Stats - precedence over sport?

Azure · Sep 15, 2018

Having never contributed to goat threads on this forum, I feel that I am missing out a major driver of the sport.

Any sport is driven by stats - highest goals in a year in football, number of world championships in F1, number of centuries in cricket...the list is endless in each sport and so it is with our sport too.

In tennis, more so than in other sports it is almost an insult to compare eras owing to the political scene that existed in the past eras, the skewed importance to certain slams, surfaces of the courts at slams changing to the mere homogenisation coupled with great strides made in medicine and technology today.

The past few years - starting from 2005 have been a lot about records - will Fed overtake Pete, will Rafa overtake Borg, will Djokovic lead h2h against these two and now the very notion of greatness is being justified by stats.

Federer looks highly disgruntled on the courts and there's no doubt that he wants to keep the record, Rafa clearly is chasing slam record and the fact that physical limitations are out to get him are clearly frustrating to him. Djokovic, if he is close to eclipsing these two in the records and god forbid he faces problems, we are going to see a very angry man on the courts.

Are we killing the joy of watching players play without the need to chase something on the courts? How vital are stats other than for armchair critics to evaluate? On the flip side, if there were no stats do you think the players wouldn't be motivated enough? If so, how did the past greats even play without such driving forces?

Discuss.

insideguy · Sep 15, 2018

Azure said:
Having never contributed to goat threads on this forum, I feel that I am missing out a major driver of the sport.

Any sport is driven by stats - highest goals in a year in football, number of world championships in F1, number of centuries in cricket...the list is endless in each sport and so it is with our sport too.

In tennis, more so than in other sports it is almost an insult to compare eras owing to the political scene that existed in the past eras, the skewed importance to certain slams, surfaces of the courts at slams changing to the mere homogenisation coupled with great strides made in medicine and technology today.

The past few years - starting from 2005 have been a lot about records - will Fed overtake Pete, will Rafa overtake Borg, will Djokovic lead h2h against these two and now the very notion of greatness is being justified by stats.

Federer looks highly disgruntled on the courts and there's no doubt that he wants to keep the record, Rafa clearly is chasing slam record and the fact that physical limitations are out to get him are clearly frustrating to him. Djokovic, if he is close to eclipsing these two in the records and god forbid he faces problems, we are going to see a very angry man on the courts.

Are we killing the joy of watching players play without the need to chase something on the courts? How vital are stats other than for armchair critics to evaluate? On the flip side, if there were no stats do you think the players wouldn't be motivated enough? If so, how did the past greats even play without such driving forces?

Discuss.

Records are funny. Great thread. Probably no sport relies on history and records more than baseball. Well it did. Then a bunch of guys roided up. And broke a bunch of records. Stats are the lifeblood of the sport which traces itself to the mid to late 1800s. In some ways even though they were cheaters I think it broke that spell of records and their meaning. Now I watch the game for the game and don't concern myself with the stats or the records.

tennisaddict · Sep 15, 2018

Power of internet, social media and reporters.

Azure · Sep 15, 2018

insideguy said:
Records are funny. Great thread. Probably no sport relies on history and records more than baseball. Well it did. Then a bunch of guys roided up. And broke a bunch of records. Stats are the lifeblood of the sport which traces itself to the mid to late 1800s. In some ways even though they were cheaters I think it broke that spell of records and their meaning. Now I watch the game for the game and don't concern myself with the stats or the records.

Thank you!

Someone set precedence for the records to be 'broken'. Without any bar, these athletes competed without the need to 'achieve' anything. Laver did not emulate someone in achieving 'the' GrandSlam.

insideguy · Sep 15, 2018

Azure said:
Thank you!

Someone set precedence for the records to be 'broken'. Without any bar, these athletes competed without the need to 'achieve' anything. Laver did not emulate someone in achieving 'the' GrandSlam.

Exactly. But now everyone, well I don't know if the players do, but the fans measure these people against the records. Then the players get wrapped up in it. These sports evolve and man in baseball they totally do. Pitchers don't pitch for wins anymore they pitch. They are not Cy Young or Satchel Paig. Its not comparable. These managers are trying to win games. They use saber metrics to match people up. They just don't run people out on the field anymore. But we are always trying to compare the present with the past. Who was greater Chris or Martina or Steffi or Serena? The only reason I am on the Serena bandwagon is she keeps on trucking. She takes on all comers. She just played a women 16 years younger in a slam final. This is like amazing. But maybe in 20 years it won't be?

Azure · Sep 15, 2018

insideguy said:
Exactly. But now everyone, well I don't know if the players do, but the fans measure these people against the records. Then the players get wrapped up in it. These sports evolve and man in baseball they totally do. Pitchers don't pitch for wins anymore they pitch. They are not Cy Young or Satchel Paig. Its not comparable. These managers are trying to win games. They use saber metrics to match people up. They just don't run people out on the field anymore. But we are always trying to compare the present with the past. Who was greater Chris or Martina or Steffi or Serena? The only reason I am on the Serena bandwagon is she keeps on trucking. She takes on all comers. She just played a women 16 years younger in a slam final. This is like amazing. But maybe in 20 years it won't be?

Navratilova enjoyed longevity as well although she moved into doubles later on. I agree. I think sport played as sport would be better but I doubt it would generate the revenue without the record breaking events

Standaa · Sep 15, 2018

Stats are important, but also misused.

Not only it’s idiotic to compare eras (but we do it anyways) and the GOAThood is something that’s unmeasurable, even the people competing in the same era shouldn’t really be compared to each other based purely on stats. Just the fact that Slams like AO 09/AO 12/AO 17 have the same statistical value as USO 17 tells you something’s wrong with it.

I think we should just be talking about what happened in individual matches if we want to be correct, but look at TTW. It lives off the GOAT talk, stats comparisions etc.

insideguy · Sep 15, 2018

Azure said:
Navratilova enjoyed longevity as well although she moved into doubles later on. I agree. I think sport played as sport would be better but I doubt it would generate the revenue without the record breaking events

Right. I just see fans argue about record etc, like its a straight line. Its not and never will be. Its always been silly. If Roger Maris played in Forbes Field in 1961 he never would have broke Ruths record. Heck they built the stadium in NYC around Ruth. I suppose straight out stats like track or swimming could be argued. But even that these people are training and the environments are totally different than the old days. And it always will be that way. I try and enjoy the sport for the sport at the time now. Players may not. If Serena didn't have that 24 in front of her she may not have served like crap lol.

Ann · Sep 15, 2018

Azure said:
Having never contributed to goat threads on this forum, I feel that I am missing out a major driver of the sport.

Any sport is driven by stats - highest goals in a year in football, number of world championships in F1, number of centuries in cricket...the list is endless in each sport and so it is with our sport too.

In tennis, more so than in other sports it is almost an insult to compare eras owing to the political scene that existed in the past eras, the skewed importance to certain slams, surfaces of the courts at slams changing to the mere homogenisation coupled with great strides made in medicine and technology today.

The past few years - starting from 2005 have been a lot about records - will Fed overtake Pete, will Rafa overtake Borg, will Djokovic lead h2h against these two and now the very notion of greatness is being justified by stats.

Federer looks highly disgruntled on the courts and there's no doubt that he wants to keep the record, Rafa clearly is chasing slam record and the fact that physical limitations are out to get him are clearly frustrating to him. Djokovic, if he is close to eclipsing these two in the records and god forbid he faces problems, we are going to see a very angry man on the courts.

Are we killing the joy of watching players play without the need to chase something on the courts? How vital are stats other than for armchair critics to evaluate? On the flip side, if there were no stats do you think the players wouldn't be motivated enough? If so, how did the past greats even play without such driving forces?

Discuss.

Stats are interesting but overused in determining "greatness".

Baseball is my greatest love so I have to start with that --- Take H2H stats for example... Pedro Martinez, Hall of Famer and one of the greatest pitchers that ever stood on a mound was owned by some very sub-par guys -- Enrique Wilson is the first one that comes to mind. He had a career .244 BA against everyone else but against Pedro he hit .440. Was Enrique a GOAT because he consistently kicked the arse of an ATG? No, he was just a below average hitter that had an ATG's number. H2H is overused. It doesn't always determine the better overall player not in baseball OR tennis.

And career totals can be overrated too -- Sandy Koufax, another Hall of Famer and true ATG but because he retired at 30, retired with only 165 wins that number has him tied at 208th all-time in most wins. 208th!

Now anyone that ever saw Sandy Koufax (before my time) or Pedro Martinez pitch knew they were witnessing two of the greatest that ever lived, even if some stat head could show marked weaknesses if they so chose.

The same holds true for tennis. Most GS ever is a lovely number but Bjorn Borg only had 11 (because he retired at 26) does that mean he was a lesser player than Federer, Nadal, Sampras, Djokovic and Roy Emerson. Hell no. It means he retired while he was still in his prime. No single stat or in many cases even a group of cherry-picked stats prove anything besides someone likes numbers and is desperate to prove a point. # of GS, # of Masters, H2H, longevity, years of domination, weeks at number one... take any group of numbers you want and you can make it prove whatever you like.

Me, I'll chose my GOAT with my eyes.

Azure · Sep 15, 2018

StANDAA said:
Stats are important, but also misused.

Not only it’s idiotic to compare eras (but we do it anyways) and the GOAThood is something that’s unmeasurable, even the people competing in the same era shouldn’t really be compared to each other based purely on stats. Just the fact that Slams like AO 09/AO 12/AO 17 have the same statistical value as USO 17 tells you something’s wrong with it.

I think we should just be talking about what happened in individual matches if we want to be correct, but look at TTW. It lives off the GOAT talk, stats comparisions etc.

Yes but aren't these very records the news bites for media? Isn't that positively contributing to the sport's popularity? I am just playing the devil's advocate here.

Azure · Sep 15, 2018

insideguy said:
Right. I just see fans argue about record etc, like its a straight line. Its not and never will be. Its always been silly. If Roger Maris played in Forbes Field in 1961 he never would have broke Ruths record. Heck they built the stadium in NYC around Ruth. I suppose straight out stats like track or swimming could be argued. But even that these people are training and the environments are totally different than the old days. And it always will be that way. I try and enjoy the sport for the sport at the time now. Players may not. If Serena didn't have that 24 in front of her she may not have served like crap lol.

You and @Ann have used an analogy I am unfamiliar with - baseball. That said, while 24 would have pressurised Serena into playing like crap, isn't the 24 also one of the reasons she even participated? Sometimes there's a sense of emptiness after you scale everest. May be Serena would have felt the same.

I like Serena too and for her sake I hope she can set aside the debacle and move towards number 24. I hope she doesn't feel empty after that though.

Azure · Sep 15, 2018

Ann said:
Stats are interesting but overused in determining "greatness".

Baseball is my greatest love so I have to start with that --- Take H2H stats for example... Pedro Martinez, Hall of Famer and one of the greatest pitchers that ever stood on a mound was owned by some very sub-par guys -- Enrique Wilson is the first one that comes to mind. He had a career .244 BA against everyone else but against Pedro he hit .440. Was Enrique a GOAT because he consistently kicked the arse of an ATG? No, he was just a below average hitter that had an ATG's number. H2H is overused. It doesn't always determine the better overall player not in baseball OR tennis.

And career totals can be overrated too -- Sandy Koufax, another Hall of Famer and true ATG but because he retired at 30, retired with only 165 wins that number has him tied at 208th all-time in most wins. 208th!

Now anyone that ever saw Sandy Koufax (before my time) or Pedro Martinez pitch knew they were witnessing two of the greatest that ever lived, even if some stat head could show marked weaknesses if they so chose.

The same holds true for tennis. Most GS ever is a lovely number but Bjorn Borg only had 11 (because he retired at 26) does that mean he was a lesser player than Federer, Nadal, Sampras, Djokovic and Roy Emerson. Hell no. It means he retired while he was still in his prime. No single stat or in many cases even a group of cherry-picked stats prove anything besides someone likes numbers and is desperate to prove a point. # of GS, # of Masters, H2H, longevity, years of domination, weeks at number one... take any group of numbers you want and you can make it prove whatever you like.

Me, I'll chose my GOAT with my eyes.

Ann, again baseball

not a sport I know anything about except a few rules.

Let me ask you a different question. Do you think Borg would have left the sport at the age of 26 if he were playing in this era and had such records to chase?

Ann · Sep 15, 2018

Azure said:
Ann, again baseball not a sport I know anything about except a few rules.

Let me ask you a different question. Do you think Borg would have left the sport at the age of 26 if he were playing in this era and had such records to chase?

I really don't know and have never been all that interested in hypotheticals.

This century didn't invent stats, Jimmy Connors played about 100 years past his prime because he wanted the all-time match wins for men. Some players have always cared, some never did.

Azure · Sep 15, 2018

Ann said:
I really don't know and have never been all that interested in hypotheticals.

This century didn't invent stats, Jimmy Connors played about 100 years past his prime because he wanted the all-time match wins for men. Some players have always cared, some never did.

The burden of chasing records is reflecting on these players. I hate seeing such an angry fed or such a frustrated Rafa on the courts.

Standaa · Sep 15, 2018

Azure said:
Yes but aren't these very records the news bites for media? Isn't that positively contributing to the sport's popularity? I am just playing the devil's advocate here.

Of course, I’ve already said they’re important. But only to get a better view on individual matches they’re taken from. And as you said, for the media and the fans. TTW is a living proof people love to discuss not only tennis itself, but the records as well. And I don’t hold it against them.

But how much are the statements "Nadal has 11 RGs so he’s the clay GOAT", "Federer has 20 GSs so he’s the overall GOAT" valid? This is not like comparing who’s better at a video game. Everyone competes there under the same conditions, therefore it’s easy to determine the best player. In tennis, you have so many different variables that are different each time for each player that make it impossible to be able to determine the GOAT only by the number of titles he’s won or by other stats.

George Turner · Sep 15, 2018

Interesting thread.

Stats do indeed take precedence. That's why no defenders/goalkeepers ever win the balloon d'or, cos they aren't goalscorers. That's why boxers are obsessed with maintaining their "0" And padding their record fighting bums, even though the greatest Ali lost 5 times. That's why people who follow Cricket are obsessed with how many centuries batsmen get, even though 100 is only one more run than 99.

If Nadal reaches 21 majors he'll automatically be appointed GOAT, despite the fact his record is padded by being absurdly overpowered on clay and has been helped by the homogenization of surfaces. If he 'only' reaches 19 he will not be appointed GOAT.

Stars unfortunately do often take precedence over sport.

Azure · Sep 15, 2018

StANDAA said:
Of course, I’ve already said they’re important. But only to get a better view on individual matches they’re taken from. And as you said, for the media and the fans. TTW is a living proof people love to discuss not only tennis itself, but the records ass well. And I don’t hold it against them.

But how much are the statements "Nadal has 11 RGs so he’s the clay GOAT", "Federer has 20 GSs so he’s the overall GOAT" valid? This is not like comparing who’s better at a video game. Everyone competes there under the same conditions, therefore it’s easy to determine the best player. In tennis, you have so many different variables that are different each time for each player that make it impossible to be able to determine the GOAT only by the number of titles he’s won or by other stats.

All of this at the cost of tennis being a burden to the players themselves

Standaa · Sep 15, 2018

Azure said:
All of this at the cost of tennis being a burden to the players themselves

I don’t think so. It’s clearly their biggest motivation. The Big 3 would most likely be retired by now if not for the records they want to defend from each other.

insideguy · Sep 15, 2018

Azure said:
You and @Ann have used an analogy I am unfamiliar with - baseball. That said, while 24 would have pressurised Serena into playing like crap, isn't the 24 also one of the reasons she even participated? Sometimes there's a sense of emptiness after you scale everest. May be Serena would have felt the same.

I like Serena too and for her sake I hope she can set aside the debacle and move towards number 24. I hope she doesn't feel empty after that though.

If you think about it she scales Everest everytime she takes the court. She is in uncharted ground. Probably why I empathize with what she is attempting to do.

Azure · Sep 15, 2018

George Turner said:
Interesting thread.

Stats do indeed take precedence. That's why no defenders/goalkeepers ever win the balloon d'or, cos they aren't goalscorers. That's why boxers are obsessed with maintaining their "0" And padding their record fighting bums, even though the greatest Ali lost 5 times. That's why people who follow Cricket are obsessed with how many centuries batsmen get, even though 100 is only one more run than 99.

If Nadal reaches 21 majors he'll automatically be appointed GOAT, despite the fact his record is padded by being absurdly overpowered on clay and has been helped by the homogenization of surfaces. If he 'only' reaches 19 he will not be appointed GOAT.

Stars unfortunately do often take precedence over sport.

Thank you.

Which is exactly why not many kids want to be a goal keeper, wicket keeper etc. If sport is driven by stats right from childhood, we are diverting the natural inclinations of a child towards something else. The child may be so good that he excels in his forced position too but how is that helping a viewer who wants to watch tennis but not bots chasing numbers? Reminds me of pacman gobbling singlemindedly.

Sudacafan · Sep 15, 2018

Azure said:
Thank you!

Someone set precedence for the records to be 'broken'. Without any bar, these athletes competed without the need to 'achieve' anything. Laver did not emulate someone in achieving 'the' GrandSlam.

I am curious if, at Laver’s times, there was such a Grand Slam awareness as of today. Maybe someone here who was an adult in the 60’s could recreate what was really going on in those times, though it’s unlikely. Who is the oldest poster in these forums?
Some people would say that Laver was not fully aware of the accomplished feat while he achieved it. Two Calendar Year Grand Slams, one amateur and one pro. Many believe that Laver was luckier than Federer, as Laver didn’t have a nemesis as Nadal.

Standaa · Sep 15, 2018

George Turner said:
Interesting thread.

Stats do indeed take precedence. That's why no defenders/goalkeepers ever win the balloon d'or, cos they aren't goalscorers. That's why boxers are obsessed with maintaining their "0" And padding their record fighting bums, even though the greatest Ali lost 5 times. That's why people who follow Cricket are obsessed with how many centuries batsmen get, even though 100 is only one more run than 99.

If Nadal reaches 21 majors he'll automatically be appointed GOAT, despite the fact his record is padded by being absurdly overpowered on clay and has been helped by the homogenization of surfaces. If he 'only' reaches 19 he will not be appointed GOAT.

Stars unfortunately do often take precedence over sport.

Which is exactly why the GOAT talk is idiotic. Even within individual eras, it doesn’t make sense to compare players like that.

Azure · Sep 15, 2018

insideguy said:
If you think about it she scales Everest everytime she takes the court. She is in uncharted ground. Probably why I empathize with what she is attempting to do.

No doubt but in the process she has had a breakdown of sorts. Is this the cost?

Azure · Sep 15, 2018

Sudacafan said:
I am curious if, at Laver’s times, there was such a Grand Slam awareness as of today. Maybe someone here who was an adult in the 60’s could recreate what was that really going on in those times, though it’s unlikely. Who is the oldest poster in these forums?
Some people would say that Laver was not fully aware of the accomplished feat while he achieved it. Two Calendar Year Grand Slams, one amateur and one pro. Many believe that Laver was luckier than Federer, as Laver didn’t have a nemesis as Nadal.

I am certainly not the oldest poster but I think Laver being Australian kind of enabled him to play tournaments all over the world since most of the prestigious tournaments were in Europe. The reverse is not true. The players born in America or Europe did not really bother to go all the way to australia to play.

insideguy · Sep 15, 2018

Azure said:
No doubt but in the process she has had a breakdown of sorts. Is this the cost?

She chose this. She could have hung it up 10 yrs ago and walked into the HOF. Its not always easy for normal people to understand super driven people. Look at tiger woods. Most normal humans would have walked away after the 2nd back operation. These people are trying to accomplish things that say a person like Ivanaovic who was just tired of the tour and wanted to have a normal life can't relate to.

Sudacafan · Sep 15, 2018

Azure said:
I am certainly not the oldest poster but I think Laver being Australian kind of enabled him to play tournaments all over the world since most of the prestigious tournaments were in Europe. The reverse is not true. The players born in America or Europe did not really bother to go all the way to australia to play.

That’s an advantage.

Azure · Sep 15, 2018

insideguy said:
She chose this. She could have hung it up 10 yrs ago and walked into the HOF. Its not always easy for normal people to understand super driven people. Look at tiger woods. Most normal humans would have walked away after the 2nd back operation. These people are trying to accomplish things that say a person like Ivanaovic who was just tired of the tour and wanted to have a normal life can't relate to.

Totally agree. They are highly motivated individuals of course but the record chasing has become a mania.

Can't fault Ivanovic. I guess she wanted a slam and she got it. Bastian earns a lot too.

George Turner · Sep 15, 2018

Azure said:
Thank you.

Which is exactly why not many kids want to be a goal keeper, wicket keeper etc. If sport is driven by stats right from childhood, we are diverting the natural inclinations of a child towards something else. The child may be so good that he excels in his forced position too but how is that helping a viewer who wants to watch tennis but not bots chasing numbers? Reminds me of pacman gobbling singlemindedly.

Sometimes it's all you seem to read on these forums, who will Be the GOAT? A stat that is telling is that we now have no majors winners in their 20's, which indicates world class players are simply not coming through. But hey, at least we have the GOAT race

You've had multiple world Number ones in women's tennis like Safina and Jankovic who were Never at any time the world's best female player. Yet the stats have had them as "the worlds best."

StANDAA said:
Which is exactly why the GOAT talk is idiotic. Even within individual eras, it doesn’t make sense to compare players like that.

Sudacafan · Sep 15, 2018

Azure said:
I am certainly not the oldest poster but I think Laver being Australian kind of enabled him to play tournaments all over the world since most of the prestigious tournaments were in Europe. The reverse is not true. The players born in America or Europe did not really bother to go all the way to australia to play.

What you said just confirms there was not a real GS awareness as of today, which works in favor of Laver’s overrating.

insideguy · Sep 15, 2018

Azure said:
Totally agree. They are highly motivated individuals of course but the record chasing has become a mania.

Can't fault Ivanovic. I guess she wanted a slam and she got it. Bastian earns a lot too.

Right but different people have different goals. She and others like her are driven even beyond the good athletes like Ivanovic or the average Russian tennis player who does well and hangs it up after she meets a hockey player or oligarch. Thats what makes them greats. You read about some of the great hitters in baseball. Most of the other really good players in baseball were or are like yea they are nuts. They do this before the game and this and then they study films they are obsessed. Thats what it takes.

Azure · Sep 15, 2018

Sudacafan said:
What you said just confirms there was not a real GS awareness as of today, which works in favor of Laver’s overrating.

Overrated? I would not go so far. Everyone can only do what they best can. He played the opponents in front of him, he played on courts that were available then.

Sudacafan · Sep 15, 2018

Azure said:
Overrated? I would not go so far. Everyone can only do what they best can. He played the opponents in front of him, he played on courts that were available then.

OK, but there is a reasonable caveat.

Azure · Sep 15, 2018

insideguy said:
Right but different people have different goals. She and others like her are driven even beyond the good athletes like Ivanovic or the average Russian tennis player who does well and hangs it up after she meets a hockey player or oligarch. Thats what makes them greats. You read about some of the great hitters in baseball. Most of the other really good players in baseball were or are like yea they are nuts. They do this before the game and this and then they study films they are obsessed. Thats what it takes.

But Serena was great at 15 slams too. Serena was great at 20 as well. Serena is great and under tremendous pressure at 23 because time is running out and she wants the 24 not to establish her greatness but for a false sense of immortality. The same is happening on the men's side.

Azure · Sep 15, 2018

Sudacafan said:
OK, but there is a reasonable caveat.

Yes there is but there's always the coulda woulda shoulda stuff. I will never know how laver with polystrings, superior diet on plexicushion would fare. He was 5'9. He might even be 6'3 in this era with all the right nutrition in his teens.

Sudacafan · Sep 15, 2018

Azure said:
But Serena was great at 15 slams too. Serena was great at 20 as well. Serena is great and under tremendous pressure at 23 because time is running out and she wants the 24 not to establish her greatness but for a false sense of immortality. The same is happening on the men's side.

Funny that I misread immorality instead of immortality.
Overdose of Serena threads this week.

insideguy · Sep 15, 2018

Azure said:
But Serena was great at 15 slams too. Serena was great at 20 as well. Serena is great and under tremendous pressure at 23 because time is running out and she wants the 24 not to establish her greatness but for a false sense of immortality. The same is happening on the men's side.

Well the beauty of sport is even watching the greats crack here and there right? One of the things that has always bugged me about the media and to the extent is these boards is people and I have been guilty of it myself saying oh he or she is gonna walk through this or why are they playing totally ignoring the difficulty of winning and competing. Most don't play competitive sports. Fed or Rafa or Serena have lost more slams than they have won. People don't seem to get this.

Azure · Sep 15, 2018

Sudacafan said:
Funny that I misread immorality instead of immortality.
Overdose of Serena threads this week.

Sudacafan · Sep 15, 2018

Azure said:
Yes there is but there's always the coulda woulda shoulda stuff. I will never know how laver with polystrings, superior diet on plexicushion would fare. He was 5'9. He might even be 6'3 in this era with all the right nutrition in his teens.

I am just discussing Laver in his own era. Was he that great when very few non Aussie players interested in competing for the CYGS?

Azure · Sep 15, 2018

insideguy said:
Well the beauty of sport is even watching the greats crack here and there right? One of the things that has always bugged me about the media and to the extent is these boards is people and I have been guilty of it myself saying oh he or she is gonna walk through this or why are they playing totally ignoring the difficulty of winning and competing. Most don't play competitive sports. Fed or Rafa or Serena have lost more slams than they have won. People don't seem to get this.

It's very lonely at the top for sure. I just don't like the number chasing. On these boards I see an insane cherry picking or stats too. That is just beyond me.

Azure · Sep 15, 2018

Sudacafan said:
I am just discussing Laver in his own era. Was he that great when very few non Aussie players interested in competing for the CYGS?

I don't think cygs was a record or anything. Winning I think Australian, French Wimbledon and forest hills was the grand slam. Laver did it twice and he was not the only Aussie player. It's not just then, up until 90s Sampras really did not care much for the French open. Borg did not care for USO all that much either.

Standaa · Sep 15, 2018

George Turner said:
Sometimes it's all you seem to read on these forums, who will Be the GOAT? A stat that is telling is that we now have no majors winners in their 20's, which indicates world class players are simply not coming through. But hey, at least we have the GOAT race

You've had multiple world Number ones in women's tennis like Safina and Jankovic who were Never at any time the world's best female player. Yet the stats have had them as "the worlds best."

I think that’s not because of the GOAT race or records that are currently being broken. It’s the way these kids have been raised/coached, it’s different values they have, it’s also because none of them is nearly as talented as the Big 3.

Seriously, the fact that the big 3 are so far ahead of everyone is not the reason they suck. That’s absurd.

insideguy · Sep 15, 2018

Azure said:
It's very lonely at the top for sure. I just don't like the number chasing. On these boards I see an insane cherry picking or stats too. That is just beyond me.

Ya thats with any sport. It can be insane at times. Fans and the media need a barometer to measure. In many ways maybe its a motivator to the great players in every sport to. But its a little odd. I am not sure these athletes think like this because there are always other stats to chase right? Then even when the stats are reached there isn't a oh yes he or she was the greatest. The debate keeps on until the next person approaches those stats.

Azure · Sep 15, 2018

insideguy said:
Ya thats with any sport. It can be insane at times. Fans and the media need a barometer to measure. In many ways maybe its a motivator to the great players in every sport to. But its a little odd. I am not sure these athletes think like this because there are always other stats to chase right? Then even when the stats are reached there isn't a oh yes he or she was the greatest. The debate keeps on until the next person approaches those stats.

The players are shoved with questions about their next goal so often that it doesn't surprise me that they are so frustrated on the courts. Federer enjoyed '17. Look at him now.

Sudacafan · Sep 15, 2018

Azure said:
I don't think cygs was a record or anything. Winning I think Australian, French Wimbledon and forest hills was the grand slam. Laver did it twice and he was not the only Aussie player. It's not just then, up until 90s Sampras really did not care much for the French open. Borg did not care for USO all that much either.

About Borg, I think he really cared. He lost four US Open finals. Remember that from 1977 to 1985, the AO was the last of the 4 slams. Had Borg won the USO, I’m sure he was going to Australia to cash the cheque that year.

Azure · Sep 15, 2018

Sudacafan said:
About Borg, I think he really cared. He lost four US Open finals. Remember that from 1977 to 1985, the AO was the last of the 4 slams. Had Borg won the USO, I’m sure he was going to Australia to cash the cheque that year.

Twenty six is so young to leave the sport though...

Sudacafan · Sep 15, 2018

Azure said:
Twenty six is so young to leave the sport though...

Burnout, and McEnroe certanly helped in the process.

insideguy · Sep 15, 2018

Azure said:
It's very lonely at the top for sure. I just don't like the number chasing. On these boards I see an insane cherry picking or stats too. That is just beyond me.

One stat I love, and probably why I love guys like Brady, or Serena or Fed, of some old baseball guy is the people who do this stuff at ages that aint normal. Even within their own generation. And are still at the top. Thats just kinda awesome. Its one thing to be great when your 25 but to be making slam finals when your 36 or making superbowls when your 41 well that is great. That stuff is cool to me.

Azure · Sep 15, 2018

Sudacafan said:
Burnout, and McEnroe certanly helped in the process.

Reminds me of Capriati. Hers was a sad sad case.

Azure · Sep 15, 2018

insideguy said:
One stat I love, and probably why I love guys like Brady, or Serena or Fed, of some old baseball guy is the people who do this stuff at ages that aint normal. Even within their own generation. And are still at the top. Thats just kinda awesome. Its one thing to be great when your 25 but to be making slam finals when your 36 or making superbowls when your 41 well that is great. That stuff is cool to me.

Is it age? I would put Navratilova in this basket too. I really admire her love for the sport. She really didn't stop and moved over to doubles, encouraging up and coming players too. A true legend.

insideguy · Sep 15, 2018

Azure said:
Is it age? I would put Navratilova in this basket too. I really admire her love for the sport. She really didn't stop and moved over to doubles, encouraging up and coming players too. A true legend.

I looooove Martina. Just an amazing person all around. In everything. What a life.

Stats - precedence over sport?

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Similar threads