Time to crown Novak the GOAT?

[GameSetAndMath]

It has not only rarity, but greater historical significance. But I get the point about consistency of competition. Still, given your relatively low opinion of the Olympic Games, I still don't see why you're pushing so hard for Roger to go this year. Bonus points?

I knew when you were pestering me in the Fed fans thread itself that you were thinking that I was jealous of Ralph having Gold and so am pushing Roger to play Olympics. That is not really the case. Roger has so little match practice and he needs to become match fit before USO in order to even have some chance there. He can use Olympics as practice for USO considering it is being played in hard courts.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

And how do you presume to know this? I ask you the same as I've asked Front and GSM on this thread who also purport to know what players think, feel and value. You're all projecting on players what you, yourselves, think. Or value. You cannot pretend to know that. However, we do know that the Olympic Gold is ranked lower than a Major, and it was awarded points less than a YEC, by half, when they did give points. Your position that it is the equivalent of the YEC is weak. My argument is that it is greater than a MS 1000.

Please show me quotes where Djokovic or Federer are comparing the YEC to slams? Djokovic even called the Olympics the fifth slam. I’ll be waiting. And again for the ranking points the ATP has already explained that they can’t give it too many points because players can’t defend it the next year so it will ruin rankings.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

Here’s Murray even saying that the Olympics are bigger than slams. I’ll be waiting for someone saying that the WTF is bigger than slams. Lol That was before he won the Olympics or a slam.

'Desperate' Murray says Olympic gold much bigger than maiden Grand Slam

London, Apr 11(ANI): Ace tennis star Andy Murray has said winning the gold medal at the London Olympics this year is at the top of his priority list, as he believes an Olympic gold is a much bigger achievement than winning his maiden Grand Slam.

www.yahoo.com

 

[Moxie]

I knew when you were pestering me in the Fed fans thread itself that you were thinking that I was jealous of Ralph having Gold and so am pushing Roger to play Olympics. That is not really the case. Roger has so little match practice and he needs to become match fit before USO in order to even have some chance there. He can use Olympics as practice for USO considering it is being played in hard courts.

Ok, at least now you finally explain it. I wasn't meaning to "pester" you, but it did seem out of left-field to me. And frankly, it still does. Depending on how deep Roger goes into Wimbledon, (or if he wins it, obviously,) I think it's a lot to go all the way to Tokyo for a bit of match play, given what is on offer, post-Wimbledon, in Europe and North America. But sure, you keep telling me it wasn't about the Olympics. Someday I might even believe it.

 

[Moxie]

Please show me quotes where Djokovic or Federer are comparing the YEC to slams? Djokovic even called the Olympics the fifth slam. I’ll be waiting. And again for the ranking points the ATP has already explained that they can’t give it too many points because players can’t defend it the next year so it will ruin rankings.

This is a pallid defense. And full of calculated deflection. No one needs to compare the YEC to Slams because the difference is clear. What you have been trading on is the emotional relationship of athletes to the Olympics. As I have said to those posters who try to say that the top guys only "pretend" to care, (which I think is wrong,) you're cherry-picking their attitude towards the Olympics, which IS emotional, and I do think worth considering, to make it into something more important than it is, in the context of tennis and tennis history. I think we can divide these things in two.

For players who have played in the era when Olympic tennis was an option, they all prized that as a thing to do, and a thing to win. I actually don't think that's controversial.

However, tennis hasn't always been an Olympic sport, so its history in the game is a bit here and there. This is the main reason why its importance to the sport is lesser. If it HAD always been an Olympic sport, than it would matter more who had won medals and who hadn't. IMO.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

This is a pallid defense. And full of calculated deflection. No one needs to compare the YEC to Slams because the difference is clear. What you have been trading on is the emotional relationship of athletes to the Olympics. As I have said to those posters who try to say that the top guys only "pretend" to care, (which I think is wrong,) you're cherry-picking their attitude towards the Olympics, which IS emotional, and I do think worth considering, to make it into something more important than it is, in the context of tennis and tennis history. I think we can divide these things in two.

For players who have played in the era when Olympic tennis was an option, they all prized that as a thing to do, and a thing to win. I actually don't think that's controversial.

However, tennis hasn't always been an Olympic sport, so its history in the game is a bit here and there. This is the main reason why its importance to the sport is lesser. If it HAD always been an Olympic sport, than it would matter more who had won medals and who hadn't. IMO.

You are changing the subject. This thread is about Nadal Federer and Djokovic and in their era the Olympics was up there in importance, a HUGE deal. You starting to talk about past Tennis history means that you would also argue that the Australian open is meaningless compared to the other 3 slams due to its shorter history and how for most years players were skipping it. But that wouldn’t change the fact that when it comes to comparing Nadal Federer and Djokovic the Australian open is as big as the other slams and that the Olympics is huge. Of course if we want to compare the big 3 to players from the past like Borg then arguments about the AO’s and Olympics’ lack of importance or historical value would be valid. But not today in the Big 3 era.

 

[El Dude]

I agree with you that this poster continues to overstate the importance of the Olympic singles gold. I don't agree with those who would completely dismiss it, (not saying you.) I think it confers "bonus points," as do other things. (Thread topic?)

I agree, and see it similarly - I think I said "extracurricular" above. I suppose we'd have to consider Davis Cup, too, although considering that's a group event, it is hard to know how to consider it. But bonus points, indeed.

As to your last, you do know the answer to that, to some extent. But I looked it up, so I can help:

Yeah, I know. And to be fair to Rafa, I think the fact that he--like Novak and Roger--has won all four Slams on three surfaces is more important than lacking a WTF, but I also appreciate your attempt at objectivity (and we only ever attempt it) about the WTF. And to be clear, even if the lack of a WTF is a sizable hole in his resume, it doesn't exclude him from the "Herd of GOATs." He's in the club.

As a side note, I only casually followed tennis during the 90s and early 00s, so don't remember this, but I wonder how much of a mark on Pete it was considered that he didn't win at Roland Garros? If I remember correctly, after Laver's epic 1969, Agassi was the only guy to win all four Slams until Roger, Rafa, and Novak came along, so it wasn't as much of a "must have" on an inner circle great's resume.

My point being, the Holy Trinity have re-written the history books. I know that's obvious, but 20 years ago the whole idea of a "tennis great" was very different. Before Roger came along, Sampras was considered by many to be the greatest player of the Open Era, despite the "flawed" resume (his relative weakness on clay). The only guy who some considered on par with Pete was Borg, and he had his own flaw: his shortened career (not to mention, his lack of a USO).

Roger set a new standard, and then Rafa and Novak joined him. Going forward, the whole notion of greatness is just different than it was before these three. While no one will ever not consider guys like Becker and Edberg--not to mention Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Borg, etc--to be all-time greats, the Holy Trinity have created a new "inner circle great" club, of which probably only Rod Laver could be considered a predecessor.

My point being, while the criteria for "all-time great" remains the same--something like six+ Slams and time at #1--the Big Three have created a new category of "inner circle greatness," and I think only Laver could be considered to be in that club, at least in the Open Era.

If we're a bit more liberal about it, we could look at the "Herd of GOATs" as being those player who--at the time they played--were considered at least a candidate for being the Greatest of All Time (Thus Far, to address @nehmeth 's unnecessary literalism). So then we have, starting with the beginning of the Open Era, six players: Laver, Borg, Sampras, Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic. I don't think anyone else really qualifies, with everyone else not quite reaching that "possibly the GOAT thus far" status (e.g. McEnroe looked like he was going in that direction in 1984, but then collapsed).

Meaning, this latter approach accounts for the changing nature of the tour, as it seems unfair to judge previous eras by today's new standards. As far as I know (and maybe someone like @Fiero425 can give more input), no one talked about the need to win all four Slams. I mean, I don't think Borg had that as a top priority, maybe not even Sampras. But now, with the resumes of the Holy Trinity, that seems to be a requisite going forward.

 

[Fiero425]

I agree, and see it similarly - I think I said "extracurricular" above. I suppose we'd have to consider Davis Cup, too, although considering that's a group event, it is hard to know how to consider it. But bonus points, indeed.

Yeah, I know. And to be fair to Rafa, I think the fact that he--like Novak and Roger--has won all four Slams on three surfaces is more important than lacking a WTF, but I also appreciate your attempt at objectivity (and we only ever attempt it) about the WTF. And to be clear, even if the lack of a WTF is a sizable hole in his resume, it doesn't exclude him from the "Herd of GOATs." He's in the club.

As a side note, I only casually followed tennis during the 90s and early 00s, so don't remember this, but I wonder how much of a mark on Pete it was considered that he didn't win at Roland Garros? If I remember correctly, after Laver's epic 1969, Agassi was the only guy to win all four Slams until Roger, Rafa, and Novak came along, so it wasn't as much of a "must have" on an inner circle great's resume.

My point being, the Holy Trinity have re-written the history books. I know that's obvious, but 20 years ago the whole idea of a "tennis great" was very different. Before Roger came along, Sampras was considered by many to be the greatest player of the Open Era, despite the "flawed" resume (his relative weakness on clay). The only guy who some considered on par with Pete was Borg, and he had his own flaw: his shortened career (not to mention, his lack of a USO).

Roger set a new standard, and then Rafa and Novak joined him. Going forward, the whole notion of greatness is just different than it was before these three. While no one will ever not consider guys like Becker and Edberg--not to mention Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Borg, etc--to be all-time greats, the Holy Trinity have created a new "inner circle great" club, of which probably only Rod Laver could be considered a predecessor.

My point being, while the criteria for "all-time great" remains the same--something like six+ Slams and time at #1--the Big Three have created a new category of "inner circle greatness," and I think only Laver could be considered to be in that club, at least in the Open Era.

If we're a bit more liberal about it, we could look at the "Herd of GOATs" as being those player who--at the time they played--were considered at least a candidate for being the Greatest of All Time (Thus Far, to address @nehmeth 's unnecessary literalism). So then we have, starting with the beginning of the Open Era, six players: Laver, Borg, Sampras, Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic. I don't think anyone else really qualifies, with everyone else not quite reaching that "possibly the GOAT thus far" status (e.g. McEnroe looked like he was going in that direction in 1984, but then collapsed).

Meaning, this latter approach accounts for the changing nature of the tour, as it seems unfair to judge previous eras by today's new standards. As far as I know (and maybe someone like @Fiero425 can give more input), no one talked about the need to win all four Slams. I mean, I don't think Borg had that as a top priority, maybe not even Sampras. But now, with the resumes of the Holy Trinity, that seems to be a requisite going forward.

Even winning majors was discounted back "in the day!" Due to such poor revenue from normal tournaments, you were likely to get more credit for winning high end exhibition events! Back in the 70's only the USO and Wimbledon were counted when it came to being #1; men and women! The FO was glorified by Europeans and South Americans only! It was "their major" with Borg giving it more respectability by winning again and again like Nadal today! The AO was just an "after thought" with 2nd tier stars going "down under!" Vilas won a couple times, but it wasn't even acknowledged as much of anything! Lendl, Wilander, Edberg, Navratilova, & Evert made Aussie Open more important by the 80's! Before the 90's, I'm pretty sure there was no race to have a consecutive record of attending major events in a row! Martina almost made winning all the majors something special, but lost in the AO SF to Sukova 2 matches from completing her own CYGS after winning 6 in a row over 2 years! Graf winning The GCYGS in '88 made it "the thing" now to win as many majors as you can! Agassi winning all 4 events created a "media moniker" of CGS after winning FO! We were ready to give Sampras a pass and make him the GOAT even without a FO crown! That's unthinkable now and his actual rating seems to be going down with the Big 3 doing their thing and Rod Laver actually owning 2 CYGS's; 1 Am./1 Pro! What was the question again?

 

[Moxie]

I agree, and see it similarly - I think I said "extracurricular" above. I suppose we'd have to consider Davis Cup, too, although considering that's a group event, it is hard to know how to consider it. But bonus points, indeed.

Yeah, I know. And to be fair to Rafa, I think the fact that he--like Novak and Roger--has won all four Slams on three surfaces is more important than lacking a WTF, but I also appreciate your attempt at objectivity (and we only ever attempt it) about the WTF. And to be clear, even if the lack of a WTF is a sizable hole in his resume, it doesn't exclude him from the "Herd of GOATs." He's in the club.

Thanks for hearing my side. Yes, Rafa is in the Herd of GOATS right now, and that's not even needing your concession. Let's face it: the difference between a whole herd of Djokovic fans coming back, and even you creating a thread as to whether it was time to crown Novak as the goat was one match. We're still in the fine points, here.

As a side note, I only casually followed tennis during the 90s and early 00s, so don't remember this, but I wonder how much of a mark on Pete it was considered that he didn't win at Roland Garros? If I remember correctly, after Laver's epic 1969, Agassi was the only guy to win all four Slams until Roger, Rafa, and Novak came along, so it wasn't as much of a "must have" on an inner circle great's resume.

Remember that the CYGS has always been a thing, and they all did pay attention to that. So it's not like they ignored Oz or whatever. But no one got close. Remember that it was Connors who said that if Borg won the USO, he'd go to Australia to block him. (When the AO was played at the end of the year.) But they were aware of these things. Remember, also, that the great Bjorn Borg never won a Major on HCs. And it wasn't without consideration, even at the time, that Sampras couldn't win the French. But, yes, "The Holy Trinity," have moved the bar so far as to be unrecognizable from even 2 decades ago.

My point being, the Holy Trinity have re-written the history books. I know that's obvious, but 20 years ago the whole idea of a "tennis great" was very different. Before Roger came along, Sampras was considered by many to be the greatest player of the Open Era, despite the "flawed" resume (his relative weakness on clay). The only guy who some considered on par with Pete was Borg, and he had his own flaw: his shortened career (not to mention, his lack of a USO).

Roger set a new standard, and then Rafa and Novak joined him. Going forward, the whole notion of greatness is just different than it was before these three. While no one will ever not consider guys like Becker and Edberg--not to mention Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Borg, etc--to be all-time greats, the Holy Trinity have created a new "inner circle great" club, of which probably only Rod Laver could be considered a predecessor.

My point being, while the criteria for "all-time great" remains the same--something like six+ Slams and time at #1--the Big Three have created a new category of "inner circle greatness," and I think only Laver could be considered to be in that club, at least in the Open Era.

I agree with this. The general watermark for ATG and HOF is rather easier than the rules engagement, right now. It's up in the stratosphere, and I do think it will come back to something more reasonable after this era.

If we're a bit more liberal about it, we could look at the "Herd of GOATs" as being those player who--at the time they played--were considered at least a candidate for being the Greatest of All Time (Thus Far, to address @nehmeth 's unnecessary literalism). So then we have, starting with the beginning of the Open Era, six players: Laver, Borg, Sampras, Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic. I don't think anyone else really qualifies, with everyone else not quite reaching that "possibly the GOAT thus far" status (e.g. McEnroe looked like he was going in that direction in 1984, but then collapsed).

Meaning, this latter approach accounts for the changing nature of the tour, as it seems unfair to judge previous eras by today's new standards. As far as I know (and maybe someone like @Fiero425 can give more input), no one talked about the need to win all four Slams. I mean, I don't think Borg had that as a top priority, maybe not even Sampras. But now, with the resumes of the Holy Trinity, that seems to be a requisite going forward.

I think you narrow it down too far. There are too many eras. There is a reason that Laver gets mentioned all the time. Because he won it all, across eras, and because he was a fucking great tennis player. Same with Borg...you could make the argument that he retired too early. And he never even won a HC Major. Why do we love him, and prize him? Because he was a great tennis player. I know what you're saying about the bar set by the current Big 3, and that's a tough one. 20+ Majors. All 3 surfaces. Career Slam as minimum requirement for entry to the club. It is really hard to imagine the next player to get there. But maybe, and hopefully, we will prize, is great tennis players. Do they all have to be super-heroes? I hope not.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

If you want to talk about multiheaded GOAT or herd of GOATS, it need to made up of only GOTEs. Rafa is clearly not a GOTE in the first place (of course we have to wait until they finish their careers to definitively declare - but it is at least trending in that direction); then how can his head be one of the mutliheaded ones.

This concept of "all time great" referring to someone with 6+ slams is a huge misnomer. Sure they deserve some recognition, but not by that moniker. Perhaps something like "honorable champions" or "true hall of famers" (as opposed to the current "tennis hall of famer" which they give it to almost anyone with a slam).

 

[Moxie]

If you want to talk about multiheaded GOAT or herd of GOATS, it need to made up of only GOTEs. Rafa is clearly not a GOTE in the first place (of course we have to wait until they finish their careers to definitively declare - but it is at least trending in that direction); then how can his head be one of the mutliheaded ones.

This concept of "all time great" referring to someone with 6+ slams is a huge misnomer. Sure they deserve some recognition, but not by that moniker. Perhaps something like "honorable champions" or "true hall of famers" (as opposed to the current "tennis hall of famer" which they give it to almost anyone with a slam).

You're all over the place here, skippy. What are you trying to say? Besides trying desperately to exclude Rafa, even before the counting is done, he of 20+ Majors.

Re-writing the HOF, too? These seem very exclusionary. Where are you going with that?

 

[El Dude]

If you want to talk about multiheaded GOAT or herd of GOATS, it need to made up of only GOTEs. Rafa is clearly not a GOTE in the first place (of course we have to wait until they finish their careers to definitively declare - but it is at least trending in that direction); then how can his head be one of the mutliheaded ones.

Hogwash. "GOTE" is problematic, too, because different eras have different degrees of talent. Is Kuerten a GOTE because he was the best player of his generation (the one between Sampras/Agassi and Federer)?

Similarly, I've argued that Andy Murray is underrated historically because he played alongside the three greatest players of tennis history.

And of course "era" doesn't have any technical, or easily reducible, definition. What era are you talking about? Where are you drawing the line? At the very least, I think you can say that Roger, Rafa, and Novak are the greatest players of the 21st century.

I've often spoken of career rankings as being one of the most important indicators of greatness, that they are the best single stat to tell the whole story of what a player accomplished. Now it is easy to downplay Rafa because he only has 209 weeks at #1, not only way behind Novak (326) and Roger (310) but also behind Sampras (286), Lendl (270), and Connors (268). But consider that Rafa is the all-time leader in weeks in the top 2 at 579, ahead of Roger (528) and Novak (470).

How can we not include him as a GOTE when he's had 579 weeks - over 11 years worth - in the top 2?

This concept of "all time great" referring to someone with 6+ slams is a huge misnomer. Sure they deserve some recognition, but not by that moniker. Perhaps something like "honorable champions" or "true hall of famers" (as opposed to the current "tennis hall of famer" which they give it to almost anyone with a slam).

All of these terms mean what we want them to mean. I've used the 6+ Slam mark because A) it seems to denote the players that are inarguably "great," and B) there's a convenicent gap between 4 and 6, with no player in the Open Era winning 5, so it gives us an easy demarcation.

There are other factors than Slams, of course, but I feel comfortable saying that players with 6+ Slams are "all-time greats," but not as comfortable with the guys in the 4 and under range, who I would call "lesser greats."

The Hall of Fame in tennis is probably even less meaningful than in baseball, where it is somewhat of a joke (although has improved...somewhat....Harold Baines was just inducted).

 

[GameSetAndMath]

You're all over the place here, skippy. What are you trying to say? Besides trying desperately to exclude Rafa, even before the counting is done, he of 20+ Majors.

Re-writing the HOF, too? These seem very exclusionary. Where are you going with that?

It is a very simple concept. If you are not the greatest of your era, then you are definitely not part of a herd of GOATs or not one of the heads of a multiheaded GOAT. I grant you that counting is not done yet and we need to see where things stand after both Rafa and Novak retires.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

There are other factors than Slams, of course, but I feel comfortable saying that players with 6+ Slams are "all-time greats," but not as comfortable with the guys in the 4 and under range, who I would call "lesser greats."

As I said before it is a misleading term. "all time great" brings to mind the idea that this person was GOAT at one time. Whereas you are simply using that term to honor those who achieved a lot (i don't have problem with honoring them).

 

[El Dude]

Thanks for hearing my side. Yes, Rafa is in the Herd of GOATS right now, and that's not even needing your concession. Let's face it: the difference between a whole herd of Djokovic fans coming back, and even you creating a thread as to whether it was time to crown Novak as the goat was one match. We're still in the fine points, here.

To be fair, I said something similar a few years ago, in 2015 or 16 when it looked like Roger and Rafa were dwindling and Novak was having that great year. Just as, back in 2013, I started talking about Rafa surpassing Roger. I give credit where credit is due, and am far more interested in tennis history itself than winning the argument for "my guy."

And of course in the original post in this thread, I was very clear that the singular GOAT approach was less meaningful than the Herd of GOATs, but the point was "if we had to..." And I maintain that Novak is the most likely of the three to end up with the best career resume, when all is said and done. Meaning, he's my "gun to the head" pick for GOAT - or, at least, I think he will be by the time they've all retired.

I made the thread because I think we're at the point where his career resume is already the best of the three, if only by a hair. It isn't absolutely clear yet, but he's the best situated of the three to take it the extra step.

Remember that the CYGS has always been a thing, and they all did pay attention to that. So it's not like they ignored Oz or whatever. But no one got close. Remember that it was Connors who said that if Borg won the USO, he'd go to Australia to block him. (When the AO was played at the end of the year.) But they were aware of these things. Remember, also, that the great Bjorn Borg never won a Major on HCs. And it wasn't without consideration, even at the time, that Sampras couldn't win the French. But, yes, "The Holy Trinity," have moved the bar so far as to be unrecognizable from even 2 decades ago.

Yeah, that part about Sampras is what I was wondering. Dear Fiero tried, but lost the narrative .

I agree with this. The general watermark for ATG and HOF is rather easier than the rules engagement, right now. It's up in the stratosphere, and I do think it will come back to something more reasonable after this era.

Probably, yes. But it may be that at some point someone will emerge and set a new standard. I don't see it happening any time soon, and it may be that civilization crashes before that player can emerge, but talent tends to find a way.

I think you narrow it down too far. There are too many eras. There is a reason that Laver gets mentioned all the time. Because he won it all, across eras, and because he was a fucking great tennis player. Same with Borg...you could make the argument that he retired too early. And he never even won a HC Major. Why do we love him, and prize him? Because he was a great tennis player. I know what you're saying about the bar set by the current Big 3, and that's a tough one. 20+ Majors. All 3 surfaces. Career Slam as minimum requirement for entry to the club. It is really hard to imagine the next player to get there. But maybe, and hopefully, we will prize, is great tennis players. Do they all have to be super-heroes? I hope not.

No, but as I just said, talent emerges. And you just never know.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Is Kuerten a GOTE because he was the best player of his generation (the one between Sampras/Agassi and Federer)?

Your problem is understanding implications here.

If someone is a GOTE, then they don't automatically become part of the herd of GOATs.

However, if someone is NOT a GOTE, then they definitely cannot be part of the herd of GOATs.

In other words being a GOTE is a necessary but not sufficient condition to stake claim to be part of the herd of GOATs.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

And of course "era" doesn't have any technical, or easily reducible, definition. What era are you talking about? Where are you drawing the line?

There can be lot of fuzziness in the definition of era. But, one thing that will be universally accepted is that Novak and Rafa belong to the same era.

 

[El Dude]

It is a very simple concept. If you are not the greatest of your era, then you are definitely not part of a herd of GOATs or not one of the heads of a multiheaded GOAT. I grant you that counting is not done yet and we need to see where things stand after both Rafa and Novak retires.

Your problem is understanding implications here.

If someone is a GOTE, then they don't automatically become part of the herd of GOATs.

However, if someone is NOT a GOTE, then they definitely cannot be part of the herd of GOATs.

In other words being a GOTE is a necessary but not sufficient condition to stake claim to be part of the herd of GOATs.

I say rubbish. You're making this up - that "being a GOTE is necessary but not sufficient" to be part of the herd of GOATs.

Again, what is an "era?" What time-span? I mean, Roger was only clearly the greatest player of a four-year era (2004-07). We can broaden that to include more years if we want, but then we eventually run into problems. And wasn't Rafa the overall best player from 2008-10 and, if we want to, we could say 2008-13? Wasn't that an "era?"

if we look at the last two decades, the three of them have all passed the "greatest" around like a baton. And I'm not just talking year-end #1s. Roger was #1 in 2009, but possibly only because Rafa was injured; you could argue they were equals that year. Rafa was the clear best in 2010, Novak the clear best in 2011, but the gap narrowed in 2012, and he was only a hair better than Roger. 2013 saw Rafa regain #1, but Novak wasn't far behind. And then Novak was the best in 2014-15, with Andy in 2016 (although Novak was probably overall as good that year). Rafa was #1 in 2017, but Roger was the overall better player but didn't get YE1 because he skipped clay season. And it has been Novak at the helm from 2018-21.

The point being, the "era" is mixed...they've all had their time as the best player.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I see a tennis era to be approximately a decade long. Here I am not actually talking about a calendar decade like the 80's, 90s etc.

An easier way of seeing this is as follows. Since every tennis player competes with some players born before them and some born after them, I would say consider the all the tennis players who born plus or minus 5 years from your DOB. These are your contemporaries. If your achievements are clearly better than all the rest of your contemporaries (as defined above), you are a GOTE.

Being a GOTE is a necessary condition to be considered a GOAT (or part of the herd of GOATs) is not something that I am making up. It is the natural meaning of GOTE and GOAT. Neither me nor anyone needs to argue in support of that.

 

[Mile]

I would rank Oylmpic Gold more than ATP 1000 but lower than ATP Finale.