by
ponchi101 Some of the stats for the big three.
| Record |
Federer |
Nadal |
Djokovic |
| Slams & % |
20/81 (24.7%) |
22/64 (34%) |
24/73 (32.9%) |
| YE #1 |
5 |
5 |
8 |
| MS1000 |
28 |
36 |
40 |
| Weeks #1 |
310 |
209 |
428 |
| Total Tournaments |
103 |
92 |
98 |
| H2H |
16-24/23-27 |
24-16/29-30 |
27-23/30-29 |
| YE Championships |
6 |
0 |
7 |
| Slams (W/L/%) |
20/11/.65 |
22/8/.73 |
24/13/.65 |
| % Tournaments |
103/367 (28%) |
92/297 (31%) |
98/298 (33%) |
| % Won @ Slams |
369/60 (86%) |
310/41 (88%) |
371/50 (88%) |
Misc.
Federer has the record for consecutive weeks at #1, with 237 (male or female)
Nadal holds the record for most titles at one single slam (14). He won at least one single tournament for 19 straight years.
Djokovic has won every slam at least three times, Nadal have won every Slam at least twice.
Djokovic has won every MS1000 at least three times, except Monte Carlo. He has 12 slams after the age of 30. He has reached the Semis or best of all MS1000's at least 7 times each.
Djokovic has reached the QF's of a slam 56 times.
Nadal and Djokovic have won a slam at least ten times, with only Margaret Court also having done that (11 Australian Opens).
The three of them have won over 1,000 matches on tour.
And on and on and on. The sole records of relevance these men do not hold, combined, are TOTAL TOURNAMENTS (109, Jimmy Connors) and consecutive years as #1 (6, Sampras)
by Liamvalid When the likes of Jankovic and Safina got more weeks at number 1 than Venus, it is a stat that I have since stopped caring about. At first glance I’d put Djokovic as the best of the 3 thanks to winning all masters twice and the Nole Slam. But the argument is, does the “greatest” equate to the most successful
by atlpam Federer will always be GOAT to me, but that is more subjective and includes intangibles. Nadal is the GOAT on clay without a doubt. Hard for me to classify Djokovic as I have very conflicting perspectives. Laver is always in the "we'll never know" camp since we cannot compare records.
by the Moz Federer will always be the GOAT for me too. But for the history books, The Big 3 make a strong case for a GOAT Trio. They possess phenomenal CVs and they bring their own distinct elements or achievements to the debate. They also for the most part played their careers together. All three became better players and were more successful methinks.
by
ponchi101 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?
by
dave g ponchi101 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 01, 2021 6:07 pm
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?
My general interpretation of how people pick their metrics to decide who is the GOAT is to pick their GOAT and find which metric makes that player the GOAT. I consider this approach to be self-delusional. So I went with a metric and let the records fall where they may. I decide that the best metric is the number of Grand Slam singles titles.
Therefore, the GOAT
currently is Serena Williams.
When the current Big Three ATP players retire, the GOAT will probably be Novak Djokovic.
When all the currently active players retire, the GOAT might be Naomi Osaka.
by
the Moz ponchi101 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 01, 2021 6:07 pm
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?
I'm changing my vote. Post #4 says why
by
ponchi101 dave g wrote: ↑Mon Mar 01, 2021 6:40 pm
...
My general interpretation of how people pick their metrics to decide who is the GOAT is to pick their GOAT and find which metric makes that player the GOAT. I consider this approach to be self-delusional. So I went with a metric and let the records fall where they may. I decide that the best metric is the number of Grand Slam singles titles.
Therefore, the GOAT
currently is Serena Williams.
When the current Big Three ATP players retire, the GOAT will probably be Novak Djokovic.
When all the currently active players retire, the GOAT might be Naomi Osaka.
That makes Emerson better than Laver and Borg
by Woody I agree with Dave g. Each of the 3 has a convincing argument for being GOAT and a convincing argument against. I no longer think there is an objective GOAT. Federer is the most skilled (which again is a subjective term, but you probably know what I mean), Nadal is the greatest clay courter, and most consistently intense player ever (gives 100% mentally and physically on every single point/shot), Djokovic I guess is the most... complete(?) player ever - no weaknesses.
by ti-amie I don't believe there can be an overall "GOAT" in tennis because each generation brings different mental attitudes and skill sets. I voted but it's subjective as has been said.
by Deuce I came here to vote for the only logical person - Shlomo Glickstein -, and am shocked - utterly stunned - that he was omitted from the list.
You people simply don't know your tennis.
by
Woody Deuce wrote: ↑Tue Mar 02, 2021 4:54 am
I came here to vote for the only logical person - Shlomo Glickstein -, and am shocked - utterly stunned - that he was omitted from the list.
You people simply don't know your tennis.
I just assumed that's who "Other" was referring to.
by meganfernandez It's probably doing to be Nadal, although I'll never be totally confident that it's not Federer when I factor in some intangibles.
Overall, though, it's Serena for me, adjusting for nature's disparity.
by ponchi101 Tangential to this.
Novak passed Roger in weeks at #1, for men. Next in line is Serena at 319, which seems certain as he is holding those Wimbledon points and his gap with #2, be it Nadal or Medvedev, is very large. Then it would be Navratilova at 332, which seems doable. But the lead is Graf, at 377. Will he get there?
by
meganfernandez ponchi101 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 3:02 pm
Tangential to this.
Novak passed Roger in weeks at #1, for men. Next in line is Serena at 319, which seems certain as he is holding those Wimbledon points and his gap with #2, be it Nadal or Medvedev, is very large. Then it would be Navratilova at 332, which seems doable. But the lead is Graf, at 377. Will he get there?
Wow, that's a good question, but yes he can do another solid year-plus, even if it's not consecutive. I'm sure he knows about that record and is motivated.
by Drop-shot IF Nole catches up with Roger/Rafa, stats will definitly incline the scales in his favor.
by ponchi101 Numbers updated.
Where does Novak end? 23 slams? Right now, that seems conservative.
by dmforever Two people voted for "other". Who is this other? Sampras?
Kevin
by
ponchi101 dmforever wrote: ↑Sun Jul 11, 2021 5:11 pm
Two people voted for "other". Who is this other? Sampras?
Kevin
One of them chose Serena as the GOAT. I can't recall who the other vote was for.
It is further up the topic.
by
dmforever ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 11, 2021 5:35 pm
dmforever wrote: ↑Sun Jul 11, 2021 5:11 pm
Two people voted for "other". Who is this other? Sampras?
Kevin
One of them chose Serena as the GOAT. I can't recall who the other vote was for.
It is further up the topic.
Oh. I thought there were separate GOATS for men and women. In that case it makes sense. Maybe someone else took Court. Thanks for the clarification.
Kevin
by
ponchi101 Although I started this just to keep track of the Big Three's accomplishments, a member expressed his opinion about Serena.
Which was indeed open as I did not say MEN'S GOAT.
Everybody here has a voice
by
dmforever ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 11, 2021 6:48 pm
Although I started this just to keep track of the Big Three's accomplishments, a member expressed his opinion about Serena.
Which was indeed open as I did not say MEN'S GOAT.
Everybody here has a voice
I guess there is a women's GOAT, a men's GOAT, and then a GOAT GOAT!
KEVIN
by Jeff from TX While I do think that Nadal is the clay GOAT and I love Federer, Djokovic will be the GOAT. COVID messed with the numbers somewhat, but there is no question in my mind, barring injury, that Djokovic with finish with at least 23/24 GS. His stats on every surface is impressive. Fed's time to add another GS has closed - if Nadal had not come along, I think he would have had at least 4 -5 French Titles, so I can see an argument in his favor. Also, some of his losses to Novak in Grand Slams were truly razor thin, so there is that. And while I am not a particular Nadal fan, no one can question the intensity he brings to every match that he plays.
by mick1303 I'm wondering if blog entries from original TAT are available in any form. I had a piece on weighted ranking - it is directly related to G.O.A.T discussion ). In any case - I will do new calculations once 2021 will end.
by mick1303 When someone mixes ATP records with those of WTA I feel sick ((( These results were achieved under very different conditions. Ladies play best of 3 in the slams - it is no different from any WTA tournament, except they have a day of rest. For ladies slams are EASIER from physical standpoint than regular tour. Not to mention that WTA as a league has embedded limitation (only women). ATP does not have this limitation. If we count WTA records, we might as well count juniors, seniors and wheelchair tennis - all these competitions have this thing in common with WTA - LIMITED REPRESENTATION.
by
ponchi101 mick1303 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 21, 2021 5:44 am
I'm wondering if blog entries from original TAT are available in any form. I had a piece on weighted ranking - it is directly related to G.O.A.T discussion ). In any case - I will do new calculations once 2021 will end.
No. What was in TAT1.0 is basically gone from here, although it might be found in some sort of web-archive. If you did not keep a copy of your writing, it is pretty much lost.
I don't understand your point about limited representation. The WTA is indeed only women. But the ATP is only men. I don't see the difference.
by
mick1303 ponchi101 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 21, 2021 3:43 pm
I don't understand your point about limited representation. The WTA is indeed only women. But the ATP is only men. I don't see the difference.
ATP does not have rules, preventing women (or transgender players) from entering the tour.
In the ATP rulebook in 1.11.1 it says "any individual", not "any male".
by
Woody mick1303 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 28, 2021 5:21 am
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 21, 2021 3:43 pm
I don't understand your point about limited representation. The WTA is indeed only women. But the ATP is only men. I don't see the difference.
ATP does not have rules, preventing women (or transgender players) from entering the tour.
In the ATP rulebook in 1.11.1 it says "any individual", not "any male".
You skipped over 1.01: "In official men’s professional tennis..."
by ponchi101 Wouldn't we agree that if a woman transitions to a male identity, she gains no advantage other than a new gender identity if the new HE wants to play in the ATP? Therefore, the ATP really would have no issues if that case would happen?
The reverse process is not equivalent. We can remember Renee Richards in the '70's, although she was not successful in the WTA.
by
mick1303 ponchi101 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 11, 2021 2:58 pm
Wouldn't we agree that if a woman transitions to a male identity, she gains no advantage other than a new gender identity if the new HE wants to play in the ATP? Therefore, the ATP really would have no issues if that case would happen?
The reverse process is not equivalent. We can remember Renee Richards in the '70's, although she was not successful in the WTA.
Not only that. I'm pretty sure that if regular female player would decide to pursue this route - try to enroll in ATP and participate along with male players, ATP would not prohibit it basing on gender only. But exclusively on merit - meaning her results. I think something like that happened in golf once, and PGA allowed it.
by ponchi101 Not that this was unexpected, but Novak has passed Martina for the #2 position in weeks as #1. He is now at 333.
By now, I would say that he will pass Steffi (377). The new question is: can he reach 400?
by
mick1303 ponchi101 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 4:25 pm
Not that this was unexpected, but Novak has passed Martina for the #2 position in weeks as #1. He is now at 333.
By now, I would say that he will pass Steffi (377). The new question is: can he reach 400?
As I've already pointed out, these comparisons IMO are classic cases of comparing apples with oranges. But even when looking at this new reality for men and women separately - one can't help but wonder how much "slowing down" tours affects the ranking movement at the top. I think this is not a coincidence that both male and female #1 have a stronghold on this position. Players are travel less due to various forms of quarantine restrictions. Even though most tournaments proceed - the competition is somewhat "watered down", because not all best players are always available. It is impossible to quantify of course - how much it affected the overall outcome, but future tennis historians may put an asterisk to Novak's record of weeks at #1.
by ponchi101 I am not fond of asterisks, but I am fond of explaining the situations. Asterisks make it look as if the achievement is not valid. I prefer to have the explanations, which give the proper flavor to the richness of the sport and its history.
In the end, Novak's achievements will make for a very interesting discussion and talk. Time will pass. He will become an elder in the sport, perhaps celebrated all over in the same way the McEnroe is. Add to that the fact that he will be president of Serbia one of these days, and his lore will be large.
by
meganfernandez ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 28, 2021 3:26 pm
I am not fond of asterisks, but I am fond of explaining the situations. Asterisks make it look as if the achievement is not valid. I prefer to have the explanations, which give the proper flavor to the richness of the sport and its history.
In the end, Novak's achievements will make for a very interesting discussion and talk. Time will pass. He will become an elder in the sport, perhaps celebrated all over in the same way the McEnroe is. Add to that the fact that he will be president of Serbia one of these days, and his lore will be large.
The more time that passes, the more the numbers and achievements harden into history. The x-factors fade. Djokovic will be considered the GOAT in a couple generations. We'll be mumbling about Federer and Nadal through our dentures.
by mick1303 I think it used to be the case when all the past was in some kind of haze which covered imperfections, therefore the players from yesteryear were legendary and better than the modern by definition. I doubt that future tennis fans and historians will lack a critical thinking and go for simplified opinions. The numbers are getting more and more available in the Internet age. The numbers are not fading into obscurity. If someone is willing to dig deeper, he'll have a means to do so. Take Masters 1000 (previous Super 9) for instance. On the surface - Djokovic has 36 titles, Nadal has the same number and Federer - 28. But there is a wrinkle - these tournaments weren't always the same. They used to be with best of 5 finals, but then this faded away. And IMO winning such Masters holds a little bit more weight than the one with best of 3 finals. Djokovic won only 1 out of his 36 masters finals in best of 5 format. Nadal won 5 of those. Federer won 8. This is just an example that simplification and relying of "easy" numbers does not always yield the most objective result. To summarize - I'm not buying "harden into history" narrative.
by
ashkor87 dave g wrote: ↑Mon Mar 01, 2021 6:40 pm
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 01, 2021 6:07 pm
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?
My general interpretation of how people pick their metrics to decide who is the GOAT is to pick their GOAT and find which metric makes that player the GOAT. I consider this approach to be self-delusional. So I went with a metric and let the records fall where they may. I decide that the best metric is the number of Grand Slam singles titles.
Therefore, the GOAT
currently is Serena Williams.
When the current Big Three ATP players retire, the GOAT will probably be Novak Djokovic.
When all the currently active players retire, the GOAT might be Naomi Osaka.
yes, but remember that Grand Slams titles began to be counted seriously only recently - Navratilova did not even play in many AusOpens because she didnt think it was worth it. In the not-so-distant past, many people did not even bother to play the Australian because it was the LAST event of the year, not the first - and unless there was a calendar slam on the line, many players didnt think it was worth it.. I remember McEnroe once saying he was so happy to have stopped Borg in the USO because it meant he didnt have to go to Australian to stop his calendar year slam..
by ashkor87 Djokovic has a head to head winning record against both Nadal and Federer
.makes it hard to argue for either of them..whether or not ypu think Djoko is the best, how can either Federer or Nadal be the greatest when Djoko has a winning record against them?
My personal favourite is Pancho Gonzales
by
Liamvalid ashkor87 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 08, 2021 3:38 pm
Djokovic has a head to head winning record against both Nadal and Federer
.makes it hard to argue for either of them..whether or not ypu think Djoko is the best, how can either Federer or Nadal be the greatest when Djoko has a winning record against them?
My personal favourite is Pancho Gonzales
Oh I can argue all day about how Djokovic is not greater than either of Fedal. Most successful of all time? He’s already there. Greatest of all time? Nah
by ponchi101 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.
by ashkor87 I think the GOAT question is a very subjective one. My definition would be - who at his best would have beaten any other player ever? Impossible to say, of course, across eras..and he/she must have played at that level for a bit, not just once or twice...for me, it is Gonzales.
by
ashkor87 Liamvalid wrote: ↑Mon Nov 08, 2021 5:08 pm
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 08, 2021 3:38 pm
Djokovic has a head to head winning record against both Nadal and Federer
.makes it hard to argue for either of them..whether or not ypu think Djoko is the best, how can either Federer or Nadal be the greatest when Djoko has a winning record against them?
My personal favourite is Pancho Gonzales
Oh I can argue all day about how Djokovic is not greater than either of Fedal. Most successful of all time? He’s already there. Greatest of all time? Nah
mine is not an argument for Djokovic, only an argument AGAINST Nadal and Federer!
by ashkor87 Just for fun: I also did this exercise one afternoon when I had nothing better to do:
Djokovic is a bit younger than Nadal, who is also a bit younger than Federer, so I thought it best to control for age.
on the assumption that a player is at his best between the ages of 23 and 33, I compiled head to head records of Federer/Nadal and Djokovic only considering results of matches played when BOTH were in this age range.
Result:
Djokovic: Federer 11:10
Nadal: Federer 11:9
Djokovic: Nadal 19:10
the data speaks....
by
mick1303 ponchi101 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 08, 2021 10:53 pm
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.
by
ashkor87 ponchi101 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 01, 2021 6:07 pm
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
by ashkor87 Also called Pancho
by
ponchi101 mick1303 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 09, 2021 10:39 am
...
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).
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 09, 2021 11:40 am
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 01, 2021 6:07 pm
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.
by
mick1303 ponchi101 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 09, 2021 3:07 pm
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 )
by 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.
by 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 ...
by ashkor87 Nate Silver's fivethirtyeight.com had some nice data and graphics on this a couple years ago..
by 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?
by 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
by
ashkor87 Liamvalid wrote: ↑Wed Nov 10, 2021 12:21 pm
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
by
ashkor87 Liamvalid wrote: ↑Wed Nov 10, 2021 12:21 pm
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
by
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
by
meganfernandez Liamvalid wrote: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
by
Liamvalid dmforever wrote: ↑Wed Nov 10, 2021 4:01 pm
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
by ashkor87 As I have remarked earlier, number of majors began to be relevant only recently..so can only be used to compare The big 3 today..how fitting and poetic it would be if they all ended up on 20! The Australian has begun to be taken seriously by the players only after it switched from being the last tournament of the year to the first..Navratilova , for instance, has passed up several AOs simply because she didn't think it was worth her trouble..(of course, in earlier times, of Laver et al, people did think the AO was important simply because of them)
by ponchi101 I see your point, Moz, but then we are talking about PEOPLE, not PLAYERS. For example, neither Arthur Ashe not BJK should have their names attached to the National Tennis Center facilities, if ONLY playing stats mattered. Ashe and BJK are perfect examples of players that transcended the sport, which is why they are remembered fondly and their names are attached to the Stadium and the Complex. Philip Chatrier is another name that really could not be attached to the stadium in RG. He is there for other reasons.
My opinion about Navratilova being the women's GOAT includes my fondness for her game, but she still comes short when it comes to stats against Steffi. And regarding Novak, I believe he is the least worthy of the three current candidates in terms of the kind of person he is, but I am not measuring him by that. This GOAT category, to me, includes solely what has been achieved within the lines of the court.
Heck, I was willing to give Pete the GOAT crown before these three came along, even though he had no RG's and there were some other things missing. But with these three guys numbers up there, there is no way, to me, that I can give the GOAT title to anybody outside the group. But I only am thinking about inside the lines.
by
mick1303 ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 11, 2021 4:29 pm
I see your point, Moz, but then we are talking about PEOPLE, not PLAYERS. For example, neither Arthur Ashe not BJK should have their names attached to the National Tennis Center facilities, if ONLY playing stats mattered. Ashe and BJK are perfect examples of players that transcended the sport, which is why they are remembered fondly and their names are attached to the Stadium and the Complex. Philip Chatrier is another name that really could not be attached to the stadium in RG. He is there for other reasons.
My opinion about Navratilova being the women's GOAT includes my fondness for her game, but she still comes short when it comes to stats against Steffi. And regarding Novak, I believe he is the least worthy of the three current candidates in terms of the kind of person he is, but I am not measuring him by that. This GOAT category, to me, includes solely what has been achieved within the lines of the court.
Heck, I was willing to give Pete the GOAT crown before these three came along, even though he had no RG's and there were some other things missing. But with these three guys numbers up there, there is no way, to me, that I can give the GOAT title to anybody outside the group. But I only am thinking about inside the lines.
I think you are selling Navratilova a bit short here. Yes, Graf won more slams and has better percentages. But Navratilova has massive advantage in cumulative stats. 1439 matches won (Steffi - 891). Nav won 167 tournaments to Steffi's 109. I did not run weighted ranking for WTA, but I suspect that she is close or even has higher weighted ranking.
by ponchi101 I wrote, in the previous forum, that I thought the women's GOAT was Navs. But, as you said above, incomplete sets of data are not of your liking. In this case, sure, Steffi has fewer tourneys and fewer wins, but the other data are in her favor. You have run the weighted rankings, and maybe Navs is higher there, but Steffi retired earlier. It would take a complete picture, which I did some years ago (or tried to; I did not do weighted ranking). In the end, as good as Navs was at her peak (83-87), Steffi's numbers are frigging impressive.
And there is a certain woman whose name shall not be mentioned, who also has some numbers that are mind-blowing. 198 total tournaments, a winning percentage against top 10 players in the 90% range. Still, one has to look at a lot of numbers.
by ashkor87 One way to compare players across eras is to look at their performance against good players who spanned eras..bridge players..Agassi, Connors, Newcombe among the men, Hingis among the women...
by
mick1303 ponchi101 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 12, 2021 10:13 pm
I wrote, in the previous forum, that I thought the women's GOAT was Navs. But, as you said above, incomplete sets of data are not of your liking. In this case, sure, Steffi has fewer tourneys and fewer wins, but the other data are in her favor. You have run the weighted rankings, and maybe Navs is higher there, but Steffi retired earlier. It would take a complete picture, which I did some years ago (or tried to; I did not do weighted ranking). In the end, as good as Navs was at her peak (83-87), Steffi's numbers are frigging impressive.
And there is a certain woman whose name shall not be mentioned, who also has some numbers that are mind-blowing. 198 total tournaments, a winning percentage against top 10 players in the 90% range. Still, one has to look at a lot of numbers.
That unnamed player has another mind-boggling stat (although it is limited to Open era only). She won 56% of tournaments that she entered! Steffi won 46% (almost), Navs won close to 41%, Serena won 29.5 %... We shall also mention Chris Evert who won 43%...
by
mick1303 ashkor87 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 13, 2021 3:34 am
One way to compare players across eras is to look at their performance against good players who spanned eras..bridge players..Agassi, Connors, Newcombe among the men, Hingis among the women...
I do not consider such things reliable. The name may be the same, but the form of the player is different (sometimes drastically so).
And again - this is another stat picked out of broader picture. These narrow stats can prove whatever the person is looking for.
by
ashkor87 mick1303 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 13, 2021 11:34 am
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 13, 2021 3:34 am
One way to compare players across eras is to look at their performance against good players who spanned eras..bridge players..Agassi, Connors, Newcombe among the men, Hingis among the women...
I do not consider such things reliable. The name may be the same, but the form of the player is different (sometimes drastically so).
And again - this is another stat picked out of broader picture. These narrow stats can prove whatever the person is looking for.
Agree it is not reliable .just another perspective to flesh out the picture..
by
ponchi101 mick1303 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 13, 2021 11:34 am
...
I do not consider such things reliable. The name may be the same, but the form of the player is different (sometimes drastically so).
And again - this is another stat picked out of broader picture. These narrow stats can prove whatever the person is looking for.
BTW, Mick. You can see that the table in the first page has space for more stats. Feel free to tell me what other figures can be added, and I will put them there.
by
mick1303 ponchi101 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 15, 2021 8:54 pm
mick1303 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 13, 2021 11:34 am
...
I do not consider such things reliable. The name may be the same, but the form of the player is different (sometimes drastically so).
And again - this is another stat picked out of broader picture. These narrow stats can prove whatever the person is looking for.
BTW, Mick. You can see that the table in the first page has space for more stats. Feel free to tell me what other figures can be added, and I will put them there.
Criteria to add - IMO if you have some criterion of cumulative nature, it shall be balanced by the criterion that is based on the same data but of relative nature. And vice versa. For example - Total Number of Tournaments won - Share of tournamens won out of all entered.
The "Percentage in the finals" is grossly misleading, because it awards the player who lost in the semis (or earlier) over the player who reached the final. This is just plain wrong. If you want to study Slams performance deeper than just titles, you could pick accumulated ranking in slams and win percentage in slams.
by
ashkor87 ashkor87 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 09, 2021 11:40 am
Also called Pancho
He was ranked #1 in the world 8 years in a row 1954-62, beat every Wimbledon champion for 10 years in a row, beat Laver in 1970 at the age of 41, when Laver was close to his best.
I consider him to be the greatest...
by ti-amie Is it true that "Pancho" Gonzalez also perfected the serve and volley now technique so many in the US are in love with? I would say he invented it but I'm not good on tennis history especially back then.
by
mick1303 ashkor87 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 16, 2021 3:51 pm
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 09, 2021 11:40 am
Also called Pancho
He was ranked #1 in the world 8 years in a row 1954-62, beat every Wimbledon champion for 10 years in a row, beat Laver in 1970 at the age of 41, when Laver was close to his best.
I consider him to be the greatest...
You sound like Gonzales was beating Laver like a drum. In reality in Open Era portion Laver leads 8-2 head-to-head. My pre-open database of results is not that complete, but from what I have during 64-67 they played 23 times and Laver leads 16-7.
by
ponchi101 ti-amie wrote: ↑Tue Nov 16, 2021 7:26 pm
Is it true that "Pancho" Gonzalez also perfected the serve and volley now technique so many in the US are in love with? I would say he invented it but I'm not good on tennis history especially back then.
I don't know if he perfected the S&V game, but he was one of the first players to play the American power game of that era, together with Kramer. Serve and volley, attack the net at any opportunity. In the distant past now. I also always wondered why it was called the Big Game, and why it was tied to Americans. Not like Laver, Rosewall, Newcombe and all the other Aussies were not practicing it too.
by
ti-amie ponchi101 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 16, 2021 10:01 pm
ti-amie wrote: ↑Tue Nov 16, 2021 7:26 pm
Is it true that "Pancho" Gonzalez also perfected the serve and volley now technique so many in the US are in love with? I would say he invented it but I'm not good on tennis history especially back then.
I don't know if he perfected the S&V game, but he was one of the first players to play the American power game of that era, together with Kramer. Serve and volley, attack the net at any opportunity. In the distant past now. I also always wondered why it was called the Big Game, and why it was tied to Americans. Not like Laver, Rosewall, Newcombe and all the other Aussies were not practicing it too.
Thanks.
by
ashkor87 ponchi101 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 16, 2021 10:01 pm
ti-amie wrote: ↑Tue Nov 16, 2021 7:26 pm
Is it true that "Pancho" Gonzalez also perfected the serve and volley now technique so many in the US are in love with? I would say he invented it but I'm not good on tennis history especially back then.
I don't know if he perfected the S&V game, but he was one of the first players to play the American power game of that era, together with Kramer. Serve and volley, attack the net at any opportunity. In the distant past now. I also always wondered why it was called the Big Game, and why it was tied to Americans. Not like Laver, Rosewall, Newcombe and all the other Aussies were not practicing it too.
The power game is attributed nowadays to Althea Gibson, I think...
.
by ashkor87 But Kramer already played that way, early 50s..maybe that is why Americans are generally credited with it
by ashkor87 Doubles is also tennis..I always rate Nadal and Murray a bit higher than their singles performances would warrant, because they are both great doubles players too..McEnroe certainly, higher than his contemporaries..not sure about Federer...
by ponchi101 The sole reason I usually do not include doubles is that, for example, that makes the GOAT for women's clear cut. It is Navratilova and nobody else comes close, IF YOU INCLUDE DOUBLES.
Also, since most single players no longer engage in doubles regularly, it makes it hard to gauge. We saw it at the (2008?) Olympics, when Stan and Roger won the gold over all the other doubles specialists, and again in Rio, when Rafa won it with Marc Lopez. The singles guys, if they were committed to that side of the sport, would clean it up.
McEnroe would certainly climb up the rankings, as would Edberg (a great doubles team with Jarryd).
by
ashkor87 ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 4:52 pm
The sole reason I usually do not include doubles is that, for example, that makes the GOAT for women's clear cut. It is Navratilova and nobody else comes close, IF YOU INCLUDE DOUBLES.
Also, since most single players no longer engage in doubles regularly, it makes it hard to gauge. We saw it at the (2008?) Olympics, when Stan and Roger won the gold over all the other doubles specialists, and again in Rio, when Rafa won it with Marc Lopez. The singles guys, if they were committed to that side of the sport, would clean it up.
McEnroe would certainly climb up the rankings, as would Edberg (a great doubles team with Jarryd).
Hingis probably among the women..
But the fact is, it is a dimension not to be ignored .the GOAT debate is murky anyway, why not make it more so?! Give extra credit for doubles, maybe...they do consider it for HOF so why not this!
by ponchi101 Ok, Ashkor. IF you include doubles, who are the GOAT's in both tours?
For the WTA, I find it easy: Navratilova. No contest, the records in double are nowhere near to anybody else. And then, in second, you have to give it to Court.
But for the men. No idea. Roger, Rafa and Novak have such pale doubles records that it changes little to me. McEnroe and Laver are, to me, the greatest doubles players ever, but not enough to pass the other three. So, who would you say are the GOAT's if doubles are included?
by ashkor87 Hmm...good question, putting me on the spot eh? Navratilova and Nadal, then..
by mick1303 I didn't even try to factor in doubles. Entirely different sport to me. How are you going to factor in doubles results? Numerically, I mean. What is the weight of doubles slam comparing to singles? Purely the matter of opinion.
by
ponchi101 ashkor87 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 04, 2021 7:54 am
Hmm...good question, putting me on the spot eh? Navratilova and Nadal, then..
I didn't put you on the spot!
In the other topic you said doubles should be counted as part of the GOAT's debate, I was only then asking.
Ok, we agree on Navs. But Nadal? Data say: 0 Slam doubles, 10 tour titles, one Olympic doubles. I gather you are saying that his doubles performance puts him ABOVE Roger and Novak, but I may be reading you wrong.
by
ashkor87 ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 04, 2021 3:42 pm
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 04, 2021 7:54 am
Hmm...good question, putting me on the spot eh? Navratilova and Nadal, then..
I didn't put you on the spot!
In the other topic you said doubles should be counted as part of the GOAT's debate, I was only then asking.
Ok, we agree on Navs. But Nadal? Data say: 0 Slam doubles, 10 tour titles, one Olympic doubles. I gather you are saying that his doubles performance puts him ABOVE Roger and Novak, but I may be reading you wrong.
yes, more or less..
hard to compare across eras, also Laver had a great partner in Emerson - Nadal had only Marco Lopez mostly...
by ponchi101 Yes. That was the time in which ALL players played both games. The Aussies were all great at doubles: Laver, Emerson, Rosewall, Newcombe, Stolle, etc. The Americans too: Smith comes to mind. Connors may have been the first guy to eschew doubles, then Borg. Pretty soon, it stopped being important for those guys.
by
ashkor87 
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 04, 2021 4:24 pm
Yes. That was the time in which ALL players played both games. The Aussies were all great at doubles: Laver, Emerson, Rosewall, Newcombe, Stolle, etc. The Americans too: Smith comes to mind. Connors may have been the first guy to eschew doubles, then Borg. Pretty soon, it stopped being important for those guys.
Yes, and we are all the poorer for it...
by mick1303 There is another problem with doubles - collecting the results. I've just looked up ATP site - they have doubles for Grand Slams since year 2000 and for other tournaments - since 2001. While it is a big piece of data and it would be interesting to collect, it will not help with broad comparison, because a lot of greats were competing before that. As far as WTA concerned - forget about it. I'm glad that I collected the data that I have on singles, while ITF had them on the web. Once ITF closed this from the general audience, there is no source of data at all. WTA website is just pathetic.
by ponchi101 You are the expert in that area, but I see that as a technical problem. For example, for the top "usual suspects" in the WTA, their doubles records are easy to find: Court, Evert, Navratilova, Steffi and Serena's data is out there. But if you include doubles, then BJK becomes a new factor. I would never include her as a possible ON COURT Goat candidate, but if you include her doubles, then she may challenge Evert.
And, if you include doubles, do you go for Mixed Doubles too? Then Court Vs Navs becomes even more complicated to gauge, but you have to consider who they played their mixed with.
I would not mind the GOAT in doubles talk, but it would be a separate topic. For example, if you talk doubles, it is very hard NOT to mention the Bryan Brothers. Who are nowhere near the GOAT conversation in singles, of course.
by
mick1303 ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 2:56 pm
You are the expert in that area, but I see that as a technical problem. For example, for the top "usual suspects" in the WTA, their doubles records are easy to find: Court, Evert, Navratilova, Steffi and Serena's data is out there. But if you include doubles, then BJK becomes a new factor. I would never include her as a possible ON COURT Goat candidate, but if you include her doubles, then she may challenge Evert.
And, if you include doubles, do you go for Mixed Doubles too? Then Court Vs Navs becomes even more complicated to gauge, but you have to consider who they played their mixed with.
I would not mind the GOAT in doubles talk, but it would be a separate topic. For example, if you talk doubles, it is very hard NOT to mention the Bryan Brothers. Who are nowhere near the GOAT conversation in singles, of course.
Collecting a significant portion of doubles matches (enough to start making educated comparisons) will take a lot of time. Given that I do this in my spare time and I have a day job - don't hold your breath. It will be years... So far I'm only developing a parser to import doubles from ATP site. One tournament at a time. I'm not that advanced to import it all at once...
by
ti-amie
Thanks for doing this Mick.
by mick1303 I've actually created a parser to collect doubles results from ATP site. It is in the beta stage now - it works, but I have to test it more. And this would be only a part of the story. To fully integrate doubles results, I will have to insert all the cross-references to the data environment. The doubles shall undergo the same validations that is now implemented for singles. So far imported only 10 tournaments from this year...
by ponchi101 How are you going to judge the doubles? That is the truly critical question. For example, Pam Shriver has more Grand Slam doubles (21) than Hingis (13), but all but one of Shriver's titles came with Navratilova. How do you balance that data?
by mick1303 I don't have an answer for this. Alas, it is a long way before I will have to decide anything on this matter.
by
ponchi101 Finding your proper balance to judge how the results truly make sense will be hard. Maybe:
If the player you won the doubles' slam has more slams than you, you get 3/4 of the points.
If you have more slams than your partner, you get 5/4.
Don't know, throwing options.
(Ah, we want this by Monday...
)
by mick1303 The most obvious thought - calculate doubles ranking in two passes. First pass - similar to singles weighted ranking. Then during the 2nd pass in the categories that rely on ranking, the ranking share for the tournament will be split between the doubles partners proportionally to the ranking calculated in the first pass. Then to apply this idea even further - multiple passes shall be applied until the ranking of the next pass for each player will differ from the previous pass insignificantly.
The more complicated variation of this method - to account for the ranking change over the time. Then the same method will be applied not to the whole duration of the data at once, but it will be split by time intervals. The smaller the time interval - the more precise result will be in the end.
I have to say - I'M NOT signing up to do such calculation ))) I will start with something much more lightweight.
by ashkor87 I would start with the premise that one cannot compare across eras anyway, and certainly not by counting majors..in earlier times, majors were simply not considered all that important. Take one era at a time..there are only a handful of candidates anyway..for instance, today there are 3 at the top,- Nadal is the best doubles player among them so he gets the nod. in the era of McEnroe/Borg/Connors, it is equally obvious. Shriver was never a candidate anyway..and so on...
by ponchi101 But aren't you tacitly comparing eras when you say that in the past, majors were simply not considered that important? Sorry Ashkor, but you are comparing eras when you say that "in the past, such and such thing". It is a comparison.
The debate is for fun. But comparing eras is part of it. You have other subtleties: in the past, 3 of the 4 slams were on grass. Laver never won a slam on a hard court, not because he did not but simply because there were none. The players had to go pro to make a living, today's players are full time tennis players, and so many other factors. You have the bias or recently, meaning that I never saw Kramer or Gonzalez play.
About Shriver: she got lost in the Martina/Chrissie era but she made on slam final and has several tournaments to her name. She was not just 25% of a doubles team. Still, you are correct. She was never a candidate for doubles GOAT, as we know who carried 2/3 of the court there.
by
ashkor87 ponchi101 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 14, 2021 3:54 pm
But aren't you tacitly comparing eras when you say that in the past, majors were simply not considered that important? Sorry Ashkor, but you are comparing eras when you say that "in the past, such and such thing". It is a comparison.
The debate is for fun. But comparing eras is part of it. You have other subtleties: in the past, 3 of the 4 slams were on grass. Laver never won a slam on a hard court, not because he did not but simply because there were none. The players had to go pro to make a living, today's players are full time tennis players, and so many other factors. You have the bias or recently, meaning that I never saw Kramer or Gonzalez play.
About Shriver: she got lost in the Martina/Chrissie era but she made on slam final and has several tournaments to her name. She was not just 25% of a doubles team. Still, you are correct. She was never a candidate for doubles GOAT, as we know who carried 2/3 of the court there.
Yes, you are right..comparing across eras is key to the GOAT debate, and what makes it fun...! I guess my real problem is with numbers (I consult and teach that for a living and have a PHD in it) ..it is not right to simply count majors, making it an accounting exercise..I would much rather look at a player subjectively and say, really, I like x more than y because of whatever..so my favorite is Gonzales simply because he is so mysterious, I never saw him play either..then Federer, just for the grace and simplicity...
Because of this doubles twist, I rate McEnroe higher than, say Sampras..and Hingis higher than, say, Graf and Seles..
by ashkor87 But of course, the GOAT debate is about who was better...so liking someone better is not enough..we have to ask, was Laver better than Federer? It is only fair to see how good they were at their best (they all have lows) and check if they played at that level long enough, not just once or twice (Adriano panatta) ..then ask, at his best, would Laver have beaten Federer..fun to debate but impossible to prove.. i would actually say yes, Laver would probably have beaten Federer..much as I like Federer!
by ashkor87 And anyway, if we want a numerical rating, Elo is the best, it tells us Djokovic is GOAT
by
3mlm ashkor87 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 15, 2021 12:20 am
But of course, the GOAT debate is about who was better...so liking someone better is not enough..we have to ask, was Laver better than Federer? It is only fair to see how good they were at their best (they all have lows) and check if they played at that level long enough, not just once or twice (Adriano panatta) ..then ask, at his best, would Laver have beaten Federer..fun to debate but impossible to prove.. i would actually say yes, Laver would probably have beaten Federer..much as I like Federer!
If they were both playing during the same era I'm sure each of them would have beaten the other multiple times.
by ponchi101 Those are the fun questions. Can you imagine Laver with a modern racquet? I can see Federer, keeping his same style, being successful with wood. I can't see Rafa even having anything close to his same style with a wood racquet, because with that forehand and a 15 ounce Jack Kramer, his elbow would be destroyed after one set. He would be successful, with a different style. Novak the same: that quick, bunting BH passing shot would not make it to the net with a Borg Pro, much less pass Laver or Roger or Pete.
I can see Martina having even better groundstrokes (if that were possible) had she grown with synthetics. I would say Rosewall would have developed a topspin BH if he had grown up with a Pro-Staff 6.0 or Graphite Edge. Borg with a graphite racquet would have been even better, basically impossible to go through (he would have still have had his speed).
As 3mlm, Laver Vs Roger would end up like Borg/Mac (7-7), or something very close.
by mick1303 I've already collected all the doubles results of main draws of the tour events and Davis Cup ties for the year 2021. Tweaked a parser code in process of doing so. Also I have an adaptation of a weighted ranking calculation for doubles players. But it is a bit raw and needs testing and possible adjustments. Continue to populate results going backwards in time
by
mick1303 ashkor87 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 15, 2021 12:28 am
And anyway, if we want a numerical rating, Elo is the best, it tells us Djokovic is GOAT
I have a serious objection to applying Elo method to tennis results. Elo was created for chess and naturally treats each game as a separate event and they all have the same weight (which is true for chess tournament/match structure). This is not the case with tennis - the weight of each match is dependent on the tournament tier and the round. First round and the final cannot be treated the same. Likewise 250 series is not the same as Slam.
by ponchi101 Either one of you please post and explanation of ELO, or a link to an explanation.
I will search it, but would like your guidance.
Edit: Ok. Looked it up. I did not know about it.
I like it. It says nothing (to me) of the tournament difficulty, only the matchups. Only thing I would look into would the "400" variable, and see if it would need to be changed. In tennis, having Novak come to a tournament with a ranking of #1, but with 8,000 points is regular, so the subtraction of 400 would mean little.
by ashkor87 Nate Silver site fivethirtyeight has an extensive graphic detailing ELO ratings for tennis..Djokovic has the highest rating ever..Serena is a bit lower than Navratilova, and, as the article points out, the reason could be that Serena did not have opponents with high ELO for most of her career.. Sharapova, for instance, is so far below Serena that beating her gave Serena hardly any increase in Elo rating .if only Henin had played longer...this, by the way, is the real weakness of ELO- the big 3 today all have the advantage of having played many times against each other, all very high ELO, so it keeps their Elo high. Serena does not have that advantage.
At some simplistic level, the GOAT debate is about - who would have beaten whom? The ELO answers that directly. It does not weight the importance of the tournament or the round, but then, I am sure, Nadal, Djokovic and Federer don't want to lose to anyone at any round in any tournament, so they probably fit the ELO well! In the past, there have been players, even great players, who did not 'show up' for lesser matches, but I don't think that happens much nowadays.
by ashkor87 the men's would be:
Djokovic 2470
Federer 2382
Nadal 2370
Nishikori 2210 (suprise!)
Zverev 2149
Medvedev 2172
Tsiptsipas 2132
source same as above.. tennisabstract.com
by
Liamvalid ashkor87 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 16, 2021 2:47 am
Nate Silver site fivethirtyeight has an extensive graphic detailing ELO ratings for tennis..Djokovic has the highest rating ever..Serena is a bit lower than Navratilova, and, as the article points out, the reason could be that Serena did not have opponents with high ELO for most of her career.. Sharapova, for instance, is so far below Serena that beating her gave Serena hardly any increase in Elo rating .if only Henin had played longer...this, by the way, is the real weakness of ELO- the big 3 today all have the advantage of having played many times against each other, all very high ELO, so it keeps their Elo high. Serena does not have that advantage.
At some simplistic level, the GOAT debate is about - who would have beaten whom? The ELO answers that directly. It does not weight the importance of the tournament or the round, but then, I am sure, Nadal, Djokovic and Federer don't want to lose to anyone at any round in any tournament, so they probably fit the ELO well! In the past, there have been players, even great players, who did not 'show up' for lesser matches, but I don't think that happens much nowadays.
Regarding Serena. I just looked at a WTA ranking for 2002 when Serena became dominant. The top 12 was Venus, Capriati, Henin, Clijsters, Mauresmo, Seles, Hantuchova, Dokic, Hingis, Myskina, Davenport, with the likes of Pierce out injured. Surely Navratilova didn’t have to contend such a strong roster of players when she came to prominence? (Maybe I’m wrong as that was before my time). Maybe it’s recency bias but when comparing eras, I can’t see a stronger time than the late 90s-late 2000s so I don’t think this ELO is accurate in that respect. I’m guessing Navratilova gains all her points from her matches with Evert and Graf?
by ashkor87 not sure, but the article i posted a link to, has some detail...
by ponchi101 Martina came in when Court and BJK were starting to fade, Chrissie was clearly at the top, and then the sport was dominated by both of them for about ten years, with brief interruptions by Mandlikova, who simply had the same raw deal as every single ATP player of today (having to go against two monsters for a long time). So depth of competition may be one issue against some players, but that has always been a circular argument to me: if you dominate your era, then you make the era seem weak because nobody else won squat because you dominated the era.
by
mick1303 ashkor87 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 16, 2021 2:47 am
Nate Silver site fivethirtyeight has an extensive graphic detailing ELO ratings for tennis..Djokovic has the highest rating ever..Serena is a bit lower than Navratilova, and, as the article points out, the reason could be that Serena did not have opponents with high ELO for most of her career.. Sharapova, for instance, is so far below Serena that beating her gave Serena hardly any increase in Elo rating .if only Henin had played longer...this, by the way, is the real weakness of ELO- the big 3 today all have the advantage of having played many times against each other, all very high ELO, so it keeps their Elo high. Serena does not have that advantage.
At some simplistic level, the GOAT debate is about - who would have beaten whom? The ELO answers that directly. It does not weight the importance of the tournament or the round, but then, I am sure, Nadal, Djokovic and Federer don't want to lose to anyone at any round in any tournament, so they probably fit the ELO well! In the past, there have been players, even great players, who did not 'show up' for lesser matches, but I don't think that happens much nowadays.
Edberg lost Roland Garros final to Chang. He never reached other finals there before or since. Clay was stylistically his worst surface. Then several years later he beaten Chang also in Roland Garros in some early round. Everyone remembers their first RG encounter, but hardly anyone remembers the second. Don't tell me these two matches shall have the same weight and round/tournament tier does not matter.
by ponchi101 How about if that subtraction that is done in ELO gets smaller as you reach final rounds? The formula, in theory, looks fair, so it would be a matter of tweaking it, if somebody were to decide to go this route.
by
ashkor87 mick1303 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 16, 2021 4:48 pm
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 16, 2021 2:47 am
Nate Silver site fivethirtyeight has an extensive graphic detailing ELO ratings for tennis..Djokovic has the highest rating ever..Serena is a bit lower than Navratilova, and, as the article points out, the reason could be that Serena did not have opponents with high ELO for most of her career.. Sharapova, for instance, is so far below Serena that beating her gave Serena hardly any increase in Elo rating .if only Henin had played longer...this, by the way, is the real weakness of ELO- the big 3 today all have the advantage of having played many times against each other, all very high ELO, so it keeps their Elo high. Serena does not have that advantage.
At some simplistic level, the GOAT debate is about - who would have beaten whom? The ELO answers that directly. It does not weight the importance of the tournament or the round, but then, I am sure, Nadal, Djokovic and Federer don't want to lose to anyone at any round in any tournament, so they probably fit the ELO well! In the past, there have been players, even great players, who did not 'show up' for lesser matches, but I don't think that happens much nowadays.
Edberg lost Roland Garros final to Chang. He never reached other finals there before or since. Clay was stylistically his worst surface. Then several years later he beaten Chang also in Roland Garros in some early round. Everyone remembers their first RG encounter, but hardly anyone remembers the second. Don't tell me these two matches shall have the same weight and round/tournament tier does not matter.
Maybe, but these things average out over a long enough period/dataset.
by
mick1303 ashkor87 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 17, 2021 1:30 am
Maybe, but these things average out over a long enough period/dataset.
They do average if you consider the whole pool of players. But there are players who even have a special name given for their psychological disposition - "big match players". Elo-based calculation would diminish their accomplishments.
by ponchi101 Wouldn't ELO just be one more point when talking about this? I would find it hard to say that one single metric can be used for this conversation.
But we agree on that (I guess).
by
ashkor87 mick1303 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 17, 2021 7:27 am
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 17, 2021 1:30 am
Maybe, but these things average out over a long enough period/dataset.
They do average if you consider the whole pool of players. But there are players who even have a special name given for their psychological disposition - "big match players". Elo-based calculation would diminish their accomplishments.
True ...
by
ashkor87 ponchi101 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 17, 2021 3:16 pm
Wouldn't ELO just be one more point when talking about this? I would find it hard to say that one single metric can be used for this conversation.
But we agree on that (I guess).
Yes, agree all the way!
by mick1303 Maybe when I'm retired and have a heap of free time on my hands, I will do Elo-like calculation as well and somehow incorporate it in the weighted ranking. There are many questions though. Like which matches are qualified to be taken into account. What about challengers? Qualification matches, qualification matches of the challengers? There is a reason tennis does not use Elo )
by
ashkor87 mick1303 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 18, 2021 8:09 am
Maybe when I'm retired and have a heap of free time on my hands, I will do Elo-like calculation as well and somehow incorporate it in the weighted ranking. There are many questions though. Like which matches are qualified to be taken into account. What about challengers? Qualification matches, qualification matches of the challengers? There is a reason tennis does not use Elo )
Tennis seems allergic to statistics anyway! In contrast with baseball for instance..
by ponchi101 If you decide to do that, I would not include anything below ATP and WTA level. The question is who is the GOAT, not who is the Challengers GOAT, for example. It is obvious that the really great ones never played challengers because they were so good they went into the main tour immediately and never looked back.
If you do.
by
mick1303 ashkor87 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 18, 2021 12:38 pm
mick1303 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 18, 2021 8:09 am
Maybe when I'm retired and have a heap of free time on my hands, I will do Elo-like calculation as well and somehow incorporate it in the weighted ranking. There are many questions though. Like which matches are qualified to be taken into account. What about challengers? Qualification matches, qualification matches of the challengers? There is a reason tennis does not use Elo )
Tennis seems allergic to statistics anyway! In contrast with baseball for instance..
I would not say "allergic" - it is too strong. But there is often a context, that can't be explained based purely on numbers.
by
mick1303 ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 18, 2021 3:03 pm
If you decide to do that, I would not include anything below ATP and WTA level. The question is who is the GOAT, not who is the Challengers GOAT, for example. It is obvious that the really great ones never played challengers because they were so good they went into the main tour immediately and never looked back.
If you do.
Never is a bit of overstatement ) Federer played 23 matches (16-7) record, Nadal - 44 (34-10) and Djokovic 36(28-8). Based on this metric - Federer is the greatest, since he played less of them all ))
by
ponchi101 And they were... 15?
by
mick1303 mick1303 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 15, 2021 8:21 pm
I've already collected all the doubles results of main draws of the tour events and Davis Cup ties for the year 2021. Tweaked a parser code in process of doing so. Also I have an adaptation of a weighted ranking calculation for doubles players. But it is a bit raw and needs testing and possible adjustments. Continue to populate results going backwards in time
2020 is also in the books for doubles (men's side only so far). Regular tournaments are easier to collect than Davis Cup results. DC site does not have them in a neat format which I can work on.
by ashkor87 if we really want to use Elo (not sure why!) it should be possible to use results only from, say, 4th round onwards.. then the 'weighty' matches would be included and not the first rounders.. but I really dont see the value of tweaking.. every time we do that, it looks more and more arbitrary.. sometimes it is best to let the data speak..
by ashkor87 meditating on the Williams Family.. i did not realize until now, Venus has been responsible for stopping Serena winning a Major 3 times, Serena has stopped Venus 7 times (if we count only finals).. which means, hypothetically, but for Serena, Venus would have won 10 at least and, but for Venus, Serena could have won at least 24, even granting a 50% success rate against whoever else would have come to the finals.. so it isnt Margaret Court, it is Venus, who is in the way of Serena's record! But, of course, Serena always says Venus is her greatest rival..
by mick1303 Now I've collected 6 years worth of ATP doubles results (2016-2021). This is around 7.5K matches.
The best player for this stretch was clearly Croatian Mate Pavich.
Out of the trio Fed-Nadal-Djokovic Nadal has better winning ratio by a mile (but he played less than Novak). Federer only played in Laver Cup. I'm not sure if the doubles results could be a decider between Nadal and the other two - he always had a "long bench" of other brilliant Spanish players, which Djokovic and Federer did not.
by ponchi101 The issue for me would be that they have never won a Slam in doubles. The best they have done have been Rafa and Roger winning Olympic gold, which to me really means very little.
But it would be good to see the numbers you have crunched. I am initially surprised that Pavich is the best doubles player during that stretch, but doubles is an entire different world.
by mick1303 Now I’we collected 10 years of doubles results. For 2012 – 2021 (plus small piece of 2022 results) I have the following results. They are based on 12725 matches from 639 tournaments and 276 Davis Cup ties.
Bryan,_Mike______________USA____17.61119
Bryan,_Bob_______________USA____16.60665
Mahut,_Nicolas___________FRA____12.68834
Soares,_Bruno____________BRA____12.56732
Melo,_Marcelo____________BRA____11.94284
Herbert,_Pierre-Hugues___FRA____11.18914
Tecau,_Horia_____________ROU____10.97162
Pavic,_Mate______________CRO____10.51215
Murray,_Jamie____________GBR____10.32318
Peers,_John______________AUS____10.26248
by ponchi101 Wow. Thanks for that, Mick, I gather having the Bryans as #1 and #2 is not surprising, but the gap is.
As there are few people in this topic: did the win by Rafa change your perspective about the GOAT in singles? Not even totally (as in "It is Rafa, no doubt") but moving him closer, or ahead of one of the other candidates? They are so close in terms of statistics that I did move my vote, but I wonder if it was an over-reaction.
by mick1303 As you surely paid attention, I'm not relying solely on GS titles. Therefore it does not change things a lot. Their bodies of work are so huge, that one slam does not have tectonic implications. Roger is still on top and Novak is closer to Roger than Rafa to Novak. I will do next round of calculations at the end of 2022.
by mick1303 Voting now, while they are still active seems premature )
by mick1303 Interesting fact. I've collected already around 14K doubles matches going back to 2010. But there was not a single player in these matches, that wasn't already in my database. Granted, I was already collecting data not only from main tour, but also from challengers tour (singles). But there was not a single player (out of 1150 already listed) who is a PURE doubles specialist. Several times I thought that it was, but each time turned out just slightly different name spelling of already known player.
by ponchi101 Could it be that almost all doubles players start as singles, and then move on to doubles when then can't cut it anymore?
Sole explanation I can come up with.
Although the Bryan brothers and Farrah/Cabal should not be there. I suspect they were always doubles specialists.
by
atlpam ponchi101 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 09, 2022 3:43 pm
Could it be that almost all doubles players start as singles, and then move on to doubles when then can't cut it anymore?
Sole explanation I can come up with.
Although the Bryan brothers and Farrah/Cabal should not be there. I suspect they were always doubles specialists.
Bob Bryan had a high singles ranking of 116. Mike's highest singles ranking was 246.
Their high singles rankings were in 2000.
by mick1303 I remember seeing once one of the Bryans (don't remember who) playing a singles match for USA in Davis Cup. Looked it up. Not only did they both played singles in DC, Bob even won 4 matches.
by mick1303 Even though I was interrupted by the war, eventually I continued to populate doubles results. Now I completed 2006 going backwards. I have to say - there is no intrigue on who is the best. It is Bryans. It looks like how Federer domination would've looked, if Nadal never existed. Looking at the past results I can see that Todd Woodbridge also amassed 23 doubles Slams, so there is that. But just by looking at ATP player page: Todd had 83 titles, while Mike Bryan - 124 (Bob has 119). I think the answer is pretty much known.
by ponchi101 So, what is the tally, in order? The Bryans 23, Woodbridge 23, and who else is up there?
by ashkor87 One of the greatest doubles players in my time was Frew McMillan of South Africa..because of apartheid and so on, he didn't play as much..but he hardly ever played singles...
by
mick1303 ponchi101 wrote: ↑Tue May 17, 2022 3:24 pm
So, what is the tally, in order? The Bryans 23, Woodbridge 23, and who else is up there?
Bryan, Bob_________23
Woodbridge, Todd___23
Bryan, Mike________22
Paes, Leander______18
Woodforde, Mark____16
Nestor, Daniel_____12
Bhupathi, Mahesh___12
Newcombe, John_____11
McEnroe, John______10
Mirnyi, Max________10
by mick1303 I was importing the data from TennisAbstract site the other day - filling the gaps in Davis Cup matches for Groups I and II. I'm not importing it "en mass" but doing this tie-by-tie, because I have to create an entry for each tie in my database and also because I'm trying to import doubles simultaneously (to save a bit of effort later) and he does not have doubles for Davis Cup yet. Anyway, while doing so, I've discovered that Ukraine hosted the tie against Portugal in 2018 in Bucha of all places. This kind of sends chills... Similar feeling to when you read or hear about Saraevo Olympics. But this one is closer to home.
by
nelslus ashkor87 wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 3:25 am
One of the greatest doubles players in my time was Frew McMillan of South Africa..because of apartheid and so on, he didn't play as much..but he hardly ever played singles...
?!?! Frew McMillan played plenty of singles. In singles, he made the QF at the 1972 US Open, the 3rd round three times at Wimbledon and the French Open, and got up to No. 39 in singles. It's a matter of, he obviously didn't play as well in singles as doubles. But, he did play plenty of singles. And, from what I recall, while apartheid did impact such competitions as the Davis Cup- he and Hewitt didn't miss out on all that many match opportunities due to apartheid.
Sorry, but it just bugs me a tad when TAT folks put stuff out there when the history of tennis- which I've read up a lot about (AND I was watching what was going on since the 70's with the tours. And, a lot of tennis facts are just a click or two away.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frew_McMillan
by Cuckoo4Coco Picking either Federer, Nadal, or Djokovic is so hard. They have all accomplished so much in their careers. I chose Nadal because right now he has the most GS championships.
by
meganfernandez Cuckoo4Coco wrote:Picking either Federer, Nadal, or Djokovic is so hard. They have all accomplished so much in their careers. I chose Nadal because right now he has the most GS championships.
Same. If one of them ends up two or three ahead, it’s theirs. Some people will argue for Federer for the rest of my lifetime, though, and I can see why. He was the first, set the bar, and was more transcendent beyond the sport.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
by
ponchi101 meganfernandez wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 10:06 am
...
Same. If one of them ends up two or three ahead, it’s theirs. Some people will argue for Federer for the rest of my lifetime, though, and I can see why. He was the first, set the bar, and was more transcendent beyond the sport.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Some people will argue about what he did for the sport. How popular he made it. By that token, Connors is a more important player than Sampras, as he really helped fuel the tennis boom of the 70's. Us oldies remember how Connors took tennis out of the country club and truly popularized it in the USA, and from there, participation around the world took off. Borg, in Europe, was his counterpart there, not only making the sport very popular but also giving Roland Garros a more important profile because he won it and also won WImbledon.
But if you go by the numbers, Roger now stands two behind Rafa, and has losing records against both other contenders. So, if you feel like this can be numerically figured out, he is not in a very favorable position right now.
by Cuckoo4Coco We talk about the men all the time with the GOAT talk but what about the women? Is it a slam dunk for Serena or is Martina in the talk still? I never really got to see Martina play live because she retired the year I was born but I have seen videos of her. She was very dominant during her time.
by ponchi101 Not a slam dunk for Serena at all. You have Martina, sure, but you also have Steffi, whose numbers, except for total slams, are better than Serena's. And, as disliked as she is, Court's numbers are also impressive.
The difference, in the conversation, is that these three guys are all playing at the same time, while the women are spread through history. At least, one difference in the conversation.
by
meganfernandez ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 1:16 pm
Not a slam dunk for Serena at all. You have Martina, sure, but you also have Steffi, whose numbers, except for total slams, are better than Serena's. And, as disliked as she is, Court's numbers are also impressive.
The difference, in the conversation, is that these three guys are all playing at the same time, while the women are spread through history. At least, one difference in the conversation.
Court's out of it for me. 11 of her Slams were at the Aussie when it was a 32-person draw and mostly Aussies. To me, Serena is by far the GOAT. Longevity, Olympics, doubles, comebacks, played against her sister, transcended the sport, and more Slams. Steffi's big advantage is the Golden Slam.
by ponchi101 Uhm, I would not go so fast. I wrote about it in TAT1.0. Let me update the figures and will post those blogs.
Quick facts about Steffi/Serena. Steffi: more total tournaments, more weeks at number 1, more years as #1, better percentage at the slams, fewer finals played against players that never won slams. Just a few numbers.
Should we open a female GOAT topic? With Serena close to reaching the end of her career (I am assuming that), it might be time.
by
Cuckoo4Coco meganfernandez wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 1:19 pm
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 1:16 pm
Not a slam dunk for Serena at all. You have Martina, sure, but you also have Steffi, whose numbers, except for total slams, are better than Serena's. And, as disliked as she is, Court's numbers are also impressive.
The difference, in the conversation, is that these three guys are all playing at the same time, while the women are spread through history. At least, one difference in the conversation.
Court's out of it for me. 11 of her Slams were at the Aussie when it was a 32-person draw and mostly Aussies. To me, Serena is by far the GOAT. Longevity, Olympics, doubles, comebacks, played against her sister, transcended the sport, and more Slams. Steffi's big advantage is the Golden Slam.
I didn't mention Steffi because I really don't know much about her because she retired before I was born. The one thing I do know about her is when she came along she took Martina to another level and started kicking her butt. Then there came Monica Seles.
Some dislike Serena as well. I guess for the player I know the best the Ladies GOAT would be Serena.
by ponchi101 We can get so much tennis on TV nowadays, people forget that it was not so in the 70's, and almost impossible to find anything in the 60's. So, it is a logical process to go by what you see.
Believe some of us old geezers. When Martina was playing, she was an impressive sight. She just did not "evolve" the sport; she mutated it. The tennis game, the conditioning, the mental change she had (she was a bit unsure at first, then became an absolute monolith of mental strength). I don't think she has ever been credited properly for what she did for the sport. One example: she forced everybody to train better and better. Otherwise, you had no chance against her.
by
Cuckoo4Coco ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 2:14 pm
We can get so much tennis on TV nowadays, people forget that it was not so in the 70's, and almost impossible to find anything in the 60's. So, it is a logical process to go by what you see.
Believe some of us old geezers. When Martina was playing, she was an impressive sight. She just did not "evolve" the sport; she mutated it. The tennis game, the conditioning, the mental change she had (she was a bit unsure at first, then became an absolute monolith of mental strength). I don't think she has ever been credited properly for what she did for the sport. One example: she forced everybody to train better and better. Otherwise, you had no chance against her.
I have watched a documentary about her and Chris Evert and it was awesome. It talked about when she came onto the tennis scene and at first she had a difficult time against Chris and then began to dominate her. It went on to talk about how they became really good friends and even now Martina being one of the first people Chris called when she was diagnosed with Cancer. It was a great documentary not only showing how Martina changed the game of tennis back then but how both of them formed a friendship through all of the competition they had.
I love listening to the "old geezers" as you call them. They have a lot of awesome stories to tell about tennis. I love to listen to my grandpa a lot with the stories he tells me. God if he only knew I just called him an old geezer.
I think I learn a lot from that too.
by
Cuckoo4Coco
They both had very similar numbers. Graf did have a rival in her career in Seles like you said and she pushed her. Has Serena really had that other than probably her own sister Venus? I mean there have been players that have come and they go along the way but nothing really of a mainstay player that I can think of that has stayed around the top. Osaka could be one and Ash Barty but really the women's game it seems like it changes a lot.
by ponchi101 The only player that, for a long time, went out there against Serena without having lost the match already in the locker room due to fear was Henin. She (maaaaaybe) could have been a worthy rival, but also got derailed by an injury.
by
Cuckoo4Coco ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 3:08 pm
The only player that, for a long time, went out there against Serena without having lost the match already in the locker room due to fear was Henin. She (maaaaaybe) could have been a worthy rival, but also got derailed by an injury.
Another player I don't really remember much about since I was really little when she retired. I do remember she could really move around the court though.
by
meganfernandez ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 3:08 pm
The only player that, for a long time, went out there against Serena without having lost the match already in the locker room due to fear was Henin. She (maaaaaybe) could have been a worthy rival, but also got derailed by an injury.
You can argue that Serena's lack of a rival was more proof of her greatness - she never let anyone get that close. And playing her sister for so many big titles is a special category of extraordinary competition. That's my takeaway.
Henin was a formidable opponent. Azarenka was starting to challenge Serena until 2013, and then their paths went in different directions for awhile.
by
meganfernandez ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 3:08 pm
The only player that, for a long time, went out there against Serena without having lost the match already in the locker room due to fear was Henin. She (maaaaaybe) could have been a worthy rival, but also got derailed by an injury.
You can argue that Serena's lack of a rival is a plus in her column because she was that much better than everyone, not that they weren't good enough to challenge her. And playing Venus for so many big titles is a special category of extraordinary competition. That's my takeaway.
Henin was a formidable opponent. Azarenka was starting to challenge Serena until 2013, and then their paths went in different directions for awhile.
by ponchi101 As I said in my piece. The "s/he had no competition" is always a circular argument. If you dominate your era, it makes no difference how good your competition was because you, by definition, dominate them.
It is the reason the records by Roger/Rafa/Novak are even more impressive. There is no way you can claim they had no competition.
by
Cuckoo4Coco ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 7:52 pm
As I said in my piece. The "s/he had no competition" is always a circular argument. If you dominate your era, it makes no difference how good your competition was because you, by definition, dominate them.
It is the reason the records by Roger/Rafa/Novak are even more impressive. There is no way you can claim they had no competition.
And with the up and coming guys like Medvedev, Zverev, Tsitsipas, Alcaraz, Berrettini and others will any of them start dominating the trio of GOATS in the upcoming year? Are these the next crop of guys to take over and start dominating the top 3 aging guys? It will be really interesting to see what happens with that and how long Novak/Rafa/ and Roger can hang on.
by ponchi101 You were not here when I said this. By now, the moment the big three start losing to the younger crop, it will be age, not the new group, that did it.
It will not be Sampras besting Lendl at the USO at age 19, or Steffi toppling Martina at age 19 too.
But sure, you are correct. It is time for the new guys to start moving in. And it will be sooner rather than later.
by ti-amie The only woman who could've dethroned Steffi - in her time - was Monica Seles and we know what happened there.
Chrissie/Martina I tend to go with Martina.
For the modern age, it's hands down Serena.
Margaret Court? Who played club players for most of her "GS wins" in Australia? Nope. Not in the conversation.
by ponchi101 For the modern age, there is no hands down. There are three players with incredible resumes. That is where the numbers need to be crunched. For example: you simply cannot disregard Martina's 167 total tournaments. That is double what Serena has, and some change.
It is not so easy.
by Cuckoo4Coco I guess when tennis fans talk about these things they weigh the Slams as huge in the conversations because they are well high profile events and everyone can view them pretty much. Those are the stats it seems like people look at first. I really think that is why people lean towards Serena over the other two (not counting Margaret Court) because that was a different era. The same can be said for the men and Rafa. He has the most Slams under his belt so that is what most people look at first it seems.
by ponchi101 My position on the men has changed twice already since this topic was started. I initially set up Roger, as he and Rafa were tied, and Novak was still a bit behind (18 I think). Then, when Novak tied them, I flipped to him: equal number of slams, winning record against both, has won all MS1000. The little extra things made me put him on the lead, I felt.
Now with Rafa two slams clear of both, I moved him on top again. More slams, has won all slams at least twice (as Novak), has a bunch of other records. At the very least, the debate is not over.
These debates are fun to me, but I also say that in some cases they can be figured out. There is a commentator here in S. America, whom I particularly detest, that likes to claim "there will never be anybody bigger than Roger". Really? So, even if Nadal reaches 24 slams, or Novak reaches 26, Roger will still be the GOAT? Just because you like him? I find that childish. For example, as much as I like Roger, my favorite player of all time is Pete. But there is no way I could honestly say that Pete is, in any way, better than Roger, not even on grass. The numbers are simply not there.
And I guess it is really time to open that WOMEN's GOAT topic. Just after W.
by Cuckoo4Coco I think Roger's career is on the downside now and with players like Rafa and Novak still playing at the level they both are I don't see him winning much with both of them and even these other younger players like Medvedev and Zverev and others in tournaments. I still see Novak at the top of his game but with all of this vaccine stuff and the possibility of him being held out of some major tournaments and definitely the Australian Open and the US Open. That leaves Rafa fighting off all of these younger top players for tournament wins and I see him capable of doing it especially on the clay courts. In the end I think Rafa will go down as the GOAT of men's tennis.
by mick1303 Here is some small trivia which came to my mind while I was populating doubles results. In the earlier years of Open Era the doubles were more "mainstream" so to say. There were no such sharp division between singles and doubles specialists. It can be observed at the top by the multiple Grand Slam titles in doubles of the leaders in singles of the 60s and 70s. The question of my trivia is - who was the last "old school" male player, who had multiple slams both in singles and in doubles. Can you tell without looking it up ))
by ponchi101 Without looking up, I would say Edberg. I am certain of the singles (6, after all) but I can't tell the doubles.
But I remember clearly his pairing with Jarryd. A superb team.
by skatingfan I would say John McEnroe.
by skatingfan I was wrong.
by
skatingfan ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 27, 2022 3:11 pm
Without looking up, I would say Edberg. I am certain of the singles (6, after all) but I can't tell the doubles.
But I remember clearly his pairing with Jarryd. A superb team.
No it wasn't Edberg, and it wasn't McEnroe either.
by Deuce I would have guessed Edberg or McEnroe, as well...
My next guess was Rafter... but it seems he had only 1 doubles Major.
by ponchi101 Then, if not Edberg or Mac (and I say it would be Mac, he has the hardware), I say John Newcombe.
A man that has been forgotten by many, despite being a monster on court. And he paired with Tony Roche for many years, which was a superb team.
by Deuce Well, Edberg and McEnroe meet the criteria of having won more than one Major in both singles and doubles - but the question asked was who is the most RECENT player to accomplish this.
So, if McEnroe and Edberg did it, then the answer can't be Newcombe or anyone from that generation, as they played before McEnroe and Edberg. It would have to be someone who played after Edberg.
After Rafter, I thought maybe Becker got a couple of doubles majors with his buddy Slobodan Zivojinovic... but, no, that didn't happen.
This is a good trivia question...
by ashkor87 But the question was MALE player..so I would say McEnroe is the right answer...not sure Murray has too many doubles titles,
by
skatingfan ashkor87 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 4:53 pm
But the question was MALE player..so I would say McEnroe is the right answer...not sure Murray has too many doubles titles,
No, the player in question is more recent than McEnroe. Jamie Murray has doubles titles, but Andy has never won any doubles titles.
by Deuce So... I decided to concentrate and really think about who it could be, given that we've already eliminated certain players.... and the name Yevgeny Kafelnikov came to me, as I remembered him having some doubles success.
I just checked his titles, and he did indeed win more than one Major in both singles and doubles.
Now, whether he is the most recent to have done so or not, I don't know. But that's the name I'm putting out there (for now).
by ashkor87 No, rafter did not win multiple doubles majors..I think Kafelnikov is probably correct
by ponchi101 My only problem then is accepting Kafelnikov as an "old school" great. He was very good but, two slams do not make you a great.
by
Deuce ponchi101 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 2:29 am
My only problem then is accepting Kafelnikov as an "old school" great. He was very good but, two slams do not make you a great.
There was no mention of 'great' - only 'old school':
"The question of my trivia is - who was the last "old school" male player, who had multiple slams both in singles and in doubles."
Now, an argument could be made that Kafelnikov is not 'old school' - but that's up to one's personal definition of 'old school', I suppose.
Also - we don't even know yet if Kafelnikov is the correct answer.
by
skatingfan ponchi101 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 2:29 am
My only problem then is accepting Kafelnikov as an "old school" great. He was very good but, two slams do not make you a great.
I think the connotation of 'old school' was meant to mean a player who played singles, and doubles, and nothing to do with how the player played. As far as I can tell Kafelnikov is the right answer - 2 singles, and 4 doubles titles at the majors.
by
mick1303 Deuce wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 9:45 pm
So... I decided to concentrate and really think about who it could be, given that we've already eliminated certain players.... and the name Yevgeny Kafelnikov came to me, as I remembered him having some doubles success.
I just checked his titles, and he did indeed win more than one Major in both singles and doubles.
Now, whether he is the most recent to have done so or not, I don't know. But that's the name I'm putting out there (for now).
Yes, you're the winner. I did have Kafelnikov in mind, when I was asking this question.
Lleyton also have slam wins both in singles and in doubles, but he has only one doubles slam and also Kafelnikov's last doubles slam was more recent - in 2002. Overall he won 4 Slams in doubles in addition to his 2 singles Slams.
by mick1303 In this regard I consider Yevgeny as "The Last of the Mohicans". Now we are in a 20 years drought for the singles champions success in doubles.
Since Kafelnikov's last win there was only one instance when the singles champion player reached a semis in doubles. And even that one is kind of debatable (there is a caveat, that may make you discount this result).
It could be another trivia question. Who was that singles champion, who last reached the semis in doubles slam and why this result could be debatable ))
Almost sure that without looking up this will be very hard to answer. I was quite surprised myself to see this result and was wondering why didn't I know about this.
Again - this question is only about male players
by
Deuce Mick's trivia questions are very good, and quite enjoyable to try to answer. But they are not related to the topic of this thread. So I figured I'd create a thread specifically for tennis-related trivia questions. I have just done that.
So Mick (and others) - feel free to go over to that newly created thread to pose your tennis-related trivia questions. I started it off with a question of my own (which I searched for, as I'm quite bad at coming up with trivia questions
)
by
mick1303 Well, these questions are relevant, although indirectly. Once I will collect sufficient data on doubles, I may do a weighted ranking estimate, factoring doubles as well as singles. The most obvious way would be to calculate the weighted ranking for all the totality of doubles results and then add half of that number to a respective singles weighted ranking of each player. Whoever will have the highest overall number of these sums - I will consider the most accomplished player in singles and doubles combined. But so far it is for singles only. The update with 2022 results added is here:
https://talkabouttennis2.com/viewtopic. ... 101#p23101
by ponchi101 With Novak's reclaim of the #1 position, he will pass Graf at msot weeks as #1 in a month. Since he is not defending any points (he basically did not play last year in the first quarter) that seems fait accompli.
by
ponchi101 And, indeed, Novak ties Graf for most weeks at #1. I say he adds, at least, this entire year at #1. He has a lot of tournaments he did not play in last year that he can gain points from.
The case for GOAT gets more and more solid.
by Ainsley I am speculating about what the future holds for the remaining two players on the tour. Novak, in my opinion has every chance to surpass Roger with 103 titles before he retires. I am not sure that is the case for Rafa. I think when all is said and done and all 3 of these fantastic players have hung it up Novak will be the GOAT.
by ashkor87 I am not sure the GOAT debate should honge on metrics like number of titles, weeks at #1 etc ..it can only be a mix of all these plus head to head record against other candidates And our subjective view on how good someone was at his best..my vote has always been for Gonzales..certainly can change as more great players emerge..one day maybe Alcaraz will be a candidate ..
by
Ainsley ashkor87 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 26, 2023 12:15 pm
I am not sure the GOAT debate should honge on metrics like number of titles, weeks at #1 etc ..it can only be a mix of all these plus head to head record against other candidates And our subjective view on how good someone was at his best..my vote has always been for Gonzales..certainly can change as more great players emerge..one day maybe Alcaraz will be a candidate ..
I was thinking of Alcaraz or maybe even some other player we don't even know yet that might emerge as a star for decades . Carlos Alcaraz is only 19 years old and has already achieved a top level of his game. If he is able to sustain this level for the rest of his career he could be in this mix.
by ponchi101 The GOAT debate hinges on A LOT of metrics, indeed. In the small table I have at the beginning of this topic, there is the H2H of the Big three. It is part of the conversation.
What I disagree with are the "subjectives". There is this idiot commentator in ESPN (he is also Venezuelan) that once stated: "Nobody will ever be greater than Roger". Because, of course, he is blatantly a Roger fan (and there is no issue with that) but then he simply cannot accept facts. That is the part that I find difficult to accept. Novak has every metric over Roger (except total tournaments) and if you can't still accept it, well, your problem, not Novak's.
And yes, we will never know about players like Gonzalez. Or, the one that I believe is the biggest asterisk in tennis: Little Mo Connelly. She played 11 slams, reached all the finals, won 9. Won a calendar slam, and all that before she turned 20.
And then, one afternoon, she went for that catastrophic horse ride. And we will never know if she would be sitting alone at the top, with her 32 slam trophies next to her equestrian medals.
by ashkor87 Oh I agree Djokovic is slightly ahead of Nadal and Federer, the h2h alone is enough. His elo is also the highest. I think the only other candidates would be those from other eras. Sampras, Laver, Gonzales...
by ponchi101 Pete is my favorite player, ever. No doubt.
But I can't consider him the GOAT. There are no attenuating circumstances (did not play for 5 years, had to turn pro and was banned from slams) and his lack of accomplishments on clay affects him.
(And he won three clay events, plus that Russian DC).
Gonzales. You and I spoke about it, and I talked to the tennis pro at the place I play. He never played him, but heard and talked to the other big ones (he did play Laver and Rosewall). All the old ones said Gonzales was from a different planet. Therefore, we will never know.
by Ainsley Each of us has a favorite player. Mine is Taylor Fritz on the ATP tour. I heard someone say that Taylor Fritz goes about his game honestly believing he is the best player on the men's tour. Is he really the best player on the men's tour, no but I think it is great for him to step on the court with that mindset every time. Do I think Taylor fritz should be in the GOAT conversation, NO but I do love the way he plays and want him to win every match he plays. The same goes for Jess Pegula on the WTA tour.
It is really difficult not to look at the accomplishments of the players in determining who is the GOAT. I also think you have to take into consideration a bit of the future for these 3 players one of which is already retired. Rafa seems to be heading on the downside of his career with injuries mounting up almost continuously. You would think this would limit him in the future. Novak on the other hand seems to still be at the top of his game which with the exception of the US Open he could do quite well in the future. This is my reasoning why I believe at this time Novak will go down at the GOAT when all 3 have retired.
by Wheels I might be a little goofy but when I think of the Greatest at something, I think of someone who has one the most. The would be Jimmy Connors and Martina Navratilova. Most people would not say they were the GOATS of Men's and Women's tennis and I understand why because there are more factors that go into it then just the titles, but the titles are the main factor.
by mick1303 Since Daniil got win #5 against Novak and joined a tight club of players who have 5 or more wins against him, it triggered me to make a small query and compare the number of players who have 5+ wins against "big 3".
Nadal has only 7 such players:
Player________________won_lost
Djokovic,_Novak________30___29
Federer,_Roger_________17___24
Murray,_Andy____________8___17
Del_Potro,_Juan_Martin__6___12
Ferrer,_David___________6___26
Thiem,_Dominic__________6____9
Davydenko,_Nikolay______6____5
Federer has 10:
Player________________won_lost
Djokovic,_Novak________27___23
Nadal,_Rafael__________24___17
Murray,_Andy___________11___14
Hewitt,_Lleyton_________9___18
Nalbandian,_David_______8___11
Tsonga,_Jo-Wilfried_____7___12
Del_Potro,_Juan_Martin__7___18
Berdych,_Tomas__________6___20
Henman,_Tim_____________6____7
Thiem,_Dominic__________5____2
Djokovic has 9:
Player________________won_lost
Nadal,_Rafael__________29___30
Federer,_Roger_________23___28
Murray,_Andy___________11___26
Tsonga,_Jo-Wilfried_____7___17
Wawrinka,_Stanislas_____6___20
Ferrer,_David___________5___16
Roddick,_Andy___________5____4
Thiem,_Dominic__________5____7
Medvedev,_Daniil________5____9
It is a common knowledge that Murray is on all 3 of those lists (hence the "big 4" at some point). Was surprised to see Thiem here. Only makes what is happening to him now harder to watch...
by ponchi101 Great stats. And indeed, what is happening to Thiem. I have seen him play twice since his return, and he has no precision on his BH.
I think.
by ashkor87 Am impressed and astonished that Ferrer has 6 wins agains Nadal..would have expected 0! Interestingly, not against Federer..
by
mick1303 ashkor87 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 4:29 am
Am impressed and astonished that Ferrer has 6 wins agains Nadal..would have expected 0! Interestingly, not against Federer..
He sure had a lot of tries though )) With 26 losses against those 6 wins. Never beaten Federer, but lost "only" 17 times ))
by mick1303 Also probably worth noting that Tsonga has 7 wins against Federer and 7 wins against Djokovic. Did not make a cut against Nadal, but still 4-10 is not like 0-17.
by ashkor87 Would be interesting to look at Ferrer's record against everyone except the big 3..my impression is he could not beat them but nobody else could beat him, either! He was the benchmark for a tier 1 player ..very reliable
by ashkor87 Ferrer was 7-7 against Wawrinka but 6-14 against Murray ..
by mick1303 Both Soderling and Nishikori are 10-4 against Ferrer.
Each of them was hurting Ferrer in its own way. Soderling was overpowering him and he was consistent enough so that Ferrer could not rely enough on his shot tolerance to outlast Soderling. Nishikori was hurting Ferrer the same way Davydenko did - by consistently taking the ball very early and robbing the opponent of time. Davydenko only played Ferrer 6 times, but was 4-2 against him. And I remember watching one of those, where Nikolay utterly destroyed him this way.
by
mick1303 ashkor87 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 12:29 pm
Would be interesting to look at Ferrer's record against everyone except the big 3..my impression is he could not beat them but nobody else could beat him, either! He was the benchmark for a tier 1 player ..very reliable
If you look at the players who have at least 3 wins against Ferrer, there are 37 of those. 17 have positive H2H againt DF (including big 3), 6 have even H2H and 14 have negative H2H. So no, David Ferrer was not mauling the field.
by
Owendonovan ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 04, 2023 2:25 am
Great stats. And indeed, what is happening to Thiem. I have seen him play twice since his return, and he has no precision on his BH.
I think.
He's still being paid back for his callous musings of lower ranked players being paid plenty enough.
by Scoob The GOAT debate is very perplexing:
For me, Rafa Nadal will always be the GOAT of Clay Court tennis. Roger Federer will always be the GOAT of the Grass Court. That leaves Novak Djokovic who seems to be able to play pretty well on all the surfaces. Does that however, make him the ultimate Tennis Male GOAT? I am not quite sure about that. When in my opinion there are still two players that are superior to him on two of the court surfaces on any given day, I cannot just hand the GOAT trophy to Novak. He might be the All Court Tennis GOAT, but still on any given day Rafa or Roger could easily outplay him on Clay and Grass.
Can there be 3 GOAT's out to pasture?
by 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.
Also. Selecting that Rafa is the Clay-GOAT, and Roger is the Grass-GOAT, without pointing out that Novak's best surface is hard courts and he holds wining records against both on that surface, is being very selective on how to handle the data.
by
Scoob ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 12, 2023 4:46 pm
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.
Also. Selecting that Rafa is the Clay-GOAT, and Roger is the Grass-GOAT, without pointing out that Novak's best surface is hard courts and he holds wining records against both on that surface, is being very selective on how to handle the data.
Novak is fantastic on all the courts,but still I would lean towards Rafa on Clay any day. As for the grass courts and Roger and Novak, I do agree with you that there is a slight advantage for Novak H2H over Roger. Roger however whenever I watched him play on grass just seemed to rule the court. It was the same way whenever I watched Pete Sampras before Roger or Martina play on grass. They just seemed like they floated over the surface. It is the same way when I watch Rafa play on Clay. It amazes me. Novak plays equally that way when he steps on any such court. I just think it is going to be incredibly difficult to really select any of these 3 incredible players as just one GOAT so I am just trying to wrap them up into 3 GOATS, I guess.
by ponchi101 As much as we can love Roger, he is two slams behind, and has losing records to both of them. Tough.
by
Scoob ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 12, 2023 5:07 pm
As much as we can love Roger, he is two slams behind, and has losing records to both of them. Tough.
You do have to admit when you watched him in his prime playing on the grass surface it was great to see.
by ponchi101 No doubt. In his prime, he was Mozart.
by mick1303 It is inherent flaw of over-relying on the head-to-head. It narrows the available data to a very thin slice. We're talking about prime-vs-prime. Or about the whole "body of work". Prime-vs-prime Federer never played Djokovic on grass. One can argue that prime-vs-prime they never played each other on any surface )) As much as Novak fans like to talk up Federer 2011,2012,2015 etc, he was not the same. And in 2007 when was the last year of his true prime Novak was just a rookie, also very distant from his prime, which started in 2011. Regarding overall body of work: Federer won 19 titles on grass, Novak - 8. Granted he still has time, but with how short grass season is - not that much. And the structure of the grass court season was the same through both of their careers. It is not like you're comparing them to Connors.
by ponchi101 Sampras number of grass court tournaments is very low, when compared to Roger's. But one reason is that Pete seldom played any other grass tournament other than Wimbledon.
As you say, everything on grass is very slim because the data is thin.
by
Scoob ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 12, 2023 7:21 pm
Sampras number of grass court tournaments is very low, when compared to Roger's. But one reason is that Pete seldom played any other grass tournament other than Wimbledon.
As you say, everything on grass is very slim because the data is thin.
As I stated there were two players that I thought were so graceful on grace that I watched quite often and that was Sampras and Federer. I also have to mention Martina on the women's side. Novak can be put in there I guess as well. But those 3 were the cream on top of the strawberries.
by mick1303 Also Federer's record on grass is 192-29 (86.87%), while Novak's - 109-18 (85.82%). Not only Federer played MUCH more, he also has higher winning percentage. 1% for such high career numbers that they have - is a lot.
by ponchi101 I am surprised by that statement. 1% difference is exactly that: 1%. Basically, no difference. And their sample numbers are large enough to be comparable.
by
Scoob
Grant it, the #4 & #5 players on this list are the two players I spoke about and are the two players I have seen play the most and consider the greatest on grass.
The top 3 listed, I barely saw play and the #1 on the list I never saw play the game. So I really cannot comment on those players although they definitely are greats of the game.
by
mick1303 ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 12, 2023 7:38 pm
I am surprised by that statement. 1% difference is exactly that: 1%. Basically, no difference. And their sample numbers are large enough to be comparable.
But if you convert percentage to the ratio, you'll have 6.05 vs 6.62. Novak has 6.05 wins per one loss, while Roger - 6.62 wins. You still think that 1% is negligible?
by 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.
by
ponchi101 ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 12, 2023 4:46 pm
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.
...
mick1303 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 12, 2023 8:12 pm
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.
by 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.
by 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.
by 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 .
by ponchi101 And had a 36 BPM heart rate.
by
ashkor87 ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 16, 2023 2:07 am
And had a 36 BPM heart rate.
34, i think..
by
ponchi101 I meant after a long 5-setter...
by 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.
by
mick1303 ashkor87 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 12, 2023 4:29 am
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%).
by ashkor87 Good point,but yes, I do think Safin was great...not merely very good..
by 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.
by ashkor87 At the end of the day, it is a spectator sport..Safin was fun to watch.
by 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.
by 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.
by jazzyg On the old TAT board, when Djokovic beat Nadal 10-8 in the fifth set of the 2018 Wimbledon semifinals, I wrote it would turn out to be the pivotal match in determining the GOAT, and it looks like that is exactly what happened. Nadal should have won that match because Djokovic was still rusty and not totally fit from his elbow issues and mental walkabout, but he never has really believed in himself against Djokovic off of clay and Djokovic won the important points, also benefitting from the match extending over two days and being kept indoors upon resumption.
If Nadal had won, he would have beaten Kevin Anderson easily in the final and added a third Wimbledon while dinting Djokovic's comeback for a little longer. Although I agree slam total is not the be-all, end-all for this conversation, a lot of people disagree and Nadal might have gone on to win more than he has ended up winning.
As it is, I don't see the race as particularly close anymore. The last time Nadal won a set off of Djokovic on a hard court was the 2013 U.S. Open, which is an amazing stat. Since then, Djokovic has won 19 consecutive sets and nine consecutive matches while also beating Nadal in five of 12 matches on clay.
by mick1303 I like Djokovic much more than Nadal. But this particular stat does not prove anything if we consider the whole career. It just proves that Djokovic outlasted Nadal and was aging a lot slower. Added by the fact that Nadal became great at much earlier age and in the beginning enjoyed the dominance over Djokovic. For which he paid the price later. Their peaks just did not coincide. There was an overlap around 2011 and it was all Djokovic after that.
It does not look that straightforward, because Nadal still was better on clay. But this "better" was shrinking more and more with each year, which allowed Djokovic to be the biggest Nadal rival on clay. Outside of clay Nadal was not a rival to Djokovic after 2013.
Their careers (including Federer) are interconnected to such degree that it is really hard to separate those 3. One can always easily find plenty of arguments for or against any of them in this three-way race. And because it is 3-way, there is an element of asymmetry in it.
I.e, at the time when Nadal was much better than Djokovic he had to contend with prime or slightly after prime Federer, which hurt his numbers to much higher degree than it was for Novak, because Novak came later, when Federer was diminished to higher degree. But it is what it is and we can objectively rely only on numbers. And those numbers say more and more that Djokovic is the best.
by ponchi101 The only thing I will add to what you are saying is that it is impossible NOT to connect these three. The least number of matches in between the three is 40, between Rafa and Roger. We have had many other "rivalries" between players that played not even half of that. Mac-Borg only played 14 times, for example.
These three are joined at the hip.
by jazzyg I have never agreed with the idea that Djokovic played with post-peak Federer primarily.
In my opinion--and not many people share it, but I know what I saw--the best Federer ever played in his career was 2015 (the SABR year) after he got totally comfortable with the bigger frame. I was convinced he would beat Djokovic in the 2015 Wimbledon final after he pummeled Murray in the semis, but Djokovic won fairly comfortably in four sets. Then I was convinced Federer would beat Djokovic in the final of the U.S. Open after he humiliated Gasquet in the semis, but the Djoker got him again in four sets. Both times, Federer acted on court during the match as if he knew Djokovic were the better player, going from frustration to resignation as the match wore on.
Nadal does deserve total credit for being significantly better than Djokovic early in their career since they were born only 11 months apart, but the idea the hard court results the past 10 years are not relevant makes zero sense. In that period, Nadal won the U.S. Open twice and the Australian Open once. There was no slippage. He was better on hard courts in that period that he was in the period when he beat Djokovic regularly. It's just that Djokovic improved exponentially, making it a mismatch.
by ashkor87 Djokovic also had severe health issues earlier, which he got over with his new strict regimen..
by ashkor87 I had posted somewhere here an analysis - considering only matches when BOTH players were between the ages of 23 and 32..just the h2h, Djokovic is significantly better than Nadal, who i himself ahead of Federer
by
mick1303 jazzyg wrote: ↑Mon Jun 12, 2023 10:28 pm
I have never agreed with the idea that Djokovic played with post-peak Federer primarily.
In my opinion--and not many people share it, but I know what I saw--the best Federer ever played in his career was 2015 (the SABR year) after he got totally comfortable with the bigger frame. I was convinced he would beat Djokovic in the 2015 Wimbledon final after he pummeled Murray in the semis, but Djokovic won fairly comfortably in four sets. Then I was convinced Federer would beat Djokovic in the final of the U.S. Open after he humiliated Gasquet in the semis, but the Djoker got him again in four sets. Both times, Federer acted on court during the match as if he knew Djokovic were the better player, going from frustration to resignation as the match wore on.
Nadal does deserve total credit for being significantly better than Djokovic early in their career since they were born only 11 months apart, but the idea the hard court results the past 10 years are not relevant makes zero sense. In that period, Nadal won the U.S. Open twice and the Australian Open once. There was no slippage. He was better on hard courts in that period that he was in the period when he beat Djokovic regularly. It's just that Djokovic improved exponentially, making it a mismatch.
The main strength of prime Federer, which is often getting overlooked because of his other strengths, was his incredible speed. If you watch 2006 YEC match between him and Nadal and then immediately any other match after 2008, you will see that Federer lost a bit of speed. And if you look at Rafa post 2012, you will see that he also lost a half-step. But because it is happening gradually, we tend to overlook it. Both prime Federer and prime Nadal were at least not slower that Alcaraz we see right now. So no, 2004-2007 Federer will beat 2015 Federer. Of course it is purely my opinion, because we don't have a time machine to match them )
by ponchi101 I think he had more weapons later in his career (he improved his BH a lot), but the quickness did decline.
Tough call.
by
mick1303 ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2023 3:30 pm
I think he had more weapons later in his career (he improved his BH a lot), but the quickness did decline.
Tough call.
I saw many times as player's career progresses towards later stages he becomes more and more agressive and attacking-minded. Since winners tend to appear more often in highlight reels, they stick in memory and create more lasting impression. I.e Federer went for winners on bh side more and it creates and impression that his bh got better. What is left outside this analyses is how much his shot tolerance declined as a result of more attacking play. And how much his speed declined that now he hits bh, whereas earlier he had enough time to run around and hit it as fh.
My point is that transformation to "attacking-minded" is happening with all those players out of necessity rather than because they got "wiser" and decided that it is a way to success.
by jazzyg Check out Federer''s score lines from 2015.
At Wimbledon, he won 18 of 19 sets heading to the final, and not one of the sets he won went to a tiebreak. He beat Murray in straight sets in the semifinal after losing to him in straight sets three years earlier at the Olympics at the same place and beating him in four tough sets at Wimbledon a few weeks earlier. And ignoring the score line, I remember Murray saying it was the best he'd ever seen Federer play. Murray was 10-0 on grass that year before losing to Federer.
Then, after winning Cincinnati without dropping a set, including back-to-back victories over Murray and Djokovic in the semis and final, Federer won 18 consecutive sets on his way to the final of the U.S. Open, with only the three against John Isner closer than 6-4. I was mistaken earlier in saying he crushed Gasquet in the semis. That was the quarters. He avenged a French Open defeat to Wawrinka in the semis, destroying him 6-4, 6-3, 6-1. Wawrinka had lost one set on his way to the semis, beating Kevin Anderson 6-4, 6-4, 6-0 in the quarters.
Those are some raw numbers to back up what I saw. I don't dispute that Federer had lost half a step, but in my opinion he more than made up for it with his tremendously improved backhand thanks to his bigger frame and much fewer mishits on his forehand for the same reason. He was on fire on hard courts and grass, but when he faced Djokovic in finals, he went 2-5 while dominating everyone else. He was so confident, he started messing around with the SABR, which served no real purpose other than to keep him entertained.
by
ponchi101 mick1303 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2023 11:35 am
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2023 3:30 pm
I think he had more weapons later in his career (he improved his BH a lot), but the quickness did decline.
Tough call.
I saw many times as player's career progresses towards later stages he becomes more and more agressive and attacking-minded. Since winners tend to appear more often in highlight reels, they stick in memory and create more lasting impression. I.e Federer went for winners on bh side more and it creates and impression that his bh got better. What is left outside this analyses is how much his shot tolerance declined as a result of more attacking play. And how much his speed declined that now he hits bh, whereas earlier he had enough time to run around and hit it as fh.
My point is that transformation to "attacking-minded" is happening with all those players out of necessity rather than because they got "wiser" and decided that it is a way to success.
All I will add is that, indeed, we love to remember the spectacular because it does make the highlights reel. We then forget the 10,000 "Serve wide to the forehand, hit a FH winner into he opposite corner" bread and butter points. In that we agree.
JazzyG offers some great insight below your post. With you, I will disagree a bit on him hitting more BH's because he was unable to run around it; I think it was a calculated move, and one which I approve. I have seen too many players (very recently) running around their BH's to hit an approach FH down the line and then leaving 3/4 of the court open for the crosscourt passing shot. I actually believe that one of Thiem's problems with his comeback is that: he has an excellent BH, yet he tries to run around it over and over, and it leaves him out of good positioning.
by ponchi101 I want somebody to compile the number of TOTAL PLAYERS EVER that won 350 matches during their careers.
These three monsters did it at Slams.
by mick1303 According to my data there are 138 such players. 17 of them are active (or at least did not say that they are retired: Sam Querry, Verdasco...)
I was counting main tour wins.
by ashkor87 As a great player ages, the first thing that goes off is service return..observed it with McEnroe and then Federer..the serve never falls off much..but they struggle to break serve..
by
ponchi101 mick1303 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 27, 2023 10:52 am
According to my data there are 138 such players. 17 of them are active (or at least did not say that they are retired: Sam Querry, Verdasco...)
I was counting main tour wins.
I am surprised. I would have expected far less. But numbers are numbers, and still, only 138 players have won 350 tour matches in both tours, over a span of over 50 years. That says how unbelievable that stat is.
Txs for the number.
by ti-amie The Big Three
@Big3Tennis
Big Three Grand Slam Winning Percentage, In Order:
1. Nadal French Open: 97%
2. Djokovic Australian Open: 92%
3. Djokovic Wimbledon: 89%
4. Federer Wimbledon: 88%
5. Federer Australian Open: 87%
6. Federer US Open: 86.4%
7. Djokovic US Open: 86.2%
8. Djokovic French Open: 85.2%
9. Nadal US Open: 85%
10. Nadal Wimbledon: 82.9%
11. Nadal Australian Open: 82.8%
12. Federer French Open: 81%
by mick1303 Borg French Open - 96%
Borg Wimbledon - 92.7%
by patrick The surprise is Djokovic at 86.2 at USO. Thought that should be higher.
by ponchi101 Both Borg and Nadal have lost only two matches at RG.
One of those hypothetical questions never to be answered: If Borg had not retired...
by
mick1303 ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 27, 2023 8:49 pm
Both Borg and Nadal have lost only two matches at RG.
One of those hypothetical questions never to be answered: If Borg had not retired...
No, Nadal lost twice only to Djokovic. But there was also that Soderling match.
by
mick1303 ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 27, 2023 8:49 pm
Both Borg and Nadal have lost only two matches at RG.
One of those hypothetical questions never to be answered: If Borg had not retired...
The question is hypothetical only in a sense that this never happened. But we have a pretty good idea of what would've happened (sort of like with Djokovic (not)participation in Oz Open 22).
by
ponchi101 mick1303 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 27, 2023 11:15 pm
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 27, 2023 8:49 pm
Both Borg and Nadal have lost only two matches at RG.
One of those hypothetical questions never to be answered: If Borg had not retired...
No, Nadal lost twice only to Djokovic. But there was also that Soderling match.
I can't believe I am going to correct YOU in some statistics!
Nope, Nadal's record at RG is 86-2. He was scheduled to meet Novak but there was the year that he withdrew prior to the match; I think it was in 2016. The Soderling match was in 2009 so that is one loss, and the 2015 loss to Novak was the other.
Those are his two losses there.
EDIT. Patrick corrected me below.
by ashkor87 reproducing my earlier post..
The debate rages on and on – who is the greatest tennis player of all – at least of this generation? Is it Federer, Nadal, or Djokovic? Though the periods of their excellence overlap (fortunately for us tennis fans), Djokovic is actually 6 years younger than Federer, and Nadal is 5 years younger than Federer, almost half a generation apart. Comparing across half-generations is difficult, so here is a heroic approximation I have attempted:
It is only fair to compare players when they are their peak – let us assume that a player is at his peak between the ages of 23 and 33. Federer (1981), Djokovic (1987) and Nadal (1986) are all born roughly in the middle of the year, so considering only the years and not the months, we should compare Federer and Djokovic only in the period 2010 – 2014, Nadal and Djokovic only in the years 2010 to now, and Nadal and Federer only in the period 2009 to 2014, when they were all in their golden years.
These are their Head to Head results in that period:
Djokovic v/s Federer 11:10
Nadal v/s Federer 11:9
Djokovic v/s Nadal: 19:10
Seems pretty clear – Djokovic is actually the best of them, contrary to what most people think..
PS: to be unbiased, we must choose the window arbitrarily, not after looking at the results, that is why I chose 23-33..
by
ponchi101 ashkor87 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 28, 2023 4:39 pm
reproducing my earlier post..
...
These are their Head to Head results in that period:
Djokovic v/s Federer 11:10
Nadal v/s Federer 11:9
Djokovic v/s Nadal: 19:10
Seems pretty clear –
Djokovic is actually the best of them, contrary to what most people think..
PS: to be unbiased, we must choose the window arbitrarily, not after looking at the results, that is why I chose 23-33..
I must be browsing a different forum because, in this one at least, I think we have all agreed that by now the case for Djokovic is too strong to refute.
by ashkor87 This was done in 2020..there was no such consensus then.
by
skatingfan ponchi101 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 28, 2023 3:37 pm
I can't believe I am going to correct YOU in some statistics!
Nope, Nadal's record at RG is 86-2. He was scheduled to meet Novak but there was the year that he withdrew prior to the match; I think it was in 2016. The Soderling match was in 2009 so that is one loss, and the 2015 loss to Novak was the other.
Those are his two losses there.
Wikipedia has Nadal's Roland Garros record as 112-3
2009 4th Round - Soderling def Nadal 6-2, 6-7(2), 6-4, 7-6 (2)
2015 Quarterfinals - Djokovic def Nadal 7-5, 6-3, 6-1
2021 Semifinals - Djokovic def Nadal 3-6, 6-3 7-6(4), 6-2
I think you must be looking at outdated statistics.
by
ponchi101 ashkor87 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 28, 2023 5:09 pm
This was done in 2020..there was no such consensus then.
Reason why I said by now. In 2020 the debate was still open.
by
ponchi101 skatingfan wrote: ↑Fri Jul 28, 2023 5:10 pm
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 28, 2023 3:37 pm
I can't believe I am going to correct YOU in some statistics!
Nope, Nadal's record at RG is 86-2. He was scheduled to meet Novak but there was the year that he withdrew prior to the match; I think it was in 2016. The Soderling match was in 2009 so that is one loss, and the 2015 loss to Novak was the other.
Those are his two losses there.
Wikipedia has Nadal's Roland Garros record as 112-3
2009 4th Round - Soderling def Nadal 6-2, 6-7(2), 6-4, 7-6 (2)
2015 Quarterfinals - Djokovic def Nadal 7-5, 6-3, 6-1
2021 Semifinals - Djokovic def Nadal 3-6, 6-3 7-6(4), 6-2
I think you must be looking at outdated statistics.
Indeed I was. Txs.
by mick1303 I missed one important Djokovic milestone. After Cincy he eclipsed Nadal in matches won on tour. Nadal is 1068, Djokovic was at 1069 before US Open. Lendl is at 1072. With Novak reaching the semis he already eclipsed Ivan as well. Only Connors and Fed are ahead.
by ponchi101 And on Monday, the march to 400 weeks at #1 is back. Let's see if he makes it.
by
skatingfan ponchi101 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 06, 2023 2:34 pm
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.
by 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.
by
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.
by 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.
by 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.
by 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.
by
mick1303 ponchi101 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 25, 2023 2:46 pm
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)
by 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.
by
skatingfan ponchi101 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 25, 2023 9:01 pm
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.
by
mick1303 ponchi101 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 25, 2023 9:01 pm
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.
by 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.
by 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.
by 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.
by
mmmm8 ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 05, 2023 3:34 pm
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.
by
mick1303 ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 05, 2023 3:34 pm
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.
Ferrer was #3, Berdych was #7. I would not say this is "rounding up". They had Gasquet at #9, which Tony and you conveniently did not mention.
by ponchi101 Well, I did not look up the exact rankings at that time.
But the simple fact that the top 4 were at the time ranked in the top 10 makes Tony's point. Of course, by that same logic, the tour HAS NEVER been stronger than in that era. You had four players that would end up with a total 69 Slams. That has never happened before.
by skatingfan Top in 2013 had 45 quarterfinals, 42 semifinals, 26 finals, 39 Grand Slam titles through the end of 2013. Weakest link was Gasquet who'd only made 2 semifinals. 8 of the those players had made at least one Grand Slam final in their career to that point, and the other player who hadn't was Wawrinka.
The current top ten have 36 quarterfinals, 25 semifinals, 22 finals, 27 Grand Slam titles - of that Djokovic accounts for 10, 11, 12, and 24 of those respectively. Weakest links now are Rune, and Fritz who have only made 3, and 2 quarters respectively. 6 of the current top ten have made at least one Grand Slam final - in addition to Rune, and Fritz, Rublev, and Sinner have yet to make a final.
Now the current top 10 is a lot younger than the top ten in 2013 so these comparisons are a little unfair, and maybe in ten years the current crop will look better, but I kind of doubt it.
by
3mlm skatingfan wrote: ↑Sat Oct 07, 2023 4:45 am
Top in 2013 had 45 quarterfinals, 42 semifinals, 26 finals, 39 Grand Slam titles through the end of 2013. Weakest link was Gasquet who'd only made 2 semifinals. 8 of the those players had made at least one Grand Slam final in their career to that point, and the other player who hadn't was Wawrinka.
The current top ten have 36 quarterfinals, 25 semifinals, 22 finals, 27 Grand Slam titles - of that Djokovic accounts for 10, 11, 12, and 24 of those respectively. Weakest links now are Rune, and Fritz who have only made 3, and 2 quarters respectively. 6 of the current top ten have made at least one Grand Slam final - in addition to Rune, and Fritz, Rublev, and Sinner have yet to make a final.
Now the current top 10 is a lot younger than the top ten in 2013 so these comparisons are a little unfair, and maybe in ten years the current crop will look better, but I kind of doubt it.
Every top ten from 2013 (maybe even before that) to March of this year when Nadal dropped out of the top ten was stronger than the current top ten and will be until Djokovic drops out.
by mmmm8 I guess my point was that Uncle Toni's comments made sense if you only consider Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray. Because the other top 6 players in 2013 weren't that strong (Wawrinka had not won a slam yet).
by
ponchi101 Take Novak out, because he is in both groups. Do the crop of Tiafoe, Fritz, Rublev, Rune, Stefanos, Daniil, Casper and Jannick inspire any awe? Carlitos yes, the rest are very good players yet to leave a deep impression.
And... saying "if you take Roger, Rafa, Novak and Andy out" is about the same as saying "if you take the engine out, a Ferrari is pretty much like any other car".
by
mick1303 ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 08, 2023 11:29 pm
Take Novak out, because he is in both groups. Do the crop of Tiafoe, Fritz, Rublev, Rune, Stefanos, Daniil, Casper and Jannick inspire any awe? Carlitos yes, the rest are very good players yet to leave a deep impression.
And... saying "if you take Roger, Rafa, Novak and Andy out" is about the same as saying "if you take the engine out, a Ferrari is pretty much like any other car".
You're falling to the same trap: Judging 2013 top 10 basing on their whole careers. 2013 was not a good year for Federer - he had injuries and finished a year at #6. Also why bring Tiafoe? He is #14 now. In 2013 Ferrer was #3. Are you having him as better player than Medvedev?
by ashkor87 The only comparable era was probably the late 50s, Gonzales, Hoad, Kramer then later Rosewall, Laver, Fraser ...
Borg, Mcenroe, Connors in the late 70s, early 80s were an equally dominant triumvirate. 3 does appear to be the magic number though,!
by
ponchi101 mick1303 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2023 9:34 pm
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 08, 2023 11:29 pm
Take Novak out, because he is in both groups. Do the crop of Tiafoe, Fritz, Rublev, Rune, Stefanos, Daniil, Casper and Jannick inspire any awe? Carlitos yes, the rest are very good players yet to leave a deep impression.
And... saying "if you take Roger, Rafa, Novak and Andy out" is about the same as saying "if you take the engine out, a Ferrari is pretty much like any other car".
You're falling to the same trap: Judging 2013 top 10 basing on their whole careers. 2013 was not a good year for Federer - he had injuries and finished a year at #6. Also why bring Tiafoe? He is #14 now. In 2013 Ferrer was #3. Are you having him as better player than Medvedev?
Then we are looking at this thing in different ways. Do the 2013 crop, after their careers have almost all ended, are way better than what we have now? That is different than: at the time in 2013, were they better than what we have now?
I still say yes. But the questions are not the same.
by
skatingfan ponchi101 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 17, 2023 7:19 pm
Then we are looking at this thing in different ways. Do the 2013 crop, after their careers have almost all ended, are way better than what we have now? That is different than: at the time in 2013, were they better than what we have now?
I still say yes. But the questions are not the same.
Just for the record David Ferrer in 2013 was in the midst a run of 10 straight Grand Slam quarters or better including the 2013 French Open Final.
by
mick1303 skatingfan wrote: ↑Tue Oct 17, 2023 7:38 pm
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 17, 2023 7:19 pm
Then we are looking at this thing in different ways. Do the 2013 crop, after their careers have almost all ended, are way better than what we have now? That is different than: at the time in 2013, were they better than what we have now?
I still say yes. But the questions are not the same.
Just for the record David Ferrer in 2013 was in the midst a run of 10 straight Grand Slam quarters or better including the 2013 French Open Final.
Tony Nadal for some mysterious reason matched Medevedev against Nadal in his rant, which in my view invalidates his point. Or rather makes his argument dishonest. Nadal was #1 in 2013. Medvedev is #3 in 2023 and shall be compared to Ferrer, not to Nadal. Let's compare apples to apples. Davis Ferrer won just one TMS for his whole career. And was in one Slam final. Medvedev, who's career is far from over has 6 TMS + 1 YEC + 1 Slam (and 4 more runner-up finishes). We are excluding Djokovic and this puts Nadal against Alcaraz. Of course, we can't compare achievements, but we already can safely say that Alcaraz is a generational talent and nobody in the history of tennis would have easy time with him. My point is - the overall comparison of 2013 vs 2023 is far from clear.
by ponchi101 My point being that: NO OTHER GENERATION can compare to the 2013 class because the top 3 players of the time will end their careers with a minimum of 66 Slams. That is:
Sampras + Borg + Lend + Agassi + Connors + McEnroe + Wilander + Guga.
The 2013 class is not comparable with any other era. Everything else pales in comparison.
by
mick1303 ponchi101 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 17, 2023 10:29 pm
My point being that: NO OTHER GENERATION can compare to the 2013 class because the top 3 players of the time will end their careers with a minimum of 66 Slams. That is:
Sampras + Borg + Lend + Agassi + Connors + McEnroe + Wilander + Guga.
The 2013 class is not comparable with any other era. Everything else pales in comparison.
We're looking at this issue in a different way. Of course, if you combine the achievements of 2013 top 10 vs any other era top 10, then the trio of Djokovic, Federer and Nadal wins. But if you'll put that top 10 in a match against other top 10, this is where it gets far from clear. Because there are 7 other players in top 10.
by ponchi101 Sure. As you said, want to compare Medvedev Vs Ferrer? Go for it. Sinner Vs Berdych? Be my guest.
But if you take RRN out (I am tired of writing their names), who would you take out from the current crop? Certainly Carlos and Daniil (the only ones that hold slams), and who would be the third? Stefanos? (2 slams finals + YEC). Ruud (4 mayor finals)?
by mick1303 I'm currently on year 1982 going backwards from present in filling the doubles ATP data. And I'm starting to feel that if we combine singles and doubles, then the greatest of them all will be none other than Johnny Mac. Already I have 17(!!!) instances when he won the same tournament both in doubles and in singles. The next after him has less than twice less - Emilio Sanchez with 8 such wins. Only Emilio won only small tournaments (equivalents of 250s), while Mac has 5 slams and 2 YEC to his credit.
For comparisons: Djokovic never done this, Nadal done it once (Monte Carlo 2008), Federer done it twice (Vienna 2003, Halle 2005). Obviously Laver done it plenty of times, but I don't have a data, and even when I fill up all the available Open Era draws, it will still be only part of his legacy.
by
mick1303 ponchi101 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2023 5:46 pm
Sure. As you said, want to compare Medvedev Vs Ferrer? Go for it. Sinner Vs Berdych? Be my guest.
But if you take RRN out (I am tired of writing their names), who would you take out from the current crop? Certainly Carlos and Daniil (the only ones that hold slams), and who would be the third? Stefanos? (2 slams finals + YEC). Ruud (4 mayor finals)?
In this case the 3rd to take out will be Djokovic.
by ashkor87 When you include doubs, McEnroe is certainly a GOAT candidate...and consider DC too for good measure.
by
mick1303 ashkor87 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 09, 2023 12:03 pm
When you include doubs, McEnroe is certainly a GOAT candidate...and consider DC too for good measure.
I actually do consider DC. It participates in matches won and associated categories (win-loss percentage). Also if a player has a singles live rubber win in a Davis Cup final tie, I award him an extra tournament win. DC in my calculation does not award any ranking points and does not participate in associated categories.
by mick1303 I've stumbled on unexpected obstacle that will delay my effort on collecting doubles results and adding them to the calculation of "G.O.A.T" in doubles and singles combined. I did collect a lot of doubles data already. Now I'm on year 1976 (going backwards) and it is moving along. Of course, it is a hobby, so I can't devote a lot of time to it. But recently I discovered that ATP themselves were not particularly meticulous in collecting data. And I'm not talking about the bunch of "Unknowns" in the draws. In many cases they took the freedom in listing the order of players in the pairing. Even within the same tournament many times they list players in the pairing in one round as "Player A/Player B" and in another round as "Player B/Player A". And it creates a bit of a mess, that I will have to untangle, because these results are getting listed twice for me in such cases. So the determining of the best ever player (numerically) is coming. But it will be somewhat delayed )))
by mick1303 Another obstacle to my effort(( I was collecting doubles data (primarily from ATP site) and what I've noticed is that on some occasions they have "Unknowns" in the draws, while the same draws on ITF site have actual names. So I've started to look in the both places and comparing the results, giving more credibility to the final outcome. Also collecting the list of all discrepancies. But today when I was looking up players' activities on ITF site I've noticed that all results became invisible, except Davis Cup and other team competitions. IDK if this is a temporary glitch, or a conscious effort on ITF part to make archive results unavailable for general public. But at the moment it does not look good (( Calendars were not available anyway for years before 2001, but it was possible to navigate to the old results via "Activity" tab. No longer possible, at least for now.
by ashkor87 The powers that be don't want you asking these questions, it seems!
by
mick1303 ashkor87 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2024 9:03 am
The powers that be don't want you asking these questions, it seems!
On this particular occasion conspiracy theory is not confirmed ) I wrote them email and surprisingly got a quick answer:
======
Hello Mike,
Thank you for your email, we appreciate you reaching out on this.
This is an issue we are actively trying to resolve.
Kind regards,
Harrison
Coordinator, ITF Tours and Player Pathway
International Tennis Federation
=======
And they indeed fixed the issue
by mick1303 I'm still collecting doubles results, though there is more and more cases, when the draws are not available and I forced to put "No draw info". What is interesting besides just face value is that sometimes you stumble on such surprising combinations, that literally have to doubt your eyes )) I was considering Pancho Gonzales and Jimmy Connors as being from completely different eras. But lo and behold - they were playing together as a pair in several tourneys in 1972.
by ponchi101 It is indeed surprising, but Pancho played well into a late age. He was that good.
But yes, I am surprised.
by mick1303 It's a shame that Jeff Sackman basically abandoned the public presentation of his tennisabstract data collection. It was basically my last resort for WTA data, because I can still can get ATP results from ATP site (although from TennisAbstract it was so much easier). He no longer updates match results on Github (the last update was may 27th). And even on HeavyTopspin the tournament results are "temporary disabled" for a while now.
by ponchi101 Your zest to chase down all these data is impressive. First time I hear of these sources.
