BauerAlmeida
Hall of Fame
It is good to see Djokovic fans all admitting in the same thread that his peak wasn't very high.
Nadal disagrees
It is good to see Djokovic fans all admitting in the same thread that his peak wasn't very high.
The USO 2007 QF was higher quality.The 2012 US Open QF Djokovic > any version of Federer on HC?
I don’t know about objective but I think we should all have a general idea of what our criteria is. For example when I’m talking about greatness the general model I’m thinking of is something like Career Expected Slam Wins. Where every performance at a slam is evaluated by its potential to result in a victory in a variety of settings. So under this criteria RG 08 is worth 1 CESW because it’s not beatable in any circumstance whereas USO 2020 for Thiem is worth say .1 CESW because a performance like that is unlikely to result in a slam win in most cases. This allows me to weigh performances like say W 08 from Fed as greater than say W 19 from Djokovic because it produces more expected slams. Then do the same for masters/olympics/wtf and weigh them how you feel appropriate. I also do give some consideration to weird stuff that might cause a lower CESW at an event like for example a performance where someone completely ****s the bed in the final but they played super tough early rounds I’ll give somewhat of an excuse for the final and say they may have played better in other draws/scenarios.Is there an objective criteria for weighing them against each other? I'm not saying it can't be discussed. For me I think a "consistent peak" is obviously more important but if someone were to argue that say Rosewall, is the GOAT because he was at the top of the game for so so long then I think that's a fine opinion.
Well obviously I have a criteria that I use. I'm just saying that I accept that others will have their own criteria and that's valid as well.I don’t know about objective but I think we should all have a general idea of what our criteria is. For example when I’m talking about greatness the general model I’m thinking of is something like Career Expected Slam Wins. Where every performance at a slam is evaluated by its potential to result in a victory in a variety of settings. So under this criteria RG 08 is worth 1 CESW because it’s not beatable in any circumstance whereas USO 2020 for Thiem is worth say .1 CESW because a performance like that is unlikely to result in a slam win in most cases. This allows me to weigh performances like say W 08 from Fed as greater than say W 19 from Djokovic because it produces more expected slams. Then do the same for masters/olympics/wtf and weigh them how you feel appropriate. I also do give some consideration to weird stuff that might cause a lower CESW at an event like for example a performance where someone completely ****s the bed in the final but they played super tough early rounds I’ll give somewhat of an excuse for the final and say they may have played better in other draws/scenarios.
That’s like the general idea I’m shooting for so when we compare peak to longevity I have an idea of the metric of what I’m looking for. If you play at a level that gives you a 75% chance to win slams for 3 years then fall off the map that’s better than a 20% chance for for 10 years but worse than 25%. So it obviously depends on degree of peak and consistency and the interplay which I’m sure you agree but I don’t think these topics are illusory and we can just throw our hands up and arbitrarily pick one we prefer.
I get what you're saying here but I'm not so quick to just accept this level of subjectivity. Like sure if someone sticks to their criteria there's nothing you can say to convince them like you would be able to in like math but I think we'd both agree that some criterias are better than others and that you can make arguments for why that is. I'm not saying there's necessarily a one true criteria but I think what we're talking generally talking about the same sorts of things when we talk about the greatness of a tennis player namely how good they were, for how long, and what that ability could allow them to achieve. There's definitely going to be some disagreement about the relative importance about some things vs others but not enough that I don't think there's a meaningful discussion to be had about the values of peaks and longevity in a more objective sense.Well obviously I have a criteria that I use. I'm just saying that I accept that others will have their own criteria and that's valid as well.
For sure not every criteria is valid and I think there's a limit to how far people can stretch things. Lew Hoad is a good example, he was heralded by his peers as the best they ever played and people like Laver have him put him right at the top of their GOAT lists before - but I totally reject him as a GOAT candidate because he didn't win enough.I get what you're saying here but I'm not so quick to just accept this level of subjectivity. Like sure if someone sticks to their criteria there's nothing you can say to convince them like you would be able to in like math but I think we'd both agree that some criterias are better than others and that you can make arguments for why that is. I'm not saying there's necessarily a one true criteria but I think what we're talking generally talking about the same sorts of things when we talk about the greatness of a tennis player namely how good they were, for how long, and what that ability could allow them to achieve. There's definitely going to be some disagreement about the relative importance about some things vs others but not enough that I don't think there's a meaningful discussion to be had about the values of peaks and longevity in a more objective sense.
Like for example using my model I think you'd likely agree that Murray never had any performances that would rank super high from an ESW perspective but he put together so many lower chances that he gave himself so many chances to win that his slam career was greater than Safin's who's best performance probably would have a higher ESW than Murray's but didn't have the consistency. You can say the opposite for someone like Del Po vs Ferrer.
I doubt your criteria differs that far from CESW how I'm describing so I think within that context there are semi objective discussions to be had about what is more valuable between peak and longevity. Because if you're ultimate goal is to win slams or any other tournament there's always going to be a point where a high enough peak will outweigh longevity or where sufficient longevity will outweigh a higher peak
Well the highest peak among the Big 3 is actually easy to determine once you line up every tennis stroke and associate it with the Big 3 player who has the best stroke.Peak cannot be properly measured in many cases. I mean it's obvious that peak Djokovic > peak me, but when it comes to the Big 3, it becomes mostly opinion based.
I agree that how things are won matters but I don't think that has a natural bias towards peak or consistency for that matter. A "vulture" who is so consistent that they're always in a position to win slams if the competition falls through may be greater than someone who burns incredibly bright but flames out. Again it depends on the degree of the peak and the degree of the consistency.For sure not every criteria is valid and I think there's a limit to how far people can stretch things. Lew Hoad is a good example, he was heralded by his peers as the best they ever played and people like Laver have him put him right at the top of their GOAT lists before - but I totally reject him as a GOAT candidate because he didn't win enough.
My point was more that I'm not going to die on a hill with someone if I think their argument has some logic to it. I will argue to the death that peak play is important but there's a limit to that in that it has to have some consistency and longevity to it as well.
Your CESW is something myself and some others have subscribed to before in terms of evaluating careers - though it's never had a nice acronym. For me how things are won matters and therefore I gravitate to peak, but if someone says I accept that these last years of tennis have been weaker but total wins is what ultimately matters then I wouldn't bother arguing.
I think most people have limits, even Gabe who swears hypotheticals are unreasonable and impossible to argue sensibly will agree than 2011 Djokovic beats 2002 Johansson at the AO for example.I agree that how things are won matters but I don't think that has a natural bias towards peak or consistency for that matter. A "vulture" who is so consistent that they're always in a position to win slams if the competition falls through may be greater than someone who burns incredibly bright but flames out. Again it depends on the degree of the peak and the degree of the consistency.
I agree there's not much to say to oppose the bean counters other than what they're doing is just a different sort of project. When we talk about greatness we're talking about a mix of accomplishments and how good you are at tennis the bean counters ignore the second part which is fine if that doesn't matter to you but I think it clearly should.
If for example there was a huge world war between and half of professional tennis were banned and then someone won 25 slams in that context I highly doubt people would consider that a better accomplishment than what Novak did. So even ultimately the bean counters care they just don't realize that they do.
Well the highest peak among the Big 3 is actually easy to determine once you line up every tennis stroke and associate it with the Big 3 player who has the best stroke.
Other than backhand, Federer literally has the best strokes out of all of them
Impossible when he can't slice, overhead, volley, etcStrokes are not the only thing that win tennis matches. Besides, wasn't in fact Novak who received the dubious title of "The Perfect Player"?