Originally Posted by jg153040
Yeah, because it's impossible to translate greatness into numbers.
I mean on paper Rafa will be statistical goat in your scenario. I'm consistent in saying majors and weeks nr.1 is what matters most.
I will have no problems to go with the consensus.
But what if they end up close? Rafa with 18 majors and Fed with 17 and 302 weeks? That is too close to tell even based on pure math.
We would have to use other stuff as a tie-breaker.
But the problem is, you can't translate stuff into numbers.
Is h2h worth more than 23 semis? Is 6 WTF titles worth 1-2 majors?
I mean you give me the best system. I mean how much is 1 week being nr.1 worth? How do you measure the value of competition? And you can win a final with 6-0 dominating scores or barley win it. You can win majors with different types of domination. Fed had to win his masters when they were best out of five finals.
Don't you see that there are tons of stuff that you can't assign a number to it? So even based on pure math it's impossible to have a clear goat.
The only mathematical way to compare them would be to maybe add all their ranking points throughout their careers.
And how can we compare this across eras?
People talk as they have time machine, crystal ball or something. One can just argue Nole would have won less during Fed's era when the conditions was less favorable to him. Nole had problems with Roddick, and the AO was still Rebound Ace. Federer, Safin, Hewitt Gonzo wouldn't allow him to win 4 AO. And Nole matchup better against Nadal than Federer on grass, hard court and indoor.