Novak, but probably not from Rafa or Roger, unless he became a completely different player. For Roger and Rafa, facing Andy was a bit like facing Novak on an off day.

This is also a major complaint of Roger fans. His physical talent is unsurpassed. Rafa is the reverse: his body was his main enemy. As I've said before, I think Rafa is the game's greatest competitor - he has the best tennis mind of the three. Novak has the best body in terms of fitness and flexibility, and Roger has the best skill set, in terms of what he can do with the racket. Man, if we want to imagine someone who is better someday, it would be the competitive mind of Rafa, the fitness of Novak, and the finesse of Roger.

 

[El Dude]

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!

Andy's "what could have been" story is if he didn't play alongside those three, just as Roddick's is if he didn't play alongside Roger. The Unfortunate Andys!

But I agree with your assessment: If he hadn't played alongside those three, or even just played alongside Novak, he'd have probably have "only" 6 or so majors and more time at #1. Meaning, Edberg/Becker territory.

 

[Moxie]

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.

Was that match distilled to one point? Which one was that? I'm not trying to be cheeky, seriously. The last point?

 

[El Dude]

Was that match distilled to one point? Which one was that? I'm not trying to be cheeky, seriously. The last point?

Nah, I don't think so, but it has been awhile. Just an apt metaphor: the end of Roger's singular dominance.

 

[Kieran]

Nah, I don't think so, but it has been awhile. Just an apt metaphor: the end of Roger's singular dominance.

I thought it was the point that Roger won in the French Open final that year

 

[monfed]

‎How can only one criterion be important for deciding on something that contains a large number of achievements?‎

The grand slam was the metric that was used to determine GOAT status. It's Sampras fans who tried to change that definition to slam count when Pete broke Emerson's tally.

The term grand slam means winning all 4 majors in a calendar year. "Slam" is a loose term to define a major. CYGS is another term to define the grand slam because the term major got replaced to slam because of lazy journalism and sensationalism.

Ask any player pre-Sampras and they'll tell you that the grand slam was the greatest achievement and anyone who won it would be the GOAT. That was the primary metric similar to what the slam count is today.

So that's why the grand slam or CYGS as it's called now should be the metric to decide the GOAT because it has always been that way.

 

[El Dude]

The most important metric, sure. The singular metric? No way. Not only do other factors matter, as I argued here, but Slams aren't of static value throughout tennis history.

As has been pointed out many times by several people in this thread, the amateur Slams pre-Open Era often did not include the top players in the world. Further, the AO during Johan Kriek's era (early 80s) were basically glorified ATP 500s or even an ATP 250, in terms of talent of participants. In 1980, Kriek was ranked #18 and the highest ranked player he faced was #66! He defeated #403 Steve Denton in the final. In 1981, Kriek won it ranked #13, but didn't face a single top 20 player. To illustrate this further, in that year he defeated Paul McNamee in the SF; McNamee was seeded 16, but ranked #89!

To be fair, those were particularly weak years, as it was stronger during the 70s (although still not as strong as the other Slams) and the AO field greatly improved in 1982, as champion Mats Wilander had to face and defeat Lendl, Gerulaitis, Clerc, and Vilas. But as has been stated, it wasn't until the 90s when it was viewed as commensurate with the others, as far as player participation was concerned.

 

[monfed]

The most important metric, sure. The singular metric? No way. Not only do other factors matter, as I argued here, but Slams aren't of static value throughout tennis history.

As has been pointed out many times by several people in this thread, the amateur Slams pre-Open Era often did not include the top players in the world. Further, the AO during Johan Kriek's era (early 80s) were basically glorified ATP 500s or even an ATP 250, in terms of talent of participants. In 1980, Kriek was ranked #18 and the highest ranked player he faced was #66! He defeated #403 Steve Denton in the final. In 1981, Kriek won it ranked #13, but didn't face a single top 20 player. To illustrate this further, in that year he defeated Paul McNamee in the SF; McNamee was seeded 16, but ranked #89!

To be fair, those were particularly weak years, as it was stronger during the 70s (although still not as strong as the other Slams) and the AO field greatly improved in 1982, as champion Mats Wilander had to face and defeat Lendl, Gerulaitis, Clerc, and Vilas. But as has been stated, it wasn't until the 90s when it was viewed as commensurate with the others, as far as player participation was concerned.

Laver has plenty of other stats to backup his claim as the GOAT besides his calendar slam. It's not like he won 4 slams in his career in one year and retired. So when a player wins the grand slam it's understood that he's the best of his era. And we're talking about Laver's 69 which was an open era grand slam so bringing up amateur slams is irrelevant. You can say that about his 62 and 67 years but not 69. The field wasn't split in 69. It is still regarded as the greatest season in tennis.

I'm not going to get into arguments like those years were weak because 20 years down the line players would say the same about the players in the current era and so on and so forth. We can easily argue that Joe would hardly win anything if he played with a wooden racquet and a S&V style given his style of play, infact we can easily see Joe's game doesn't translate well into the wooden racquet S&V style era. Hell it doesn't even translate well into the 90s. The only player whose game translates well into the past eras is Federer.(if you want to argue cross-era versatility).

When you say one era is weak, you have to equalise equipment, playing conditions, fitness facilities and training and multiple other factors that players of this era have and Laver didn't. Laver did what was available to him in his era and he was the best. With his CYGS, it takes him to the top.

 

[monfed]

Toni Nadal has come out with his piece on the GOAT debate - https://www.tennisworldusa.org/tenn...w-that-he-was-facing-the-most-says-top-coach/

"Even great champions, sometimes, nerves betray them and prevent them from withstanding the pressure that they must take at any given moment," Uncle Toni said. "This is what happened to Novak Djokovic in Sunday's final."

Toni Nadal believes Djokovic was under so much pressure as a win against Medvedev would have all but cemented his status as the GOAT of men's tennis. "He (Djokovic) knew that he was facing the most crucial game of his life, the meeting that was to determine the debate that has been talked about so much in the tennis field: who is the best player in the history of our sport," wrote the Spaniard.

 

[El Dude]

Laver has plenty of other stats to backup his claim as the GOAT besides his calendar slam. It's not like he won 4 slams in his career in one year and retired. So when a player wins the grand slam it's understood that he's the best of his era. And we're talking about Laver's 69 which was an open era grand slam so bringing up amateur slams is irrelevant. You can say that about his 62 and 67 years but not 69. The field wasn't split in 69. It is still regarded as the greatest season in tennis.

I'm not going to get into arguments like those years were weak because 20 years down the line players would say the same about the players in the current era and so on and so forth. We can easily argue that Joe would hardly win anything if he played with a wooden racquet and a S&V style given his style of play, infact we can easily see Joe's game doesn't translate well into the wooden racquet S&V style era. Hell it doesn't even translate well into the 90s. The only player whose game translates well into the past eras is Federer.(if you want to argue cross-era versatility).

When you say one era is weak, you have to equalise equipment, playing conditions, fitness facilities and training and multiple other factors that players of this era have and Laver didn't. Laver did what was available to him in his era and he was the best. With his CYGS, it takes him to the top.

Hey, I agree that Laver's CYGS in 1969 was amazing or that he doesn't have a GOAT argument. He's probably still the safest pick, at least at this moment. Everyone agrees that he's, at least, one of the greatest of all time, so you won't find any disagreement from me or anyone on that.

I'm more talking about Slams in general, that they have shifted over the years and we can't compare raw Slam counts across eras as a singular marker of greatness, which you've done several times with Emerson.

 

[BratSrbin]

Toni Nadal has come out with his piece on the GOAT debate - https://www.tennisworldusa.org/tenn...w-that-he-was-facing-the-most-says-top-coach/

"Even great champions, sometimes, nerves betray them and prevent them from withstanding the pressure that they must take at any given moment," Uncle Toni said. "This is what happened to Novak Djokovic in Sunday's final."

Toni Nadal believes Djokovic was under so much pressure as a win against Medvedev would have all but cemented his status as the GOAT of men's tennis. "He (Djokovic) knew that he was facing the most crucial game of his life, the meeting that was to determine the debate that has been talked about so much in the tennis field: who is the best player in the history of our sport," wrote the Spaniard.

‎Can only one match bring the title of greatest of all time, GOAT?‎

 

[El Dude]

‎Can only one match bring the title of greatest of all time?‎

Tennis--and sports in general--is funny like that. A single match can bring the perception of that. I mean, Mac said that the 2017 AO would decide who the GOAT was. Now that's Mac, but he kind of speaks for the hyperbolic and fickle fan in all of us.

Of course that is absurd. Just as you can't say a single match determines whether Novak is the GOAT or not, you also can't say that a single match between Roger and Rafa determines the GOAT.

That said, if Novak had won that match, I think the collective argument would essentially be over. Sure, Roger and Rafa diehards would still claim that Novak wasn't the GOAT, but most could concede to Novak, with his 21 Slams and first CYGS since Laver.

But this illustrates, again, the problem of overly focusing on any specific, or group of specific, stats. I mean, if we say Slams are everything, they the logic holds that Johan Kriek was better than Gerulaitis, Muster, Stich, Chang, Ivanisevic, Roddick, etc etc, which he wasn't. Kriek was a guy who barely made the top 10 and won the the first of his two Slams without facing a top 50 opponent, the second without facing a top 20 opponent. Some ATP 500s--and even 250s--are more competitive.

But the CYGS is special, in a way that, say, winning the Triple Crown isn't. Over the last couple decades baseball stats have evolved, so that most people under the age of 60 know that BA, HR, and RBI aren't the most telling stats of a player's value. I mean, statnerds started focusing on OBP and SLG in the 80s, and the 90s introduced advanced stats like Win Shares, and then of course WAR today.

But the CYGS isn't like the Triple Crown. It is an amazing feat - the big kahuna of tennis. I can't really think of anything comparable in other sports (or at least those that I know anything about).

 

[BratSrbin]

Toni Nadal has come out with his piece on the GOAT debate - https://www.tennisworldusa.org/tenn...w-that-he-was-facing-the-most-says-top-coach/

 

[BratSrbin]

Tennis--and sports in general--is funny like that. A single match can bring the perception of that. I mean, Mac said that the 2017 AO would decide who the GOAT was. Now that's Mac, but he kind of speaks for the hyperbolic and fickle fan in all of us.

Of course that is absurd. Just as you can't say a single match determines whether Novak is the GOAT or not, you also can't say that a single match between Roger and Rafa determines the GOAT.

That said, if Novak had won that match, I think the collective argument would essentially be over. Sure, Roger and Rafa diehards would still claim that Novak wasn't the GOAT, but most could concede to Novak, with his 21 Slams and first CYGS since Laver.

But this illustrates, again, the problem of overly focusing on any specific, or group of specific, stats. I mean, if we say Slams are everything, they the logic holds that Johan Kriek was better than Gerulaitis, Muster, Stich, Chang, Ivanisevic, Roddick, etc etc, which he wasn't. Kriek was a guy who barely made the top 10 and won the the first of his two Slams without facing a top 50 opponent, the second without facing a top 20 opponent. Some ATP 500s--and even 250s--are more competitive.

But the CYGS is special, in a way that, say, winning the Triple Crown isn't. Over the last couple decades baseball stats have evolved, so that most people under the age of 60 know that BA, HR, and RBI aren't the most telling stats of a player's value. I mean, statnerds started focusing on OBP and SLG in the 80s, and the 90s introduced advanced stats like Win Shares, and then of course WAR today.

But the CYGS isn't like the Triple Crown. It is an amazing feat - the big kahuna of tennis. I can't really think of anything comparable in other sports (or at least those that I know anything about).

‎I agree that one match can prevail when ‎career is all over and everything is summed up but not if someone's career is still ongoing.‎

‎So far, Nole is, based on the achieved, GOAT, according to all the calculations I know. Nadal and Federer have a chance to "cloud" (I can not find better word) that because they are still active.‎

 

[Andy22]

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.

It does not matter laver above them both anyway But personally I would take ken.rosewell, Roy.Emserson both over borg. Also none of the stuff you said puts him above Emerson.

 

[Andy22]

It

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.

It says right there on Wikipedia place in history ranks Roy.Emserson 11th all time. Also don't care that you think I rank Roy.Emserson there I want to that era of players was really elite players. By the UTS.COM do in fact rank Roy.Emserson 13th all time on Goat points.

 

[Andy22]

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.

It's not basic fact you have No Idea how good the players Roy.Emserson played against back then you ever seen any of them play fool?. Your judge a era which you ever even seen Quite silly and very bad. So for me Roy.Emserson is one of greatest of all time don't care that you say unfortunately for you lol.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

It does not matter laver above them both anyway But personally I would take ken.rosewell, Roy.Emserson both over borg. Also none of the stuff you said puts him above Emerson.

I think you did not read El Dude previous post to you.So I will again repeat....Emerson won 12 GS singles as a AMATEUR.You cannot compare that to Borg full stop who played on the professional tour.