Time to crown Novak the GOAT?

[Kieran]

My sense is that it goes to the heart of (Western) ideology: be the best, rise to the top, etc etc. Stuff that mostly originated in the "Age of Enlightenment," and more so with the Freudian superego, capitalism and the "Cult of Me." Even the self-help world is infected with this ideology: Be the best version of yourself as you possibly can, YOLO, etc...seemingly benign encouragements, but which puts enormous pressure on all of us, because we all inevitably fail.

There's also a personal psychological component: We live vicariously through our favorites, so if My Guy isn't the best, what does that say about me?

Yeah, I think there’s elements of that, plus whatever it is about things lately, people want to be the people who are living through the goat times, we saw this during the World Cup where the incomprehensible argument was made that if Argentina won the World Cup, it would conform that Messi was the Goat.

That makes no sense, yet it shows that people are desperate to conform that they personally were alive during football Goatdom - and most of these fanatics never even heard of the contenders from previous eras. It was Ronaldo - or Messi.

We want our current sports stars to be goats - for all those reasons you gave - while we’re also the people living through (politically) the worst most bigoted times ever, and (religiously) through the last days of mankind, though this also applies to the whole climate and woke parade too.

We tend to think of ourselves as being so special that the very best and worst of everything happens in our time. We’re children. We’re narcissists.

As you said, the Cult of Me.

As you know, I take a "two truths" view. One is in agreement with you (and Moxie) and the other is playing the game of career accomplishments and singular GOATdom. So the answer, for me, is "No one, but kinda Novak." Taking the latter view doesn't mean that I don't think other players were equally brilliant and gifted - certainly Rafa, Roger, Borg, McEnroe, Laver, Gonzales, maybe others, played tennis on the "ultra-sublime" level, within which there are no real rankings, just sublime tennis of different variations. Calling Novak the GOAT is just recognizing that, when all is said and done, he has the best career resume, at least post-Laver.

I think there’s different opportunities for this reason, and we can see it clearly in the era of the Big 3: Rafa spent six whole seasons of his career infancy chasing Roger as his only rival, while Novak developed in the shade. Novak then had the opportunity to gain while Rafa was relatively spent and Roger was relatively aging.

Now, people will say, BS, you’re a butt sore Rafa fan - but didn’t Novak fans think Rafa took the opportunity to win Oz in 2022 only because Novak was missing? Even though this isn’t actually true, it shows some awareness of what I’m saying.

Another point is that although Novak will likely win his 8th Wimbledon this week, does this mean that he’s greater on grass than Pete Sampras? I would say not, and others would too - but 8 > 7, no?

Well, not always, in my book…

 

[Fiero425]

Yeah, I think there’s elements of that, plus whatever it is about things lately, people want to be the people who are living through the goat times, we saw this during the World Cup where the incomprehensible argument was made that if Argentina won the World Cup, it would conform that Messi was the Goat.

That makes no sense, yet it shows that people are desperate to conform that they personally were alive during football Goatdom - and most of these fanatics never even heard of the contenders from previous eras. It was Ronaldo - or Messi.

We want our current sports stars to be goats - for all those reasons you gave - while we’re also the people living through (politically) the worst most bigoted times ever, and (religiously) through the last days of mankind, though this also applies to the whole climate and woke parade too.

We tend to think of ourselves as being so special that the very best and worst of everything happens in our time. We’re children. We’re narcissists.

As you said, the Cult of Me.


I think there’s different opportunities for this reason, and we can see it clearly in the era of the Big 3: Rafa spent six whole seasons of his career infancy chasing Roger as his only rival, while Novak developed in the shade. Novak then had the opportunity to gain while Rafa was relatively spent and Roger was relatively aging.

Now, people will say, BS, you’re a butt sore Rafa fan - but didn’t Novak fans think Rafa took the opportunity to win Oz in 2022 only because Novak was missing? Even though this isn’t actually true, it shows some awareness of what I’m saying.

Another point is that although Novak will likely win his 8th Wimbledon this week, does this mean that he’s greater on grass than Pete Sampras? I would say not, and others would too - but 8 > 7, no?

Well, not always, in my book…

As far as I'm concerned, all the stats are a little inflated w/ the changes made over the last decade or so! Earlier than that there was a technology upgrade in rackets & strings! Conditioning & nutrition also helped players & gave them longevity on tour! Then the game went BO3 in just about every event except the Majors! All that contributed to the Big 3 owning the last 20+ years giving only scraps to the rest of the players!

 

[Kieran]

As far as I'm concerned, all the stats are a little inflated w/ the changes made over the last decade or so! Earlier than that there was a technology upgrade in rackets & strings! Conditioning & nutrition also helped players & gave them longevity on tour! Then the game went BO3 in just about every event except the Majors! All that contributed to the Big 3 owning the last 20+ years giving only scraps to the rest of the players!

Absolutely, and that’s an objective proof of a weakened era..

 

[El Dude]

Yeah, I think there’s elements of that, plus whatever it is about things lately, people want to be the people who are living through the goat times, we saw this during the World Cup where the incomprehensible argument was made that if Argentina won the World Cup, it would conform that Messi was the Goat.

That makes no sense, yet it shows that people are desperate to conform that they personally were alive during football Goatdom - and most of these fanatics never even heard of the contenders from previous eras. It was Ronaldo - or Messi.

We want our current sports stars to be goats - for all those reasons you gave - while we’re also the people living through (politically) the worst most bigoted times ever, and (religiously) through the last days of mankind, though this also applies to the whole climate and woke parade too.

We tend to think of ourselves as being so special that the very best and worst of everything happens in our time. We’re children. We’re narcissists.

As you said, the Cult of Me.

There's a mythic quality to it, which I know you'll understand being from the Green Isle. I remember during the 2017 AO final when McEnroe declared something like, "Surely this will decide the GOAT." I chuckled and shook my head...typical Mac hyperbole. But it exemplified this mythic, narrative quality that we all adhere to, to varying degrees. Story, myth, narrative...all have different connotations, but point to the fact that we, as humans, are meaning-making creatures, and one thing that has been with us since before we started laying stones for cities is the Tale.

I think there’s different opportunities for this reason, and we can see it clearly in the era of the Big 3: Rafa spent six whole seasons of his career infancy chasing Roger as his only rival, while Novak developed in the shade. Novak then had the opportunity to gain while Rafa was relatively spent and Roger was relatively aging.

Now, people will say, BS, you’re a butt sore Rafa fan - but didn’t Novak fans think Rafa took the opportunity to win Oz in 2022 only because Novak was missing? Even though this isn’t actually true, it shows some awareness of what I’m saying.

Another point is that although Novak will likely win his 8th Wimbledon this week, does this mean that he’s greater on grass than Pete Sampras? I would say not, and others would too - but 8 > 7, no?

Well, not always, in my book…

Yes, all true - and I have argued for that last point endlessly. Slam count is a starting point, but has to be understood in context. Otherwise we're left with thinking that Jan Kodes and Andy Murray were similarly great or, perhaps worse, Kodes > Nastase.

The only thing I'd say about the "butt sore Rafa fan" thing is that we simply don't know how player X (be it Rafa or someone else) would have performed if the situation were different. We just cannot know how they would have fared. I mean, it would be easy to say that any one of the Big Three without the other two would have won 30 Slams. But maybe they would have lost drive and won 12-15, instead? Or the greatest What If of them all: Bjorn Borg. What if he took six months off, found Tennis Jesus, and returned to the tour revitalized in 1982? Could he have won 20? Or what if Pete Sampras had an Etheric Ion Repair Pod like Novak...could he have stuck around for a few more years and challenged Roger's rise? Etc, etc.

I started watching this French scifi show last night called Vortex, which is essentially about what happens when you change little things in the past and how it impacts things. Elements of the film, About Time (although without the British humor). I've often thought of that when despairing about mistakes I've made...change one little thing, even if seemingly for the "better," and all of sudden my daughters don't exist.

So what if Roger wasn't around. Would Rafa have developed that same drive and to that same degree? What if Rafa wasn't around? Would Roger have stayed focused, to keep the young pup at bay or continued on after he slipped a notch to win those last 3-4 Slams? And what about Novak? If Roger and Rafa weren't around, he might not have developed that chip on his shoulder of being the Fedal afterthought for a few years, that probably helped turn him into the best player in the world.

(All that said, I do think that it is safe to say that if the Big Three weren't around, Andy Murray would have won a lot more Slams! Haha...poor guy)

 

[Kieran]

There's a mythic quality to it, which I know you'll understand being from the Green Isle. I remember during the 2017 AO final when McEnroe declared something like, "Surely this will decide the GOAT." I chuckled and shook my head...typical Mac hyperbole. But it exemplified this mythic, narrative quality that we all adhere to, to varying degrees. Story, myth, narrative...all have different connotations, but point to the fact that we, as humans, are meaning-making creatures, and one thing that has been with us since before we started laying stones for cities is the Tale.

Yes, all true - and I have argued for that last point endlessly. Slam count is a starting point, but has to be understood in context. Otherwise we're left with thinking that Jan Kodes and Andy Murray were similarly great or, perhaps worse, Kodes > Nastase.

The only thing I'd say about the "butt sore Rafa fan" thing is that we simply don't know how player X (be it Rafa or someone else) would have performed if the situation were different. We just cannot know how they would have fared. I mean, it would be easy to say that any one of the Big Three without the other two would have won 30 Slams. But maybe they would have lost drive and won 12-15, instead? Or the greatest What If of them all: Bjorn Borg. What if he took six months off, found Tennis Jesus, and returned to the tour revitalized in 1982? Could he have won 20? Or what if Pete Sampras had an Etheric Ion Repair Pod like Novak...could he have stuck around for a few more years and challenged Roger's rise? Etc, etc.

I started watching this French scifi show last night called Vortex, which is essentially about what happens when you change little things in the past and how it impacts things. Elements of the film, About Time (although without the British humor). I've often thought of that when despairing about mistakes I've made...change one little thing, even if seemingly for the "better," and all of sudden my daughters don't exist.

So what if Roger wasn't around. Would Rafa have developed that same drive and to that same degree? What if Rafa wasn't around? Would Roger have stayed focused, to keep the young pup at bay or continued on after he slipped a notch to win those last 3-4 Slams? And what about Novak? If Roger and Rafa weren't around, he might not have developed that chip on his shoulder of being the Fedal afterthought for a few years, that probably helped turn him into the best player in the world.

(All that said, I do think that it is safe to say that if the Big Three weren't around, Andy Murray would have won a lot more Slams! Haha...poor guy)

I think Pete created the Big 3, and not only because he invented the idea of chasing the slam total, but also because each of the 3 of them kept playing longer and longer because the other two did. In late 1998 Pete was suffering burn out to such an extent that he skipped Oz in January 1999.

Then Agassi won Paris and it lit a flame under Pete, making him focus. Had he a rival similarly threatening his slam total, I think he’d have kept playing…

 

[El Dude]

I think Pete created the Big 3, and not only because he invented the idea of chasing the slam total, but also because each of the 3 of them kept playing longer and longer because the other two did. In late 1998 Pete was suffering burn out to such an extent that he skipped Oz in January 1999.

Then Agassi won Paris and it lit a flame under Pete, making him focus. Had he a rival similarly threatening his slam total, I think he’d have kept playing…

I didn't follow tennis closely in the mid 90s to early 00s, but I've often wondered how much of Pete's decline (which really began in 1998, at least according to the stats) was due to burnout vs. his body breaking down. Of course the latter feeds the former. And as the saying goes, "where there's a will, there's a way."

 

[Fiero425]

I didn't follow tennis closely in the mid 90s to early 00s, but I've often wondered how much of Pete's decline (which really began in 1998, at least according to the stats) was due to burnout vs. his body breaking down. Of course the latter feeds the former. And as the saying goes, "where there's a will, there's a way."

As cool as he appeared, besides being the presumptive #1 of all time, Sampras had to suffer from detractors who preferred the brashness of Agassi! IMO Andre was Pete's "personal pigeon" that kept him relevant and "in the game" to the end as evidenced by 2002 USO Final!

 

[El Dude]

As cool as he appeared, besides being the presumptive #1 of all time, Sampras had to suffer from detractors who preferred the brashness of Agassi! IMO Andre was Pete's "personal pigeon" that kept him relevant and "in the game" to the end as evidenced by 2002 USO Final!

I remember preferring him to Agassi, mainly because I liked how he was all business and no show. He was, in some sense, the "anti-Kyrgios." Or rather, Kyrgios is the "anti-Sampras" -- and we can see how that has worked out!

 

[Kieran]

I didn't follow tennis closely in the mid 90s to early 00s, but I've often wondered how much of Pete's decline (which really began in 1998, at least according to the stats) was due to burnout vs. his body breaking down. Of course the latter feeds the former. And as the saying goes, "where there's a will, there's a way."

He has some rare blood disease that often affected him, and I also think the grind of trying to break Connors record of finishing the season number one 5 years in a row wore him down. He struggled over the line in 1998.

There’s another record we ought to put in context: Connors 5 in a row. Does anyone really believe that Jimmy was the best player in the world from 1974-78?

But the 90’s weren’t as Wild West as tennis in the 80’s. That was a really hyper competitive decade. Often ugly and nasty too. Look how many great players there were, battling for the top. I don’t know how many Number Ones there were in the 80’s but I’d hazard a guess that all of them were bona fide great players.

The 90’s was largely dominated by Pete, but Agassi was obviously a factor, Becker rose and fell periodically, Edberg, Rafter, some weird stylists like Fabrice Santoro, who was two handed in both sides and something of a pesty magician with the ball and racket. Kuerten, and a bunch of great dirtballers who could keep you tied up in on clay court litigation for days. Big ballsy grasscourters. It really was a tale of two cities. Clay and grass were further apart than ever. Some players never seen each other between the two hard court phases. Some would be gone home early on the clay, some would totally skip the grass. A lot of overrated players too, which is natural.

It was way more open, except Pete was always there once he found his range. Cool, imperturbable, economic and accurate in his shot making. Agassi was the anti-Pete in more than just tennis. An hysteric, occasional cheat, fashion victim. I suppose where Pete really suffered in the press is that he wasn’t iconic in any way. Look at photos of Borg in his playing days and he still looks like a mysterious king, aloof and practiced, above the fray somewhat, never suffering from the indignity of breathlessness or sweat.

Look at Pete and you’ll wonder why his tongue is sticking out…

 

[PhiEaglesfan712]

As a huge Sampras fan, 1998 was really the last year of Pete's dominance. Pete was lucky that Philippoussis got injured, otherwise Pete likely loses that match and goes slamless in 1999. Pete's Wimbledon run in 2000 was a product of one of the easiest draw ever. Then, we saw what happened in 2001 against Roger, but that upset was at least 2 years in the making.

I'm just glad Pete was able to sneak one more slam out at the 2002 US Open. Outside of that run, Pete was awful that year (and that's putting it nicely).

 

[Kieran]

As a huge Sampras fan, 1998 was really the last year of Pete's dominance. Pete was lucky that Philippoussis got injured, otherwise Pete likely loses that match and goes slamless in 1999. Pete's Wimbledon run in 2000 was a product of one of the easiest draw ever. Then, we saw what happened in 2001 against Roger, but that upset was at least 2 years in the making.

I'm just glad Pete was able to sneak one more slam out at the 2002 US Open. Outside of that run, Pete was awful that year (and that's putting it nicely).

You make so many baseless comments regarding Tiafoe, and Sampras, that I wonder if your memory is faulty. Or are some of your posts not better off in a fiction forum?

 

[PhiEaglesfan712]

You make so many baseless comments regarding Tiafoe, and Sampras, that I wonder if your memory is faulty. Or are some of your posts not better off in a fiction forum?

It's not a baseless comment. I love Sampras, but I'm not going to lie and say that he was playing well against Philippoussis. I was 10 about to turn 11 (I turn 35 on Wednesday), but I remember very well how Mark was dominating Pete that day. It almost felt like the Kraijcek match in 1996. It's a shame that Mark suffered that injury and wasn't able to continue, but in hindsight, that was the match that marked Pete's decline. Just think, if not for Mark's injury, Andre might be holding all 4 slam trophies at the same time after the 2000 Australian Open.

 

[Kieran]

It's not a baseless comment. I love Sampras, but I'm not going to lie and say that he was playing well against Philippoussis. I was 10 about to turn 11 (I turn 35 on Wednesday), but I remember very well how Mark was dominating Pete that day. It almost felt like the Kraijcek match in 1996. It's a shame that Mark suffered that injury and wasn't able to continue, but in hindsight, that was the match that marked Pete's decline. Just think, if not for Mark's injury, Andre might be holding all 4 slam trophies at the same time after the 2000 Australian Open.

I think that’s far fetched, and I looked back at that match between Mark and Pete, and Sampras double faulted 3 times in the first game, and dropped serve. From there, they both held serve but Mark won the first set. Bear in mind that a far superior Aussie also won the first set against Pete in that years Wimbledon, led 4-1 in the second set tiebreak, with a double mini break - and lost.

There’s no basis for saying Pete would have lost against Mark, given what we know of both players. Pete’s a player who’s renowned for having won matches while playing poorly, and though Mark thumped him in Australia 3 years earlier, that was unpredictable and is no indicator that he could have done it again.

We can only go with what we know. I don’t say these things to be contrary. I’ve lost count of the amount of times I’ve seen a goat struggle and look lost - then boom! They break serve or something happens, and they’re like a caged animal who chewed through the bars and was free, and was hungry for blood..

 

[El Dude]

He has some rare blood disease that often affected him, and I also think the grind of trying to break Connors record of finishing the season number one 5 years in a row wore him down. He struggled over the line in 1998.

There’s another record we ought to put in context: Connors 5 in a row. Does anyone really believe that Jimmy was the best player in the world from 1974-78?

The point system was wonky back then. As you know, Connors played and won a lot of very low level tournaments that probably would be closer to today's Challengers. His #1 ranking in 1974 was indisputable, but after that it gets dicey - Ashe and Borg were close in 75. Connors is probably the clear #1 in '76 again, but then it is well-known that Vilas probably got robbed in '77 (though he, too, piled up a lot of weak low-level titles). Borg and Connors were very close in '78, though I think we see the passing of the generational torch. Borg was the well deserving #1 in 79 and 80 and Mac in '81, but 82-83 are close. Some argue that two-Slam-winning Connors probably deserved #1 in '82.

On the other hand, Connors is sometimes a bit under-appreciated. He almost single-handedly ushered in the new era in '74, demolishing Rosewall and reigning over the Ashe/Newcombe/Nastase/Smith group. He was also right there with Borg, and then Borg and McEnroe, and remained an elite player into the mid-80s, and relevant for a few more years after. He and Lendl both tend to get de-emphasized when talking about ATGs, but I think they're more in the group of Borg/Sampras/McEnroe than they are with Agassi/Becker/Edberg/Wilander.

But the 90’s weren’t as Wild West as tennis in the 80’s. That was a really hyper competitive decade. Often ugly and nasty too. Look how many great players there were, battling for the top. I don’t know how many Number Ones there were in the 80’s but I’d hazard a guess that all of them were bona fide great players.

I can answer that question! The 90s started with Lendl still reigning, but Edberg took over later in the year and was #1 for most of 1991, except for a couple brief coups by Becker. It was Edberg to start '92, but then Courier took over (though Edberg wrestled it back a couple times). Finally, Pete took over in '93, but Courier grabbed it back later in the year for a short time. It was all Pete in '94 and less than half of '95, with Agassi probably at his best, but Pete took it back to finish the year.

In '96, it was mostly Sampras, but Agassi and Thomas Muster had short stays. '97 all Pete, and '98 mostly Pete except for a couple brief reigns by Marcelo Rios. By '99 it was really breaking up: Pete started and would win it back several times, but you also had Carlos Moya, Yevgeny Kafelnikov, Patrick Rafter and twice--including ending the year--Andre Agassi.

So in the 90s we have, in order: Lendl, Edberg, Becker, Courier, Sampras, Agassi, Muster, Rios, Moya, Kafelnikov, Rafter. 11 players.

It would remain mixed for the first few years of the 2000s: Agassi, Sampras, Safin, Kuerten, Hewitt, Ferrero, and Roddick all were #1 in the first four years. From 2004 on, you have a bit of Roddick, but then it is all Roger, Rafa, and Novak. Similarly with the 2010s, until Andy joins the gang in 2016. And in the 2020s, it started with Rafa, but has mostly been Novak, with a bit of Medvedev and Alcaraz (and presumably a lot more Alcaraz to come and, I would guess, Rune at some point - possibly more Medvedev and maybe Sinner, too).

The 90’s was largely dominated by Pete, but Agassi was obviously a factor, Becker rose and fell periodically, Edberg, Rafter, some weird stylists like Fabrice Santoro, who was two handed in both sides and something of a pesty magician with the ball and racket. Kuerten, and a bunch of great dirtballers who could keep you tied up in on clay court litigation for days. Big ballsy grasscourters. It really was a tale of two cities. Clay and grass were further apart than ever. Some players never seen each other between the two hard court phases. Some would be gone home early on the clay, some would totally skip the grass. A lot of overrated players too, which is natural.

It was way more open, except Pete was always there once he found his range. Cool, imperturbable, economic and accurate in his shot making. Agassi was the anti-Pete in more than just tennis. An hysteric, occasional cheat, fashion victim. I suppose where Pete really suffered in the press is that he wasn’t iconic in any way. Look at photos of Borg in his playing days and he still looks like a mysterious king, aloof and practiced, above the fray somewhat, never suffering from the indignity of breathlessness or sweat.

Look at Pete and you’ll wonder why his tongue is sticking out…

One thing I was surprised about when I started researching with Elo is that the "weak era" -- if we go by Elo - actually started earlier in the 90s than I thought. This might be because the competition was more tightly packed together, so that players were essentially equalizing each other. Pete's Elo was always suppressed by his weak performance on clay (his overall peak Elo is 2407 -- lower than Becker and Vilas, but his non-clay peak Elos are over 2500).

From the late 70s to the early 90s, there has a lot of elite talent: Connors, Vilas, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander, Edberg, Becker, and then Agassi, Courier and Sampras, all with overlapping peaks, and no real gaps in which there weren't at least 2 or 3 ATGs in peak form. After Lendl faded, and Edberg not long after, plus Courier's brief time at the top, you had fewer all-time greats in peak form. Sampras was consistent until 98-99ish, but Agassi and Becker were both up and down, and Becker was basically finished as an elite after '96. And then Sampras started teetering in '98, fully opening the door for the "Wild West" of the 99-03 era.

Or to put it another way, among players who didn't win 6+ Slams, here are the players who won Slams in each decade:

1980s: Teacher, Kriek (2), Noah, Cash, Chang
1990s: Gomez, Stich, Courier (4), Bruguera (2), Muster, Kafelnikov (2), Krajicek, Rafter (2), Kuerten, Korda, Moya

Obviously a lot more 1-4 Slam winners in the 90s implying more distributing and/or less high end talent. And it is worth noting that in the 80s, two of those Slam winners only won at the very weak AO in 1980-82, when it more like an ATP 500 in terms of depth of talent.