OE top 5 adjusted

  • Thread starter Thread starter Barton
  • Start date Start date
NatF said:
It's not just the YEC, it's his whole track record indoors - the YEC is just the proof in the pudding.
Click to expand...
I didn't say indoors wasn't important there. You thought I was saying that so you misunderstood me.
 
RS said:
I didn't say indoors wasn't important there. You thought I was saying that so you misunderstood me.
Click to expand...
The implication of your post was that the YEC was important, but not important enough to put Federer over Nadal. I'm saying it absolutely is when considering the rest of their resumes.
 
NatF said:
The implication of your post was that the YEC was important, but not important enough to put Federer over Nadal. I'm saying it absolutely is when considering the rest of their resumes.
Click to expand...
Because the response mentioned just YEC's. I was saying YEC was important but it isn't the same importance as Slams.

I would say it depends on what is preferred Nadal's 2 extra slams and 8 masters or Fed's 6 YEC's and 100 more weeks at number 1. I prefer Nadal's but obviously a Fed fan will probably prefer his.
 
Last edited:
Razer said:
Federer had no Great Peer rivals in the decade he dominated.
Click to expand...

This is a dumb stat. He may have been above his age cohort, but he had Nadal breathing down his neck as soon as 2005. And Djoko starting in 2007. They were a bigger threat than any of his contemporaries and are better than anyone PETE ever played
 
Djokovic
Sampras
Borg
Lendl
Laver

Only the era king belongs at the top spots — that’s just the tennis way. Sorry, you can’t have 2nd or 3rd coming out of the same section or quarter into the deeper rounds.
 
depends, of course, on how we count and what we value more, for example if we count like that, then nadal is slightly ahead of fred overall..
yec = 0.5 slam
olympics = 0.5 slam
100 weeks = 1 slam
masters = 0.3 slam
final result: fred 24 slams, nadal 25 slams
 
Rosstour said:
This is a dumb stat. He may have been above his age cohort, but he had Nadal breathing down his neck as soon as 2005. And Djoko starting in 2007. They were a bigger threat than any of his contemporaries and are better than anyone PETE ever played
Click to expand...

Nadal was not a factor on HCs until 2009, Djoko himself was nothing until 2010, the guy was glutenovic in the 2000s. on Grass Nadal was not a factor in 03-05 and was a baby in 2006, so that is 4 wimbledons flat in the absence of an ATG rival. Djoko of 2000s was not better than anyone Pete played, that is just nonsense. Federer's rivals on his fav surfaces were his peers who were just unable to compete with him. A guy like Roddick is filled with self loathing today that he calls himself a "dummy". Thats what he was, Federer's rival was a dummy.
 
NatF said:
Basic Nadal fan detected. Nadal's ineptitude for an ATG indoors disqualifies him from being over Fed, indoors has a long tradition in tennis. Any all-time list has to factor it in.
Click to expand...

Well yeah no GOAT candidate was this inept outdoors. Borg certainly wasn't.

Nadal has general vulnerability when the ball stays low, even outdoors. I really don't think he would have had fun at Wimbledon on 90s grass.

Of course maybe Nadal would have actually developed his fast court game in previous era, in this one he didn't really have to. Every slam was slow and high bouncing.
 
The way I see it between Djokovic, Federer, Nadal, Nadal has a case to be over Federer but NO case to be over Djokovic. Federer has a case to be above both Djokovic and Nadal, but also a case to be behind both, and a case to be between them. Djokovic is automatic over Nadal, but Federer still atleast has a possible case to be over him. So amongst the 3 the possible rankings are: 1. Djokovic, 2. Federer, 3. Nadal, 1. Federer, 2. Djokovic, 3. Nadal, or 1. Djokovic, 2. Nadal, 3. Federer. There are no other options. My personal rankings would go: 1. Federer, 2. Djokovic, 3. Nadal, but I would agree on objective facts/stats, the most non subjective numbers approach the proper rankings are probably 1. Djokovic, 2. Federer, 3. Nadal.

Then how they compare to people like Laver, Gonzales, Tilden, and even Rosewall is far more subjective and could be interpreted a kazillion possible ways and none be inheritently wrong. In the Open Era those 3 are the indisputed top 3, as while their slam counts are all inflated to people like Sampras and Borg for a number of reasons, but at this point Sampras and Borg also have no case to be above any of the 3 overall, even if it is highly possible there is a universe they could have been if they all were born in different times than they were, particularly when it comes to Nadal or even Djokovic (not a scenario of putting Sampras today mind you as the slower and bouncy courts today would be a nightmare for him, and he achieves far less than he did in his time, even in a really weak field).
 
Neptune said:
Djokovic
Sampras
Borg
Lendl
Laver

Only the era king belongs at the top spots — that’s just the tennis way. Sorry, you can’t have 2nd or 3rd coming out of the same section or quarter into the deeper rounds.
Click to expand...
Interesting contention. So, if we break it down by years, you have:

Laver’s era (1968-1974, 6 years)
Borg’s era (1974-1981, 7 years)
Lendl’s era (1982-1990, 8 years)
Sampras era (1991-2002, 10 years)
Djokovic era (2003-, 22 years)

You have 4 eras lasting a decade or less, then the “Djokovic era” lasts 20+ years?

Very very interesting indeed.
 
Neptune said:
Djokovic
Sampras
Borg
Lendl
Laver

Only the era king belongs at the top spots — that’s just the tennis way. Sorry, you can’t have 2nd or 3rd coming out of the same section or quarter into the deeper rounds.
Click to expand...
The only way you can get three distinct "eras" out of Borg, Lendl, and Sampras is to use, in place of the trimester scheme for the whole Open Era that I mention in a previous post, "roughly the 1970s, roughly the 1980s, and roughly the 1990s." In that case, Federer and Djokovic indisputably peaked in different eras, with Fed the "era king" of the 2000s and Djoker the era king of the 2010s. (Federer won more slams in the 2000s than Sampras did in his entire career.)
 
JMR said:
The only way you can get three distinct "eras" out of Borg, Lendl, and Sampras is to use, in place of the trimester scheme for the whole Open Era that I mention in a previous post, "roughly the 1970s, roughly the 1980s, and roughly the 1990s." In that case, Federer and Djokovic indisputably peaked in different eras, with Fed the "era king" of the 2000s and Djoker the era king of the 2010s. (Federer won more slams in the 2000s than Sampras did in his entire career.)
Click to expand...

You could also differentiate eras based on the careers of players who had longest careers by intersecting each other.

Rosewall and Connors were in the top 10 in 1974
Connors and Agassi were in the top 10 in 1988
Agassi and Nadal were in the top 10 in 2005
Nadal and Alcaraz were in the top 10 in 2022

So that is 5 players connecting the pre open to the modern era.

489601418_3864360303710438_8662283390272294312_n.jpg
 
Roger's 6 YEC vs Rafa's 2 GS & 8 MS
In addition to this, Roger's advantage in total weeks at world No. 1 will likely be a key point of contention.

Converting the above to current points:
• Roger
5 undefeated YECs + 1 RR loss = total 8800
• Rafa
2 GS + 8 MS, totaling 12,000
Rafa holds a significant points advantage, but Roger's time spent at world No. 1 must also be considered.

In my view, they are nearly equal.
Rafa's career is so unique that comparison is difficult.
While all-court versatility is generally valued, he maintains comparable numbers while remaining a clay-court specialist, so that aspect doesn't need much consideration.

Which one ranks higher likely depends on personal preference.
If you highly value all-court play or peak dominance, choose Roger.
If you prioritize long-term absolute clay-court dominance and rarity, choose Rafa.
 
zagor said:
Well yeah no GOAT candidate was this inept outdoors. Borg certainly wasn't.

Nadal has general vulnerability when the ball stays low, even outdoors. I really don't think he would have had fun at Wimbledon on 90s grass.

Of course maybe Nadal would have actually developed his fast court game in previous era, in this one he didn't really have to. Every slam was slow and high bouncing.
Click to expand...
I didn't even say he was definitely the GOAT but Nadal should always show up in these discussions.

I mean you could argue on him being relatively weak on indoor HC sure but he has been more dominant on a surface than anybody else has on the flip side.
 
Last edited:
alexio said:
depends, of course, on how we count and what we value more, for example if we count like that, then nadal is slightly ahead of fred overall..
yec = 0.5 slam
olympics = 0.5 slam
100 weeks = 1 slam
masters = 0.3 slam
final result: fred 24 slams, nadal 25 slams
Click to expand...
way to little value for no1. every player want it most or at least as much as slam. so 2 years as no1 = slam is BS (it is 8 slams in 2 years period)!

YE#1 - 100p
50 weeks - 100p
slam - 100p
CGS - 100p
WTF - 40p
OG - 40p
M - 20p
CGM - 100p
MM - 5p

records 100p each:
YE#1
weeks
slams
ATP points
W%
4 slams simultaneously
 
yama said:
Roger's 6 YEC vs Rafa's 2 GS & 8 MS
In addition to this, Roger's advantage in total weeks at world No. 1 will likely be a key point of contention.

Converting the above to current points:
• Roger
5 undefeated YECs + 1 RR loss = total 8800
• Rafa
2 GS + 8 MS, totaling 12,000
Rafa holds a significant points advantage, but Roger's time spent at world No. 1 must also be considered.

In my view, they are nearly equal.
Rafa's career is so unique that comparison is difficult.
While all-court versatility is generally valued, he maintains comparable numbers while remaining a clay-court specialist, so that aspect doesn't need much consideration.

Which one ranks higher likely depends on personal preference.
If you highly value all-court play or peak dominance, choose Roger.
If you prioritize long-term absolute clay-court dominance and rarity, choose Rafa.
Click to expand...
yama said:
Roger's 6 YEC vs Rafa's 2 GS & 8 MS
In addition to this, Roger's advantage in total weeks at world No. 1 will likely be a key point of contention.

Converting the above to current points:
• Roger
5 undefeated YECs + 1 RR loss = total 8800
• Rafa
2 GS + 8 MS, totaling 12,000
Rafa holds a significant points advantage, but Roger's time spent at world No. 1 must also be considered.

In my view, they are nearly equal.
Rafa's career is so unique that comparison is difficult.
While all-court versatility is generally valued, he maintains comparable numbers while remaining a clay-court specialist, so that aspect doesn't need much consideration.

Which one ranks higher likely depends on personal preference.
If you highly value all-court play or peak dominance, choose Roger.
If you prioritize long-term absolute clay-court dominance and rarity, choose Rafa.
Click to expand...
OSG, win %, H2H and DCGS for Ned too

(And more overall titles, top 2 for titles won at 3 slams for Fred too)

Imo either Fred is above Ned and Djoker for BOATyness - essentially “stats be damned, everything I can see and hypothesise about match ups etc is telling me this guy was the best at tennis, and if all 3 were born in the same year he would clearly have won the most”, which is actually something I believe - or he’s number 3 behind them both.

Putting him at 2 is an odd way of trying to have it both ways mixing stats and intangibles. It’s the one place I wouldn’t put him (so ofc that’s where TTW usually does)
 
Last edited:
yama said:
Roger's 6 YEC vs Rafa's 2 GS & 8 MS
In addition to this, Roger's advantage in total weeks at world No. 1 will likely be a key point of contention.

Converting the above to current points:
• Roger
5 undefeated YECs + 1 RR loss = total 8800
• Rafa
2 GS + 8 MS, totaling 12,000
Rafa holds a significant points advantage, but Roger's time spent at world No. 1 must also be considered.

In my view, they are nearly equal.
Rafa's career is so unique that comparison is difficult.
While all-court versatility is generally valued, he maintains comparable numbers while remaining a clay-court specialist, so that aspect doesn't need much consideration.

Which one ranks higher likely depends on personal preference.
If you highly value all-court play or peak dominance, choose Roger.
If you prioritize long-term absolute clay-court dominance and rarity, choose Rafa.
Click to expand...
fed has way more MM titles than rafa too. 49 vs 33 = 16 more. they must also be worth something!
 
jl809 said:
OSG, win %, H2H and DCGS for Ned too

(And more overall titles, top 2 for titles won at 3 slams for Fred too)

Imo either Fred is above Ned and Djoker for BOATyness - essentially “stats be damned, everything I can see and hypothesise about match ups etc is telling me this guy was the best at tennis, and if all 3 were born in the same year he would clearly have won the most”, which is actually something I believe - or he’s number 3 behind them both.

Putting him at 2 is an odd way of trying to have it both ways mixing stats and intangibles. It’s the one place I wouldn’t put him (so ofc that’s where TTW usually does)
Click to expand...
nole is BOAT with 4 slams, WTF, 5 masters + 3 finals, 2 MMs, 31 top10 wins and 16950 ATP points (17110 in current system, raz has 11540 now in much lesser competition, just to put some perspective on that, feds max in 2015 system would be 15495 also in much lesser competition) in one year period!
 
GoatNo1 said:
way to little value for no1. every player want it most or at least as much as slam. so 2 years as no1 = slam is BS (it is 8 slams in 2 years period)!

YE#1 - 100p
50 weeks - 100p
slam - 100p
CGS - 100p
WTF - 40p
OG - 40p
M - 20p
CGM - 100p
MM - 5p

records 100p each:
YE#1
weeks
slams
ATP points
W%
4 slams simultaneously
Click to expand...
maybe you are right about weeks, so even with giving fred additional slam due to that, its a tie, so if we want we can find something else to figure out the winner there between them
 
GoatNo1 said:
fed has way more MM titles than rafa too. 49 vs 33 = 16 more. they must also be worth something!
Click to expand...
Yes, that statistic probably has meaning too.
I deliberately omitted it because over-segmenting makes things complicated.

How to evaluate items other than BIG titles is tricky.
I'm not sure whether we should convert these into points for calculation either.

It's precisely the kind of statistic that "isn't crucial but still has meaning."
 
alexio said:
maybe you are right about weeks, so even with giving fred additional slam due to that, its a tie, so if we want we can find something else to figure out the winner there between them
Click to expand...
i think they are pretty even. beside all that already was mention (big titles and o1 stat) so is rafas h2h, fed is better on 3 out of 4 slams and 2 out of 3 surfaces, rafa has 2 CGS so each has many thing above the other, rafa has W% and fed has streaks and so on. nothing that really separate them
 
RS said:
I didn't even say he was definitely the GOAT but Nadal should always show up in these discussions.

I mean you could argue on him being relatively weak on indoor HC sure but he has been more dominant on a surface than anybody else has on the flip side.
Click to expand...

I mean yeah, that goes without saying. Nadal isn't the GOAT for me, but he may be for other people.

GOAT stuff is all pretty subjective at the end of the day, in every sport.
 
zagor said:
I mean yeah, that goes without saying. Nadal isn't the GOAT for me, but he may be for other people.

GOAT stuff is all pretty subjective at the end of the day, in every sport.
Click to expand...

I personally think Nadal is someone who can't be GOAT since there is no possible way to argue him being above Djokovic. As he has fewer slams, a losing head to head, and inferior stats in almost every other category too. That is why I specifically said I could see Federer possibly being above both Djokovic and Nadal (personally how I have it), behind both Djokovic and Nadal, and behind Djokovic but ahead of Nadal, but could see no possible argument for Nadal being above Djokovic. Yes I am saying I rank Federer above Djokovic and Nadal, but acknowledge there is still a case to put Nadal ahead of Federer, but no case to put Nadal over Djokovic. And obviously if you rank Federer above Djokovic, you then automatically have to rank him over Nadal IMO, while can still rank him over Nadal without ranking him over Djokovic as well.
 
Pheasant said:
Tough call. My gut says Djoker and Sampras.
Click to expand...

If “alpha” means disagreeable and cold, Sampras is as alpha as it gets.

But if “alpha” is someone that ppl gravitate to, enjoy being around and want to do things for, while still fearing that person’s judgment/rejection, then it’s Fed or Alcaraz.

I don’t subscribe to the Alpha/Beta dichotomy. Bc in wolf packs, most alphas only got there bc they were Betas once and took over when the alpha dies hunting or fighting.

Dominance in humans is a little different, dominant primates have to build alliances and share resources to maintain their position….things Sampras has no interest in doing. He’s too selfish to ever be a leader of anything. Maybe in an individual sport you can say that doesn’t matter.

But if I go into a room and I see Alcaraz working the room with a huge smile, while PETE stands aloof and not emoting at all, the extroverted/agreeable guy stands out as the leader. Not only is PETE not magnanimous, he’s the exact opposite.
 
The big problem with tennis is that it’s played on different surfaces.
Therefore, this kind of research is useless, in spite of keeping people entertained.
 
RS said:
I would say it depends on what is preferred Nadal's 2 extra slams and 8 masters or Fed's 6 YEC's and 100 more weeks at number 1. I prefer Nadal's but obviously a Fed fan will probably prefer his.
Click to expand...

I think this is a valid point

But
RS said:
YEC is important but it's definitely closer to masters than slams.
Click to expand...

Do you really think YEC is so far away from a slam? Why?
 
GabeT said:
I think this is a valid point

But


Do you really think YEC is so far away from a slam? Why?
Click to expand...

ATP did a crime to itself and also to the legacy of tennis by downgrading ATP Finals from those BO5 matches in last rounds to an all BO3 tournament. The 5th biggest tournament was downgraded and this suits people like Nadal who were bad in those conditions. Mind you, even in his best years when he was beating Federer he was losing indoors to Federer and plenty of people, those conditions just does not help Nadal's shots and his knees.
 
Razer said:
01. Borg retired from tennis due to John Mcenroe but Sampras retired from Tennis after destroying all of his rivals and having left no goals to chase.
Click to expand...

Premise 1 not correct at all. A McEnroe myth extended by the media.

Premise 2 not correct - Sampras did beat all rivals (except on clay - "no goals to chase"?), but he retired because he was an old player (for that time, and any time until very recently) and was slipping.

The two are close.
 
Razer said:
ATP did a crime to itself and also to the legacy of tennis by downgrading ATP Finals from those BO5 matches in last rounds to an all BO3 tournament. The 5th biggest tournament was downgraded and this suits people like Nadal who were bad in those conditions. Mind you, even in his best years when he was beating Federer he was losing indoors to Federer and plenty of people, those conditions just does not help Nadal's shots and his knees.
Click to expand...
how did it suit Nadal? he never won any YEC
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SamprasisGOAT
Top 5 peak level on each surface
2 3 4
Replies
182
Views
12K
tarutani
tarutani
BGod
Is Nadal a Top 10 OE player off-clay?
Replies
12
Views
796
LuckyR
LuckyR
smoledman
My top 5(Open Era)
Replies
19
Views
948
Deleted member 733170
D
topspin_forehand
Adjusted slam race
Replies
14
Views
877
Slicehand
S
D
  • Poll Poll
The Top 5
Replies
49
Views
4K
BLACKOUT
B
Back
Top