PDA

View Full Version : Contenders for the GOAT of tennis.


Aykhan Mammadov
06-27-2006, 03:45 PM
After many arguments, discussions about who and why I came to the conclusion that not a number of GS determine the GOAT despite it certainly influences, otherwise old argument 14 of Sampras but without RG or say 8 of Agassi but with all 4 "what is better ?" rises, and etc..

It could seem to me that 6 victories on clay - slowest surface among which 4 times done consequitively, and 5 times in absolutely contrary surface at W - among which all 5 done conseqitively is something phenomenal. This is GREAT Bjorn Borg with his 11 GS.

Also it seems to me that making 2 times Grand Slam by Rod Laver is also something fantastic.

But the question how to compare really was appearing in my mind again and again.

I came to the very simple mathematical decision. Among all players ( u argue or not - doesn't make a weather) W is considered the main dream ( just ask Fed or Agassi), then RG, then USO, then AO.

So if u give:

W - 4 points
RG - 3 points
USO -2 points
AO - 1 point
and extra 10 points every time u make Grand Slam (= winning all 4 in the same year; is given 10 because I consider it is fair to multiply points of a player to 2 if he win all 4 slams, and their sum is 10):
and give a player 10 points once if he did all 4 in his career.

then u can give some common ranking to players:

Borg = 5x4+6x3 = 38
Rod Laver = 10+10+10+10 = 40
Sampras = 7x4 + 5x2 +2x1 = 40
Agassi - 1x4+1x3 + 2x2 + 4x1 + 10 = 25
Federer at the moment - 3x4 + 2x2 + 2x1 = 18
Don Budge = 10 + 10 = 20
McEnroe = 3x4 + 4x2 = 20
Lendl = 3x3 + 3x2 + 2x1 = 17
Jimmy Connors = 2x4 + 5x2 + 1x1 = 19

U can see Greatest players by today were Laver, Sampras and Borg.

Federer did win Sampras in 2001, so I think Laver and especially Borg with his 5 consequitive !!! victories at W and 6 victories at RG ( 4 consequitive !!!) probably must be most respected players of all times.

sureshs
06-27-2006, 03:59 PM
Why not take into account:

no. of singles titles
no. of doubles titles
no. of mixed doubles titles
davis cup record
overall win/loss ratio (chrissie has the highest of 0.9 I think)
losses to eventual winner of tournament
number of years played

Moose Malloy
06-27-2006, 04:16 PM
U can see Greatest players by today were Laver, Sampras and Borg.


You know this is the general opinion of most fans/writers/players. You don't need a formula to confirm what we all know.

no. of singles titles
no. of doubles titles
no. of mixed doubles titles
davis cup record
overall win/loss ratio (chrissie has the highest of 0.9 I think)
losses to eventual winner of tournament
number of years played

Well, why don't you work all that out for us?

Aykhan Mammadov
06-27-2006, 04:19 PM
Doubles' results can't be taken into account because they reffer to a pair, not to a person.

Other single titles are not taken into account because their draws ( 32, 64) are less than at GS ( 128) and Slams are most complete and fair scale for palyers' ability determination. In other words their grade is lower.

Yr question is similar to the following : "Why not to take into account all previous matches of the team in determining World Champion in football ". Answer: " Because World champion is being determined at World Championship, and previous matches of all teams played in their yards as well as all other are not taken into account"

Why to take into account results of a player in tounaments with lower grade such as Masters, International, Satellites, Davis Cup, in their own yard with neighbours. Count only players who won Slam, if they could win they had to win Slam.

sureshs
06-27-2006, 04:30 PM
Laver comes out to be 49:

AO: 3
FO: 2
W: 4
USO: 2

(wikipedia:
Australian Open W ('60, '62, '69)
French Open W ('62, '69)
Wimbledon W ('61, '62, '68, '69)
US Open W ('62, '69)
)

3*1 + 2*3 + 4*4 + 2*2 = 29

29 + 10 + 10 (2 calendar slams, and nothing extra for career slam bcos it is included in calendar slam) = 49

Aykhan Mammadov
06-27-2006, 04:31 PM
You know this is the general opinion of most fans/writers/players. You don't need a formula to confirm what we all know.

It is strange that NOT. I personally don't rely on my own formula and count Federer as a greatets ever, and Santoro with poor points. meanwile some count Lendl, Agassi, McEnroe and etc..

In the method of counting I gave there is a little trick. One can ask why points u give to slams are those above, but not different. Say why not to give to W = 7 and to RG = 5 ? In short, if u change those numbers u can obtain different results.

Rickson
06-27-2006, 04:33 PM
It's too early to see if Federer becomes the goat so atm, we have to accept Pete Sampras as the goat.

chaognosis
06-27-2006, 04:43 PM
Other single titles are not taken into account because their draws ( 32, 64) are less than at GS ( 128) and Slams are most complete and fair scale for palyers' ability determination. In other words their grade is lower.

Today perhaps, but in earlier times the major championships were not necessarily the barometer of greatness they are today. Certainly it was a remarkable feat for Don Budge and Rod Laver to win the amateur-era Grand Slam in 1938 and '62, respectively, but in neither case did they face the best players in the world en route to their successes (in Budge's day, both Ellsworth Vines and Fred Perry were off dueling on the Pro tour, while Laver's Grand Slam run lacked competition from such greats as Gonzalez, Rosewall, and Hoad). I do not think therefore, that it makes any sense whatsoever to rank players from different generations according to a strict formula like yours. I use a much looser approach, an attempt to compare the different data that is available to us and evaluate a player's completeness, universality, and longevity. These seem to me to be the three most important characteristics of a great player; therefore the GREATEST player must possess all three qualities in spades. Only two players, Bill Tilden and Laver, fit the bill.

AAAA
06-27-2006, 07:38 PM
Using your points system a player with 4 Wimbledon titles(16 points) has more points than a player with 2 wimbys and 2 French (14 points).

oscar_2424
06-27-2006, 07:44 PM
Bjorn Borg is the goat, end of the discussion

superman1
06-27-2006, 08:32 PM
There's too much to take into account. You just go by your gut.

For example, Agassi didn't play the Australian Open until 1995 and he won it on his first try, beating Sampras in the final. He also had that whole Brooke Shields fiasco that took him out of contention. He'd probably have over 10 Slams by now if it weren't for all of that.

Then again, a lot of players in the 70's and 80's skipped the Australian. So they'd have a lot more Slams. You can't just look at # of Slams. It's a combination of accomplishments, talent and competition.

There are too many variables to count. I just go: Sampras, Laver, Borg, Agassi, Federer.

newnuse
06-27-2006, 09:49 PM
I agree your ranking of Wimbledon as the #1 grand slam. I imagine most people would put the US Open over the French Open though. Maybe it's because I live in the USA, but US Open was always above the FO from what I saw.

MTChong
06-27-2006, 10:13 PM
It is strange that NOT. I personally don't rely on my own formula and count Federer as a greatets ever, and Santoro with poor points. meanwile some count Lendl, Agassi, McEnroe and etc..

In the method of counting I gave there is a little trick. One can ask why points u give to slams are those above, but not different. Say why not to give to W = 7 and to RG = 5 ? In short, if u change those numbers u can obtain different results.

Thanks for wasting time then; you already said why such an idea wouldn't work, and it clearly doesn't. Awarding only one point for a given slam while four for another? Completely illogical - case closed, I'd say.

HollerOne5
06-27-2006, 10:22 PM
This is the dumbest thread I've ever seen. All grand slams are grand slams for a reason. They all take 7 matches to win, and they are all conducted in the same way. They are all valued equally on the ATP ranking system, therefore, they are all equal. The GOAT will never be decided, end of discussion. There is always going to be a difference of opinion between what people value more (slam titles versus competition versus surfaces, etc etc). Just give it a rest already.

simi
06-27-2006, 11:00 PM
...Federer did win Sampras in 2001...

Aykhan, private e-mail sent to you.

HyperHorse
06-28-2006, 12:01 AM
Hasnt this been discussed already, and to death???
it's pretty obvious who the GOAT is atm...
without getting into a totally stupid debate....