Time to crown Novak the GOAT?

[El Dude]

I think that this undervaluing Rafa due to such clay dominance also has a bit to do with a certain prejudice that some have against clay. (This is really not a fannish statement, it's long-observed.) It's a little bit more seen as a "specialty" surface, in part because there have long-been clay specialists, it's true. In terms of Rafa, such as we still hear it, it tends to come from trolls, like Monfed, who was the one to say that Rafa was "limited," (above on the thread,) and Fjaka, whom I don't consider a troll, just concurred. But fair and reasonable posters can fall into it. When Rafa won #13 at RG in 2020, someone (I don't remember who, but a non-troll,) posted that Rafa's resume would be better if, say, he'd only won, say 8X at RG. That the resume would be more "balanced." Which is a fairly bone-headed statement. As if there's anything wrong with having won 5 more slams. I know this is not you, at all, and I appreciate your following up on my post. You have said before that even if you take clay completely out, Rafa is still an ATG.

It's just funny, because grass is never considered in any way a "lesser" surface, even though it has practically been reduced to a novelty. I know this has to do with the reverence for Wimbledon, as much as anything. But folks seem to forget that the Slams were long played on either grass or clay. Period. And most of the tennis calendar, as well. I could go on, with the way that Grass tended to be Anglo-world, Clay tended to be French and Spanish-speaking world, but that's a deeper dive.

Anyway, I'm sure you've explained this before, but can you remind me/us how you arrive at "GOAT points?"

GOAT points are from Ultimate Tennis Statistics - it isn't my formula, although it is very similar to something I concocted about 10 years ago when I was getting into playing with tennis stat analysis. It is fairly complex, but when you look at the breakdown, it is clearly well thought-out (look at the Legend at the bottom of this page). It is also customizable, with a variety of toggle options in the "Quick Picks" option on that same page. As I've said before, I think its main problem is that it is purely accumulative, so it weighs longevity a bit too heavily over peak dominance, which is why I came up with the GP/Match - but you can toggle the Quick Picks to look at different angles.

Yeah, I don't get the clay prejudice--or rather, I think you're probably right that it is rooted in Northern European prejudice. But in some ways it is "the" tennis surface because it has consistently been a major part of the sport from early on, whereas grass gave a lot of its share over to hards and carpet. If you look at the Surface Timeline, it has consistently been between 30-40% of the tour during the Open Era, and only dipped below 30% for the first time--and just barely--in 2017. So even as hards grew, carpet came into the spotlight and then dwindled, and grass gradually got cut back (heh), clay--like the Dude--has largely abided.

That said, I was interested to discover that tennis actually began on indoor hard (wood) floors, probably from handball in monasteries in the Middle Ages, but then evolved into "Real Tennis" played by French and British royalty. "Field Tennis" on grass didn't start being played until the late 18th century. I don't know when clay courts started, but they've been around for at least 100 years, evolving from the early sand and rubble. The current hard courts, which are actually acrylic, only entered the professional circuit in the 1940s.

Anyhow, I think the sport is better for diverse surfaces, and would love to see a grass Masters and even bring back a carpet tournament or two.

 

[Moxie]

(heh), clay--like the Dude--has largely abided.

I'm down with a head cold, and will get to the larger points later, but had to give this a laugh/love.

 

[El Dude]

I'm down with a head cold, and will get to the larger points later, but had to give this a laugh/love.

Feel better, Moxie!

 

[the AntiPusher]

Alright, so I spent a bit of time working out GOAT Points per match played by surface. I only did the better players, so I might miss a specialist here or there, but here is how it looks:

GP/Match - OVERALL

1. Djokovic 0.82
2. Nadal 0.69
3. Federer 0.62
4. Borg 0.61
5. Laver 0.54
6. Sampras 0.53
7. McEnroe 0.48
8. Lendl 0.46
9. Becker 0.40
10. Connors 0.39
11. Agassi 0.36
12. Murray 0.35
13. Edberg 0.31
14. Wilander 0.31
15. Rosewall 0.30

GP/Match - CLAY

1. Nadal 0.791
2. Djokovic 0.535
3. Borg 0.505
4. Federer 0.380
5. Lendl 0.340
6. Laver 0.329
7. Connors 0.307
8. Wilander 0.306
9. Courier 0.306
10. Kuerten 0.305

GP/Match - GRASS

1. Borg 1.034
2. Djokovic 0.842
3. Federer 0.837
4. Sampras 0.835
5. Laver 0.830
6. McEnroe 0.645
7. Connors 0.605
8. Becker 0.596
9. Edberg 0.556
10. Ashe 0.550
11. Nadal 0.527
12. Murray 0.489

GP/Match - HARD

1. Djokovic 0.629
2. Federer 0.505
3. Sampras 0.433
4. Lendl 0.421
5. Laver 0.390
6. McEnroe 0.373
7. Nadal 0.371
8. Agassi 0.335
9. Becker 0.321
10. Murray 0.311

GP/Match - CARPET

1. Lendl 0.571
2. Becker 0.534
3. McEnroe 0.512
4. Sampras 0.505
5. Borg 0.473
6. Laver 0.466

COMMENTS
The interesting thing about this is that it aligns closer to collective impressions about players, which are generally based more on peak dominance than overall career numbers - which is why people tend to view players like McEnroe, Borg and Sampras as greater than, say, Jimmy Connors, despite Connors having more GP.

Overall: I was a bit surprised with how far ahead Novak is overall - that's quite a lead, and adds to his GOAT claim (sorry, non-GOATists . On a match-by-match basis, he's been significantly more dominant than everyone else. Note also that overall includes accomplishment points, which aren't tied to any specific surface - but it also shouldn't be taken as an average of the surfaces, as it adds in overall accomplishment points.

Rafa is a bit ahead of Roger, which is probably because such a large percentage of his matches have been on clay.

Clay: No surprises here, although with modifying it to per match, Novak and Borg are a bit closer to Rafa. Interesting to see Novak as #2. Roger also moves up to #4, which some might protest, but those are the numbers. And you can see that there's a big gap between 3 and 4.

Grass: On a match-by-match basis, Borg is the clear top grass player. Novak is a bit ahead of Roger, but that might change as Novak declines. Notice how closely Novak, Roger, Sampras, and Laver are - basically equally dominant.

Hard: Novak the clear #1, then Roger the clear #2.

Carpet: Just added this in, although I didn't do too many players.

Your calculus is very hard to accept but I just dont have the time to vet it for myself.

 

[the AntiPusher]

I think that this undervaluing Rafa due to such clay dominance also has a bit to do with a certain prejudice that some have against clay. (This is really not a fannish statement, it's long-observed.) It's a little bit more seen as a "specialty" surface, in part because there have long-been clay specialists, it's true. In terms of Rafa, such as we still hear it, it tends to come from trolls, like Monfed, who was the one to say that Rafa was "limited," (above on the thread,) and Fjaka, whom I don't consider a troll, just concurred. But fair and reasonable posters can fall into it. When Rafa won #13 at RG in 2020, someone (I don't remember who, but a non-troll,) posted that Rafa's resume would be better if he'd only won, say 8X at RG. That the resume would be more "balanced." Which is a fairly bone-headed statement. As if there's anything wrong with having won 5 more slams. I know this is not you, at all, and I appreciate your following up on my post. You have said before that even if you take clay completely out, Rafa is still an ATG.

It's just funny, because grass is never considered in any way a "lesser" surface, even though it has practically been reduced to a novelty. I know this has to do with the reverence for Wimbledon, as much as anything. But folks seem to forget that the Slams were long played on either grass or clay. Period. And most of the tennis calendar, as well. I could go on, with the way that Grass tended to be Anglo-world, Clay tended to be French and Spanish-speaking world, but that's a deeper dive.

Anyway, I'm sure you've explained this before, but can you remind me/us how you arrive at "GOAT points?"

Again..El Dude’s calculus is very hard to accept.

 

[El Dude]

Your calculus is very hard to accept but I just dont have the time to vet it for myself.

What exactly is hard to accept? If you give me specifics, I'll lay it out for you.

 

[the AntiPusher]

What exactly is hard to accept? If you give me specifics, I'll lay it out for you.

I think Moxie briefly laid out the specifics.If 60 percent of the matches are on clay for example, a victory and title on the surface should carry Three times as much as on grass which really is a novelty.

 

[Moxie]

Again..El Dude’s calculus is very hard to accept.

I don't have a problem with it, I just asked him to remind me how he arrived at it, which he did.

 

[El Dude]

I think Moxie briefly laid out the specifics.If 60 percent of the matches are on clay for example, a victory and title on the surface should carry Three times as much as on grass which really is a novelty.

Um, no. OK, you're right: Wimbledon is a novelty and shouldn't be considered a serious tournament. Great take, AP!

 

[the AntiPusher]

Um, no. OK, you're right: Wimbledon is a novelty and shouldn't be considered a serious tournament. Great take, AP!

No no...I said 3 weeks of grass tennis should not carry the same level in your point system as clay does ..let's quote properly my friend

 

[Moxie]

No no...I said 3 weeks of grass tennis should not carry the same level in your point system as clay does ..let's quote properly my friend

I actually didn't understand that that was your point, either, so it wasn't clear. But I see you quoted me on this, so let me be clear: I wasn't saying that grass is a literal novelty surface, my point was only the difference between how some people speak of clay while giving full weight and reverence to grass. I don't think the points should in any way be weighted by surface dominance in the calendar, otherwise hards would get more importance than they already have, which I already think is too much. Wimbledon is a Major, and should get the same points as any other, regardless that the grass season is short.

 

[Moxie]

GOAT points are from Ultimate Tennis Statistics - it isn't my formula, although it is very similar to something I concocted about 10 years ago when I was getting into playing with tennis stat analysis. It is fairly complex, but when you look at the breakdown, it is clearly well thought-out (look at the Legend at the bottom of this page). It is also customizable, with a variety of toggle options in the "Quick Picks" option on that same page. As I've said before, I think its main problem is that it is purely accumulative, so it weighs longevity a bit too heavily over peak dominance, which is why I came up with the GP/Match - but you can toggle the Quick Picks to look at different angles.

Yeah, I don't get the clay prejudice--or rather, I think you're probably right that it is rooted in Northern European prejudice. But in some ways it is "the" tennis surface because it has consistently been a major part of the sport from early on, whereas grass gave a lot of its share over to hards and carpet. If you look at the Surface Timeline, it has consistently been between 30-40% of the tour during the Open Era, and only dipped below 30% for the first time--and just barely--in 2017. So even as hards grew, carpet came into the spotlight and then dwindled, and grass gradually got cut back (heh), clay--like the Dude--has largely abided.

That said, I was interested to discover that tennis actually began on indoor hard (wood) floors, probably from handball in monasteries in the Middle Ages, but then evolved into "Real Tennis" played by French and British royalty. "Field Tennis" on grass didn't start being played until the late 18th century. I don't know when clay courts started, but they've been around for at least 100 years, evolving from the early sand and rubble. The current hard courts, which are actually acrylic, only entered the professional circuit in the 1940s.

Anyhow, I think the sport is better for diverse surfaces, and would love to see a grass Masters and even bring back a carpet tournament or two.

Thanks for taking the time to re-explain this to me, and to explain how to play with it. I do remember when you invented a point system yourself, way back. It seems very thorough, and basically fair. As you say, it skews to longevity, but otherwise, if point assignments are even a bit subjective, I think it should wash across, at a cursory glance.

Maybe we need a tennis history thread, as I don't want to clog this one up here with it, but my understanding, if you go all the way back to the handball version of tennis in the French monasteries and the 13th C., it was first played in the courtyards, so not originally indoors. (You KNEW I had to get that in. LOL.) The origins of clay are unclear, but, as you say, around 100+ years ago. When the grass got chewed up/died in the heat of summer, (maybe first in England or in France,) they gave up and threw clay on it all. Which is funny, given all of the complaining around here about Wimbledon "playing like clay" in the second week. Seems like, historically, they faced that reality and gave over to it. One thing I read also gave clay credit for internationalizing the sport, because it was able to be played in hotter climes. But "lawn tennis" does have pride of place. A few interesting tidbits.

 

[the AntiPusher]

I actually didn't understand that that was your point, either, so it wasn't clear. But I see you quoted me on this, so let me be clear: I wasn't saying that grass is a literal novelty surface, my point was only the difference between how some people speak of clay while giving full weight and reverence to grass. I don't think the points should in any way be weighted by surface dominance in the calendar, otherwise hards would get more importance than they already have, which I already think is too much. Wimbledon is a Major, and should get the same points as any other, regardless that the grass season is short.

See you doing the same as El Dude. Is the grass court season only Wimbledon? I NEVER said that Wimbledon be counted less .. it's the other grass court tournament that may have less than 80 percent of the top ATP players in attendance. I may be wrong but isn't This is about opinion.

 

[Moxie]

See you doing the same as El Dude. Is the grass court season only Wimbledon? I NEVER said that Wimbledon be counted less .. it's the other grass court tournament that may have less than 80 percent of the top ATP players in attendance. I may be wrong but isn't This is about opinion.

The numbers he's showing you are not about opinion. They're pretty fairly weighted. Go to the website that he links to. The grass court season isn't only Wimbledon, obviously, but it's not weighted more, nor less, than what it ought to be. I think you're confusing my editorial conversation with El Dude as to how clay is perceived, and how grass is, with the reality of his numbers. The numbers are fine, I think, but you can look at the analysis for yourself. The opinion part that we were talking about was how some folks undervalue clay in their personal estimation, and perhaps over-value grass, which is a different conversation.

 

[the AntiPusher]

I think Moxie briefly laid out the specifics.If 60 percent of the matches are on clay for example, a victory and title on the surface should carry Three times as much as on grass which really is a novelty.

Well...it's a opinion
. jajaja

 

[El Dude]

No no...I said 3 weeks of grass tennis should not carry the same level in your point system as clay does ..let's quote properly my friend

It isn't "my" point system. Or rather, I'm using the GP system and dividing matches on that surface by it. Think of GP like "hits" in baseball, and I'm converting them to "batting average." The point is to look at the relative quality of their performance by surface type (and not to wage a proxy Fedal War over how grass and clay should be weighed). I didn't weigh anything, just provided a bunch of lists about how dominant various players are on each court type.

 

[El Dude]

Meaning, GOAT Points are raw totals, while "GPM" is how they convert to a per-match basis. If a baseball player has 187 hits in a season, it tells you nothing about their batting average - which is the number of hits per at-bat. Quantitative vs. qualitative.

 

[El Dude]

Thanks for taking the time to re-explain this to me, and to explain how to play with it. I do remember when you invented a point system yourself, way back. It seems very thorough, and basically fair. As you say, it skews to longevity, but otherwise, if point assignments are even a bit subjective, I think it should wash across, at a cursory glance.

One of the things I like about it is that while it is subjective, the point values are mostly based on actual ATP points. I also like how comprehensive it is, especially with adding in the "achievements" portion.

Maybe we need a tennis history thread, as I don't want to clog this one up here with it, but my understanding, if you go all the way back to the handball version of tennis in the French monasteries and the 13th C., it was first played in the courtyards, so not originally indoors. (You KNEW I had to get that in. LOL.) The origins of clay are unclear, but, as you say, around 100+ years ago. When the grass got chewed up/died in the heat of summer, (maybe first in England or in France,) they gave up and threw clay on it all. Which is funny, given all of the complaining around here about Wimbledon "playing like clay" in the second week. Seems like, historically, they faced that reality and gave over to it. One thing I read also gave clay credit for internationalizing the sport, because it was able to be played in hotter climes. But "lawn tennis" does have pride of place. A few interesting tidbits.

Yeah, I've thought of that. I remember on one of the older versions of this site there was a historical players forum, but I think it lay fallow and most discussion about historical players just got folded into other topics.

 

[the AntiPusher]

It isn't "my" point system. Or rather, I'm using the GP system and dividing matches on that surface by it. Think of GP like "hits" in baseball, and I'm converting them to "batting average." The point is to look at the relative quality of their performance by surface type (and not to wage a proxy Fedal War over how grass and clay should be weighed). I didn't weigh anything, just provided a bunch of lists about how dominant various players are on each court type.

Noted and understood thanks Dude

 

[Kieran]

Alright, so I spent a bit of time working out GOAT Points per match played by surface. I only did the better players, so I might miss a specialist here or there, but here is how it looks:

GP/Match - OVERALL

1. Djokovic 0.82
2. Nadal 0.69
3. Federer 0.62
4. Borg 0.61
5. Laver 0.54
6. Sampras 0.53
7. McEnroe 0.48
8. Lendl 0.46
9. Becker 0.40
10. Connors 0.39
11. Agassi 0.36
12. Murray 0.35
13. Edberg 0.31
14. Wilander 0.31
15. Rosewall 0.30

GP/Match - CLAY

1. Nadal 0.791
2. Djokovic 0.535
3. Borg 0.505
4. Federer 0.380
5. Lendl 0.340
6. Laver 0.329
7. Connors 0.307
8. Wilander 0.306
9. Courier 0.306
10. Kuerten 0.305

GP/Match - GRASS

1. Borg 1.034
2. Djokovic 0.842
3. Federer 0.837
4. Sampras 0.835
5. Laver 0.830
6. McEnroe 0.645
7. Connors 0.605
8. Becker 0.596
9. Edberg 0.556
10. Ashe 0.550
11. Nadal 0.527
12. Murray 0.489

GP/Match - HARD

1. Djokovic 0.629
2. Federer 0.505
3. Sampras 0.433
4. Lendl 0.421
5. Laver 0.390
6. McEnroe 0.373
7. Nadal 0.371
8. Agassi 0.335
9. Becker 0.321
10. Murray 0.311

GP/Match - CARPET

1. Lendl 0.571
2. Becker 0.534
3. McEnroe 0.512
4. Sampras 0.505
5. Borg 0.473
6. Laver 0.466

COMMENTS
The interesting thing about this is that it aligns closer to collective impressions about players, which are generally based more on peak dominance than overall career numbers - which is why people tend to view players like McEnroe, Borg and Sampras as greater than, say, Jimmy Connors, despite Connors having more GP.

Overall: I was a bit surprised with how far ahead Novak is overall - that's quite a lead, and adds to his GOAT claim (sorry, non-GOATists . On a match-by-match basis, he's been significantly more dominant than everyone else. Note also that overall includes accomplishment points, which aren't tied to any specific surface - but it also shouldn't be taken as an average of the surfaces, as it adds in overall accomplishment points.

Rafa is a bit ahead of Roger, which is probably because such a large percentage of his matches have been on clay.

Clay: No surprises here, although with modifying it to per match, Novak and Borg are a bit closer to Rafa. Interesting to see Novak as #2. Roger also moves up to #4, which some might protest, but those are the numbers. And you can see that there's a big gap between 3 and 4.

Grass: On a match-by-match basis, Borg is the clear top grass player. Novak is a bit ahead of Roger, but that might change as Novak declines. Notice how closely Novak, Roger, Sampras, and Laver are - basically equally dominant.

Hard: Novak the clear #1, then Roger the clear #2.

Carpet: Just added this in, although I didn't do too many players.

You see, this system here makes it look like Novak is better than Bjorn on clay and Pete on grass.
Which isn’t the case…