The Goat Debate

[mick1303]

And I'm glad that you reminded of Sampras. Their head-to-head is 1-0 Federer. Do you think that making a conclusion on who is better basing on 4 matches is THAT much better than basing on 1 match? If Nadal and Djokovic played each other so many times, that you can safely conclude that Nadal is better on clay, while Novak is better on hard, the head-to head on grass is 2-2. Can you conclude that Nadal is comparable with Novak on grass? With such small sample as 4 matches you just can't rely on h2h. IMO head-to-head shall not be mentioned at all when comparing careers. Because these matches are the part of much larger sample - how the player in question fared against the whole field.

[ponchi101]

Novak's record against Roger is 27-24. His record against Roger, on grass, is 3-1 (all at Wimbledon).
Claiming that Roger would easily outplay him on that surface is a little bit of an overstatement.
...

And I'm glad that you reminded of Sampras. Their head-to-head is 1-0 Federer. Do you think that making a conclusion on who is better basing on 4 matches is THAT much better than basing on 1 match? If Nadal and Djokovic played each other so many times, that you can safely conclude that Nadal is better on clay, while Novak is better on hard, the head-to head on grass is 2-2. Can you conclude that Nadal is comparable with Novak on grass? With such small sample as 4 matches you just can't rely on h2h. IMO head-to-head shall not be mentioned at all when comparing careers. Because these matches are the part of much larger sample - how the player in question fared against the whole field.

Read my statement. I said precisely that claiming that Roger would beat Novak easily on grass was a bit of an overstatement. Especially seeing that in one of those matches, Roger held MP's and did not convert. 1 point, and their H2H would be 2-2.
Nadal vs Novak, on grass. Nope, I cannot conclude that they are equal on grass due to an even H2H. But I could say that Novak is better, seeing that he has 5 more Wimbledons.
I could say.

[mick1303]

Well, "easily outplay" was a stretch, I admit. None of these 3 would "easily outplay" any of the other two on any surface. Even Nadal on clay is not bulletproof. During Federer's prime Roger was unlucky that their decisive matches in Paris were always on sunny days. When it is overcast and ball is heavier, this extreme spin was getting less effective and Nadal was closer to the "mortal" level. Also that semis that Novak won. I remember that he lost the 1st set, but towards the end made a break and extended the set. And day was moving towards the evening and it was getting a bit cooler. I had a feeling that it would be tilting to Novak advantage more and more. And it did.
Also remember the weather the day Soderling beat him. Also cold an wet.
For his magic to work to the full extent Nadal needs very specific conditions. He does not need them for the 99.9% of the field, but for fellow all-time greats he does.

[ponchi101]

I will only add that the day Soderling beat him, Nadal was injured to the point that he did take an extended break. He missed W and several other tournaments.

[ashkor87]

Apropos nothing. Way back in the 80s, one of the American TV channels had a show where they had 10 sports- including tennis, running, jumping, swimming etc. And had the world's best in each sport compete in all except his own speciality. With 10 great champions, including, if I remember right, Nehemiah, one would expect each one to win 1 on average. Borg won 6 of them! He was a great athlete .

[ponchi101]

And had a 36 BPM heart rate.

[ashkor87]

And had a 36 BPM heart rate.

34, i think..

[ponchi101]

I meant after a long 5-setter...

[ashkor87]

Now that Djokovic has 23, the GOAT debate will resume. I personally think it is a bit presumptuous to talk of 'all time ' since we only know the present and the past.. but even so, I dont think number of grand slams is THE metric to define greatness.. I define 'great' by how good someone was at their best, provided it was sustained for a reasonable length of time (2 years is good enough for me). Djokovic was the best of this generation before the French Open and remains so after. That is all we can say.
Case in point: I would say Adriano Panatta was great, though he won only 1 major (I think) - the way he played, the shots, the attitude, he was great. I would not call Kefelnikov great, though he won more majors.. and so on. To a certain extent, it is subjective, but the quality of play is not subjective - we can all agree, I think, that Panatta at his best was awesome.

[mick1303]

Now that Djokovic has 23, the GOAT debate will resume. I personally think it is a bit presumptuous to talk of 'all time ' since we only know the present and the past.. but even so, I dont think number of grand slams is THE metric to define greatness.. I define 'great' by how good someone was at their best, provided it was sustained for a reasonable length of time (2 years is good enough for me). Djokovic was the best of this generation before the French Open and remains so after. That is all we can say.
Case in point: I would say Adriano Panatta was great, though he won only 1 major (I think) - the way he played, the shots, the attitude, he was great. I would not call Kefelnikov great, though he won more majors.. and so on. To a certain extent, it is subjective, but the quality of play is not subjective - we can all agree, I think, that Panatta at his best was awesome.

Regarding the first part of your statement - I agree. Slams count is too simplistic of the metric. In my personal opinion the best way to measure greatness is career win-loss percentage rather than the number of Slams.

If we measure the greatness by a rare peak performance, then you can call Panatta great. But then we have to call Safin great, because he surely had those insanely high level peak performances. But we all witnessed how dismal were Safin's lows... According to my data Panatta won 12 tournament out of 237 participations. This is around 5% which is not great. Safin won 17 out of 260, which is marginally the same (6.8%).

[ashkor87]

Good point,but yes, I do think Safin was great...not merely very good..

[ponchi101]

I don't think anybody, at least here, is measuring Novak's, or Roger's and Rafa's, achievements solely on number of Slams.
In page 1 of this topic, I have a small table, including several parameters. Sure, number of slams is there. But there are so many more. Weeks at #1, which speak of sustained ability. Total YEAR-END #1, which does too. Total tournaments, total wins.
I say Novak's final tally of slams will not be broken; he is pushing it too far. But the other truly impressive stat is that he has won EVERYWHERE, REPEATEDLY. The "at least 3" of every slam is impressive, but I say even more is "at least 2" of EVERY MS1000. He has won on very surface, every condition, every country, every everything.
Nelslus posted that to find a "dent" in their resumes it is really a matter of much nit-picking you want to do. Nole does not have a Gold Olympic medal. Imagine! But that is not in any sort a deterrent to his greatness.

About Marat (just because you mentioned him). What good was it to be "great" if you then did not fulfill that greatness? Was Marat, at his best, a great striker of the ball? You bet. Did he achieve what he should have? Not even close; two slams, with that game, is not even close. To me, he is one of the true underachievers of the game.

[ashkor87]

At the end of the day, it is a spectator sport..Safin was fun to watch.

[ponchi101]

Ah, but that is a different thing. If we are going for the FOAT, then we have to include Laconte, Rios, Mandlikova, Radwanska and many others. Heck, Mansour Bahrani makes the cut, as does Nastase.

[ashkor87]

true but it is worth thinking about - why should you or I care about consistency, points earned, prize money - do they give us a cut?! we should care about the players who are great to watch, from whom we, as players can learn a thing or two, or at least, marvel at..
and yes, all those you named are that .. plus Mecir, whom I loved to watch- I would go miles to watch him play, I would not cross the street to watch, say, Wilander or Mayotte..
but I agree, that is not what the GOAT debate is about.