Time to crown Novak the GOAT?

[tennisville]

Olympics is a tough thing to place. It means so much to the players and is extremely important for them but for me, it is below the ATP Finals in terms of prestige

The fact that it means a lot to the players doesn't mean it is important as a slam. The players also give huge importance to winning the Davis Cup or even winning a title in their home country. That doesn't mean those 2 things are as important as a slam right

And also for Borg, I think he was the first global superstar. My dad said that Borg was the reason tennis became popular in our country and the reason he started watching the slams. He was the one who put tennis on the global scale because of his personality and his charisma when winning. RG might be considered inferior to Wimbledon/US Open by western people but it was extremely important in South America, Asia and parts of Europe back in the day. It was definitely one of the important slams. It was only Australia that was inferior but that changed when they moved to Melbourne park in 1988 and shifted their dates to the end of January

 

[El Dude]

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.

You are creating the framing - thus are making it up.

But I'll play along. Let's look at every decade-span in which one of the Big Three won a Slam, so 2003 to 2021. To simplify, each player gets 1 point for each Slam win and YE#1.

2003-12: Roger 22, Rafa 13, Novak 7
2004-13: Roger 21, Rafa 16, Novak 8
2005-14: Roger 18, Rafa 17, Novak 10
2006-15: Rafa 16, Roger 15, Novak 14
2007-16: Novak 16, Rafa 15, Roger 11
2008-17: Rafa 17, Novak 16, Roger 10
2009-18: Novak 18, Rafa 15, Roger 10
2010-19: Novak 20, Rafa 17, Roger 7
2011-20: Novak 22, Rafa 14, Roger 6
2012-21: Novak 20, Rafa 13, Roger 5

So in terms of ten-year spans, Novak leads with 5, Roger with 3, Rafa with 2. Notice also that Rafa is 1st or 2nd in all ten spans.

And of course if we add up the total Slams and YE1s, we get:

Roger 25, Novak 25, Rafa 25

Yeah, Rafa definitely can't be considered co-GOAT.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

You are creating the framing - thus are making it up.

But I'll play along. Let's look at every decade-span in which one of the Big Three won a Slam, so 2003 to 2021. To simplify, each player gets 1 point for each Slam win and YE#1.

2003-12: Roger 22, Rafa 13, Novak 7
2004-13: Roger 21, Rafa 16, Novak 8
2005-14: Roger 18, Rafa 17, Novak 10
2006-15: Rafa 16, Roger 15, Novak 14
2007-16: Novak 16, Rafa 15, Roger 11
2008-17: Rafa 17, Novak 16, Roger 10
2009-18: Novak 18, Rafa 15, Roger 10
2010-19: Novak 20, Rafa 17, Roger 7
2011-20: Novak 22, Rafa 14, Roger 6
2012-21: Novak 20, Rafa 13, Roger 5

So in terms of ten-year spans, Novak leads with 5, Roger with 3, Rafa with 2. Notice also that Rafa is 1st or 2nd in all ten spans.

And of course if we add up the total Slams and YE1s, we get:

Roger 25, Novak 25, Rafa 25

Yeah, Rafa definitely can't be considered co-GOAT.

You totally misunderstood my post. Define the contemporaries of a player X with players born approximately plus or minus 5 years from DOB of X. If the lifetime achievements of X is clearly superior to that of his contemporaries, then X is a GOTE. If someone is not a GOTE, then they clearly cannot be a GOAT. However, someone cannot be a GOAT just because they are GOTE.

 

[El Dude]

You totally misunderstood my post. Define the contemporaries of a player X with players born approximately plus or minus 5 years from DOB of X. If the lifetime achievements of X is clearly superior to that of his contemporaries, then X is a GOTE. If someone is not a GOTE, then they clearly cannot be a GOAT. However, someone cannot be a GOAT just because they are GOTE.

Yes, I understand what you are saying, I just disagree with your premise - at least as some kind of absolute determining factor. I mean, it makes some sense, but is over-simplistic and doesn't take into account any nuance or context. For instance, remember that Rafa had three years at #2 before Novak even won a Slam and has more weeks in the top 2 than either Roger or Novak, and by a good margin. Also, as much as I like playing with stats, let's not forget that they can be framed in different ways to support different premises.

All that said, as I argued above, I think Novak has the edge over both Roger and Rafa in terms of career accomplishments - or at least very soon will have the edge. Despite what Rafa and Roger diehards want to believe, it may come down to Novak being considered as the "first among near-equals," and Rafa and Roger vying for second fiddle, with endless debates long past their retirement. Meaning, it is looking more and more like Novak is going to distance himself enough from Fedal to be considered by most analysts to be the GOAT, but unless either Roger wins another Slam or two and Rafa doesn't, or Rafa fleshes out his weeks at #1 and wins a few more Slams and/or a WTF or two, the case between the two will never be clear.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Yes, I understand what you are saying, I just disagree with your premise - at least as some kind of absolute determining factor. I mean, it makes some sense, but is over-simplistic and doesn't take into account any nuance or context. For instance, remember that Rafa had three years at #2 before Novak even won a Slam and has more weeks in the top 2 than either Roger or Novak, and by a good margin. Also, as much as I like playing with stats, let's not forget that they can be framed in different ways to support different premises.

No, I am not playing with stats. Some people start achieving at an early age and some are late bloomers. Some show resilience and keep winning even at old age and some fade away soon. All of these things don't matter as I am comparing the LIFETIME achievements of a player with other players. It is only fair to limit the comparisons to their contemporaries (approximately plus or minus 5 years) as the environment (wooden racquet, surface, what is important) changes with time.

It is self evident that someone is NOT a GOTE, then they cannot be a GOAT. No argument is needed.

Finally, I don't have any vested interest here. If Roger is not the singular GOAT (which it looks like won't be the case any more), I could not care less as to whether he is 2nd in line or 234th in line. But, he would always be my personal GOAT due to his elegant stylish play.

 

[Fiero425]

Olympics is a tough thing to place. It means so much to the players and is extremely important for them but for me, it is below the ATP Finals in terms of prestige

The fact that it means a lot to the players doesn't mean it is important as a slam. The players also give huge importance to winning the Davis Cup or even winning a title in their home country. That doesn't mean those 2 things are as important as a slam right

And also for Borg, I think he was the first global superstar. My dad said that Borg was the reason tennis became popular in our country and the reason he started watching the slams. He was the one who put tennis on the global scale because of his personality and his charisma when winning. RG might be considered inferior to Wimbledon/US Open by western people but it was extremely important in South America, Asia and parts of Europe back in the day. It was definitely one of the important slams. It was only Australia that was inferior but that changed when they moved to Melbourne park in 1988 and shifted their dates to the end of January

You're right, Borg was a Global Icon! With social media, worldwide new, & the like, it's hard to distiquish Icons with people who have notoriety these days! Back then it was just a couple with that kind of gravitas; Borg and Mohammed Ali! They're the only ones I can think of who were known by all including in small African village!

 

[El Dude]

No, I am not playing with stats. Some people start achieving at an early age and some are late bloomers. Some show resilience and keep winning even at old age and some fade away soon. All of these things don't matter as I am comparing the LIFETIME achievements of a player with other players. It is only fair to limit the comparisons to their contemporaries (approximately plus or minus 5 years) as the environment (wooden racquet, surface, what is important) changes with time.

It is self evident that someone is NOT a GOTE, then they cannot be a GOAT. No argument is needed.

Again, I'm not arguing with the logic of that statement taken on its own, I'm saying it is only "self-evident" divorced from context. One problem being that it doesn't clearly define what an era is, which can be framed in different ways. In reality, any era is composed of "micro-eras" - so it depends upon how we want to dial in or dial out. So if player A is the #1 for three straight years then falls to the 5-10 range for the rest of their prime, is he better than the guy who is #2 for ten years in a row? (This is hypothetical, but illustrates the point I'm trying to make).

Finally, I don't have any vested interest here. If Roger is not the singular GOAT (which it looks like won't be the case any more), I could not care less as to whether he is 2nd in line or 234th in line. But, he would always be my personal GOAT due to his elegant stylish play.

Well, we agree on this!

 

[GameSetAndMath]

So if player A is the #1 for three straight years then falls to the 5-10 range for the rest of their prime, is he better than the guy who is #2 for ten years in a row? (This is hypothetical, but illustrates the point I'm trying to make).

Of course player A. Nobody cares for also rans. Coming in #2 becomes important only as a tie breaker when the two players are tied in other measures.

I am talking about winning and coming as a runner up in GS (although you are talking about rankings).

 

[Fiero425]

Again, I'm not arguing with the logic of that statement taken on its own, I'm saying it is only "self-evident" divorced from context. One problem being that it doesn't clearly define what an era is, which can be framed in different ways. In reality, any era is composed of "micro-eras" - so it depends upon how we want to dial in or dial out. So if player A is the #1 for three straight years then falls to the 5-10 range for the rest of their prime, is he better than the guy who is #2 for ten years in a row? (This is hypothetical, but illustrates the point I'm trying to make).


Well, we agree on this!

Yours is Federer (I can understand why); mines will probably always be Sampras with Borg a close runner-up! I was one who was giving Pete a pass for not even having a FO final to play in, but at the time he was a dominant force who held the YE #1 ranking for 6 consecutive years! He had formidable competition with a GOLDEN AGE of hot players including Agassi & Courier! He also had to stay ahead of the waning talent in Becker, McEnroe, & Edberg! Back then, at any given time you could have a dozen GS winners in a draw on the men's side! It's been a joke about how competiive the tour was when Fed was winning everything until Nadovic came along! The 1st thing commented on when a major comes up, it's always made note of how few have gone to players outside of Fedalovic; same for Masters events! End RANT!

 

[GameSetAndMath]

@ElDude, think for a moment about the following.

Even at the present moment Fed's career accomplishments are considered superior to that of Ralph. Assuming Novak wins Wimbledon, Novak's achievements from then on (assuming things don't change drastically) would be considered superior to that of Ralph.

In other words, Ralph was toiling under the shadows of Roger from 2005 to 2021 Wimbledon. From now on wards, he would be toiling under the shadows of Novak. Ralph would be eternally playing the role of second fiddle/also ran.

This would mean that it is conceivable that Ralph would NOT be considered THE greatest player even for a minute (you talk about micro eras) of his entire life.

.......and you want to call him a co-GOAT by coming with various complicated calculations!

 

[Fiero425]

@ElDude, think for a moment about the following.

Even at the present moment Fed's career accomplishments are considered superior to that of Ralph. Assuming Novak wins Wimbledon, Novak's achievements from then on (assuming things don't change drastically) would be considered superior to that of Ralph.

In other words, Ralph was toiling under the shadows of Roger from 2005 to 2021 Wimbledon. From now on wards, he would be toiling under the shadows of Novak.

This would mean that Ralph was not considered THE greatest player even for a minute (you talk about micro eras) during his entire life.

.......and you want to call him a co-GOAT by coming with various complicated calculations!

I've thought it delusional to considere Rafa anything outside of a clay-GOAT! His resume is so thin outside of playing on that surface! His weeks at #1 ranking is so far behind others; even from past eras! He's only had a sniff of a YEC dropping finals to "his betters!" HOW can you be the GOAT with that many deficiencies? It's sad!

 

[Moxie]

Olympics is a tough thing to place. It means so much to the players and is extremely important for them but for me, it is below the ATP Finals in terms of prestige

The fact that it means a lot to the players doesn't mean it is important as a slam. The players also give huge importance to winning the Davis Cup or even winning a title in their home country. That doesn't mean those 2 things are as important as a slam right

And also for Borg, I think he was the first global superstar. My dad said that Borg was the reason tennis became popular in our country and the reason he started watching the slams. He was the one who put tennis on the global scale because of his personality and his charisma when winning. RG might be considered inferior to Wimbledon/US Open by western people but it was extremely important in South America, Asia and parts of Europe back in the day. It was definitely one of the important slams. It was only Australia that was inferior but that changed when they moved to Melbourne park in 1988 and shifted their dates to the end of January

I was going to respond to Fiero's point that RG was less important than Wimbledon and the USOpen, because I disagree with that. Back in the Borg days, when we only had 3 broadcast stations, some local and the public one, the French Open was always broadcast here in the US. I also disagree that Sampras didn't do better there for that reason. His game wasn't as suited to clay, full stop. That was the general knock on US men, and still is, which is why everyone gets so astonished when someone like Isner has decent results on clay. But that is or has been because there are so few clay courts in the US, which John McEnroe and Arantxia Sanchez's brother are trying to fix.

 

[El Dude]

Yours is Federer (I can understand why); mines will probably always be Sampras with Borg a close runner-up! I was one who was giving Pete a pass for not even having a FO final to play in, but at the time he was a dominant force who held the YE #1 ranking for 6 consecutive years! He had formidable competition with a GOLDEN AGE of hot players including Agassi & Courier! He also had to stay ahead of the waning talent in Becker, McEnroe, & Edberg! Back then, at any given time you could have a dozen GS winners in a draw on the men's side! It's been a joke about how competiive the tour was when Fed was winning everything until Nadovic came along! The 1st thing commented on when a major comes up, it's always made note of how few have gone to players outside of Fedalovic; same for Masters events! End RANT!

Yes, although I think the era of the late 80s was even more competitive - you had McEnroe and Connors still dangerous (sort of), and Lendl, Edberg, Becker, and Wilander at their peak, and young Agassi, Sampras, and Courier. Sampras' best years were when most of those guys were either retired or shadows of their former selves.

 

[El Dude]

@ElDude, think for a moment about the following.

Even at the present moment Fed's career accomplishments are considered superior to that of Ralph. Assuming Novak wins Wimbledon, Novak's achievements from then on (assuming things don't change drastically) would be considered superior to that of Ralph.

In other words, Ralph was toiling under the shadows of Roger from 2005 to 2021 Wimbledon. From now on wards, he would be toiling under the shadows of Novak.

This would mean that it is conceivable that Ralph would NOT have the distinction of being considered THE greatest player even for a minute (you talk about micro eras) during his entire life.

.......and you want to call him a co-GOAT by coming with various complicated calculations!

At this moment, I agree with you that Rafa has a worse resume than Roger and Novak, and to end up with a better resume would require him to do one or both of two things: Win at least a couple more Slams than either and/or win a WTF and get a lot more weeks at #1...possible all of the above. While future history is not yet written, his chances of doing so - at least enough to surpass Novak's final tally - are getting slim.

But while some Rafa fans over-state his clay dominance, I think a lot on the "other side" understate it. Clay represents about one-third of the tour, meaning Rafa was utterly dominant on one-third of the tour, and not far behind the other two on hards and no slouch on grass. So calling them co-GOATs honors the ways in which they each, in different ways, were better than anyone else. This is why, in the end, I prefer "Herd of GOATs" to "singular GOAT," because we cannot reduce their greatness to any one perspective or metric.

In that sense, I think some of the confusion and/or disagreement comes from shifting paradigms that aren't quite the same: not only how we assess greatness, but how we approach the question of GOAT. You approach through GOTE (or, really, Greatest of Their Generation, or GOTG), and I'm approaching it through the Herd of GOATs. It might be that both perspectives have value, even if we both agree that Novak is likely to be the best choice for the appellation.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I'm approaching it through the Herd of GOATs.

You have decided to call all three of them co-GOATs. After having made that decision you are trying to look for ways to justify it through complex (and sometimes meaningless calculation).

 

[GameSetAndMath]

But while some Rafa fans over-state his clay dominance, I think a lot on the "other side" understate it. Clay represents about one-third of the tour, meaning Rafa was utterly dominant on one-third of the tour, and not far behind the other two on hards and no slouch on grass. So calling them co-GOATs honors the ways in which they each, in different ways, were better than anyone else. This is why, in the end, I prefer "Herd of GOATs" to "singular GOAT," because we cannot reduce their greatness to any one perspective or metric.

Don't talk about the bolded thing when you are quoting my post. I never underestimated it. In fact, I went on record saying that I am not only willing to anoint Rafa the "clay GOAT", I am also willing to anoint him the "single surface GOAT". However, you cannot consider the clay record alone when talking about general GOATs.

It appears that you are trying to be politically correct by calling all three of them clay GOATs. You can always appreciate all of them for their different contributions, but cannot call all of them co-GOATs.

Or perhaps, you are not willing to award the singular GOAT to Novak (contrary to appearing to be so) and thought it is best to call all three co-GOATs as opposed to just calling only Novak and Roger so that Nadalites will join you.

I think most people agree with me that Ralph does not belong in the GOAT conversation for various (and very simple) reasons I have elucidated in this thread.

 

[Moxie]

@ElDude, think for a moment about the following.

Even at the present moment Fed's career accomplishments are considered superior to that of Ralph. Assuming Novak wins Wimbledon, Novak's achievements from then on (assuming things don't change drastically) would be considered superior to that of Ralph.

In other words, Ralph was toiling under the shadows of Roger from 2005 to 2021 Wimbledon. From now on wards, he would be toiling under the shadows of Novak. Ralph would be eternally playing the role of second fiddle/also ran.

This would mean that it is conceivable that Ralph would NOT be considered THE greatest player even for a minute (you talk about micro eras) of his entire life.

.......and you want to call him a co-GOAT by coming with various complicated calculations!

You are trying very hard to exclude Rafa, and not exactly correctly. I see you are giving El Dude a hard time for considering it. But as to your bolded above:

Rafa was NOT "toiling under the shadows of Roger from 2005-2021 Wimbledon." In many respects, Rafa owned him in that period. Certainly through 2014. You seem to be remembering things the way you want to.

In addition, I see you like to make a big deal out of Rafa and Novak being of the same era, but don't want to include him in Roger's, which he certainly is in. He "straddles" eras, it should be said.

 

[Moxie]

I've thought it delusional to considere Rafa anything outside of a clay-GOAT! His resume is so thin outside of playing on that surface! His weeks at #1 ranking is so far behind others; even from past eras! He's only had a sniff of a YEC dropping finals to "his betters!" HOW can you be the GOAT with that many deficiencies? It's sad!

To say that Nadal's resume off of clay is "thin" is what is delusional. 7 Majors off-clay is way beyond HOF. And he's #8 on the list for weeks at #1, so you are definitely grading on a skewed curve. By any measure, Nadal's career is not "sad," old fool.

 

[Moxie]

At this moment, I agree with you that Rafa has a worse resume than Roger and Novak, and to end up with a better resume would require him to do one or both of two things: Win at least a couple more Slams than either and/or win a WTF and get a lot more weeks at #1...possible all of the above. While future history is not yet written, his chances of doing so - at least enough to surpass Novak's final tally - are getting slim.

But while some Rafa fans over-state his clay dominance, I think a lot on the "other side" understate it. Clay represents about one-third of the tour, meaning Rafa was utterly dominant on one-third of the tour, and not far behind the other two on hards and no slouch on grass. So calling them co-GOATs honors the ways in which they each, in different ways, were better than anyone else. This is why, in the end, I prefer "Herd of GOATs" to "singular GOAT," because we cannot reduce their greatness to any one perspective or metric.

In that sense, I think some of the confusion and/or disagreement comes from shifting paradigms that aren't quite the same: not only how we assess greatness, but how we approach the question of GOAT. You approach through GOTE (or, really, Greatest of Their Generation, or GOTG), and I'm approaching it through the Herd of GOATs. It might be that both perspectives have value, even if we both agree that Novak is likely to be the best choice for the appellation.

I won't parse "worse" v. "less great" with you, because I know you're trying to be fair. And you and I have done a round or two on clay dominance, in which you say it can't be any more "dominant," after a certain point. Where I differ on that is in how much Fed and Novak fans put weight on #1, for example, as it implies "dominance over the field." Well, if that is a requirement, none has shown as much dominance over the field than Rafa on clay. So his clay dominance does have value, even as he adds to it, IMO. And I very much appreciate what you say in the bolded above.

I think it becomes inextricable what the 3 have done in the past 20 years, as you say. This has been an extraordinary period of time in men's tennis, and to cut Nadal out of the middle of it is like excising a kidney. I know some fans will find that self-interested, but I think some Federer fans, in particular, have more reason to shove Nadal out than include him, so that's fairly obvious, too. While Roger is losing control over absolute GOAT-ness, some fans want to erase his rivalry with Nadal, but I think that ship sailed a long time ago.

 

[El Dude]

Don't talk about the bolded thing when you are quoting my post. I never underestimated it. In fact, I went on record saying that I am not only willing to anoint Rafa the "clay GOAT", I am also willing to anoint him the "single surface GOAT". However, you cannot consider the clay record alone when talking about general GOATs.

It appears that you are trying to be politically correct by calling all three of them clay GOATs. You can always appreciate all of them for their different contributions, but cannot call all of them co-GOATs.

Or perhaps, you are not willing to award the singular GOAT to Novak (contrary to appearing to be so) and thought it is best to call all three co-GOATs as opposed to just calling only Novak and Roger so that Nadalites will join you.

I think most people agree with me that Ralph does not belong in the GOAT conversation for various (and very simple) reasons I have elucidated in this thread.

Let me simplify it. I'm talking about two different questions or paradigms:

Paradigm A - Herd of GOATs: Roger, Rafa, Novak, maybe Laver if we want to extend into pre-Open Era.
Paradigm B - Singular GOAT: Right now, Federer and Novak are co-GOATs, with Novak almost certainly to surpass him soon, and Rafa having a small but not-zero chance of surpassing both.

I am saying that I prefer Paradigm A because it allows for recognition of different flavors and contexts of greatness (not because it is PC...lol). But if we switch to B, I am OK with the idea that Novak is the likely eventual (and soon) answer. But that doesn't invalidate A. Meaning, I'm advocating for multiple perspectives and approaches to the question, while you seem to be deadset on coming to a singular GOAT is the only valid approach, and that it must be done through your conception of GOTEs.