Time to crown Novak the GOAT?

[shawnbm]

You can thank the hipster 'El dude' who brought it up in the first place. And then when his moronic analogy got exposed, he pivoted to criticizing my music taste. Typical immature hipster behaviour.

Okay, Thank you for pointing me in the proper direction.

 

[monfed]

The Djokovic smash is so cartoonish, even amateurs at my local club hit better overheads than him. Calling this 1D baseline grinder the GOAT over a player as skillful as Federer is a disgrace.

 

[Moxie]

Ofcourse you don't think style should be in the GOAT debate because you're a fucking dulltard, fangirl of the ugliest player in the history of tennis. You wouldn't recognize style if it hit you in the face. Shock!

And LOL@aura/popularity not important for GOAT status when GOAT is a popularity contest. There's no list published by the ATP that determines GOAT. It's not some official achievement. Hipster morons calling others lunatics when their basement theories are rejected. LOL

The brazen illogical stupidity you hear from pseudointellectual tennis nerds on internet forums cannot be overstated.

Dude, I live in Manhattan and work in entertainment, so don't even play me on what I know about style. I've had enough of your bullying nonsensical bs, basement crawler.

So now you've decided that the GOAT debate is a popularity contest? Or about "aura?" When has "aura" ever made it into the metric? That definitely seems the desperate last resort of a F(an-t)OOL.

 

[monfed]

Dude, I live in Manhattan and work in entertainment, so don't even play me on what I know about style. I've had enough of your bullying nonsensical bs, basement crawler.

So now you've decided that the GOAT debate is a popularity contest? Or about "aura?" That definitely seems the desperate last resort of a F(an-t)OOL.

So you're one of those NYC fashionista snobs that have shitty taste? Not surprised.

I'm sure tennis would be well served to leave it upto pseudointellectual basement dwellers like you to decide who the GOAT is.

 

[monfed]

https://www.jioforme.com/i-think-no...mind-says-a-top-analyst-tennis-sports/788203/

More proof this pusher thinks he's not the GOAT and is vulturing currently over the worst era in tennis history. HAHA! Don't remember Fed ever making a comment like this.

 

[the AntiPusher]

I don't think "style" should really be in the GOAT debate, because it is too subjective. That is a matter of taste, and doesn't win points, games or matches. Whereas, competitiveness does. However, I will give you that range of skills is in there, because tools in the tool shed DOES win you points, games and matches. Likewise "finesse," as that is soft hands, and tennis IQ, and Roger isn't the only master of that.

And, yes, Monfed is a raving lunatic.

I truly believe Rafa's tennis IQ is at Roger's level or higher. At the young age of barely 22 he was able to chase down probably the most naturally gifted champion EVER next to Safin on grass Roger's greatest surface while Roger was still at peak of his prime. Rafa had to deal with nagging injuries, make two career (2013 and 2018) tactical strategic counters to overcome Novak who was beginning his prime. Also Rafa captured two Olympics gold medals in singles and doubles plus leading 2 or 3 Davis cup teams. Yes, his game may not be aesthetic pleasing to the eyes as Roger's game or the perfect precision as Novak's and Agassi ball striking. Yet Rafa gets it's done. Again, review RG 2020 final between Rafa and Novak, cold and damp conditions in late September in which he totally dismantled the "what have you done for me lately " consensus present GOAT.

 

[El Dude]

I don't think "style" should really be in the GOAT debate, because it is too subjective. That is a matter of taste, and doesn't win points, games or matches. Whereas, competitiveness does. However, I will give you that range of skills is in there, because tools in the tool shed DOES win you points, games and matches. Likewise "finesse," as that is soft hands, and tennis IQ, and Roger isn't the only master of that.

And, yes, Monfed is a raving lunatic.

Well again, I don't think Britbox was saying that "style should be in the GOAT debate," but that if we look at players from a stylistic perspective, there is no one greater than Roger. It is not really any different than what I've said about Rafa: that he's the greatest competitor I've ever seen.

Now that is a bit different than saying, "Rafa is the single surface GOAT," because that is pretty easy to quantify. But how much does that figure into overall GOAT?

As far as GOAT criteria, I think there are levels to consider:

1. Career accomplishments, which basically come down to stats - that is, what you can read on Wikipedia or Ultimate Tennis Statistics. This is the only truly objective level, but still requires context (that is, what those stats mean in the context in which they occurred; e.g. Johan Kriek's to Slam titles or Roy Emerson's 12 amateur Slams). Another area of consideration is career vs. peak. The first has to do with longevity and sustained excellence, while the latter has to do with how good a player as at their very best. This is very tricky and, of course, has a major subjective element.
2. Qualities related to skill, mentality, and other intangibles that figure into performance, but can't be easily quantified. These are generally based upon personal eyewitness accounts, as well as assessments by various analysts.
3. Qualities related to style, persona, mystique, etc, that aren't quantifiable, but still are part of a player's legacy.

My guess is that most agree that GOAT goes beyond 1. It starts getting tricky with 2, and 3 becomes a bit of a mess, but maybe impossible to fully ignore when talking about a player. Meaning, when we think of someone like Bjorn Borg, it is heavily flavored with elements of 3, and to ignore those elements is to miss out on what makes Borg such an intriguing player.

 

[Kieran]

I dunno, I never subscribe to the idea of a single goat, because of stuff like this: nobody can agree a criteria that satisfies the whole “oat” part of “goat”. And this is important, and it can’t be resolved because the past has made its moves and can’t now catch up and makes moves that also tick boxes to suit a modern audience.

But actually, ephemeral stuff like a players aura, or how cute they look in a sailor suit before a match, they’re important in terms of making a splash, but they don’t win a popularity contest. For instance, a player might have a formidable aura, but only until they don’t, and then - since we’re a “what have you done for me lately” people, as Anti Pusher says - when the bubble aura is burst, the player that burst it moves into pole position. It’s just so difficult to measure so many things, then align them with the past and their wholly different ideas of greatness, that considering who is goat is really a discussion that will never have a resolution, methinks…

 

[Fiero425]

I dunno, I never subscribe to the idea of a single goat, because of stuff like this: nobody can agree a criteria that satisfies the whole “oat” part of “goat”. And this is important, and it can’t be resolved because the past has made its moves and can’t now catch up and makes moves that also tick boxes to suit a modern audience.

But actually, ephemeral stuff like a players aura, or how cute they look in a sailor suit before a match, they’re important in terms of making a splash, but they don’t win a popularity contest. For instance, a player might have a formidable aura, but only until they don’t, and then - since we’re a “what have you done for me lately” people, as Anti Pusher says - when the bubble aura is burst, the player that burst it moves into pole position. It’s just so difficult to measure so many things, then align them with the past and their wholly different ideas of greatness, that considering who is goat is really a discussion that will never have a resolution, methinks…

The older you are, the more subjective it can be due to the different eras, how tennis and physicality of the game has changed over the years, homogenization of court surfaces, and the level of play due to technology and nutrition advancements! I started playing just after Open Tennis estab.; 1971! It was almost never seen on TV until BJK vs Riggs! IMO it was all about the Aussies back then and justifiably so with the top players mostly from "down under" on both the men's and the women's tour! Virginia Slims had just started sponsoring the women's game so for the 1st time we could actually call it a tour! For the most part women were just the "warm up" act for the men which is why the $$ disparity for so long! Hard to believe Connors and McEnroe didn't play the Inaugural event called T"he Lipton Int'l "in Boca Raton in '85! They were protesting equal pay when it was already the case at the USO IIRC! They were the top 2 men and didn't have much patience with the women's game even though Connors dated Evert 10 years prior! I had no reason not to believe Laver the BOAT with 2 CYGS! Reading about the game later I had many 2nd thoughts develop due to the times of Am/Pro! OTTH, I had to give consideration to past champons starting with Tilden, Budge, Gonzales, then my pre-era faves of HOAD, Laver, Rosewall! It wasn't about the major count back then since these players were out of the running as Pros until '68! I guess that's why Borg became a legend so soon with 11 Majors in the Open Era!

Borg was the 1st I could put with the legends once I started to get serious in the game! From him the honor of GOAT went to Sampras even w/o a FO final! It didn't last long with the style and grace of Federer! We thought he would be on top for a while, but it was not to be! In so many ways he's already been surpassed by 2 other players with my money on Nole that he will wind up alone on top with the most majors, wks. @ #1, Double "CGS" & "Golden Masters," Nole-Slam, ...I could go on! If it had only to do with Majors, Borg wouldn't have ever been recognized as a GREAT with just 11 of them so I know where the board is coming from! We do"lean" on numbers too much, but if Fedalovic have "all the numbers" behind their names, I'm not sure how we can look back at past champions and come up with reasons why they should be shoulder to shoulder with these 3 ATG's who are under our noses right now!

 

[El Dude]

@Fiero425 , one thing your post clarified in my mind is that, in a way, this is rather simple. Rod Laver was the GOAT at the time he played. He was better than his best contemporary, Ken Rosewall, and had surpassed Pancho Gonzales, Bill Tilden, and all the other pro greats because of his two calendar year Slams and his overall accomplishments (Laver is also one of only two players, along with Rosewall, who won the "Pro Calendar Slam" of three pro slams).

And then we have the Open Era. We can say, as you say, that Borg was the first "GOAT" of the Open Era, but we cannot say that he surpassed Laver in terms of accomplishments. Plus, he is problematic because McEnroe, for a short time, was beating him left and right. And then Sampras took the crown, and then Federer, and then Nadal and Djokovic joined the party.

So my point is, Rod Laver is the GOAT of tennis up through the transition to the Open Era and its first few years. He mastered the amateur, pro, and Open Era tours in a way that no other player did.

And then we have the shifting occurring during the Open Era, which has culminated so far with the "Holy Trinity," who are the "crowning" of men's tennis over the last half century.

So I think when we're talking about the GOAT, we're talking about four players that must be mentioned, the first who was the GOAT of tennis up through the transition of the Open Era--about 90 years--and then the trio of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic who have surpassed everyone since. That answer, while not giving anyone singular bragging rights, is satisfying to me.

If nothing else, I feel comfortable placing those four above everyone else, as the "Big Four" of tennis history. The next four, the "Second Quartet," is a bit trickier, but would definitely include Bill Tilden and Pancho Gonzales, probably Ken Rosewall and Pete Sampras.

 

[shawnbm]

As I’ve said here previously years ago when Federer was still atop the current heap, there is no such thing. There are a number of players in that upper echelon and they were the best at various points in time and are brothers in greatness. Total domination comes only once in awhile. Laver had a period, Connors in 1974, Borg in 1979, Sampras in the early 1990s, Federer from 2004-2007, Rafael in 2010 and again in 2013, then Nole in 2011, 2015 and 2021.

all of those years featured multiple slams and (likely—El Dude can tell us) winning percentages of around 85-90% or higher of matches or events won. Of those, I think special mention for Laver (obviously), Connors, Borg, Federer and Novak during those years as they dominated everything and everybody even though Borg had some issues with Mac and Federer with Nadal on clay back in those years. Otherwise, all those guys obliterated the field in those dominant years. That is really all one can say.
Who at their best would win more? No idea—likely surface dependent.

 

[monfed]

In reality there's no such thing as GOAT because you can't compare eras. You can only be the best of your era which Pete, Federer and now Joekovic is. dull is a transitional era champ.

 

[the AntiPusher]

This what I'm saying. .All due respect I guess but El Dude's analysis of Rafa's legacy was pretty much a fart in the wind. Rafa is the at the top level with Federer because he was relevant to all the top pros especially Roger whereas Novak was just a fly on the elephant's (Federer) ass. To just look at the past 7 years is very derelict from even the most novice of tennis fans.

6,000 days and counting: Nadal reaches another top-10 milestone

Rafael Nadal has passed another landmark in his career as he has reached 6,000 consecutive days inside the top 10 in the ATP rankings.

www.eurosport.com

 

[shawnbm]

Absolutely amazing feat by the Spanish Bull bravisimo

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

6,000 days and counting: Nadal reaches another top-10 milestone

Rafael Nadal has passed another landmark in his career as he has reached 6,000 consecutive days inside the top 10 in the ATP rankings.

www.eurosport.com

Hopefully Rafa is still in the Top Ten when he resumes playing in 2022

 

[Kieran]

Hopefully Rafa is still in the Top Ten when he resumes playing in 2022

Could be an issue if he arrives in Australia outside the top 8, or even top ten, who knows how tough his draw could be..

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Could be an issue if he arrives in Australia outside the top 8, or even top ten, who knows how tough his draw could be..

Fingers crossed he remains 'injury free' in 2022 for starters.

 

[El Dude]

This what I'm saying. .All due respect I guess but El Dude's analysis of Rafa's legacy was pretty much a fart in the wind. Rafa is the at the top level with Federer because he was relevant to all the top pros especially Roger whereas Novak was just a fly on the elephant's (Federer) ass. To just look at the past 7 years is very derelict from even the most novice of tennis fans.

I guess I missed the part where I "analyzed Rafa's legacy." I must have been too busy farting in the wind, although I guess that would be analized.

 

[Moxie]

Well again, I don't think Britbox was saying that "style should be in the GOAT debate," but that if we look at players from a stylistic perspective, there is no one greater than Roger. It is not really any different than what I've said about Rafa: that he's the greatest competitor I've ever seen.

Now that is a bit different than saying, "Rafa is the single surface GOAT," because that is pretty easy to quantify. But how much does that figure into overall GOAT?

As far as GOAT criteria, I think there are levels to consider:

1. Career accomplishments, which basically come down to stats - that is, what you can read on Wikipedia or Ultimate Tennis Statistics. This is the only truly objective level, but still requires context (that is, what those stats mean in the context in which they occurred; e.g. Johan Kriek's to Slam titles or Roy Emerson's 12 amateur Slams). Another area of consideration is career vs. peak. The first has to do with longevity and sustained excellence, while the latter has to do with how good a player as at their very best. This is very tricky and, of course, has a major subjective element.
2. Qualities related to skill, mentality, and other intangibles that figure into performance, but can't be easily quantified. These are generally based upon personal eyewitness accounts, as well as assessments by various analysts.
3. Qualities related to style, persona, mystique, etc, that aren't quantifiable, but still are part of a player's legacy.

My guess is that most agree that GOAT goes beyond 1. It starts getting tricky with 2, and 3 becomes a bit of a mess, but maybe impossible to fully ignore when talking about a player. Meaning, when we think of someone like Bjorn Borg, it is heavily flavored with elements of 3, and to ignore those elements is to miss out on what makes Borg such an intriguing player.

You keep insisting that "style" is in there. I don't think it IS the same as competitiveness, in the GOAT debate. If Roger had won absolutely everything he did, and wasn't as "stylish" a player, would that detract from his greatness? I don't see how. Style is subjective, and aesthetic, not quantitatively a thing that wins you matches. Likewise "persona" and "mystique", all in your #3 above. Those add to why a player is popular, but not to why they are great.

It's easy to drag Borg out as a lot of #3, but that does undersell him on #1 and #2, a bit. He walked away early, so there's a lot of "what if" where he is concerned, but I would say that what Borg's "mystique" really translates as, in terms of greatness was in what he did to change the sport. He was pretty much the first superstar in the men's game, and he brought a level of fitness that was game changing. He won 11 Majors in what was essentially a 10-year career. You don't have to make Borg mysterious or stylish (maybe you mean sexy, in his case, because his 2-handed backhand was hated at the time,) to make him great.

If you want to make your #3 about game-changing, or -influencing, maybe we can talk. There are plenty of players with style, persona and even mystique that really don't even come close to making the list, though.

I dunno, I never subscribe to the idea of a single goat, because of stuff like this: nobody can agree a criteria that satisfies the whole “oat” part of “goat”. And this is important, and it can’t be resolved because the past has made its moves and can’t now catch up and makes moves that also tick boxes to suit a modern audience.

But actually, ephemeral stuff like a players aura, or how cute they look in a sailor suit before a match, they’re important in terms of making a splash, but they don’t win a popularity contest. For instance, a player might have a formidable aura, but only until they don’t, and then - since we’re a “what have you done for me lately” people, as Anti Pusher says - when the bubble aura is burst, the player that burst it moves into pole position. It’s just so difficult to measure so many things, then align them with the past and their wholly different ideas of greatness, that considering who is goat is really a discussion that will never have a resolution, methinks…

I quoted you here, Kieran, as a follow-up to my above. If Dude is talking about "aura" in the locker room, it goes hand-in-hand with winning, so it's rather built into all of the winning that goes into qualifying for greatness. If he's talking about amongst the fans, then that's just what we call "popularity."

 

[the AntiPusher]

I guess I missed the part where I "analyzed Rafa's legacy." I must have been too busy farting in the wind, although I guess that would be analized.

Yep.. clever play on words..I give you that...

El Dude...my issues with your analysis is you have Rafa third in this GOAT discussion which is a bit derelict on your part if you just look at one of the most important aspect, H2H.