Ranking(YE #1 and weeks at #1) and Wimbledon only matters when it suits Nole's fans argument

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
I'm getting tired of the double-standard.

During the debate about who's greater between Sampras-Nole when both players have 14 slams each, Nole fans relentlessly argue for Nole because of his many MS1000 titles and a better player on clay. Yet, they don't want to mention about Pete's YE #1 and weeks at #1 when it's one of the most important criteria in evaluating ATG besides the slam count. And when someone argue for Pete, they downgrade the important of the ranking. To them, Nole 4 consecutive slam wins is the biggest thing ever happened in tennis, yet Sampras 6 consecutive YE #1 is a minuscule achievement. Even his 7 Wimbledon titles which is the Holy Grail of tennis is irrelevant to them. No surprise because Nole can't compete with Pete.

However, when a debate about Nadal-Nole, the argument turns completely 180 degree. Nole fans weigh heavily on weeks at #1 and YE #1 mainly because Nadal is totally inferior to Nole. While belittling Sampras for no FO title, they short-change Nadal's achievement because he's too clay centric for winning 11 FO. And then Wimbledon is so glamorous, so prestigious tournament that Nole has the edge with 4 titles to 2 for Nadal. With that being said, despite Nadal has 2 more slam titles, they want to argue for Nole being ahead in ATG.
Some fair points.

But to me what pushed Nole ahead of Sampras, even before Nole won 14 slams, was that Sampras was almost a non entity in clay. And while that may have been ok in the early 1990s I don’t think it’s ok today.

I see Nole/Nadal more tied than having one clearly ahead of the other.
 
Last edited:

NoleFam

Bionic Poster
No he isn't. 3 = 3. They are tied in US Open titles. Djokovic needs another to surpass Nadal. Djokovic may have more finals but it doesn't compensate his losing H2H to Nadal at the US Open.

H2H >>> extra finals.

Djokovic needs another title to definetely surpass Nadal at the US Open.

Nadal is equal to Djokovic in USO titles but not in USO record. It's too much of a difference and Djokovic hasn't lost before the SF there since 2006. Losing head to head? You cannot be serious. Nadal hasn't won a set on hardcourt against Djokovic since that USO 2013 match (8-0, 17-0 in sets) yet you think that head to head is relevant? Head to head is definitely not greater than record, especially the difference of one match, when the other player is so much more superior at that tournament.
 
Last edited:

jm1980

Talk Tennis Guru
No he isn't. 3 = 3. They are tied in US Open titles. Djokovic needs another to surpass Nadal. Djokovic may have more finals but it doesn't compensate his losing H2H to Nadal at the US Open.

H2H >>> extra finals.

Djokovic needs another title to definetely surpass Nadal at the US Open.
Djokovic is 69-10 at the USO versus Nadal's 53-10

When Djokovic isn't playing well, he makes it to the final and loses to Nadal or Federer
When Nadal isn't playing well, he loses to mugs in the first week... Or doesn't even bother showing
 
Last edited:

Gary Duane

Talk Tennis Guru
I have probably 30 players I like to watch play pro tennis.
When Rafa retire I will spend just as much time watching tennis.

I was never into Federer. I didnt even watch him play finals if he didnt play players I liked. Federer was in a way Rafas underdog for many years even though being older, I never saw him as a threat. I have felt for more than 10 years Rafa is a better player than Federer and Rafa is therefor the one I see as the goat.
Nothing that anyone else has said in this forum has made me change my mind, and I have pretty much read it all.
And... I like Sampras and Agassi btw. So I am not getting into an argument about that.
You're never going to get into an argument with me about players. Who I like has nothing to do with who I think is great, and I absolutely reject the idea of a GOAT. I think it's just stupid. I mean REALLY REALLY stupid!!!

As for who is the best of this era, that will not be sorted out until the Big Three end their careers. Of course even then people will argue incessantly, but at least we will have stable facts. Right now we have three incomplete careers. "It ain't over til it's over!"

Meanwhile, this may be the best parody I've ever heard in my life. It sums up how stupid I think trolling is:

 

AceSalvo

Legend
Djokovic is 62-10 at the USO versus Nadal's 53-10

When Djokovic isn't playing well, he makes it to the final and loses to Nadal or Federer
When Nadal isn't playing well, he loses to mugs in the first week... Or doesn't even bother showing

Nadal only shows up when he knows he has a chance. And when he fails he claims "injury".

Didn't you know no one has beaten a "healthy" Nadal? Hence Nadal GOAT! :sneaky:
 

BeatlesFan

Bionic Poster
What's hilarious is that the moment Nole vaulted over Pete with one more slam than Sampras has, this was somehow proof that Pete was a buffoon, a hack, a "nobody" and non-entity in spades. Yet there is one lone slam in the tally between them.

However, Fed has 5 more majors than Nole but he's still defamed as a buffoon, a hack, a nobody and "weak era" chump.

Explain that logic. :-D
 

brystone

Semi-Pro
Djokovic was ahead of Sampras in the vast majority of things after winning his 14th. The only thing Pete was ahead in was time at #1. It makes total sense for Djokovic fans to have him over Sampras, as atleast 90% of people did at that point, and there is nothing hypocritical about it.

Having Djokovic ahead of Nadal while behind him at 2 slams might be bias in some cases (although i think there are many objective people who arent even Djokovic fans who consider having him ahead of Nadal right now) but in way is it hypocritical or relating to your example in anyway.
 

TripleATeam

G.O.A.T.
What's hilarious is that the moment Nole vaulted over Pete with one more slam than Sampras has, this was somehow proof that Pete was a buffoon, a hack, a "nobody" and non-entity in spades. Yet there is one lone slam in the tally between them.

However, Fed has 5 more majors than Nole but he's still defamed as a buffoon, a hack, a nobody and "weak era" chump.

Explain that logic. :-D
I think we've been arguing for years that Sampras' YE#1 finishes weren't exactly emphatic. His slams are legit, but in the past 15 years, players have put up monstrous numbers to get #1. In 95 and 97, Sampras had a 82% win rate. It was 78% in 98.

On the other hand, from 2003-2018 (16 years), Federer has put up numbers greater than 78% in 14 of them. In Djokovic's last 12 years, he's put up numbers greater than 78% in 11 of them. Yet how many YE#1 finishes do they have? 5 each. And you may think I'm slandering Pete by not mentioning his other great years. I'm not. Outside of his 6 year end #1 finishes, Pete had only one season that drifted above 78% win rate- 1999, when he got 83%.

So Federer: 14/16 WR >=78%
Nadal: 12/14 WR >= 78%
Djokovic: 11/12 WR >= 78%
Sampras (2002 excluded): 8/12 WR >= 78%

So yeah, he was good in slams on grass and on hard. Was miserable on clay, and couldn't seem to reach the same level outside of slams as he did in them.

As for the Fed comments, I apologize on behalf of whomever is making them.
 

robthai

Hall of Fame
Nadal is equal to Djokovic in USO titles but not in USO record. It's too much of a difference and Djokovic hasn't lost before the SF there since 2006. Losing head to head? You cannot be serious. Nadal hasn't won a set on hardcourt against Djokovic since that USO 2013 match (8-0, 17-0 in sets) yet you think that head to head is relevant? Head to head is definitely not greater than record, especially the difference of one match, when the other player is so much more superior at that tournament.
when its all said and done, h2h will be the only thing Rafa fans will have to cling to.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
No he isn't. 3 = 3. They are tied in US Open titles. Djokovic needs another to surpass Nadal. Djokovic may have more finals but it doesn't compensate his losing H2H to Nadal at the US Open.

H2H >>> extra finals.

Djokovic needs another title to definetely surpass Nadal at the US Open.

umm, how about no.
wait....hell, no.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
I don't know why Sampras is even mentioned in the same breath as Joe, when he's not even in the same stratosphere of dominance let alone the same league. If the Slams are the 4 pinnacles of the sport, each one a fragment comprising one whole world championship, then the only male player to have won the NCYGS is Joe. He held all fragments and thus the 4 biggest titles on tour (held the WTF also mind you) so how, in the hell, can anyone compare Sampras to Joe when Sampras *never* won RG.

EE3531D0C2F01AE82725D2CF284497BDF9D86024
 
D

Deleted member 716271

Guest
umm, how about no.
wait....hell, no.

Agreed lol Djok has way more finals. a 2-1 h2h means little in comparison with that.

Similarly I had Fed tied or ahead with Novak at AO until last week because of the extra final (and way more semifinals) until last week.
 
D

Deleted member 716271

Guest
Not sure who is saying Pete was rubbish or way behind Novak that seems a bit of a strawman, if someone is saying that they are wrong.

OTOH, I do think Novak has quite clearly passed him---even if by just a bit
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
His 97 YE #1 was similar to Djokovic's 2018 YE #1 campaign as well - two Slams but not much else
A single Slam in 96, no Masters titles... Still YE #1 - something he'd never be able to do today

His most dominant season was 94, but it can't be compared with Djoker's 2011 and 2015 seasons

umm, so is this Masters mania so high that the YEC is forgotten?
Sampras won the YEC in 97.
Won 8 titles in total. 2 slams, the YEC, the grand slam cup and 2 masters.

Djokovic won 4 titles in total in 18 - 2 slams, 2 masters.

Sampras' 97 was well and truly better.

Re 96, again, Sampras won the YEC. Won 8 titles overall.

----------

another thing completely amiss among those who don't know is that the homogenization helps in more domination over the course of a year (for Djokovic). Criticise Sampras' 98 all you want, but do recognise the above factor as well.
 
D

Deleted member 716271

Guest
I'm happy having Nadal over Djokovic till Djok ties the slam count, then he vaults ahead due to the other stuff. Similarly, I think Novak should be over Pete now.

Everyone copacetic with that?
 

Gary Duane

Talk Tennis Guru
I'm happy having Nadal over Djokovic till Djok ties the slam count, then he vaults ahead due to the other stuff. Similarly, I think Novak should be over Pete now.

Everyone copacetic with that?
Nope. Not at all. Pete was in one era, ridiculously dominant in that era on two surfaces. His weakness on clay is a big minus, but he was otherwise the guy to beat for a long time, and I don't think clay in that era had the same rep it has now. Nadal has probably had a lot to do with that.

There are three guys struggling for dominance in this era. I'll take Pete in the 90s, one of the Big Three in this era, when it's finally over. I'm radically opposed to comparing eras this way.

I hate the the whole GOAT thing. I think everyone, including you, gets manipulated by the media.
 

mahesh69a

Professional
I don't know why Sampras is even mentioned in the same breath as Joe, when he's not even in the same stratosphere of dominance let alone the same league.
This sort of exaggeration is a huge disservice to Djokovic (who himself claimed Pete was his idol) and other rational fans of Novak.
 

mr tonyz

Professional
More or less, you're simplifying arguments and creating a thread just to complain. Let me address your points without a lens, then with my subjective opinion following.

Sampras vs. Djokovic pre-2019:

Slams: 14-14. Tied.
YE#1: 6-5. Sampras leads, slightly.
Weeks at #1: 286 - 232(?) Sampras leads by a year. Sizeable.
Titles: 64-72 Djokovic. Not the largest of leads.
Masters: 10-32. Sizeable lead for Djokovic.
YEC: 5-5. Tied.
Win% (Overall, HC, Clay, Grass, Carpet): (77%, 80%, 63%, 83%, 77%) - (83%, 84%, 79%, 83%, 71%)
Intangibles: Impossible to judge. Both sides will argue their own. Career grand slam may be important, but I'll ignore it for now.

My take: Djokovic has the same number of slams and YEC as Sampras. The only place he led pre-AO was at YE#1 and weeks at #1. Sure, that shows dominance over his contemporaries, but it doesn't mean his performance backed that up elsewhere. Djokovic, however, leads in several areas as well.

He is ahead in terms of titles, roughly by a year or two's worth of them. That's not a bad lead, but could be greater. He leads in terms of win% overall, on hard courts, on clay courts, and ties Sampras on grass. The only place Sampras leads is on carpet, where Djokovic was only able to play his first 4 years on the tour. We can claim "7 Wimbledons in a row" and "NCYGS" all we want, but it doesn't change the fact that Sampras played very well at the majors, somewhat lacking elsewhere. Clearly slams are the great metric, but when tied or close, it comes down to other achievements, and Sampras had little to gloat about outside slams and YEC, where Djokovic has him tied.

Conclusion: Novak leads Sampras.



Nadal vs. Djokovic currently:

Slams: 17-15. Nadal clearly leads.
YE#1: 4-5 Djokovic leads, but not by a large margin.
Weeks at #1: 196-236. Djokovic leads by 40 weeks, likely to increase further, but that's beside the point.
Titles: 80-73. Nadal leads.
Masters: 33-32. Almost tied.
YEC: 0-5. Djokovic dominates.
Win% (Overall, HC, Clay, Grass, Carpet): (83%, 77%, 92%, 78%, 25%) - (83%, 84%, 79%, 83%, 71%)
Intangibles: Impossible to judge. Both sides will argue their own. Could come into play, but too subjective for me to judge.

My take: Nadal leads by 2 slams, a huge clay win%, and titles overall. That's what Djokovic needs to make up. Can 5 YEC, 40 weeks at #1 (including a YE finish), and superior numbers on every other surface (ignoring carpet) make up that difference?

My opinion is no. 5 YEC is certainly a great accomplishment, but 2 slams is a large lead. It on its own cannot make up for that, nor can the weeks at #1 really, since the gap isn't incredibly huge. I definitely would value the time at #1 and the 5 YEC above a single slam, but not two. On top of that, Nadal still leads in titles overall.

Furthermore, Novak's lead on the other surfaces is not very impressive numerically when compared to the clay dominance Nadal has shown. Novak may show versatility, but the flip side of that coin is dominance, and it comes down to a subjective opinion over which is more valuable. At the end of the day, the fact that Novak is more versatile won't serve much use unless they get closer than two slams.

Conclusion: Nadal leads Djokovic somewhat, but Novak will lead Nadal if he closes the gap to one slam.


You don't feel that 5 YECs is worth 2 slams?
Even with the added weeks @ #1??

So your feeling is something like 3-4 YECs is worth somewhere between 0 & 1 slam?

I can respect your decision coming from a Djoker fan seeing as your guy has 5 of them.

I don't know if it's just me or not , but i'd gladly hand Djoker 2 x more U.S Opens as long as he doesn't tie/pass Fed's outright YEC record . (Murray & Zverev have held the fort on lockdown thus far)

Having Wimbledon + YEC outright records is plentiful for me , Co-Goat @ U.S.O + second outright @ AO + the dismal Nadal effect @ RG (nothing to be ashamed about when the ClayGoat held his own fort for so long)
 

TripleATeam

G.O.A.T.
To put it in simple terms... for Sampras the entire career has been included. Not for Novk. Novk may have another 5 to 6 years in him.

Pointless. "even if it is said up until this point"
Are you insinuating that Novak can... harm his achievements by playing longer?
 

Rabe87

Professional
You don't feel that 5 YECs is worth 2 slams?
Even with the added weeks @ #1??

So your feeling is something like 3-4 YECs is worth somewhere between 0 & 1 slam?

I can respect your decision coming from a Djoker fan seeing as your guy has 5 of them.

I don't know if it's just me or not , but i'd gladly hand Djoker 2 x more U.S Opens as long as he doesn't tie/pass Fed's outright YEC record . (Murray & Zverev have held the fort on lockdown thus far)

Having Wimbledon + YEC outright records is plentiful for me , Co-Goat @ U.S.O + second outright @ AO + the dismal Nadal effect @ RG (nothing to be ashamed about when the ClayGoat held his own fort for so long)
No title or raft of titles can equal '1 slam', a slam is a slam that's it.
 
D

Deleted member 716271

Guest
Nope. Not at all. Pete was in one era, ridiculously dominant in that era on two surfaces. His weakness on clay is a big minus, but he was otherwise the guy to beat for a long time, and I don't think clay in that era had the same rep it has now. Nadal has probably had a lot to do with that.

There are three guys struggling for dominance in this era. I'll take Pete in the 90s, one of the Big Three in this era, when it's finally over. I'm radically opposed to comparing eras this way.

I hate the the whole GOAT thing. I think everyone, including you, gets manipulated by the media.

I don't agree with the premise of this---it it basically putting a supreme premium on being the best of your generation or your era. In essence, it is implying that if 3 all time greats are also the 3 most accomplished/best etc. that this is so anomalous as to by definition mean that something else has to account for it (homogenization, media manipulation (altho not sure how that affects accomplishments, weak era etc etc.)

I think we can discern and don't have to go completely by the facts or stats, but they have to play a large role. Pete's ineptness on clay has to count slightly against him when compared to 3 all time greats as well rounded and accomplished as Fedalovic. Nadal maybe the least well rounded, but then again also with 3 slams more and if you are talking about who is the most dominant of his era, I know people hate this but the one with a good h2h against the other 2 (although now diminishing somewhat.)

To me there are other possible explanations for why 3 all time greats could appear at once, it could be a complete anomaly which doesn't satisfy many but is possible, or it could be that certain conditions created the peak athletes (training, diet etc.) and that a few especially competitive people in this vacuum exceeded what they would have otherwise due to being in fierce competition with eachother. One could make the argument "well what if Pete was in this era?" etc. etc. but the fact is he was not.

Bottom line : I don't think you can penalize players for not being the best of their era. That is something that might matter if all else was very close to equal (like h2h as a tiebreaker) but I don't see the logic in that in a general sense.

It's like in the NBA they say stuff like "so and so isn't even the best on their team how can they be a top 5 player?" about say Kevin Durant or Steph Curry the 1 and 1A of the Warriors. Truth is both of them are 2 of the top 3 or at worst 5 players alive. The "he isn't even the best player on his own team" is an odd way of framing it that doesn't mean anything to me when comparing with other players. I hope you can see the analogy here.

As far as manipulation, I respectfully disagree. We can either compare or not at all. You say you hate comparisons like this but you are willing to compare the best 1 of the current 3 to a player from a previous generation (Pete). Why? It gets back to the previous main issue, so I think this point of not being able to compare is a bit of a non-starter. Either we can compare or we can't.

PS: Hope my tone isn't seen as rude, enjoy debating with you.
 

Rabe87

Professional
This sort of exaggeration is a huge disservice to Djokovic (who himself claimed Pete was his idol) and other rational fans of Novak.

I'm just not sure how you can claim Sampras is anywhere near Joe when Joe has him beat in every single category (apart from most weeks at #1, but please, Venus Williams only has 11 weeks at #1 compared to Sharapova who has over 40 - are we now to say Sharapova has had a greater career? Of course not).
 

mahesh69a

Professional
I'm just not sure how you can claim Sampras is anywhere near Joe when Joe has him beat in every single category (apart from most weeks at #1, but please, Venus Williams only has 11 weeks at #1 compared to Sharapova who has over 40 - are we now to say Sharapova has had a greater career? Of course not).
There are several points in favor of Novak (obviously) - I was only pointing to the extent of exaggeration ("when he's not even in the same stratosphere of dominance let alone the same league"). Pete was the clear number one for his era (therefore dominance factor is high and obvious unlike for Novak). All I am saying is, Novak may be ahead but not so much ahead that he is in a different league (yet).
 

Rabe87

Professional
You clearly haven't been paying attention since 2011 then, and how can Sampras be so dominant when he lost every RG he ever entered? Seriously. Tennis history lesson is calling you, pls pick up that phone.
 

Gary Duane

Talk Tennis Guru
I don't agree with the premise of this---it it basically putting a supreme premium on being the best of your generation or your era. In essence, it is implying that if 3 all time greats are also the 3 most accomplished/best etc. that this is so anomalous as to by definition mean that something else has to account for it (homogenization, media manipulation (altho not sure how that affects accomplishments, weak era etc etc.)
But that's why we go round and round. It's why we read about weak eras, homogenization, and so on. There is always a reason to stress any player or any group of players without any facts to base it all on. For instance, after taking a really close look at the 90s, for the most part all I have is a ton of questions. That decade was an anomaly, because on one hand there were a lot of different players winning slams, more than in any other era, I believe, and who got to the finals was by far the most unpredictable matter in all of the OE. What do we conclude from that? I don't know. But an awful lot of people were playing tennis then, and there was an incredible overlap. Edberg born in 66, 67, Lendl still making QFs in 92, then so many players still at least pretty competitive in the early 90s. There was an incredible amount of overlap in an era that did not yet have the longevity we now have. My conclusion is that either you have a whole bunch of weak players, none of whom were good enough to win much, or you had a lot of dangerous players who also tended to be surface specialists. I personally think there was something special about the competitiveness of the 90s.

And today? Sort of the same problem, because if only a very few players win everything, year after year after year, that could easily be an indication that the strength of the tour, in general, has gone down. But it could also mane that we are seeing a few amazing athletes, and we may not see their like for decades. We just don't know.

I do believe that a huge hype started with Pete about slams, so my argument about the whole GOAT things goes way back before him. Plus the sport has changed so ridiculously in terms of rackets and equipment in general. I just don't see how anyone can compare Laver and co. with Fed and co. To me it is like two very similar sports, but not the same sport.

As for being manipulated, I think it's very difficult not to be. There is an incredible amount of big money put into everything, and the purpose of course is to get you and me to pay a lot of money for everything from clothes and tickets to a cable package the includes tennis.

Call me suspicious, because that's the way I look at everything, with a great deal of doubt and a ton of questions.
To me there are other possible explanations for why 3 all time greats could appear at once, it could be a complete anomaly which doesn't satisfy many but is possible, or it could be that certain conditions created the peak athletes (training, diet etc.) and that a few especially competitive people in this vacuum exceeded what they would have otherwise due to being in fierce competition with eachother. One could make the argument "well what if Pete was in this era?" etc. etc. but the fact is he was not.
Yes, but none of the Big Three were in his era either, so we don't know. I want to throw another idea at you though. My field is music, and I've studying the greatest piano performers for literally decades. A lot of music is art, so you can't look at it like a sport, but there are certain benchmarks that competitive players have been using to win competitions for at least a century, and the young players are not necessarily faster, stronger or playing with a better over all mastery. I'd say there are more young pianists playing on a very high technical level, but the best has remained almost unchanged for a very long time. But why? The answer: the instrument as it is today was pretty much perfected long ago. I can sit down to a grand right now, and it won't play one bit differently from what I played on 50s years ago. So you sit down to play the same music, in the same way, on the same instrument, with the same preparation, and the results are about the same.

Now compare Laver, with his wood racket and guy, and the kind of clothes they wore then, just plain old shoes, and I'd say that alone explains a great deal of the difference we see. But do people factor that in when watching? I don't think so. When the equipment itself changes, and the clothes themselves even change, I don't believe anyone on the planet can make a fully objective comparison of the skill of the athletes themselves, separated by those things.
It's like in the NBA they say stuff like "so and so isn't even the best on their team how can they be a top 5 player?" about say Kevin Durant or Steph Curry the 1 and 1A of the Warriors. Truth is both of them are 2 of the top 3 or at worst 5 players alive. The "he isn't even the best player on his own team" is an odd way of framing it that doesn't mean anything to me when comparing with other players. I hope you can see the analogy here.
Yes, although I do believe basketball, as it is played right now, is much closer to the sport I watched when young than is true of tennis. How much even in that do rule changes alter the game? How much difference does the 3 point shot make compared to when there was no such thing? I don't know about clothes (probably mainly shoes.)
As far as manipulation, I respectfully disagree. We can either compare or not at all. You say you hate comparisons like this but you are willing to compare the best 1 of the current 3 to a player from a previous generation (Pete). Why? It gets back to the previous main issue, so I think this point of not being able to compare is a bit of a non-starter. Either we can compare or we can't.
I don't think I'm doing that. I think I'm saying that Pete was an amazing player, and that he was the standout in his era. But where does he stack up with this era? I'm not even going there. I'm not going to rate Pete against Fed against JMac against Laver against Gonzalez against Kramer and so on.
PS: Hope my tone isn't seen as rude, enjoy debating with you.
Nah, it's all good. ;)
 

TheGhostOfAgassi

Talk Tennis Guru
You're never going to get into an argument with me about players. Who I like has nothing to do with who I think is great, and I absolutely reject the idea of a GOAT. I think it's just stupid. I mean REALLY REALLY stupid!!!

As for who is the best of this era, that will not be sorted out until the Big Three end their careers. Of course even then people will argue incessantly, but at least we will have stable facts. Right now we have three incomplete careers. "It ain't over til it's over!"

Meanwhile, this may be the best parody I've ever heard in my life. It sums up how stupid I think trolling is:

hahahaha yes so true!
Im going like the Big Lebowski a lot, well "its your opinion". Doesnt affect me and I focus on other stuff instead.
People like what they like.
Im more frustrated about how people in here complain about the younger generation as if they are lazy and such. I know how much hard work they put into it. I worry if they google themselves. People are just throwing out arguments about stuff they know nothing about. At least the goat stuff is just fan stuff anyway and utterly stupid, but its something possible to discuss. I hate the bullying and name calling of the hard working players.
 

mahesh69a

Professional
You clearly haven't been paying attention since 2011 then, and how can Sampras be so dominant when he lost every RG he ever entered? Seriously. Tennis history lesson is calling you, pls pick up that phone.
Please follow your own advice and learn tennis history (also, take a look at how dominance is determined, ever heard of standard deviation? - by your definition, Borg was not dominant because he did not win AO or USO).
 

Lew II

G.O.A.T.
Won't comment on Nadal vs Djokovic in the GOAT race. What I will say is this: it's much smarter to consider weeks at #1 and YE rankings between contemporaries than between players from different generations. Ranking is dependent on competition and it's possible to be number 1 in one year with results that wouldn't put you in the top 5 in another year. Ranking comparisons among the big 4 is very much fair therefore. Ranking comparisons between Djokovic and Sampras or Federer and Sampras are much less so.
That's right.

Until october 2016, Rios had been no.1 while Murray had not.
 
D

Deleted member 716271

Guest
@Gary Duane

so much there, easier to reply like this



As far as music analogy, I agree with the perfected thing, but that is what I think happened in tennis....each generation gets better and better athletically, diet, nutrition then sort of levels out. Certain future conditions could be seen as not progressing any further for peak athletic development in a given sport or even regressing. For example the early-mid 90s players could be seen as weak minded, soft etc. I don't think they have access to anything better or the sport is evovling anymore so the top guys are holding on. You could argue back and forth on whether that is inflating their slam count, I don't mind considering it. Although subjectively, I do think Fedovical are very, very special and unique players/athletes and see nothing wrong with considering them the best 3 of all time.

I still see a bit of on one hand you are saying how flawed a comparison is, yet you are still doing it yourself in some way.

In considering someone the best of their generation as an important criteria, you already ARE comparing different generations whether you like it or not.

Anyways, this argument seems to hold that "relative" level is important compared to one's peers. I see the logic here. But I would argue that relative level is ALREADY taken into account. Each one of Fedovical has had to beat their peers to win each of their slams just as Sampras did his. All 3 have stood out more against their peers than Sampras at slams.

The fact that it's 3 in relatively close chronological order and in direct competition with eachother shouldn't invalidate the 2 of them that don't end up as the best of their generation (invalidate necessarily as being as good as the best of a previous era I mean)

Now, I would say I think there is SOME merit to this train of though. I can see why it might be seen as "suspicious" that "the 3 best players ever" were all born in the 80s, but in my opinion they are. If I had to give a reason why, I'd say the sport of tennis has evolved to its peak just like the music analogy and these 3 were fiercely dedicated, insanely talented unique personalities at the right time (peak athletic training/nutrition/technology yet not quite yet into the soft broadband snce age 4 gen y players). You could argue that IF Sampras was born in 1980s he would also rise the same way given these right conditions. But he wasn't. In other words, we can only go by what is, not what could be. Everyone who acheives anything is basically standing on the shoulders of giants that came before them, but if you're better than that giant, then you're better plain and simple IMO.

Obviously in the case of Pete, it's not by a lot, Djokovic for example I think is just a tad greater than him as of now, but the general point I'm making is the same either way.

In the NBA, there are certain stats which ARE flawed for historical comparison, for example offense is on the rise, the pace of play is higher, 3 pointers galore. James Harden is putting up stats that are Michael Jordan level or better on offense right now. Few think he is better than Michael Jordan.

However, in the accomplishments/slams way of how we judge a tennis player a better analogy would be team success in terms of championships won. In this metric if you had say 3 great franchises, 2 of whom won 5 championships each in 20 years, and the other won 7 in a row or something, I don't think you could say the 2nd and 3rd best were worse than an all time great team that won 3 championships but were the best of their own era back in the 90s. The fact that there was so much success by a few different teams could raise questions about a watered down league (weak era) which is fair eough to debate, but again I don't get the by default being the best of your generation means you are better than someone who is not argument.
 
You're never going to get into an argument with me about players. Who I like has nothing to do with who I think is great, and I absolutely reject the idea of a GOAT. I think it's just stupid. I mean REALLY REALLY stupid!!!

As for who is the best of this era, that will not be sorted out until the Big Three end their careers. Of course even then people will argue incessantly, but at least we will have stable facts. Right now we have three incomplete careers. "It ain't over til it's over!"

Meanwhile, this may be the best parody I've ever heard in my life. It sums up how stupid I think trolling is:


Haha

That video is bloody awesome.

:cool:
 

Rabe87

Professional
Please follow your own advice and learn tennis history (also, take a look at how dominance is determined, ever heard of standard deviation? - by your definition, Borg was not dominant because he did not win AO or USO).
All I can hear is you claiming Sampras had a similar level of dominance to Joe which is *laughable*, how many ATP clay events did Sampras win, Joe has won every clay M1000 and RG, sorry, but Pistol Petey is a few levels below the great Joe Kovic.
 

mahesh69a

Professional
All I can hear is you claiming Sampras had a similar level of dominance to Joe which is *laughable*, how many ATP clay events did Sampras win, Joe has won every clay M1000 and RG, sorry, but Pistol Petey is a few levels below the great Joe Kovic.
I like Djokovic, but refuse to place him 'leagues' or 'stratospheres' above Sampras. My mistake - I did not see your posting history before I replied. Now, I realize you are one of those obsessive 'fans'. I will not reply further to you.
 

Rabe87

Professional
I like Djokovic, but refuse to place him 'leagues' or 'stratospheres' above Sampras. My mistake - I did not see your posting history before I replied. Now, I realize you are one of those obsessive 'fans'. I will not reply further to you.
You dont have to put him leagues ahead - he already is x
 

brystone

Semi-Pro
I think Djokovic is clearly more dominant than Sampras. Not only since he is great on all surfaces which Sampras is not, but because he has 2 different 3 slam years while Sampras doesnt even have 1. The only counter argument for Sampras in that category is the 6 straight year end #1s but only 2 of those were even semi dominant years.
And some of those years like 1998 and even 1996 (good in terms of titles but really crappy slam results overall for a YE#1 even with the U.S Open win) are amongst the worst YE#1 years in the Open Era, which speaks the quality (or lack thereof) of the competition. Murray has even had some years better than those which he didnt even come close to ending #1.

And even if their dominance were on par Djokovic is clearly ahead in consistency, clearly ahead in versatility, and probably even now slightly ahead in longevity.

I do think Sampras at his best would do well against anyone on medium to fast courts, including Federer, in a head to head situation. At this point it isnt enough to keep him from dropping down given his already career stats though. Djokovic had probably already passed him at 13 slams, clearly had at 14, so there is nothing to discuss now.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Agreed lol Djok has way more finals. a 2-1 h2h means little in comparison with that.

Similarly I had Fed tied or ahead with Novak at AO until last week because of the extra final (and way more semifinals) until last week.

that
plus
the 3 times Nadal met Djokovic at the USO were literally his 3 best runs (form-wise) at the USO - 10, 11 and 13.
15 would've been a massive blowout had Nadal not choked vs fognini.
djoko would've been favoured in 07,08,09,16 had they met.

so the h2h doesn't really mean that much.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
You dont have to put him leagues ahead - he already is x

yeah, in your dream land.
Pretty sure you wouldn't have the guts to be here from mid-16 to clay season 2018.
Now of course with Djokovic's success in the last 7 months or so , guys like you come in and keep yapping non-sense.
 

-NN-

G.O.A.T.
@Gary Duane

so much there, easier to reply like this



As far as music analogy, I agree with the perfected thing, but that is what I think happened in tennis....each generation gets better and better athletically, diet, nutrition then sort of levels out. Certain future conditions could be seen as not progressing any further for peak athletic development in a given sport or even regressing. For example the early-mid 90s players could be seen as weak minded, soft etc. I don't think they have access to anything better or the sport is evovling anymore so the top guys are holding on. You could argue back and forth on whether that is inflating their slam count, I don't mind considering it. Although subjectively, I do think Fedovical are very, very special and unique players/athletes and see nothing wrong with considering them the best 3 of all time.

I still see a bit of on one hand you are saying how flawed a comparison is, yet you are still doing it yourself in some way.

In considering someone the best of their generation as an important criteria, you already ARE comparing different generations whether you like it or not.

Anyways, this argument seems to hold that "relative" level is important compared to one's peers. I see the logic here. But I would argue that relative level is ALREADY taken into account. Each one of Fedovical has had to beat their peers to win each of their slams just as Sampras did his. All 3 have stood out more against their peers than Sampras at slams.

The fact that it's 3 in relatively close chronological order and in direct competition with eachother shouldn't invalidate the 2 of them that don't end up as the best of their generation (invalidate necessarily as being as good as the best of a previous era I mean)

Now, I would say I think there is SOME merit to this train of though. I can see why it might be seen as "suspicious" that "the 3 best players ever" were all born in the 80s, but in my opinion they are. If I had to give a reason why, I'd say the sport of tennis has evolved to its peak just like the music analogy and these 3 were fiercely dedicated, insanely talented unique personalities at the right time (peak athletic training/nutrition/technology yet not quite yet into the soft broadband snce age 4 gen y players). You could argue that IF Sampras was born in 1980s he would also rise the same way given these right conditions. But he wasn't. In other words, we can only go by what is, not what could be. Everyone who acheives anything is basically standing on the shoulders of giants that came before them, but if you're better than that giant, then you're better plain and simple IMO.

Obviously in the case of Pete, it's not by a lot, Djokovic for example I think is just a tad greater than him as of now, but the general point I'm making is the same either way.

In the NBA, there are certain stats which ARE flawed for historical comparison, for example offense is on the rise, the pace of play is higher, 3 pointers galore. James Harden is putting up stats that are Michael Jordan level or better on offense right now. Few think he is better than Michael Jordan.

However, in the accomplishments/slams way of how we judge a tennis player a better analogy would be team success in terms of championships won. In this metric if you had say 3 great franchises, 2 of whom won 5 championships each in 20 years, and the other won 7 in a row or something, I don't think you could say the 2nd and 3rd best were worse than an all time great team that won 3 championships but were the best of their own era back in the 90s. The fact that there was so much success by a few different teams could raise questions about a watered down league (weak era) which is fair eough to debate, but again I don't get the by default being the best of your generation means you are better than someone who is not argument.

Reasonable suppositious claim:

Take away two of Trifecta and the era probably looks similar to the 90s with Murray winning a few extra and whichever one of the Big Three is left would probably win even more than they have done in the reality we know. Many "mugs" would look rich and guys like Andy freakin' Roddick would go down as a semi-legend.

Trifecta formed a blanket of denial which suffocated the tour not just at Slam level but largely at Masters level, with an unbelievable greed which had the worst distribution imaginable for the tour because one chappy has grass as his best surface, one has hardcourt as his best surface, and one has clay as his best surface. Every single base covered. Absolutely brutal.
 

tennisfan2015

Hall of Fame
That because Sampras is being measured over his whole career and that Djokovic is only measured by his career to this point, it somehow benefits Djokovic. I can't see at all how Djokovic playing longer will make this any more in Sampras' favor.
I never meant that it would disadvantage Novk
 

TheGhostOfAgassi

Talk Tennis Guru
Oh come on, all fans use double standards, only 1% of people here are actually rational, it's a waste of time.
The only reason why I argued is because my life was empty without goals, to distract myself, otherwise goat thing is irrelevant.
Wow

This was refreshing. The blunt truth

I feel the same.
 
Top