The Goat Debate

[ponchi101]

And on Monday, the march to 400 weeks at #1 is back. Let's see if he makes it.

[skatingfan]

And on Monday, the march to 400 weeks at #1 is back. Let's see if he makes it.

11 weeks to go - he'll get 4 at least depending on the results of the US Open, and if he wins the title it will be almost guaranteed.

[mick1303]

I was curious to check - how many times the player beaten 2 of "big 3" in a Slam draw.

It happened 9 times. But 2005 Safin's win over Djokovic is just a funny factoid. Similarly 2006-2007 Nadal wins over Djokovic do not hold all that much weight, because Djokovic was still very green. Berdych 2010 Wimbledon run is the only one where beating two was not enough for the title.
Most impressive are Nadal 2008 RG, DelPo 2009 US Open, 2011 Djokovic US Open and two Wavrinka runs.

[ponchi101]

A still very green Djokovic was still Djokovic. It will always be an accomplishment.
Beating any two of those three will never be shabby.

[mick1303]

The notion that Alex Zverev is an underachiever is IMO a bit uninformed. You know how many players other than him have Olympic Gold in singles and multiple YEC titles? Presizely ZERO in the whole history of tennis. And it's not like I'm bringing some obscure stats like record number of Bastad titles. Both Olympics and YEC are in very high regard. And even if we put Olympics aside because of its rarity (only once in 4 years and it restarted only in 1988 for tennis), we still have only 10 multiple YEC winners in the whole Open Era. For comparisons - we have 58 slams champions and this includes 31 multi-slam champions.

[ponchi101]

He was hailed as a future #1, and he has a huge game. Good moves, the BH is an all-time-great stroke.
Yet, only one slam final? Has never been a dominant player for any stretch of time? Highest ranking at #2 is very good, but I say he has not fulfilled the potential.

And I am alone in this opinion, I know, but the Olympics are no measure of anything. A terribly flawed tournament that usually has a less impressive field than most MS1000's.

[ashkor87]

I agree Olympics is very weird..I means guys like Rosset have won it. Zverev has obvious talent, probably win a major or two over the next 5 years.. that horrific injury last year happened just when he was really playing well..he could have won a major or two more by now.

[mick1303]

He was hailed as a future #1, and he has a huge game. Good moves, the BH is an all-time-great stroke.
Yet, only one slam final? Has never been a dominant player for any stretch of time? Highest ranking at #2 is very good, but I say he has not fulfilled the potential.

And I am alone in this opinion, I know, but the Olympics are no measure of anything. A terribly flawed tournament that usually has a less impressive field than most MS1000's.

It is because of Olympic rules about maximum country representation. There is a limit of 4 players per country and some players from tennis-strong countries can't enter. Which reduces the quality of field. But still in a recent history it's something that is nice to have on your resume (along with Davis Cup)

[ponchi101]

Agree. I am not saying it is worthless.
But, if you give any player the choice, on January 1st, to win either an Olympic medal or a slam, I guarantee nobody picks the Olympics. The YEC of the Olympics? Still the YEC.
The Olympics were not a part of tennis for too long. They are the top achievement in many disciplines but, in tennis, I would even rank them behind historically important tournaments such as Rome, Canada or even Miami/IW.

[skatingfan]

Agree. I am not saying it is worthless.
But, if you give any player the choice, on January 1st, to win either an Olympic medal or a slam, I guarantee nobody picks the Olympics. The YEC of the Olympics? Still the YEC.
The Olympics were not a part of tennis for too long. They are the top achievement in many disciplines but, in tennis, I would even rank them behind historically important tournaments such as Rome, Canada or even Miami/IW.

I don't think that's as true now as it was in the past because a lot of countries where the Olympics is the ultimate event are now competitive in tennis. A slam is obviously the biggest dream of the top players, but I don't think most players are prioritizing 1000 events over the Olympics, and the players who don't go to the Olympics, like Casper Ruud, don't save themselves to win the summer 1000 events because they go play an ATP 250 event for a handsome appearance fee.

[mick1303]

Agree. I am not saying it is worthless.
But, if you give any player the choice, on January 1st, to win either an Olympic medal or a slam, I guarantee nobody picks the Olympics. The YEC of the Olympics? Still the YEC.
The Olympics were not a part of tennis for too long. They are the top achievement in many disciplines but, in tennis, I would even rank them behind historically important tournaments such as Rome, Canada or even Miami/IW.

I agree that winning a slam is vastly more important than Olympics - by the order of 10. YEC - also clearly much more important. Regular masters - one can argue. There is too many of them on the calendar. This lead to the traditional importance/value of Rome/Canada being somewhat eroded.

[ashkor87]

I remember Dementieva saying people know her on the streets of Moscow as an Olympic gold medalist, would not have if she had 'merely' won a major... different countries attach different importance to Olympics - probably least in the US, because Americans are used to winning so many medals.. in a smaller country, it probably matters more than Wimbledon, because the ordinary citizen knows Olympics, not Wimbledon.. and so on.

[mick1303]

Maybe it was discussed elsewhere in another thread, but what do you think of Tony Nadal's opinion that current top 10 is weaker than 10 years ago? I personally think that he is full of s**t and his comparisons are not fair. In 2013 top 10 had established players vs a lot of young players today. And when looking back we naturally remember each of older players by their high points. But young players did not have a chance to accumulate these high points.

[ponchi101]

Uhm... 10 years ago, the top players in the world were Novak, Roger, Rafa and Murray. The top 10 was rounded by people like Ferrer, Berdych and Tsonga.
Hard to say he is wrong when you look at that list.

[mmmm8]

Uhm... 10 years ago, the top players in the world were Novak, Roger, Rafa and Murray. The top 10 was rounded by people like Ferrer, Berdych and Tsonga.
Hard to say he is wrong when you look at that list.

Talent is debatable but results-wise, the differentiator is only Murray. The current 4-10 have results that are, generally, not below the likes of Ferrer, Berdych or Tsonga.