Time to crown Novak the GOAT?

[the AntiPusher]

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…

Good catch my dear Irishman

 

[El Dude]

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…

Evidently you don't mind that it ranks Novak higher than Roger?

But seriously, I'd say you're missing something crucial about the usage of such stats. No single stat--including this one--means that one player is better than the other, especially when it is very close (we're talking 3% difference with Novak vs. Borg, and less than 1% with Novak vs Sampras). I think if more people understand the "Single Stat Fallacy," there'd be less resistance to looking at stats as what they really are meant to be: perspectives or angles, but not totalizing absolutes.

There is no equivalent in tennis to baseball's "WAR" (Wins Above Replacement"), which is meant to be all-inclusive stat that measures a player's value and has become mainstream over the last decade, and is even being considered to modify salaries. But baseball is easier to assess statistically, and has a long history of at least four decades of "advanced statistics," where statnerds tried to account for things like context, park factors, etc (e.g. Carl Yastrzemski's .301 Batting Average in 1968 led the league, whereas that would have been barely above average in the 1920s).

There is a small statistics movement in tennis, but it is probably 30-40 years behind baseball. Furthermore, due to the nature of the game, I don't think statistical analysis will ever be as accurate in assessing tennis players as it is baseball players. Similarly with sports like basketball or soccer, where a player's value is so related to their role as part of a team (in that regard, tennis is easier in that they're alone out there, but still has factors like match-up differences, changing historical contexts, etc, that complexify things).

Meaning, a lot of the dislike of statistics is actually due to mis-application and/or mis-understanding. For instance, taking this one metric as trying to be some kind of absolute valuation. More properly, imo, it should simply and only be used as another perspective to add to the mix - like any stat.

The other side of it is that the numbers sometimes reveal things that collective wisdom or personal impression (or memory) miss. Most of our opinions of older players are based on memory and/or reputation, as well as a tendency to over-value Slam titles, while ignoring everything else. Obviously Slam titles are important, and probably the most important single factor, but because they're so important, people tend to ignore other factors.

I mean, one obvious example would be comparing Ivan Lendl and Andre Agassi. Both had 8 Slams, but Ivan had a much fuller career, with a higher and longer peak. He was a greater player, and it isn't particularly close, which stats like GOAT Points pick up. Or Wilander vs. McEnroe, or Johan Kriek vs any number of players with 1 or 0 Slams.

But let's look at Borg vs. Novak, to see why this system brings Novak up higher than we might normally think.

Borg vs. Novak on Clay
Borg: 282-47 (85.7%), 32 titles overall, including 6 Slams and 6 Masters (166 GP)
Novak: 244-59 (80.5%), 17 titles overall, including 2 Slams and 10 Masters (162 GP)

Slam QF or better:
Borg: 6/0/0/1
Novak: 2/4/5/4

Borg also accumulated a lot of lesser clay titles, with "only" 12 of his 32 titles being big titles, while Novak also has 12 clay big titles, but out of 17 titles overall.

So my interpretation of Novak having a slightly higher GP/M is not that it means Novak was better on clay, but he's better than his mere 2 Slams tell us he is. I'd still rank Borg as a greater clay player overall and second best behind Rafa, but I don't think the gap is as large as 6 and 2 imply that it is - and that's where this system is quite useful.

It also accounts for the fact that Novak played alongside the most dominant single surface player in tennis history. Borg played some excellent clay players, but he didn't have anyone like Nadal to contend with.

As for Novak vs. Sampras, the situation is probably somewhat similar, especially in that Pete didn't really have any truly great grass players to contend with. Becker, certainly, but his prime was almost over when Pete won his first Wimbledon in 1993.

As with Borg on clay, I'd rank Pete higher on grass than Novak - at least unless Novak wins another two Wimbledons or so. But I think this accurately depicts them as very close, and maybe even roughly equal.

 

[Kieran]

It also accounts for the fact that Novak played alongside the most dominant single surface player in tennis history. Borg played some excellent clay players, but he didn't have anyone like Nadal to contend with.

Likewise, Rafa didn’t have anyone like Borg to contend with on

As for Novak vs. Sampras, the situation is probably somewhat similar, especially in that Pete didn't really have any truly great grass players to contend with. Becker, certainly, but his prime was almost over when Pete won his first Wimbledon in 1993.

Pete won on grass when grass courts played like grass courts. He faced many players who were great on grass, in fact, in those days there were players who didn’t play clay because it was too different to grass, and vice versa. Nowadays, Novak beats players who play baseline tennis on grass, which makes it handier for players like Novak.

I understand that today players don’t need to tailor their game to suit the surfaces, they largely play a one-size-fits-all game on all surfaces, but this is where the stats only give numbers but no context. I’m not denigrating them or your effort, but as you know I’m thoroughly unconvinced by this method. I believe it has its place and it definitely helps us collate the data, but it throws up anomalies too…

 

[El Dude]

Likewise, Rafa didn’t have anyone like Borg to contend with on

Just as I would have loved to see peak Pete vs. peak Roger on grass, so too would I have loved to see peak Borg--but modernized--vs. peak Rafa on clay. That latter one is a bit harder to imagine just because of the time gap, and the difference of tennis in the 70s vs the 21st century, so while I think we can at least speculate on Pete vs Roger (and we do have that one match to extrapolate from), Bjorn vs. Rafa is less approachable, but still pleasing to consider.

Pete won on grass when grass courts played like grass courts. He faced many players who were great on grass, in fact, in those days there were players who didn’t play clay because it was too different to grass, and vice versa. Nowadays, Novak beats players who play baseline tennis on grass, which makes it handier for players like Novak.

I understand that today players don’t need to tailor their game to suit the surfaces, they largely play a one-size-fits-all game on all surfaces, but this is where the stats only give numbers but no context. I’m not denigrating them or your effort, but as you know I’m thoroughly unconvinced by this method. I believe it has its place and it definitely helps us collate the data, but it throws up anomalies too…

Yes, agreed. In a way, it is similar to how baseball has become dominated by a certain approach that, while it has been shown to be statistically superior, has left a lot of juice behind. In the 80s, baseball was very diverse, with a wider range of player types, for instance far more slap-hitting speedy players. In today's game, speed has been de-emphasized and power dominated...but it makes for a less interesting game, imo -- or at least a less diverse game.

Similarly with tennis, where baselining dominates. The irony is that I think this is largely the result of the fast serve-and-volley game of the 90s, which was monotonous in its own way. So maybe (hopefully) tennis will evolve to a more diverse range of approaches, but I don't see that happening soon - or, at least, until the Big Three are long gone and retired.

Where I might diverge from you, though, is that players can only ever play in the actual context they find themselves in. So while we can say that Pete played on "real" grass, we cannot know how Novak's game would have adjusted in that era. If anything, one thing we know about Novak is that he has no real weaknesses and finds a way to beat everyone (and no, his smashes don't constitute a significant weakness, just a kind of curious smudge on his otherwise brilliant armor). Or, at least, I think it is easier to "translate players back" in time and see how they could have adjusted, vs. translating them forward, due to the nature of how the sport has changed. For instance, I think Ken Rosewall is one of the most under-appreciated ATGs and arguably deserves at least mention in the GOAT conversation, but it is hard to imagine him being more than a more consistent Lleyton Hewitt in today's era. It is easier to imagine bigger and more powerful guys like Pancho Gonzales, Jack Kramer, and maybe Lew Hoad excelling today than Rosewall or even Laver (though Laver was so talented, that I think he would have been great in any area, although adding a few inches would help!).

As far as statistics go, I think the uncomfortable truth--or at least uncomfortable to some fans of Roger and Rafa--is that the deeper you go into the stats, the more it becomes clear that Novak actually does have a valid case for GOATdom. I mean, sure, maybe this only means he's the "Stats GOAT"--as I thinks someone said in this thread--but that is still meaningful. And I can't help but wonder if some "stats resistance" has to do with this.

The point being that pretty much by any metric, whether it is just the raw data of results (wins and losses) or more interpretative statistics (e.g. GOAT points), Novak is coming out ahead every time.

As an aside, and at the risk of going on too long (again), as someone who came relatively late to serious tennis fandom--especially after having been a serious fan of baseball for decades before--I find tennis fandom to have a curious dynamic that is lacking in other sports. In baseball, for instance--as with most sports--people tend to like the team that they were impressed on as a child, which is usually the team most prominent in one's home area. Meaning, you generally don't choose who your favorite team is - rather, it chooses you, so to speak. And then, regardless of how good or bad your team is, you're a fan for life - through ups and downs, players arriving and then retiring. As a general rule, you're a fan of the team over individual players (even if we still all have our favorite players, usually the best players on your team).

Tennis is different, though, in that there are no teams, just players, and from all over the world. And people tend to like players regardless of where they're from. I mean, some people get attached to a player of the same nationality, but it isn't like Switzerland has the bulk of Federer fans. As with other sports, the choice of one's personal favorite usually isn't a choice - it is a subconscious process, and we just get attached to a player (I didn't choose to love Federer, he just "captured my heart"). I mean, if it is was conscious, I would have picked out my favorite Next Genner by now, but I still haven't settled on who "my next guy" is, though there is a list of candidates of guys I like, just no final sense of "this is my guy." Maybe it won't become clear until Roger is gone.

But what ends up happening, especially in the era of the Big Three, is that because our fandom being centered on a single player, and usually one of three who are so good--and close enough to each other, regardless of how you rank them--that the question of who is the "best" becomes more important. I mean, I've been a fans of the Angels baseball team for 40 years, most of which has been mediocre (they won the World Series only once, in 2002). And I do really want them to be good and win, but the cognitive process of realizing how good they are is less obfuscated as it is in tennis. Meaning, it is easier to see your baseball team objectively because the results are so clear, teams range so much in terms of how good they are. There's no temptation to rationalize and convince myself or others that they are better than they actually are.

And furthermore--and perhaps more so--baseball is centered on the single year, and the one event (the World Series) that crowns them "the best." After the season is over, the slate is wiped clean and hope springs eternal. No one cares who won the World Series last year: the current year is all that matters.

With tennis, we all tend to be biased towards our personal favorite--or, again, at least fans of one of the Big Three--and try to find ways to see them as "the best" or, if we can't do that, at least "no lesser than the other two." I see this all the time, to such an extent that it is a dominant feature of all conversations that touch upon the Big Three. And while individual tournaments and matches matter, the long-game is the career itself. With all three at 20 Slams, this is a particularly potent moment for comparing them.

I try to get around this bias by trying to be as objective as possible, although have been accused of being a secret fan of Rafa or Novak or over-compensating and under-valuing Roger in the process. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. But my main point is that this "subconscious bias" is far more prominent in tennis than in other sports, or at least team sports like baseball.

 

[Kieran]

Just as I would have loved to see peak Pete vs. peak Roger on grass, so too would I have loved to see peak Borg--but modernized--vs. peak Rafa on clay. That latter one is a bit harder to imagine just because of the time gap, and the difference of tennis in the 70s vs the 21st century, so while I think we can at least speculate on Pete vs Roger (and we do have that one match to extrapolate from), Bjorn vs. Rafa is less approachable, but still pleasing to consider.

Yes, agreed. In a way, it is similar to how baseball has become dominated by a certain approach that, while it has been shown to be statistically superior, has left a lot of juice behind. In the 80s, baseball was very diverse, with a wider range of player types, for instance far more slap-hitting speedy players. In today's game, speed has been de-emphasized and power dominated...but it makes for a less interesting game, imo -- or at least a less diverse game.

Similarly with tennis, where baselining dominates. The irony is that I think this is largely the result of the fast serve-and-volley game of the 90s, which was monotonous in its own way. So maybe (hopefully) tennis will evolve to a more diverse range of approaches, but I don't see that happening soon - or, at least, until the Big Three are long gone and retired.

Where I might diverge from you, though, is that players can only ever play in the actual context they find themselves in. So while we can say that Pete played on "real" grass, we cannot know how Novak's game would have adjusted in that era. If anything, one thing we know about Novak is that he has no real weaknesses and finds a way to beat everyone (and no, his smashes don't constitute a significant weakness, just a kind of curious smudge on his otherwise brilliant armor). Or, at least, I think it is easier to "translate players back" in time and see how they could have adjusted, vs. translating them forward, due to the nature of how the sport has changed. For instance, I think Ken Rosewall is one of the most under-appreciated ATGs and arguably deserves at least mention in the GOAT conversation, but it is hard to imagine him being more than a more consistent Lleyton Hewitt in today's era. It is easier to imagine bigger and more powerful guys like Pancho Gonzales, Jack Kramer, and maybe Lew Hoad excelling today than Rosewall or even Laver (though Laver was so talented, that I think he would have been great in any area, although adding a few inches would help!).

As far as statistics go, I think the uncomfortable truth--or at least uncomfortable to some fans of Roger and Rafa--is that the deeper you go into the stats, the more it becomes clear that Novak actually does have a valid case for GOATdom. I mean, sure, maybe this only means he's the "Stats GOAT"--as I thinks someone said in this thread--but that is still meaningful. And I can't help but wonder if some "stats resistance" has to do with this.

The point being that pretty much by any metric, whether it is just the raw data of results (wins and losses) or more interpretative statistics (e.g. GOAT points), Novak is coming out ahead every time.

As an aside, and at the risk of going on too long (again), as someone who came relatively late to serious tennis fandom--especially after having been a serious fan of baseball for decades before--I find tennis fandom to have a curious dynamic that is lacking in other sports. In baseball, for instance--as with most sports--people tend to like the team that they were impressed on as a child, which is usually the team most prominent in one's home area. Meaning, you generally don't choose who your favorite team is - rather, it chooses you, so to speak. And then, regardless of how good or bad your team is, you're a fan for life - through ups and downs, players arriving and then retiring. As a general rule, you're a fan of the team over individual players (even if we still all have our favorite players, usually the best players on your team).

Tennis is different, though, in that there are no teams, just players, and from all over the world. And people tend to like players regardless of where they're from. I mean, some people get attached to a player of the same nationality, but it isn't like Switzerland has the bulk of Federer fans. As with other sports, the choice of one's personal favorite usually isn't a choice - it is a subconscious process, and we just get attached to a player (I didn't choose to love Federer, he just "captured my heart"). I mean, if it is was conscious, I would have picked out my favorite Next Genner by now, but I still haven't settled on who "my next guy" is, though there is a list of candidates of guys I like, just no final sense of "this is my guy." Maybe it won't become clear until Roger is gone.

But what ends up happening, especially in the era of the Big Three, is that because our fandom being centered on a single player, and usually one of three who are so good--and close enough to each other, regardless of how you rank them--that the question of who is the "best" becomes more important. I mean, I've been a fans of the Angels baseball team for 40 years, most of which has been mediocre (they won the World Series only once, in 2002). And I do really want them to be good and win, but the cognitive process of realizing how good they are is less obfuscated as it is in tennis. Meaning, it is easier to see your baseball team objectively because the results are so clear, teams range so much in terms of how good they are. There's no temptation to rationalize and convince myself or others that they are better than they actually are.

And furthermore--and perhaps more so--baseball is centered on the single year, and the one event (the World Series) that crowns them "the best." After the season is over, the slate is wiped clean and hope springs eternal. No one cares who won the World Series last year: the current year is all that matters.

With tennis, we all tend to be biased towards our personal favorite--or, again, at least fans of one of the Big Three--and try to find ways to see them as "the best" or, if we can't do that, at least "no lesser than the other two." I see this all the time, to such an extent that it is a dominant feature of all conversations that touch upon the Big Three. And while individual tournaments and matches matter, the long-game is the career itself. With all three at 20 Slams, this is a particularly potent moment for comparing them.

I try to get around this bias by trying to be as objective as possible, although have been accused of being a secret fan of Rafa or Novak or over-compensating and under-valuing Roger in the process. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. But my main point is that this "subconscious bias" is far more prominent in tennis than in other sports, or at least team sports like baseball.

No, I think I’m more a stats sceptic than stats resistant. I’ve been obsessed with tennis for over 40 years, and I know that although the game changes, we can’t alter the integrity of greatness on clay as established by Borg by reading stats that place Novak on a similar level. Or Roger. Likewise, I wouldn’t have Borg on top for grass, because in his time he didn’t face a peak grass court specialist into McEnroe became truly completed in 1981.

But this doesn’t take away from Borg’s incredible achievement on grass - made even greater when we factor in that his five in a row included 3 channel slams, one of the most difficult challenges in the sport.

Interestingly, I was thinking recently about the way football fans support a team for life, through good and bad, changing personnel and fortunes, but tennis fans are like that fly that lives only for one sunny day, then dies. We don’t die, but we have to find a new player to champion. That can take time.

And although it’s true, most fans of team sports follow their local team, tennis fans pick their favourite based on a different criteria, which maybe that they choose a player who reflects something aesthetical, or has attributes that ring a bell of sympathy. It’s hard to know why we prefer the players we prefer, but I’d say generally if we’re go back through our Player Family Tree we see certain attributes that are common.

But since I don’t believe that there’s GOAT I don’t push any of them forward as a candidate with any more enthusiasm than I have for anyone else. I think there are differences in careers, and different opportunities, and many great stories, such as Bjorn, The Angelic Assassin, walking away aged 25, never to grow old on court, always maintaining his mystique. Even for this alone, he’s a tennis god like no other..

 

[El Dude]

No, I think I’m more a stats sceptic than stats resistant. I’ve been obsessed with tennis for over 40 years, and I know that although the game changes, we can’t alter the integrity of greatness on clay as established by Borg by reading stats that place Novak on a similar level. Or Roger. Likewise, I wouldn’t have Borg on top for grass, because in his time he didn’t face a peak grass court specialist into McEnroe became truly completed in 1981.

But this doesn’t take away from Borg’s incredible achievement on grass - made even greater when we factor in that his five in a row included 3 channel slams, one of the most difficult challenges in the sport.

Interestingly, I was thinking recently about the way football fans support a team for life, through good and bad, changing personnel and fortunes, but tennis fans are like that fly that lives only for one sunny day, then dies. We don’t die, but we have to find a new player to champion. That can take time.

And although it’s true, most fans of team sports follow their local team, tennis fans pick their favourite based on a different criteria, which maybe that they choose a player who reflects something aesthetical, or has attributes that ring a bell of sympathy. It’s hard to know why we prefer the players we prefer, but I’d say generally if we’re go back through our Player Family Tree we see certain attributes that are common.

But since I don’t believe that there’s GOAT I don’t push any of them forward as a candidate with any more enthusiasm than I have for anyone else. I think there are differences in careers, and different opportunities, and many great stories, such as Bjorn, The Angelic Assassin, walking away aged 25, never to grow old on court, always maintaining his mystique. Even for this alone, he’s a tennis god like no other..

So you're not an anti-statser? Haha.

My one caveat about Borg has to do with McEnroe. I was just a wee lad back then (though my first tennis memory was one of their matches - my guess is one of the 1981 Slams). But looking at the record, Mac had taken the lead through 1981 - winning all three (and their final three) matches.

We don't know whether or not Borg would have been to re-balance things. I think the most probably case is that he would have - to an extent, but at most a 50-50 affair, or a slight edge to Mac, who seemed to have his number like no other player.

There's also the invitationals and exhibitions, which Borg was able to hold his own in, even in 1981 and after. I know they're not "official" matches, but I imagine neither held back when playing each other.

I was actually surprised to find that Borg won their last invitational, in 1983.

But yeah, one of the great tennis tragedies is that not only did we not get to see Borg's second act, but we didn't really get to see his rivalry with McEnroe play out. But I also like the historical symmetry that they ended up 7-7 against each other in official matches.

But my point is that I think some of that Borg mystique would have dissolved if he hadn't retired, if only because he had (finally) met his match, and maybe even then some. I also think that Lendl would have become a problem for Bjorn. Ivan was only just hitting his stride when Bjorn retired. I still think Borg would have won more Slams, but maybe not as much as "11 through age 25" implies - maybe 2-3 more, but probably not much more than that.

On other matters, I really think "choosing" a favorite is a sub-conscious process that is largely out of our conscious intention. I suppose we could force ourselves to like a certain player and then, maybe over time, grow to love them - sort of like an arranged marriage. But I think if I had to have chosen a favorite, it might have been Novak. First of all, I like underdogs - and a talented young player rising during the peak of Fedalian hegemony would normally be my cup of tea. Similarly with Rafa, and I greatly admire his fighting spirit, even if it has led to many painful moments for me, as a Roger fan. Also, I like fringe ideas, so there's a natural resonance with Novak. Similarly, I dislike Rolex and everything it represents--a kind of facile luxury and elitist, economic upper-class. But I bonded with Roger.

 

[Kieran]

So you're not an anti-statser? Haha.

No!

On other matters, I really think "choosing" a favorite is a sub-conscious process that is largely out of our conscious intention. I suppose we could force ourselves to like a certain player and then, maybe over time, grow to love them - sort of like an arranged marriage. But I think if I had to have chosen a favorite, it might have been Novak. First of all, I like underdogs - and a talented young player rising during the peak of Fedalian hegemony would normally be my cup of tea. Similarly with Rafa, and I greatly admire his fighting spirit, even if it has led to many painful moments for me, as a Roger fan. Also, I like fringe ideas, so there's a natural resonance with Novak. Similarly, I dislike Rolex and everything it represents--a kind of facile luxury and elitist, economic upper-class. But I bonded with Roger.

I thought Roger would be my next hunky date after Pete abandoned me, but I quickly sussed him as a narcissist who’d lick himself to death if he was made of chocolate, whereas I always liked players who played without vanity, alpha gentlemen players like Bjorn, Pete and Rafa. Roger looked a bit like the next Pete stylistically, physically even, but then he played less from the forecourt than Pete, whereas I always loved how Pete asserted his authority from the net. It’s more risky and difficult, but he made it look easy.

McEnroe definitely had Bjorn’s number, and was beating him easier as 1981 progressed. I think Borg saw his dream of a calendar year slam go up in smoke, and I don’t think he wanted to commit himself even further the next year, given how physically demanding the sport was for him. The authorities also wouldn’t let him play fewer events so he flipped the bird. As you know, that wasn’t the end, but in real terms it was. He beat McEnroe and Connor’s in big money exhibitions in 1982, which are on YouTube and can’t be completely dismissed given the money that was at stake, and the level he played at, but I don’t think he wanted to continue the grind.

I think had he the desire to continue, he could have won maybe 2 more French - 82 and 83 - and he might have traveled to Australia and picked up one or two there. I wouldn’t write him off taking a US Open, or even two, he was often unlucky there, but the stars might have aligned for him, like they did for Roger in 2009 in Paris - if only Borg had the same desire to play as Roger does. I wonder if he regrets that now.

I don’t consider his comeback matches in 1983 and 1991 as having any effect on his angelic aura. There’s something touching about his comeback in 1991, armed with a wooden racket. He must have seemed like a figure from the ancient world to the newer
players..

 

[shawnbm]

Brother Kieran I found of the Swedish maestro and for good reason. There’s always a problem with people getting locked into “recentcy” and talking about things now being “it” and all else. To me it is quite clear, in terms of the modern tennis era, Bjorn Borg is the single most important and influential tennis player of the last 50 years. Like a rock star he was. You can like it or dislike it, but he is the one, like Arnold Palmer is to golf. So, all need to try and measure up to he who did not fade away, but burnt out brightly at the top. We will never know.

 

[Moxie]

Just as I would have loved to see peak Pete vs. peak Roger on grass, so too would I have loved to see peak Borg--but modernized--vs. peak Rafa on clay. That latter one is a bit harder to imagine just because of the time gap, and the difference of tennis in the 70s vs the 21st century, so while I think we can at least speculate on Pete vs Roger (and we do have that one match to extrapolate from), Bjorn vs. Rafa is less approachable, but still pleasing to consider.

Both of those fantasy match-ups are mouth-watering to think about. It's hard to imagine one dominating the other in either scenario, IMO. What about Borg v. Pete or Roger on grass

Where I might diverge from you, though, is that players can only ever play in the actual context they find themselves in. So while we can say that Pete played on "real" grass, we cannot know how Novak's game would have adjusted in that era. If anything, one thing we know about Novak is that he has no real weaknesses and finds a way to beat everyone (and no, his smashes don't constitute a significant weakness, just a kind of curious smudge on his otherwise brilliant armor). Or, at least, I think it is easier to "translate players back" in time and see how they could have adjusted, vs. translating them forward, due to the nature of how the sport has changed. For instance, I think Ken Rosewall is one of the most under-appreciated ATGs and arguably deserves at least mention in the GOAT conversation, but it is hard to imagine him being more than a more consistent Lleyton Hewitt in today's era. It is easier to imagine bigger and more powerful guys like Pancho Gonzales, Jack Kramer, and maybe Lew Hoad excelling today than Rosewall or even Laver (though Laver was so talented, that I think he would have been great in any area, although adding a few inches would help!).

I'm not sure why it's easier to "translate back" than "translate forward," though you make some interesting points about the old guys. I do think that you have to give any ATG the benefit of the doubt for adapting to what is given, at least to some extent. Because of the x-factors that also made them great, like tennis IQ, quickness, athleticism, and will-to-win, etc. They would have developed their games from young to suit the game that was in front of them.

As far as statistics go, I think the uncomfortable truth--or at least uncomfortable to some fans of Roger and Rafa--is that the deeper you go into the stats, the more it becomes clear that Novak actually does have a valid case for GOATdom. I mean, sure, maybe this only means he's the "Stats GOAT"--as I thinks someone said in this thread--but that is still meaningful. And I can't help but wonder if some "stats resistance" has to do with this.

The point being that pretty much by any metric, whether it is just the raw data of results (wins and losses) or more interpretative statistics (e.g. GOAT points), Novak is coming out ahead every time.

Maybe you're right that some stats-resistance is in part to Novak doing so well in them, and there being such legions of Roger and Rafa fans. But I'm with Kieran in that it does lack something in terms of context.

With tennis, we all tend to be biased towards our personal favorite--or, again, at least fans of one of the Big Three--and try to find ways to see them as "the best" or, if we can't do that, at least "no lesser than the other two." I see this all the time, to such an extent that it is a dominant feature of all conversations that touch upon the Big Three. And while individual tournaments and matches matter, the long-game is the career itself. With all three at 20 Slams, this is a particularly potent moment for comparing them.

I try to get around this bias by trying to be as objective as possible, although have been accused of being a secret fan of Rafa or Novak or over-compensating and under-valuing Roger in the process. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. But my main point is that this "subconscious bias" is far more prominent in tennis than in other sports, or at least team sports like baseball.

You do try to be objective, to your credit. And you do seem to understand that the numbers version does need to be filled out with a prose version, which you do offer, upon request.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Evidently you don't mind that it ranks Novak higher than Roger?

But seriously, I'd say you're missing something crucial about the usage of such stats. No single stat--including this one--means that one player is better than the other, especially when it is very close (we're talking 3% difference with Novak vs. Borg, and less than 1% with Novak vs Sampras). I think if more people understand the "Single Stat Fallacy," there'd be less resistance to looking at stats as what they really are meant to be: perspectives or angles, but not totalizing absolutes.

There is no equivalent in tennis to baseball's "WAR" (Wins Above Replacement"), which is meant to be all-inclusive stat that measures a player's value and has become mainstream over the last decade, and is even being considered to modify salaries. But baseball is easier to assess statistically, and has a long history of at least four decades of "advanced statistics," where statnerds tried to account for things like context, park factors, etc (e.g. Carl Yastrzemski's .301 Batting Average in 1968 led the league, whereas that would have been barely above average in the 1920s).

There is a small statistics movement in tennis, but it is probably 30-40 years behind baseball. Furthermore, due to the nature of the game, I don't think statistical analysis will ever be as accurate in assessing tennis players as it is baseball players. Similarly with sports like basketball or soccer, where a player's value is so related to their role as part of a team (in that regard, tennis is easier in that they're alone out there, but still has factors like match-up differences, changing historical contexts, etc, that complexify things).

Meaning, a lot of the dislike of statistics is actually due to mis-application and/or mis-understanding. For instance, taking this one metric as trying to be some kind of absolute valuation. More properly, imo, it should simply and only be used as another perspective to add to the mix - like any stat.

The other side of it is that the numbers sometimes reveal things that collective wisdom or personal impression (or memory) miss. Most of our opinions of older players are based on memory and/or reputation, as well as a tendency to over-value Slam titles, while ignoring everything else. Obviously Slam titles are important, and probably the most important single factor, but because they're so important, people tend to ignore other factors.

I mean, one obvious example would be comparing Ivan Lendl and Andre Agassi. Both had 8 Slams, but Ivan had a much fuller career, with a higher and longer peak. He was a greater player, and it isn't particularly close, which stats like GOAT Points pick up. Or Wilander vs. McEnroe, or Johan Kriek vs any number of players with 1 or 0 Slams.

But let's look at Borg vs. Novak, to see why this system brings Novak up higher than we might normally think.

Borg vs. Novak on Clay
Borg: 282-47 (85.7%), 32 titles overall, including 6 Slams and 6 Masters (166 GP)
Novak: 244-59 (80.5%), 17 titles overall, including 2 Slams and 10 Masters (162 GP)

Slam QF or better:
Borg: 6/0/0/1
Novak: 2/4/5/4

Borg also accumulated a lot of lesser clay titles, with "only" 12 of his 32 titles being big titles, while Novak also has 12 clay big titles, but out of 17 titles overall.

So my interpretation of Novak having a slightly higher GP/M is not that it means Novak was better on clay, but he's better than his mere 2 Slams tell us he is. I'd still rank Borg as a greater clay player overall and second best behind Rafa, but I don't think the gap is as large as 6 and 2 imply that it is - and that's where this system is quite useful.

It also accounts for the fact that Novak played alongside the most dominant single surface player in tennis history. Borg played some excellent clay players, but he didn't have anyone like Nadal to contend with.

As for Novak vs. Sampras, the situation is probably somewhat similar, especially in that Pete didn't really have any truly great grass players to contend with. Becker, certainly, but his prime was almost over when Pete won his first Wimbledon in 1993.

As with Borg on clay, I'd rank Pete higher on grass than Novak - at least unless Novak wins another two Wimbledons or so. But I think this accurately depicts them as very close, and maybe even roughly equal.

I guess Novak's numbers on grass the past 7 years has been pretty good.

 

[Moxie]

I guess Novak's numbers on grass the past 7 years has been pretty good.

With a little help.

 

[Fiero425]

I guess Novak's numbers on grass the past 7 years has been pretty good.

I guess so if he has a chance to surpass Federer and Sampras! I'm still SMH how favored he killed it at Wimbledon with little stress in '21!

 

[Kieran]

I guess so if he has a chance to surpass Federer and Sampras! I'm still SMH how favored he killed it at Wimbledon with little stress in '21!

Who could have caused him stress?

 

[El Dude]

Both of those fantasy match-ups are mouth-watering to think about. It's hard to imagine one dominating the other in either scenario, IMO. What about Borg v. Pete or Roger on grass

I'm not sure why it's easier to "translate back" than "translate forward," though you make some interesting points about the old guys. I do think that you have to give any ATG the benefit of the doubt for adapting to what is given, at least to some extent. Because of the x-factors that also made them great, like tennis IQ, quickness, athleticism, and will-to-win, etc. They would have developed their games from young to suit the game that was in front of them.

Yes, agreed. I just meant that the game continues to evolve, and Novak (for example) has 40 more years of developments than Borg did.

Maybe you're right that some stats-resistance is in part to Novak doing so well in them, and there being such legions of Roger and Rafa fans. But I'm with Kieran in that it does lack something in terms of context.

You do try to be objective, to your credit. And you do seem to understand that the numbers version does need to be filled out with a prose version, which you do offer, upon request.

Yes, of course! To some degree, I'm a bit contrarian, and partially trying bring a bit of balance to all of our subjective narratives. In a different context I would take the opposite approach. Meaning, if I felt that people were overly fixated on stats (or the contextual equivalent), I might advocate for more poetry, so to speak.

 

[monfed]

Time to crown fakervic as the GOAT vulture.

 

[monfed]

I guess so if he has a chance to surpass Federer and Sampras! I'm still SMH how favored he killed it at Wimbledon with little stress in '21!

I think you shouldn't talk about stress after fluking Wim 19, fakerturd!

The arrogant and selfish fakerturds got more than their wildest dreams so they shouldn't talk about stress. This boring talentless pusher shouldn't have been anywhere near 20 slams.

 

[britbox]

"Had the strings" might be more accurate than "Had the game"... How do you reckon modern day players would have gone with a wooden frame and natural gut on uneven courts like Kooyong? A little less predictable?

 

[monfed]

"Had the strings" might be more accurate than "Had the game"... How do you reckon modern day players would have gone with a wooden frame and natural gut on uneven courts like Kooyong? A little less predictable?

Hey britbox! Long time no see. How are you? Hope all's well at your end.

 

[Fiero425]

"Had the strings" might be more accurate than "Had the game"... How do you reckon modern day players would have gone with a wooden frame and natural gut on uneven courts like Kooyong? A little less predictable?

Even Martina Navratilova couldn't master those conditions "down under" dropping a few finals; crappy courts, windy, and bug infested!

 

[monfed]

Medvedev made fakervic his permanent mistress after beating him like a cheap whore at USO 21. Faker will never be able to erase that stain from his life.