PDA

View Full Version : Role of Dominance in a Season to Determine GOAT


McEnroeisanartist
06-09-2011, 05:28 PM
How much is having dominant seasons important in determining the Greatest of All Time.

As we all know, Roger Federer has had three seasons with a winning percentage over 90%. Rafael Nadal has had zero.

Roger Federer has had three seasons of winning at least 10 titles in a season. Rafael Nadal has had one.

Roger Federer reached the finals in 16/17 (94%) tournaments in 2006. Nadal reached the finals in 12/21 (57%) tournaments in 2005.

Roger Federer has had three seasons where he won three grand slams in a year. Rafael Nadal has had one season where he won three grand slams in a year. (Note: Federer also won the Season Ending Championships in all three years. Nadal lost in the final).

Roger Federer has three seasons where he reached the finals of all four grand slams. Rafael Nadal has zero seasons.

Roger Federer's best three year run featured a 94.27 winning percentage and 34 titles. Rafael Nadal's best three year run featured a 86.22 winning percentage.

Thoughts?

sureshs
06-09-2011, 05:37 PM
It shows that statistics can be made up as needed

sarmpas
06-09-2011, 06:49 PM
It shows that statistics can be made up as needed

then here are some of the non-statistical points


Roger Federer has had three seasons of winning at least 10 titles in a season. Rafael Nadal has had one.

Roger Federer has had three seasons where he won three grand slams in a year. Rafael Nadal has had one season where he won three grand slams in a year. (Note: Federer also won the Season Ending Championships in all three years. Nadal lost in the final).

Roger Federer has three seasons where he reached the finals of all four grand slams. Rafael Nadal has zero seasons.

MajinX
06-09-2011, 06:53 PM
wow at least u arent disguising the fact you believe fed's career is better than nadal which of course to this point is true. But GOAT discussion is pointless, in the end there are too many factors which has varying degrees of importance which are all based on opinions. There may be a more general GOAT canidate most people believe in but does that really make him the GOAT?

sarmpas
06-09-2011, 07:00 PM
But GOAT discussion is pointless, in the end there are too many factors which has varying degrees of importance which are all based on opinions.

Some factors IMO are evidently massive compared to others. When Nadal pulled out of Wimbledon it was headline news in the tennis world for days. However I didn't even know Federer and Djokovic didn't play Monte Carlo this year until I read some other poster's comment on it.

mcr619619
06-09-2011, 07:16 PM
@^stupid...ofcourse it was a headliner...Defending Champion of Wimbledon withdraw..

damn, ur too stupid...

Tennis_Monk
06-09-2011, 07:27 PM
First of all, there is a GOAT and it can be determined. The only issue is each poster makes up their own criteria so that they can bias towards whoever they want.

Dominance is not really relevant. Before the Fedal Era, we had Pete Sampras , then considered as GOAT. Sampras dominance on CLAY is well known and then Clay formed about 43% of the season. It isnt like Sampras won every Non clay tournament either. He never had more than 2 slams a season.

We can argue about this till Andy Roddick Wins French Open but will go nowhere. I will make it plain and simple.

Roger Federer is the GOAT. The future may yield another GOAT (Rafa Nadal or Djoker or Tennis Monk ) but as it stands today, Roger M Federer is the Tennis GOAT.

sarmpas
06-09-2011, 07:32 PM
@^stupid...ofcourse it was a headliner...Defending Champion of Wimbledon withdraw..

damn, ur too stupid...

You think the defending champion withdrawing from a non-slam event is as news worthy? I don't. Put another way, if and when Nadal surpasses the record number of wins at Monte Carlo or Rome the news and internet chat will be insignificant compared to if he should beat Borg's record number of wins at the FO, a slam.

Тинана
06-09-2011, 07:40 PM
OP, are you saying that Federer's dominance over Nadal is absolute according to your statistically evidence?

McEnroeisanartist
06-09-2011, 09:50 PM
OP, are you saying that Federer's dominance over Nadal is absolute according to your statistically evidence?

I am suggesting that Federer has so many incredible records that I can not imagine Nadal breaking. If a supremely awesome player like Nadal can't even break them, it makes me wonder if they will ever be broken.

TMF
06-09-2011, 10:47 PM
OP, are you saying that Federer's dominance over Nadal is absolute according to your statistically evidence?

If you list all the records and winning streaks he owned, yes, Federer is the most dominanting player. Not just in this era, but past era too.

TMF
06-09-2011, 10:49 PM
How much is having dominant seasons important in determining the Greatest of All Time.

As we all know, Roger Federer has had three seasons with a winning percentage over 90%. Rafael Nadal has had zero.

Roger Federer has had three seasons of winning at least 10 titles in a season. Rafael Nadal has had one.

Roger Federer reached the finals in 16/17 (94%) tournaments in 2006. Nadal reached the finals in 12/21 (57%) tournaments in 2005.

Roger Federer has had three seasons where he won three grand slams in a year. Rafael Nadal has had one season where he won three grand slams in a year. (Note: Federer also won the Season Ending Championships in all three years. Nadal lost in the final).

Roger Federer has three seasons where he reached the finals of all four grand slams. Rafael Nadal has zero seasons.

Roger Federer's best three year run featured a 94.27 winning percentage and 34 titles. Rafael Nadal's best three year run featured a 86.22 winning percentage.

Thoughts?

That's a good start. But I know there's a lot more to add to your list.

mcr619619
06-09-2011, 11:18 PM
You think the defending champion withdrawing from a non-slam event is as news worthy? I don't. Put another way, if and when Nadal surpasses the record number of wins at Monte Carlo or Rome the news and internet chat will be insignificant compared to if he should beat Borg's record number of wins at the FO, a slam.

what the hell are you saying?

you said nadal Withdrew from Wimby of 09 created a buzz, and then what?...geez, stupid

magnut
06-09-2011, 11:51 PM
Let's put this way:

The GOAT Roger Federer is Rafael Nadal's *****.

Yup. Thats pretty much it in a nutshell in terms of accomplishments. I dont think any player can really ever surpass Federers achievments which are pretty remarkable. The only real issue for me is whether he would have pulled it off if all the surfaces were not circumsized so much. Still, I dont believe that is something he can control so you have to play the hand your dealt.

I tend to look at things this way...

Federer is the most all around skilled player the game has ever seen.

Rafa is the most mentally strong player the game has ever seen.

Niether are great volleyers. Sadly its a sign of the times though. One thing is for sure. Whoever is calling the shots has something serious against great volleying ability.

TheNatural
06-10-2011, 06:53 AM
It has zero role compared to the role of his pathetic 2 of 8(25%) slam final winning record vs Nadal. Until he can reverse that slam final dominance that Nadal has over him, Fred will be at the Mercy of Rafa, it wil be out of his hands, he will just have to hope Rafa doesnt keep winning slams.

sarmpas
06-10-2011, 07:01 AM
what the hell are you saying?

you said nadal Withdrew from Wimby of 09 created a buzz, and then what?...geez, stupid

Are you urban's assassin or TT buddy by any chance :rolls eyes:

wood, trees, wood, trees, wood, trees, we are seeing different things.

McEnroeisanartist
06-10-2011, 09:14 AM
Has Federer won 3 slams on 3 different surfaces in the same year? I don't think he did. But Nadal did, now this kind of dominance in one year is superior than anything Federer has ever done.

Also it's funny how Federer fans focuse on his slams, and now they talk about smaller tournaments and overall records each year. If these tournaments were so important, then why not talk about master series titles were Nadal is already ahead while still much younger, or overall titles where people like Connors outclass Federer?

I tell you, people manipulate stats whatever way it suis them.

Yes, I agree that Nadal's three Grand Slams on 3 different surfaces is awesome. Yes, I agree that Nadal's achievements in Masters Series is beyond impressive. But, even there for dominance in a season, Federer has Nadal beat. Nadal had one season of winning 4 Masters Titles in a Season, Federer has two. Federer has the record most Masters Finals reached in a season (6) although I am sure Nadal will tie or break that this season.

jrachiever
06-10-2011, 11:00 AM
How much is having dominant seasons important in determining the Greatest of All Time.

As we all know, Roger Federer has had three seasons with a winning percentage over 90%. Rafael Nadal has had zero.

Roger Federer has had three seasons of winning at least 10 titles in a season. Rafael Nadal has had one.

Roger Federer reached the finals in 16/17 (94%) tournaments in 2006. Nadal reached the finals in 12/21 (57%) tournaments in 2005.

Roger Federer has had three seasons where he won three grand slams in a year. Rafael Nadal has had one season where he won three grand slams in a year. (Note: Federer also won the Season Ending Championships in all three years. Nadal lost in the final).

Roger Federer has three seasons where he reached the finals of all four grand slams. Rafael Nadal has zero seasons.

Roger Federer's best three year run featured a 94.27 winning percentage and 34 titles. Rafael Nadal's best three year run featured a 86.22 winning percentage.

Thoughts?

This is a good summary of exactly why, from a career perspective, I think Federer is a greater player than Nadal to any impartial observer. I've usually rooted for Nadal over Federer, especially in Federer's prime where Nadal was the only guy with the physical and mental strength to stand up to Federer. Yet, it seems pretty obvious to me that Federer was more dominant and just flat out more brilliant on the court than Nadal will ever be.

mightyrick
06-10-2011, 11:37 AM
This is a good summary of exactly why, from a career perspective, I think Federer is a greater player than Nadal to any impartial observer. I've usually rooted for Nadal over Federer, especially in Federer's prime where Nadal was the only guy with the physical and mental strength to stand up to Federer. Yet, it seems pretty obvious to me that Federer was more dominant and just flat out more brilliant on the court than Nadal will ever be.

Honestly, I think Federer and Nadal are both very good. But the fact is, this is a weak era. There are two main factors that need to be considered for this: 1) Level of dominance, and 2) Strength of field (era).

Nadal and Federer are both benefiting from a weak men's tennis era. Especially on clay and grass. How anybody could equate four grass slams in this era to four grass slams in the prior era is beyond me.

To me, the GOAT is whoever has the overall best score between level of dominance and strength of field. I just don't think it's Federer. I don't even think it is Nadal.

So if Federer ranks a 10 in term of dominance, but a 6 in terms of strength of era.... is he better than Sampras who has a 9 in terms of dominance but an 8 in terms of strength of era?

jackson vile
06-10-2011, 11:41 AM
Honestly, I think Federer and Nadal are both very good. But the fact is, this is a weak era. There are two main factors that need to be considered for this: 1) Level of dominance, and 2) Strength of field (era).

Nadal and Federer are both benefiting from a weak men's tennis era. Especially on clay and grass. How anybody could equate four grass slams in this era to four grass slams in the prior era is beyond me.

To me, the GOAT is whoever has the overall best score between level of dominance and strength of field. I just don't think it's Federer. I don't even think it is Nadal.

So if Federer ranks a 10 in term of dominance, but a 6 in terms of strength of era.... is he better than Sampras who has a 9 in terms of dominance but an 8 in terms of strength of era?


That is a very good argument, however how do we go about measuring how strong one era is to another. This would help a lot in determining the GOAT.

TheNatural
06-10-2011, 12:17 PM
Yes, I agree that Nadal's three Grand Slams on 3 different surfaces is awesome. Yes, I agree that Nadal's achievements in Masters Series is beyond impressive. But, even there for dominance in a season, Federer has Nadal beat. Nadal had one season of winning 4 Masters Titles in a Season, Federer has two. Federer has the record most Masters Finals reached in a season (6) although I am sure Nadal will tie or break that this season.

Fed must have had a lot of relatively average seasons of winning MS titles, since he still has less MS titles than Nadal despite playing about 40 more MS events than Nadal.

mightyrick
06-10-2011, 12:22 PM
That is a very good argument, however how do we go about measuring how strong one era is to another. This would help a lot in determining the GOAT.

How about total grand slams won for the top-10 ATP ranked players for any year?

For example, at the end of 1995, here is the top-10 GS count
================================================== =
Sampras - 7
Agassi - 3
Muster - 1
Becker - 5
Chang - 1
Kafelnikov - 0
Enqvist - 0
Courier - 4
Ferreira - 0
Ivanišević - 0

Total grand slams by Top-10 in 1995: 21

At the end of 2006, here is what it looks like
==============================================
Roger Federer - 9
Rafael Nadal - 2
Nikolay Davydenko - 0
James Blake - 0
Ivan Ljubičić - 0
Andy Roddick - 1
Tommy Robredo - 0
David Nalbandian - 0
Mario Ančić - 0
Fernando González - 0

Total grand slams by Top-10 in 1995: 12

From using a metric like that, it is very obvious that Federer and Nadal (in 2006) did not face the same level of experience and champions that Sampras did in 1995. Sampras' field was clearly more difficult.

tennis_pro
06-10-2011, 01:06 PM
How about total grand slams won for the top-10 ATP ranked players for any year?

For example, at the end of 1995, here is the top-10 GS count
================================================== =
Sampras - 7
Agassi - 3
Muster - 1
Becker - 5
Chang - 1
Kafelnikov - 0
Enqvist - 0
Courier - 4
Ferreira - 0
Ivanišević - 0

Total grand slams by Top-10 in 1995: 21

At the end of 2006, here is what it looks like
==============================================
Roger Federer - 9
Rafael Nadal - 2
Nikolay Davydenko - 0
James Blake - 0
Ivan Ljubičić - 0
Andy Roddick - 1
Tommy Robredo - 0
David Nalbandian - 0
Mario Ančić - 0
Fernando González - 0

Total grand slams by Top-10 in 1995: 12

From using a metric like that, it is very obvious that Federer and Nadal (in 2006) did not face the same level of experience and champions that Sampras did in 1995. Sampras' field was clearly more difficult.

What bullcrap. Great choice - taking the best year from the 90's and the worst from the 80's. Now let me try

2004 - Slam winners Federer (4), Agassi (8), Roddick (1), Safin (1 + another one in January 2005), Gaudio, Moya, Hewitt (2) = 20 in total

1997 - Slam winners Sampras (10), Chang, Muster, Rafter, Kafelnikov = 14 in total, 70 % of which was Sampras

I'm not even comparing any of Sampras years to the field nowadays (2011), Federer 16 + Nadal 10 + Djokovic 2 + Del Potro 1 + Roddick 1 = 30 just on top of my head, I'm sure there's more

8PAQ
06-10-2011, 01:09 PM
How much is having dominant seasons important in determining the Greatest of All Time.

As we all know, Roger Federer has had three seasons with a winning percentage over 90%. Rafael Nadal has had zero.

Roger Federer has had three seasons of winning at least 10 titles in a season. Rafael Nadal has had one.

Roger Federer reached the finals in 16/17 (94%) tournaments in 2006. Nadal reached the finals in 12/21 (57%) tournaments in 2005.

Roger Federer has had three seasons where he won three grand slams in a year. Rafael Nadal has had one season where he won three grand slams in a year. (Note: Federer also won the Season Ending Championships in all three years. Nadal lost in the final).

Roger Federer has three seasons where he reached the finals of all four grand slams. Rafael Nadal has zero seasons.

Roger Federer's best three year run featured a 94.27 winning percentage and 34 titles. Rafael Nadal's best three year run featured a 86.22 winning percentage.

Thoughts?

Federer is betterer than everyonerer.

ledwix
06-10-2011, 01:46 PM
Nadal can't have as good of dominance in a season due to the fact that he is better on clay than hard. Federer is better on hard and since hard courts take up the majority of the season, voila.

jackson vile
06-10-2011, 01:59 PM
Nadal can't have as good of dominance in a season due to the fact that he is better on clay than hard. Federer is better on hard and since hard courts take up the majority of the season, voila.

That is a valid point, well made.

mightyrick
06-10-2011, 02:42 PM
What bullcrap. Great choice - taking the best year from the 90's and the worst from the 80's. Now let me try

2004 - Slam winners Federer (4), Agassi (8), Roddick (1), Safin (1 + another one in January 2005), Gaudio, Moya, Hewitt (2) = 20 in total

1997 - Slam winners Sampras (10), Chang, Muster, Rafter, Kafelnikov = 14 in total, 70 % of which was Sampras

I'm not even comparing any of Sampras years to the field nowadays (2011), Federer 16 + Nadal 10 + Djokovic 2 + Del Potro 1 + Roddick 1 = 30 just on top of my head, I'm sure there's more

Ok, I agree. That's a bad measure. I was just throwing something out there.

I read another older thread on here that proposed that the strength of an era should be determined by the number of top-30 GOATs that participated in it. Interesting. It compared 1980 versus 2000:

Top ten 2000
Kuerten
Safin
Sampras
Norman
Kafelnikov
Agassi
Hewitt
Corretja
Enqvist
Henman

Top Ten 1980
Borg
McEnroe
Connors
Mayer
Vilas
Lendl
Solomon
Clerc
Gerulaitis
Teltscher

Which was the stronger year? Pretty easy to see. I guess you'd have to do this analysis for every era and see which eras had more GOATs. In Federer's case, he definitely is not playing in an era that will produce more HOFers than the 1980s.

pc1
06-10-2011, 06:19 PM
How much is having dominant seasons important in determining the Greatest of All Time.

As we all know, Roger Federer has had three seasons with a winning percentage over 90%. Rafael Nadal has had zero.

Roger Federer has had three seasons of winning at least 10 titles in a season. Rafael Nadal has had one.

Roger Federer reached the finals in 16/17 (94%) tournaments in 2006. Nadal reached the finals in 12/21 (57%) tournaments in 2005.

Roger Federer has had three seasons where he won three grand slams in a year. Rafael Nadal has had one season where he won three grand slams in a year. (Note: Federer also won the Season Ending Championships in all three years. Nadal lost in the final).

Roger Federer has three seasons where he reached the finals of all four grand slams. Rafael Nadal has zero seasons.

Roger Federer's best three year run featured a 94.27 winning percentage and 34 titles. Rafael Nadal's best three year run featured a 86.22 winning percentage.

Thoughts?

Hard to compare. Bill Tilden had a great number of dominant seasons in the 1920's but due to the lack of airplane travel it was hard to travel overseas to Wimbledon and other majors. Despite that he won 10 regular majors and 4 Pro Majors. According to the Bud Collins Total Tennis he won at one point 138 tournaments of 192 played with a 907-62 match record. He had years in which he almost never lost.