Elephant(s) in the room

davced1

Professional
The true elephant here is that Djokovic is not even close at the moment. Three behind is a lot considering Nadal will probably win some more and maybe even Federer.
 

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
Yeah I know right only as many as Murray and Wawrinka won all career and then some more to pass them. If he pulls it off though then he deserves to be the GOAT no questions asked.
I don't know about GOAT, be he surely would have deserved 20 (i.e. the number he has won).

:D
 

demrle

Professional
Thanks for your reply!
...
The Olympics don't matter much at all.
...
The Olympics doesn't get special treatment, and any worth attempted to be above and beyond the points won has no logical reasoning.
...
While I tended to agree with you about the importance, i.e. lack there of, of the Olympics, I changed my mind a bit since Roger, Rafa and Novak all seem to give it a special treatment. In any case, it was no coincidence, that I've put it at the bottom of the list of Rafa's advantages.

This is a pretty arbitrary category.
...
It's now an exhibition by definition since it awards no ranking points, and when it did award ranking points, it was at 400 points at 2000, 2004, and 2008, and 750 in 2012.
...
It is, however, hardly the only arbitrary category. Year-end no. 1 and Weeks at no. 1 are too. And yet, they seem to be universally recognized as relevant categories. Year-end no. 1 is arbitrary per definition and I wouldn't use it as a criterion. Neither would I use Weeks at no. 1. I would argue, that a player is already compensated for being first in the rankings by obtaining the 1st seed in a tournament, which in turn makes for an easier draw and increases his chances of winning the given tournament. And that potential win is already accounted for, when comparing players. But I went with the flow, as it relates to which criteria to use.

...
It's now an exhibition by definition since it awards no ranking points, and when it did award ranking points, it was at 400 points at 2000, 2004, and 2008, and 750 in 2012. It's not a huge victory. These points these tournaments are worth in relation to one another is what all title comparisons are based off. The Olympics doesn't get special treatment, and any worth attempted to be above and beyond the points won has no logical reasoning. And if you do attempt to do that, you necessarily have to then adjust the worth of every other tournament likewise, thus making the slams unequal in value.
If I understand correctly, you are basically advocating that points are the be-all and end-all, when comparing players. But I see two problems with that approach. Firstly, in this case we would definitely have to eliminate the Weeks at no.1, Year end no.1 and even H2H as criteria, as they are all unquantifiable. And secondly, we would then be able to settle the GOAT debate simply by multiplying the number of tournaments won by a given player by the number of points awarded for the given tournament, adding and consequently comparing those sums. And while I personally wouldn't even have a big problem with such an approach, there seems to exist a consensus on a more nuanced, i.e. not purely quantitative approach.
 

demrle

Professional
Thanks for your contribution!
I think what the OP is also trying to convey is that apart from the slam record, Novak will probably break/tie the other records you mentioned (#1 and YEC) by March next year. So Fed won't be holding the most important records as a standalone, which has been the case since 2009.
I do think that Novak will highly likely break/tie Weeks at no.1 and YEC and say as much in the OP. But I consider Rafa a co-GOAT even if it doesn't happen. In other words, if Novak breaks those records while Rafa and Roger are still tied at 20 GS, then I think that Rafa gets ahead of Roger in the GOAT talk.

...
1) Wimbledon (and grass in general) : Novak had an outside chance of reaching 8 had Wimbledon been played this year. I don't think he will win 3 more from now on, although there is some chance. Fed keeps this IMO all in all
I don't really consider it to be that big of a deal who's won which GS how often, especially considering the fact that, as of now, all three have their own pet slam. That being said, I think there's a completely realistic chance of Novak winning another three titles in, say, next five years. If for no other reason, then because the competition is horrendous.

2) Consecutive weeks at #1 : This is not getting broken by Djokodal or anytime soon
4) Streaks: Fed had some insane streaks in his career ( HC match wins, Consec Slam SF, 5 Wimby,5 USO). BUT Djokovic and Nadal have their own share of streaks so they are all unique. Hence this isn't a justifiable GOAT record IMO
While they do make for nice headlines and probably generate clicks, I don't really understand the significance of streak records, when it comes to player comparison. And consecutive weeks at #1 is actually just another streak. If anything, I would argue that it's more valuable to have achieved the same number of weeks in multiple stints, as it somewhat accounts for anomalies, e.g. injuries (slumps) to the strongest opponents.
 

demrle

Professional
The true elephant here is that Djokovic is not even close at the moment. Three behind is a lot considering Nadal will probably win some more and maybe even Federer.
"The expression "elephant in the room" (usually "the elephant in the room") or "the elephant in the living room" is a metaphorical idiom in English for an important or enormous topic, question, or controversial issue that is obvious or that everyone knows about but no one mentions or wants to discuss because it makes at least some of them uncomfortable or is personally, socially, or politically embarrassing, controversial, inflammatory, or dangerous."

Your statement here hardly qualifies as something that no one mentions or wants to discuss. Quite the opposite, actually, that is one of the last straws Federer fans are grasping at in their desperate effort to fend off the dreadful reality.

But you can only hold on to a straw for so long.
 

Sudacafan

Talk Tennis Guru
Good analysis, OP. But you should’ve mentioned a weak era of 2003-2007, in which Federer feasted, and a lack of any reasonable competition, barring young Nadal on clay.
And the 2010-2020 era, when Fedr was too old to compete?
 

Sudacafan

Talk Tennis Guru
Roger lost the last glimmer of hope of ever being considered GOAT, by virtue of Nadal winning RG, his 20th GS title.

There is too much noise in the GOAT debate. It is a two-horse race. It is exclusively between Nadal and Djokovic now.

My assumption is, that Roger will not be winning more majors than Rafa the rest of the way. One can argue differently, but not if one wants to retain his intellectual honesty. Rafa's dominance at FO alone is enough to put that argument to rest, not to mention the age difference. Additionally, in this tirade all majors are considered to have been created the same, as they are all in the same category of tennis tournaments, form a class of their own rather. So, who's to say, whether it's more difficult and hence respect worthy to absolutely dominate one of them, or be (more) equally successful at all of them. Not me. Hence, I consider it to be a subjective issue and will leave it out of scope. I'll try to keep this post based on stats, and, but just as little as necessary, educated projections. Please bear in mind, that the purpose of the exercise to follow is not to determine who has a better chance of ending his career as a GOAT between Rafa and Novak, but to "prove" the hypothesis, that Roger has no such chance anymore. Given all these premises here's my perspective on things.

As it currently stands, Rafa has the same number of majors as Roger, so it's up to other criteria between them.

Out of those, Rafa is

- significantly better in H2H, both total, 24-16, and at majors, 10-4 (chance of significant change - no)
- significantly better in Masters 1000s, 35-28 (chance of significant change - no)
- significantly better in Olympic gold medals, 1-0 (chance of significant change - yes)

while Roger is

- significantly better WTF titles, 6-0 (chance of significant change - no)
- significantly better in Weeks at no.1, 310-209 (chance of significant change - yes)
- significantly better in Total number of titles, 103-86 (chance of significant change - yes)

Rafa and Roger are currently also equal in the number of Year end no.1s with 5 each.

I see it as a wash between Rafa and Roger at the moment, hence the two of them being co-GOATs. However, here is my projection. Roger has a chance, albeit pretty small in my eyes, of gaining significant ground on Rafa only in the Olympics category, whereas Rafa could gain significant ground on Roger in Total number of titles (highly likely) and in Weeks at no.1 (unlikely). An educated guess would be, of course, that Rafa has better chances of breaking the tie in Grand Slams and Year and no.1. In summation, Roger should hope for a status quo between him and Rafa. As it is my honest belief, that Roger is done winning majors (I do not see him winning against the field consisting of Novak and Rafa at any of them), Roger should hope that Rafa doesn't win any more slams either. Unlikely as that would be, let's analyze that scenario, in which Novak comes into play.

Current comparison between Roger and Novak looks as follows.

Roger is

- better in Grand Slams, 20-17 (chance of significant change - yes)
- better WTF titles, 6-5 (chance of significant change - yes)
- better in Weeks at no.1, 310-291(chance of significant change - yes)
- significantly better in Total number of titles, 103-81 (chance of significant change - yes)

while Novak is

- better in H2H, both total 27-23 and at majors 11-6 (chance of significant change - no)
- significantly better in Masters 1000s, 36-28 (chance of significant change - no)
- better in Year end no.1s, 6-5 (chance of significant change - no)

Roger has a clear advantage over Novak at the moment, as he is better in the most important categories. However, Roger has no realistic chance of gaining significant ground in any of the categories, in which Novak is better. On the other hand, Novak is all but guaranteed to either equal of overtake Roger in all categories, in which Roger is currently better. Remember, in this section, we operate under the premise of Rafa not winning anymore majors, otherwise Rafa is beating Roger in the GOAT race himself.

Discussion. Rafa and Roger are currently co-GOATs. Rafa has a chance of breaking that tie and becoming the GOAT, as opposed to Roger. Roger's best hope is for Rafa to stop winning. Roger is currently better than Novak. If Rafa stops winning, Novak will overtake Roger in basically every category and become the GOAT himself. In summation, Roger is not the GOAT.

Honest edit: Roger is not the GOAT anymore.
Where's the elephant? Where's the room?
 

demrle

Professional
Numerical goat battles have just been an outwardly objective proxy for fans' feels on strength of play. If you adjust greatness slam counts by displayed tennis level Fedr still top if you believe in him. Nadal still may be set to overtake though, his RG superiority is ungodly. Djokovic though has won most of his slams in close tussles against non-peak opponents.
I tend to see it completely reversed from you, but regardless of that fact, what I'm certain of, is that those are subjective assessments, whereas I would like to keep the thread sans such and stick to somewhat objectifiable criteria .
 

BeatlesFan

Bionic Poster
If you are convinced you don't need an approval, and this and all other similar threads are a call for approval.

8-B
In the midst of a global pandemic, a thread beginning with "Roger lost the last glimmer of hope of ever being considered GOAT, by virtue of Nadal winning RG, his 20th GS title" is of earth shattering importance. :eek: The telling thing is that Fed fans mostly don't care. Life goes on whether Roger has 20 slams or 2. For those who live vicariously through their sporting idols, it's quite obviously a different story.
 

demrle

Professional
To me the matter is simple. The Goat is the one who gets the most votes. Last week I posted a poll, that was deleted by moderators, and Federer was easily in the lead. It doesn’t matter how many slams anyone wins, the Goat is just a perception. Post a poll and see for yourself. Federer is still the Goat.
Since your poll is not there anymore, what, i.e. who were the options?
 

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
In the midst of a global pandemic, a thread beginning with "Roger lost the last glimmer of hope of ever being considered GOAT, by virtue of Nadal winning RG, his 20th GS title" is of earth shattering importance. :eek: The telling thing is that Fed fans mostly don't care. Life goes on whether Roger has 20 slams or 2. For those who live vicariously through their sporting idols, it's quite obviously a different story.
I live vicariously through the beauty in life, be it family, art, sport (tennis) or something else. There are few things that are more important than beauty (at lest to me), so I guess watching beautiful tennis is a kind of desirable. However, that sort of mindless bragging is ridiculous over the top stuff, and those people that are trying to use it as a tool for self-esteem are confused and worthy of pity.

:cool:
 

demrle

Professional
In the midst of a global pandemic, a thread beginning with "Roger lost the last glimmer of hope of ever being considered GOAT, by virtue of Nadal winning RG, his 20th GS title" is of earth shattering importance.
I couldn't agree more. Of even greater importance, in terms of its potential for relieving the effects of said pandemic, is a contribution of a butthurt fan of a British rock and roll band to that very thread.
 

demrle

Professional
Not a realistic comparison. If anything I would say Federer is Pink Floyd and Djokovic is the spice girls. Haven’t you seen the boob throws?
PS: and Nadal is Bon Jovi :D
No. Federer is clearly Justin Bieber here. Works on so many levels.
 

Arak

Semi-Pro
Since your poll is not there anymore, what, i.e. who were the options?
All the 8+ slam winners. The fact is, Federer has the most fans, followed by Nadal, then Djokovic. A couple of votes for Laver and Sampras, but the vast majority support one of the big 3. I have seen other polls here and elsewhere, and the results are consistent.
 

demrle

Professional
I noticed you didn't bold the most talented part. Everyone runs from that one. I wonder why :unsure:
It was no coincidence that I didn't bold it. I'm not running from that one, I completely agree with Roger being extremely and maybe even the most talented. But two things. Power, speed, quickness, height are all talents appreciated in tennis, but I somehow suspect that those are not necessarily your first associations. So you should specify what you mean by talent, otherwise it's too vague. More importantly, that has no merit in the GOAT talk, as it is subjective. And achievements in tennis are objectifiable.
 

demrle

Professional
Of course you do, which naturally renders your input to the topic useless.
No, it doesn't. My input consisted of some stats gathering and analysis, so I could remove some noise from the debate, i.e. somewhat simplify the issue for myself and whoever happens to give a s**t.

Yours, however, consists of spewing arbitrary bollocks, which definitely no one gives a s**t about, hence enhancing the said noise.
 

demrle

Professional
All the 8+ slam winners. The fact is, Federer has the most fans, followed by Nadal, then Djokovic. A couple of votes for Laver and Sampras, but the vast majority support one of the big 3. I have seen other polls here and elsewhere, and the results are consistent.
What about Kyrgios? He seems to have made his way into hearts of many a pandemic fan in recent months.
 
No, it doesn't. My input consisted of some stats gathering and analysis, so I could remove some noise from the debate, i.e. somewhat simplify the issue for myself and whoever happens to give a s**t.

Yours, however, consists of spewing arbitrary bollocks, which definitely no one gives a s**t about, hence enhancing the said noise.
All this has been regurgitated on these boards for years. All patterns of reasoning have been exhausted, only the stats themselves change but not the logic used in analysing them, whatever it is. If you should fail to recognise anything other than basic bean counting, instead dismissing it all as noise, then of course there's no point.
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
Roger lost the last glimmer of hope of ever being considered GOAT, by virtue of Nadal winning RG, his 20th GS title.

There is too much noise in the GOAT debate. It is a two-horse race. It is exclusively between Nadal and Djokovic now.

My assumption is, that Roger will not be winning more majors than Rafa the rest of the way. One can argue differently, but not if one wants to retain his intellectual honesty. Rafa's dominance at FO alone is enough to put that argument to rest, not to mention the age difference. Additionally, in this tirade all majors are considered to have been created the same, as they are all in the same category of tennis tournaments, form a class of their own rather. So, who's to say, whether it's more difficult and hence respect worthy to absolutely dominate one of them, or be (more) equally successful at all of them. Not me. Hence, I consider it to be a subjective issue and will leave it out of scope. I'll try to keep this post based on stats, and, but just as little as necessary, educated projections. Please bear in mind, that the purpose of the exercise to follow is not to determine who has a better chance of ending his career as a GOAT between Rafa and Novak, but to "prove" the hypothesis, that Roger has no such chance anymore. Given all these premises here's my perspective on things.

As it currently stands, Rafa has the same number of majors as Roger, so it's up to other criteria between them.

Out of those, Rafa is

- significantly better in H2H, both total, 24-16, and at majors, 10-4 (chance of significant change - no)
- significantly better in Masters 1000s, 35-28 (chance of significant change - no)
- significantly better in Olympic gold medals, 1-0 (chance of significant change - yes)

while Roger is

- significantly better WTF titles, 6-0 (chance of significant change - no)
- significantly better in Weeks at no.1, 310-209 (chance of significant change - yes)
- significantly better in Total number of titles, 103-86 (chance of significant change - yes)

Rafa and Roger are currently also equal in the number of Year end no.1s with 5 each.

I see it as a wash between Rafa and Roger at the moment, hence the two of them being co-GOATs. However, here is my projection. Roger has a chance, albeit pretty small in my eyes, of gaining significant ground on Rafa only in the Olympics category, whereas Rafa could gain significant ground on Roger in Total number of titles (highly likely) and in Weeks at no.1 (unlikely). An educated guess would be, of course, that Rafa has better chances of breaking the tie in Grand Slams and Year and no.1. In summation, Roger should hope for a status quo between him and Rafa. As it is my honest belief, that Roger is done winning majors (I do not see him winning against the field consisting of Novak and Rafa at any of them), Roger should hope that Rafa doesn't win any more slams either. Unlikely as that would be, let's analyze that scenario, in which Novak comes into play.

Current comparison between Roger and Novak looks as follows.

Roger is

- better in Grand Slams, 20-17 (chance of significant change - yes)
- better WTF titles, 6-5 (chance of significant change - yes)
- better in Weeks at no.1, 310-291(chance of significant change - yes)
- significantly better in Total number of titles, 103-81 (chance of significant change - yes)

while Novak is

- better in H2H, both total 27-23 and at majors 11-6 (chance of significant change - no)
- significantly better in Masters 1000s, 36-28 (chance of significant change - no)
- better in Year end no.1s, 6-5 (chance of significant change - no)

Roger has a clear advantage over Novak at the moment, as he is better in the most important categories. However, Roger has no realistic chance of gaining significant ground in any of the categories, in which Novak is better. On the other hand, Novak is all but guaranteed to either equal of overtake Roger in all categories, in which Roger is currently better. Remember, in this section, we operate under the premise of Rafa not winning anymore majors, otherwise Rafa is beating Roger in the GOAT race himself.

Discussion. Rafa and Roger are currently co-GOATs. Rafa has a chance of breaking that tie and becoming the GOAT, as opposed to Roger. Roger's best hope is for Rafa to stop winning. Roger is currently better than Novak. If Rafa stops winning, Novak will overtake Roger in basically every category and become the GOAT himself. In summation, Roger is not the GOAT.

Honest edit: Roger is not the GOAT anymore.
Roger is currently the GOAT. Your future hopes to displace him rest on two horses half a step from the glue factory.
 

davced1

Professional
"The expression "elephant in the room" (usually "the elephant in the room") or "the elephant in the living room" is a metaphorical idiom in English for an important or enormous topic, question, or controversial issue that is obvious or that everyone knows about but no one mentions or wants to discuss because it makes at least some of them uncomfortable or is personally, socially, or politically embarrassing, controversial, inflammatory, or dangerous."

Your statement here hardly qualifies as something that no one mentions or wants to discuss. Quite the opposite, actually, that is one of the last straws Federer fans are grasping at in their desperate effort to fend off the dreadful reality.

But you can only hold on to a straw for so long.
Really? I believe I checked all the boxes. The controversial issue is that Djokovic is still far behind in the slam race and everyone knows it but no one mentions or want to discuss it because it makes some people uncomfortable like yourself. Djokovic fans are notorious for counting in slam titles he has not won yet. This year he won one, still at least four to go.
 

demrle

Professional
... All patterns of reasoning have been exhausted, only the stats themselves change but not the logic used in analysing them, whatever it is.
If you should fail to recognise anything other than basic bean counting, instead dismissing it all as noise, then of course there's no point.
In a discussion about a sport, whose scoring system is per excellence numerical, so much so that even the duration of a match is not predetermined, you are nonchalantly dismissing the relevance of stats. So I guess you should take the issue you have with bean counting up with the ATP structures, as I am really not in a position to decide on potentially reducing its role in tennis.

All this has been regurgitated on these boards for years. ...
And yet the futility of introducing highly subjective and, what is worse, inflammatory arguments in such a discussion is still lost on you.
 
In a discussion about a sport, whose scoring system is per excellence numerical, so much so that even the duration of a match is not predetermined, you are nonchalantly dismissing the relevance of stats. So I guess you should take the issue you have with bean counting up with the ATP structures, as I am really not in a position to decide on potentially reducing its role in tennis.


And yet the futility of introducing highly subjective and, what is worse, inflammatory arguments in such a discussion is still lost on you.
What I'm dismissing is the singular interpretation of these stats, naturally one that supports your points, how coincidental.
Greatness is naturally a partially subjective notion so there you have it.
 

demrle

Professional
Really? I believe I checked all the boxes. The controversial issue is that Djokovic is still far behind in the slam race and everyone knows it but no one mentions or want to discuss it because it makes some people uncomfortable like yourself. Djokovic fans are notorious for counting in slam titles he has not won yet. This year he won one, still at least four to go.
You hit that nail square on the head! It is a widely known fact that tennis pundits strictly refrain from criticizing Djokovic out of fear of a public backlash such an unprecedented incident could ignite. :cautious: So much so that it has been reported that Roger Federer and Christiano Ronaldo have booked a 7-day course in public relations management, held by Srdjan Djokovic under the title "Why the F**K can't I be that popular too?". The course, previously attended by such prominent public figures as Mel Gibson, Bill Belichik, Charlie Sheen and O.J.Simpson, will be held in Serbian mountain resort Kopaonik, February 30-31, 2022.
 
Last edited:
Top