The Goat Debate

[mick1303]

I am not his fan, you know that.
But:
He is tied in grand slams with both of them, PLUS, he has at least two of each. Something they don't.
He is third in total tournaments, compared to them (fifth overall).
In every other metric, he is ahead.
So, as this is the thread: how do you reconcile the numbers with the NOT GOAT? I always like to read that opinion.

It depends on what you consider "metrics". Also there is an issue of co-dependency between these metrics. For example - Number of tournaments won and Number of matches won. These metrics are separate, but they are co-dependent. Djokovic trails Federer, Nadal, Lendl and Connors in both of these metrics.

If you want to venture into relative metrics - then for 1968-2020 Borg has very high win percentage in Slams 89.24 - better than everyone else (including Djokovic - 86.8). Novak was #4. With his stellar 2021 season he will rise in this category, but not enough to overtake Borg. But then again - this category is better judged upon retirement.

[ashkor87]

If Rafa nor Nole come around, Federer would have retired already, with 25 slams and having lost interest in the sport after burying two generations of players without as much as a speck of blood on his white Wimbledon jacket. The three drove each other to get better and better.
Whoever voted other, please, don't tease us that way! Who? Sampras? Borg? Emerson? Lucho Horna?

Ricardo Gonzalez was my vote

[ashkor87]

Also called Pancho

[ponchi101]

...

It depends on what you consider "metrics". Also there is an issue of co-dependency between these metrics. For example - Number of tournaments won and Number of matches won. These metrics are separate, but they are co-dependent. Djokovic trails Federer, Nadal, Lendl and Connors in both of these metrics.

If you want to venture into relative metrics - then for 1968-2020 Borg has very high win percentage in Slams 89.24 - better than everyone else (including Djokovic - 86.8). Novak was #4. With his stellar 2021 season he will rise in this category, but not enough to overtake Borg. But then again - this category is better judged upon retirement.

I consider metrics ANYTHING that you can count or measure. The stat you mention is another (and thanks for that). You can also say that Pete has the best winning percentage in Slam finals (14-4) and therefore he is in the conversation. And then you start looking at all the stats and decide who is clearly ahead. For Borg, the initial reason I would not count him as the GOAT is that he never won the USO. Then I would look at some more. The one you bring up is indeed interesting.
For example, in the WTA, I consider Steffi ahead of Serena. Every stat is in favor of Graf, except for total Slams. And Steffi did it all in far fewer years than Serena. So the numbers can be compared (I think).

If Rafa nor Nole come around, Federer would have retired already, with 25 slams and having lost interest in the sport after burying two generations of players without as much as a speck of blood on his white Wimbledon jacket. The three drove each other to get better and better.
Whoever voted other, please, don't tease us that way! Who? Sampras? Borg? Emerson? Lucho Horna?

Ricardo Gonzalez was my vote

A forgotten man that every one of the elders claims played like a God. But, unfortunately, out of Slam competition too early in his career.

[mick1303]

I consider metrics ANYTHING that you can count or measure. The stat you mention is another (and thanks for that). You can also say that Pete has the best winning percentage in Slam finals (14-4) and therefore he is in the conversation. And then you start looking at all the stats and decide who is clearly ahead. For Borg, the initial reason I would not count him as the GOAT is that he never won the USO. Then I would look at some more. The one you bring up is indeed interesting.
For example, in the WTA, I consider Steffi ahead of Serena. Every stat is in favor of Graf, except for total Slams. And Steffi did it all in far fewer years than Serena. So the numbers can be compared (I think).

First note: I strongly oppose the stats where partial data is taken, while the whole set of data is readily available. This partial stat (like winning percentage in the finals) may look "sexier" but IMO it is grossly misleading. This stat just means that in all those other instances Sampras was losing earlier. Djokovic won his GS #14 at US Open 2018. At this point he had 9 losses in the finals. His "percentage in the finals" was clearly worse than that of Pete. But to me it just means that he reached 5 extra Grand Slam finals, comparing to Pete (meaning Pete lost before the finals or didn't even play the slam).

Now - regarding that metric is something that is quantifiable. I wholeheartedly agree. But then you mention some reasoning that is not quantifiable at all (correct me if I'm wrong). For instance - the diversity of Slams won. Yes, it clearly looks "sexier" to win different slams. But by how much exactly? By how much is Wawrinka with 3 different slams is better than Kuerten with 3 of the same? If someone can come up with a clear and rational explanation - I will tip my hat )

[ponchi101]

Stan's three slams were won on two different surfaces, Guga's were all on clay. It says a bit about their game.
I mention diversity of slams because it is something that only three players have ever achieved (winning two of each). Therefore, a little bit knowledge is gained on that info.
A theoretical extreme case. Assume somebody would win 10 RG and 10 Aussies. It is not the same as winning 20 slams split in all of them. It would still be awesome, but you would need to gauge it properly. For example, again, Emerson's 6 Aussies, a very good record, are seldom seen as that. But I agree that is an extreme example.

[ashkor87]

Elo rating is another 'objective' measure..I believe Djokovic and Navratilova achieved the highest ever...it is what chess uses, does not consider what round, which tournament, just head to head ...

[ashkor87]

Nate Silver's fivethirtyeight.com had some nice data and graphics on this a couple years ago..

[ashkor87]

Just for reference, and avoiding the men, the peak Elo ratings for women currently active are (according to tennisabstract.com,)
Serena 2508
Venus 2454
Vika 2325
Barty 2219.6
Osaka 2199

Not too far out, are they?

[Liamvalid]

I still don’t like this acronym GOAT. To me the GOAT is more than statistics, it’s about stylistics, it’s how you carry yourself on the court, it’s about what you do to endear non fans to want to watch the sport. Even though I’m not a fan of his personally, Federer is the easy GOAT for me. Maybe if Nole gets to 30 slams the other stuff may not count, but I can only acknowledge Djokovic as the most successful tennis player, not the Greatest

[ashkor87]

I still don’t like this acronym GOAT. To me the GOAT is more than statistics, it’s about stylistics, it’s how you carry yourself on the court, it’s about what you do to endear non fans to want to watch the sport. Even though I’m not a fan of his personally, Federer is the easy GOAT for me. Maybe if Nole gets to 30 slams the other stuff may not count, but I can only acknowledge Djokovic as the most successful tennis player, not the Greatest

Agree with you..endear fans too, why only non-fans?! I too like Federer the best...though Djokovic is almost certainly the most successful

[ashkor87]

I still don’t like this acronym GOAT. To me the GOAT is more than statistics, it’s about stylistics, it’s how you carry yourself on the court, it’s about what you do to endear non fans to want to watch the sport. Even though I’m not a fan of his personally, Federer is the easy GOAT for me. Maybe if Nole gets to 30 slams the other stuff may not count, but I can only acknowledge Djokovic as the most successful tennis player, not the Greatest

Agree with you..endear fans too, why only non-fans?! I too like Federer the best...though Djokovic is almost certainly the most successful

[dmforever]

I look at it in completely the opposite way. For me, only statistics matter. Things like style and demeanor are too subjective IMHO. But to each their own.

Kevin

[meganfernandez]

I still don’t like this acronym GOAT. To me the GOAT is more than statistics, it’s about stylistics, it’s how you carry yourself on the court, it’s about what you do to endear non fans to want to watch the sport. Even though I’m not a fan of his personally, Federer is the easy GOAT for me. Maybe if Nole gets to 30 slams the other stuff may not count, but I can only acknowledge Djokovic as the most successful tennis player, not the Greatest

That’s the thing - “greatness” means different things to different people.

My head says Djokovic, heart and soul say Federer… but I also didn’t watch much tennis before 88, so I can’t fairly judge Laver or anyone else and how they would stack up.

I like the standard, “Who would you choose to play for your life?” I’d take Nadal on clay. I do think Nadal on clay is the most dominant male player ever. Not sure that makes him the greatest or how it stacks up to Fed on a fast court in his prime.

For me, Fed played the greatest tennis I’ve ever seen, but this feeling also influenced by the whole atmosphere around his play in 2003-2009, and esp through 2007. It’s hard to isolate just the tennis. It was a magical ride for a few years. He could do absolutely anything with the ball.

I supposed Fed is, to me, earns some deference as the original GOAT of the Big 3. Sure Nadal and Djokovic met and surpassed his standard, by a hair, but he set it. It’s a touch easier when you have a standard and a mark to chase.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Liamvalid]

I look at it in completely the opposite way. For me, only statistics matter. Things like style and demeanor are too subjective IMHO. But to each their own.

Kevin

Ali is commonly recognised as the greatest boxer, but his statistics are not as impressive as some other heavyweights, he just transcended the sport in a way no other did-same as Federer (Borg and McEnroe too) I guess in tennis it’s easier to study the amount of titles etc to use as a marker for success. Whatever people opinions on what makes a GOAT though, we’ve sure had a fun 10 years or so watching these guys try and catch each other, and I do enjoy reading peoples views on the subject