Requesting More Objectivity Here

RaulRamirez

Legend
A Quick Rant – Not My First, and Probably not My Last

Especially with large portions of the world at war or in great turmoil, and personal challenges that we all face, there are a zillion things much more important than tennis, and GOAT races. And I admit that I enter a lot of these threads, and also know that tennis (playing, watching and discussing) can all be great fun. I wouldn’t be here otherwise.

And it really doesn’t matter to me, per se, that everyone agree with me on various discussion points, such as who the mythical GOAT is. It just bothers me (it’s how I’m wired, I suppose) that people can’t either present objective arguments or distinguish between their preference (what they’d like to see) and reality (what they have seen).

Some aspects of these discussions are truly subjective, and disagreements – if civil – can be fun, as they’re inherently unwinnable or I suppose, unlosable. There are no stats to support or rebut who your favorite player is, or who you find to be the most exciting, the greatest ambassador, even if you want to say who the “best person” is, not that we really know them personally. But bringing these considerations to objective discussions is ludicrous.

I see a lot of subjectivity as to who one sees as the best player at their absolute peak (even if just confined, as I do, to players who only competed in the Open Era. Subjectively, I don’t know who was the most talented or skilled player, but it seems that this comes down to, chronologically, Borg, Sampras, Roger, Rafa and Novak. Yes, there’s subjectivity there.

But if we – as I think is the only way to look at it – try to come to terms with who the mythical goat (Open Era) is, it has to be achievement-based or you’re just letting subjectivity come into play. Each of The Big 3 has left Borg, Sampras and everyone else way behind in achievements, and these three guys have the three-most played rivalries of the Open Era. Maybe, numbers would have looked different if they were all born in the same year, or in each other’s years (nobody has any clue if it would look different if that were the case), and it’s cool to speculate. But all the same junk about weak eras and weak draws and Career Inflation Eras, etc, is incredibly tiresome and either pure excuse-making or exercises in denigrating others.

So unless Rafa (and I love the guy and would never count him out) makes a miraculous comeback, how do you spin that he’s better than Novak when he has two fewer slams, three fewer M1000s, two fewer YE#1s, and 186 less weeks at #1? This doesn’t even mention ATP Finals and the Nole Slam.

And unless Roger unretires and performs more miracles (and I have all the admiration in the world for him), how do you spin that he’s better than Novak when he has four fewer slams, 11 fewer M1000s, two fewer YE#1s, and 85 less weeks at #1…not to mention the Nole Slam, two more career slams, etc.

Yes, I have long regarded the B3 as three mythical goats, and perhaps, to some degree, always will as they’re forever intertwined. But the achievement gap is sizable now, and nobody who is being honest can spin it differently – at least as it applies to these three.
 

NoleFam

Bionic Poster
f90e1ed4-de23-4230-97c9-f90872142a2a_text.gif


Great points but unfortunately it will fall on deaf ears. Some people are too invested in the way they feel or what they've felt all these years to accept the hardcore numbers and irrefutable stats at this point.
 

Federev

G.O.A.T.
So unless Rafa (and I love the guy and would never count him out) makes a miraculous comeback, how do you spin that he’s better than Novak when he has two fewer slams, three fewer M1000s, two fewer YE#1s, and 186 less weeks at #1? This doesn’t even mention ATP Finals and the Nole Slam.

And unless Roger unretires and performs more miracles (and I have all the admiration in the world for him), how do you spin that he’s better than Novak when he has four fewer slams, 11 fewer M1000s, two fewer YE#1s, and 85 less weeks at #1…not to mention the Nole Slam, two more career slams, etc.

Yes, I have long regarded the B3 as three mythical goats, and perhaps, to some degree, always will as they’re forever intertwined. But the achievement gap is sizable now, and nobody who is being honest can spin it differently – at least as it applies to these three.
“Better” at what?

Better at winning the most slams? Novak, no doubt. “Math is math”.

Better at playing the best tennis one can play during their best years?

That’s different.

To me - that’s the GOAT. Who played the best tennis when they were at their best.

For my money - off clay - that’s Fed.

I’d take him at his peak, playing his very best, against any player except prime Rafa on clay.

Novak won the majority of his slams after he turned 28. That’s very odd and goes against the historical norm of when a player’s physiological peak is in tennis; the mid twenties.

I think this is because Novak could never dominate Federer until Federer was well diminished and far older than Novak. Even in Fed’s early post-prime years he could still beat peak Novak ( see RG ‘11 and WB’12 ).

Novak can win 50 more slams in his late 30s and 40s. It won’t change a thing for me.
 
Last edited:

RaulRamirez

Legend
All of that verbiage, because you WANT there to be a GOAT.
I couldn't give a rat's ass about it, as I have already stated.
No one can take away the bliss I enjoyed for years watching Mecir play (live). Absolutely NO ONE.
And the guy never even won ONE bloody slam!!!
No, I think you're missing my point(s).
If we're ranking players, at least do it with objectivity or recognize that you (I don't mean you) are incapable of doing so.
It's the complete inability of some to recognize this (whether about tennis, other sports or real life) that drives me bonkers.

As to just enjoying the game, I hope to always be able to do so. Miloslav Mecir was a joy to watch, as have been dozens of men and women players over the years. And hey, my screen name isn't completely arbitrary. When I was a kid just getting into tennis, I took to RR, a very good, but not "great" player, but I loved watching him play singles and doubles (mostly with Brian Gottfried -- still my favorite all-time doubles team).
 

RaulRamirez

Legend
“Better” at what?

Better at winning the most slams? Novak, no doubt. “Math is math”.

Better at playing the best tennis one can play during their best years?

That’s different.

To me - that’s the GOAT. Who played the best tennis when they were at their best.

For my money - off clay - that’s Fed.

I’d take him at his peak, playing his very best, against any player except prime Rafa on clay.

Novak won the majority of his slams after he turned 28. That’s very odd and goes against the historical norm of when a player’s physiological peak is in tennis; the mid twenties.

I think this is because Novak could never dominate Federer until Federer was well diminished and far older than Novak. Even in Fed’s early post-prime years he could still beat peak Novak ( see RG ‘11 and WB’12 ).

Novak can win 50 more slams in his late 30s and 40s. It won’t change a thing for me.
I think (and even though you're among the most objective prominent Fedfans here) you've proven my point.
Especially your last sentence.
Saying that Fed had the highest peak (yes, off clay) of all players is reasonable, but it's highly subjective. I may even agree with that. But denigrating someone's achievements for winning most their slams after 28 is so arbitrary. You're setting up a condition where, in your mind, you can't lose a debate...which happens here repeatedly.

So, saying that Fed having the highest peak is subjective, but quite reasonable.
Your argument against Novak's achievements is simply a wish list declaring who your favorite player is (and isn't).
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
The issue is that Nole fans think their idol is the goat and demand everyone has to accept it too. If other fans don't share the same view, Nole fans get all upset and offended. Why?

Rather than just let it go, they resort to spam this place with goat threads and echoing the same tiresome topic.

Djokovic fans are not objective, they are in no position to request more objectivity from other fan base
 

Federev

G.O.A.T.
I think (and even though you're among the most objective prominent Fedfans here) you've proven my point.
Especially your last sentence.
Saying that Fed had the highest peak (yes, off clay) of all players is reasonable, but it's highly subjective. I may even agree with that. But denigrating someone's achievements for winning most their slams after 28 is so arbitrary. You're setting up a condition where, in your mind, you can't lose a debate...which happens here repeatedly.

So, saying that Fed having the highest peak is subjective, but quite reasonable.
Your argument against Novak's achievements is simply a wish list declaring who your favorite player is (and isn't).
Hmmm. Not denigrating. Or at least not intentionally.

Just facts and - yes - my subjective conclusion from the facts.

And my hypothesis as to why is about Fed’s greatness, not a denigration of Novak.

The facts you have is that Novak won the most slams, etc … so in your view he is better than Fed.

But…Better at what?

Winning slams? Yes.

But that’s essentially restating His stats with other words.

Better at tennis? In what way? In winning more slams? But you already said that when you said he won more slams, etc.

Unless you make clear what you mean by better, I’m not sure what your conclusion is … or how your conclusion is any less subjective than mine.

Maybe a better question to ask from my perspective is this: why couldn’t Novak dominate the tour in his peak years like Federer did? The typical answer is - he had better competition. But that just raises another question: if he really is qualitatively better at tennis than Federer and Nadal and others, then why did they stop him from dominating the tour in his peak years like Federer did?

Why did he have to wait till Federer was diminished so far past his peak years before he took over the H2H? Isn’t he just a better player? Don’t his fans claim he’s the GOAT?

Fed was still able to beat him soundly at slams up to2012, when Roger was almost 31 and Novak was peak at 25. How does this prove Novak is better at tennis?

That’s why to me it sounds like you’re really just saying “why don’t we just admit Novak has the better records”.

You got my vote. No one can deny that.

Novak’s stats are unimpeachable, but there are other numbers.

Like …28 years old.
 
Last edited:

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
A Quick Rant – Not My First, and Probably not My Last

Especially with large portions of the world at war or in great turmoil, and personal challenges that we all face, there are a zillion things much more important than tennis, and GOAT races. And I admit that I enter a lot of these threads, and also know that tennis (playing, watching and discussing) can all be great fun. I wouldn’t be here otherwise.

And it really doesn’t matter to me, per se, that everyone agree with me on various discussion points, such as who the mythical GOAT is. It just bothers me (it’s how I’m wired, I suppose) that people can’t either present objective arguments or distinguish between their preference (what they’d like to see) and reality (what they have seen).

Some aspects of these discussions are truly subjective, and disagreements – if civil – can be fun, as they’re inherently unwinnable or I suppose, unlosable. There are no stats to support or rebut who your favorite player is, or who you find to be the most exciting, the greatest ambassador, even if you want to say who the “best person” is, not that we really know them personally. But bringing these considerations to objective discussions is ludicrous.

I see a lot of subjectivity as to who one sees as the best player at their absolute peak (even if just confined, as I do, to players who only competed in the Open Era. Subjectively, I don’t know who was the most talented or skilled player, but it seems that this comes down to, chronologically, Borg, Sampras, Roger, Rafa and Novak. Yes, there’s subjectivity there.

But if we – as I think is the only way to look at it – try to come to terms with who the mythical goat (Open Era) is, it has to be achievement-based or you’re just letting subjectivity come into play. Each of The Big 3 has left Borg, Sampras and everyone else way behind in achievements, and these three guys have the three-most played rivalries of the Open Era. Maybe, numbers would have looked different if they were all born in the same year, or in each other’s years (nobody has any clue if it would look different if that were the case), and it’s cool to speculate. But all the same junk about weak eras and weak draws and Career Inflation Eras, etc, is incredibly tiresome and either pure excuse-making or exercises in denigrating others.

So unless Rafa (and I love the guy and would never count him out) makes a miraculous comeback, how do you spin that he’s better than Novak when he has two fewer slams, three fewer M1000s, two fewer YE#1s, and 186 less weeks at #1? This doesn’t even mention ATP Finals and the Nole Slam.

And unless Roger unretires and performs more miracles (and I have all the admiration in the world for him), how do you spin that he’s better than Novak when he has four fewer slams, 11 fewer M1000s, two fewer YE#1s, and 85 less weeks at #1…not to mention the Nole Slam, two more career slams, etc.

Yes, I have long regarded the B3 as three mythical goats, and perhaps, to some degree, always will as they’re forever intertwined. But the achievement gap is sizable now, and nobody who is being honest can spin it differently – at least as it applies to these three.
You are right.

UTS started goatlist and guess what.

Every single category Nole came on top.

Default - what @timnz used to do
GS big titles and number 1
Minimalist
Peak emphasis
Minimalistic peak
Era difficulty


In some lists Nadal came second and in others fed came second. In some Connors came fourth and in some Sampras came fourth.

What it means is there can be discussion about who is second best third best etc. But objectively, which is looking at the results, there is absolutely unquestionably no doubt Nole is the GOAT now.

I disregard whatever fedal fans say most of the time by now since many of them are not truthful.
 

RoddickAce

Hall of Fame
Always appreciate a civilized and objective discussion. Here's my take.

There is much debate because "greatness" is by nature a subjective term. For example, let's look outside of sports for a moment. Who is the greatest singer? The one with most awards? In tech - who is greater, Bill Gates, Elon Musk or Steve Jobs? Is it the one that has achieved the greatest level of net worth, or the one that had the most profound impact on their industry?
Some would argue that sports are competition-driven and therefore easier to compare. Yes, but while not as obvious corporations are also by their very nature intended to compete in capitalist markets. This analogy is only to illustrate the high-level concept that "greatness" is not a perfectly defined term and is inherently highly subjective based on personal preference. So I will refrain from diving further as means to avoid misinterpetation or subsequent straw-man counterarguments.

Within my circle of friends, and from observation on TW, there is no doubt that Fedal fans acknowledge Djoko's achievements as being superior. However there are multiple sentiments holding back why Fedal fans do not accept Djoko as "GOAT" - being the many controversies and also the regular on-court tantrums and destruction of racquets and/or property of tournament. This does not seem to be a "good look" or representation of the sport. This matters to them, but it might not to you. Who cares?

Another aspect is entertainment value. Sports are a form of entertainment. Period. Otherwise there is no $ to be generated. Many Fedal fans simply do not find Djoko's game entertaining. Yes, it is effective and you absolutely cannot blame Djoko for employing the style of play that allows him to win the most. But again, sports are a form of entertainment. If you have a soccer great come along and overtake the records of Messi, Ronaldo, Pele, Maradona etc. by ~10-20% but they play a very consistent defensive style that relies on pressuring errors from the opposing team, many fans will likely still consider the other players with more flair as "greater" as there is a higher entertainment value and perceived level of difficulty/skill in executing a difficult game. Obviously this only applies to greats with comparable ranges of numbers, as Kyrgios or Rios are entertaining but would never be in GOAT discussions.

Finally, from what I can tell Fedal fans react negatively in threads not due to hate for Djoko; but rather because they are fed up with the constant posts about every single record Djokovic sets, or every article that shows how his popularity went up. It's almost a vicious cycle where Fedal fans do not find Djoko entertaining, so Djoko fans post more stats to try to convince Fedal fans to like him more, which actually ironically results in more dissent.

Imo - none of this should matter. If the qualitative factors above don't matter to you, then that's fine. Djoko is your GOAT. Fedal fans will have different opinions and that is fine too. No need to care too much about convincing each other about this inherently subjective and physically non-existent title of GOAT. But this is a tennis forum, so it is fun to debate.

Tl;dr - people have different preferences and GOAT is subjective. Debate respectfully and don't need to feel so invested about the successes of multi-millionaires that don't even know who we are.
 

Federev

G.O.A.T.
Always appreciate a civilized and objective discussion. Here's my take.

There is much debate because "greatness" is by nature a subjective term. For example, let's look outside of sports for a moment. Who is the greatest singer? The one with most awards? In tech - who is greater, Bill Gates, Elon Musk or Steve Jobs? Is it the one that has achieved the greatest level of net worth, or the one that had the most profound impact on their industry?
Some would argue that sports are competition-driven and therefore easier to compare. Yes, but while not as obvious corporations are also by their very nature intended to compete in capitalist markets. This analogy is only to illustrate the high-level concept that "greatness" is not a perfectly defined term and is inherently highly subjective based on personal preference. So I will refrain from diving further as means to avoid misinterpetation or subsequent straw-man counterarguments.

Within my circle of friends, and from observation on TW, there is no doubt that Fedal fans acknowledge Djoko's achievements as being superior. However there are multiple sentiments holding back why Fedal fans do not accept Djoko as "GOAT" - being the many controversies and also the regular on-court tantrums and destruction of racquets and/or property of tournament. This does not seem to be a "good look" or representation of the sport. This matters to them, but it might not to you. Who cares?

Another aspect is entertainment value. Sports are a form of entertainment. Period. Otherwise there is no $ to be generated. Many Fedal fans simply do not find Djoko's game entertaining. Yes, it is effective and you absolutely cannot blame Djoko for employing the style of play that allows him to win the most. But again, sports are a form of entertainment. If you have a soccer great come along and overtake the records of Messi, Ronaldo, Pele, Maradona etc. by ~10-20% but they play a very consistent defensive style that relies on pressuring errors from the opposing team, many fans will likely still consider the other players with more flair as "greater" as there is a higher entertainment value and perceived level of difficulty/skill in executing a difficult game. Obviously this only applies to greats with comparable ranges of numbers, as Kyrgios or Rios are entertaining but would never be in GOAT discussions.

Finally, from what I can tell Fedal fans react negatively in threads not due to hate for Djoko; but rather because they are fed up with the constant posts about every single record Djokovic sets, or every article that shows how his popularity went up. It's almost a vicious cycle where Fedal fans do not find Djoko entertaining, so Djoko fans post more stats to try to convince Fedal fans to like him more, which actually ironically results in more dissent.

Imo - none of this should matter. If the qualitative factors above don't matter to you, then that's fine. Djoko is your GOAT. Fedal fans will have different opinions and that is fine too. No need to care too much about convincing each other about this inherently subjective and physically non-existent title of GOAT. But this is a tennis forum, so it is fun to debate.

Tl;dr - people have different preferences and GOAT is subjective. Debate respectfully and don't need to feel so invested about the successes of multi-millionaires that don't even know who we are.

A lot of good stuff in here!
 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
Rafa could have (& still can, but chances are dim) emerged as GOAT if he had more slams than Djokovic.

Even if Rafa is tied he can say he is equally good as Novak, the rank 1 stats, masters and other things actually won't support Novak to put him ahead IMO, Slam titles will ensure Nadal is always tied because Rafa too has his surface dominance as a unique thing in his favour..

But being behind Novak in slams is what causes Rafa's case to lose because that seals it entirely.
 
Last edited:

onehandbh

G.O.A.T.
It just bothers me (it’s how I’m wired, I suppose) that people can’t either present objective arguments or distinguish between their preference (what they’d like to see) and reality (what they have seen).​
Objectively, do you think vaccines are effective? The covid vaccines? Pros outweight the cons?
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
No, I think you're missing my point(s).
If we're ranking players, at least do it with objectivity or recognize that you (I don't mean you) are incapable of doing so.
It's the complete inability of some to recognize this (whether about tennis, other sports or real life) that drives me bonkers.

As to just enjoying the game, I hope to always be able to do so. Miloslav Mecir was a joy to watch, as have been dozens of men and women players over the years. And hey, my screen name isn't completely arbitrary. When I was a kid just getting into tennis, I took to RR, a very good, but not "great" player, but I loved watching him play singles and doubles (mostly with Brian Gottfried -- still my favorite all-time doubles team).

You make excellent points. There have been many legendary players out there. It's not all about the Slam count and who has won the most.
 

aldeayeah

G.O.A.T.
I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish here @RaulRamirez.

Do you seriously expect people to stop spinning stories based on their personal experiences, tastes and biases?

That's just against human nature, and counting numbers is not the reason why most people become sports fans.

It's natural, and I'd even say it's right that we are biased and emotional about it. As people tend to be about the things they love.
 
Last edited:

Matrix968

Semi-Pro
A Quick Rant – Not My First, and Probably not My Last

Especially with large portions of the world at war or in great turmoil, and personal challenges that we all face, there are a zillion things much more important than tennis, and GOAT races. And I admit that I enter a lot of these threads, and also know that tennis (playing, watching and discussing) can all be great fun. I wouldn’t be here otherwise.

And it really doesn’t matter to me, per se, that everyone agree with me on various discussion points, such as who the mythical GOAT is. It just bothers me (it’s how I’m wired, I suppose) that people can’t either present objective arguments or distinguish between their preference (what they’d like to see) and reality (what they have seen).

Some aspects of these discussions are truly subjective, and disagreements – if civil – can be fun, as they’re inherently unwinnable or I suppose, unlosable. There are no stats to support or rebut who your favorite player is, or who you find to be the most exciting, the greatest ambassador, even if you want to say who the “best person” is, not that we really know them personally. But bringing these considerations to objective discussions is ludicrous.

I see a lot of subjectivity as to who one sees as the best player at their absolute peak (even if just confined, as I do, to players who only competed in the Open Era. Subjectively, I don’t know who was the most talented or skilled player, but it seems that this comes down to, chronologically, Borg, Sampras, Roger, Rafa and Novak. Yes, there’s subjectivity there.

But if we – as I think is the only way to look at it – try to come to terms with who the mythical goat (Open Era) is, it has to be achievement-based or you’re just letting subjectivity come into play. Each of The Big 3 has left Borg, Sampras and everyone else way behind in achievements, and these three guys have the three-most played rivalries of the Open Era. Maybe, numbers would have looked different if they were all born in the same year, or in each other’s years (nobody has any clue if it would look different if that were the case), and it’s cool to speculate. But all the same junk about weak eras and weak draws and Career Inflation Eras, etc, is incredibly tiresome and either pure excuse-making or exercises in denigrating others.

So unless Rafa (and I love the guy and would never count him out) makes a miraculous comeback, how do you spin that he’s better than Novak when he has two fewer slams, three fewer M1000s, two fewer YE#1s, and 186 less weeks at #1? This doesn’t even mention ATP Finals and the Nole Slam.

And unless Roger unretires and performs more miracles (and I have all the admiration in the world for him), how do you spin that he’s better than Novak when he has four fewer slams, 11 fewer M1000s, two fewer YE#1s, and 85 less weeks at #1…not to mention the Nole Slam, two more career slams, etc.

Yes, I have long regarded the B3 as three mythical goats, and perhaps, to some degree, always will as they’re forever intertwined. But the achievement gap is sizable now, and nobody who is being honest can spin it differently – at least as it applies to these three.
Always pleasure to read your posts, respect...
 

FeroBango

Legend
Djokovic is the most accomplished and therefore is the GOAT should there be one, just as Federer was for eleven years.

But I was ready enough to accept Rafa an equal to Fed by 2014, and Nole, by 2015/16. In other words, "GOAThood" has had a more fluid, flexible meaning in my eyes for several years now.

Federer and Nadal in the same vein, are equals to Djokovic today in my eyes. Hell, so is Borg.
 

Towny

Hall of Fame
I think part of the issue is that the very term GOAT as in 'Greatest of all time' is itself a somewhat subjective term. What does 'greatest' mean? The most achievements? The highest peak? The biggest impact on the game? And then these also can introduce further subjectivity.

Achievements is probably our best bet for the closest criterion to objectivity. At which point it's hard to argue against Djokovic. Maybe we could argue for Laver or Gonzales based off them having a very different tour, but for the Open Era, I think Djokovic clearly has achieved the most.

But if someone wants to use a different criterion for GOAThood, I say they're entitled to do so. Greatest, as I said, is a somewhat subjective term. There is no standard definition of GOAT. And in some eyes, there may be no GOAT at all.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
I think part of the issue is that the very term GOAT as in 'Greatest of all time' is itself a somewhat subjective term. What does 'greatest' mean? The most achievements? The highest peak? The biggest impact on the game? And then these also can introduce further subjectivity.

Achievements is probably our best bet for the closest criterion to objectivity. At which point it's hard to argue against Djokovic. Maybe we could argue for Laver or Gonzales based off them having a very different tour, but for the Open Era, I think Djokovic clearly has achieved the most.

But if someone wants to use a different criterion for GOAThood, I say they're entitled to do so. Greatest, as I said, is a somewhat subjective term. There is no standard definition of GOAT. And in some eyes, there may be no GOAT at all.
Indeed, the numbers are the numbers but the relative weighting and hierarchy of those numbers is subjective.

I think it's easy to spot when someone is arguing from a position of intellectual dishonesty. However if someone believes that how those numbers were won is as important as the total I don't think that's necessarily unobjective.

Numbers are numbers, and are interpretation of those numbers in a GOAT debate are inherently subjective to varying degrees.
 
D

Deleted member 758560

Guest
But…Better at what?

Winning slams? Yes.

But that’s essentially restating His stats with other words.

Better at tennis? In what way? In winning more slams?
you dont see a small flaw in that method of proving whos better..you look at the problem only from the side that is favorable to you, from one side of the forest, but not from a bird’s eye view..lets switch djo-fed situation here to a similar situation with ndal-fed (in both cases one guy is at peak and the other is not), and again lets base our conclusion on just 2-3 matches they played between each other, and now lets take a look at big struggles of fed with ndal in those matches on hard, and now lets say, look, its so obvious if not peak ndal gave struggles to peak fed and think now what would happen to fed had it been peak ndal on hard, from this we can conclude that ndal over fed overall (on hard and clay), and if you wanna claim this method doesnt work in fed-nadal comparison like that it means it doesnt work also in that case with djo-fed case and so on
 

jl809

Legend
all the same junk about weak eras and weak draws and Career Inflation Eras, etc, is incredibly tiresome and either pure excuse-making or exercises in denigrating others.​

Tiresome, yes. But that’s as far as I agree with this. Everything else you have said just here presents a simplistic, reductionist, childish way of looking at sports debates.

If you think that any attempt to discuss the context behind achievements, especially in an individual sport, is always automatically just “excuses”, and that there is never any validity or fun in examining conditions, competition, level of play, etc, rather than just looking at numbers on a Wikipedia page, then I don’t really know why you are here or what you have actually been reading while you have been on this forum. This is literally the bread and butter of what keeps GPPD alive outside of the match threads and match reports from Wasp lol.

Suit yourself if you want to treat a slam final vs Ruud in the same tier as one vs any slam finalist from whenever, whether that be vs peak PETE or prime Lendl, purely because they are all slam finalists and that in itself is enough. But the idea that it is always just butthurt to point out that they might have been a bit tougher to play against than him is dishonest
 
Last edited:

NatF

Bionic Poster
Tiresome, yes. But that’s as far as I agree with this. Everything else you have said just here presents a simplistic, reductionist, childish way of looking at sports debates.

If you think that any attempt to discuss the context behind achievements, especially in an individual sport, is always automatically just “excuses”, and that there is never any validity or fun in examining conditions, competition, level of play, etc, rather than just looking at numbers on a Wikipedia page, then I don’t really know why you are here or what you have actually been reading while you have been on this forum. This is literally the bread and butter of what keeps GPPD alive outside of the match threads and match reports from Wasp lol.

Suit yourself if you want to treat a slam final vs Ruud in the same tier as one vs any slam finalist from whenever, whether that be vs peak PETE or prime Lendl, purely because they are all slam finalists and that in itself is enough. But the idea that it is always just butthurt to point out that they might have been a bit tougher to play against than him is dishonest
Good poast.

I would in fact argue that disregarding contextual factors completely is unobjective and often as agenda driven as the other side.
 
A Quick Rant – Not My First, and Probably not My Last

Especially with large portions of the world at war or in great turmoil, and personal challenges that we all face, there are a zillion things much more important than tennis, and GOAT races. And I admit that I enter a lot of these threads, and also know that tennis (playing, watching and discussing) can all be great fun. I wouldn’t be here otherwise.

And it really doesn’t matter to me, per se, that everyone agree with me on various discussion points, such as who the mythical GOAT is. It just bothers me (it’s how I’m wired, I suppose) that people can’t either present objective arguments or distinguish between their preference (what they’d like to see) and reality (what they have seen).

Some aspects of these discussions are truly subjective, and disagreements – if civil – can be fun, as they’re inherently unwinnable or I suppose, unlosable. There are no stats to support or rebut who your favorite player is, or who you find to be the most exciting, the greatest ambassador, even if you want to say who the “best person” is, not that we really know them personally. But bringing these considerations to objective discussions is ludicrous.

I see a lot of subjectivity as to who one sees as the best player at their absolute peak (even if just confined, as I do, to players who only competed in the Open Era. Subjectively, I don’t know who was the most talented or skilled player, but it seems that this comes down to, chronologically, Borg, Sampras, Roger, Rafa and Novak. Yes, there’s subjectivity there.

But if we – as I think is the only way to look at it – try to come to terms with who the mythical goat (Open Era) is, it has to be achievement-based or you’re just letting subjectivity come into play. Each of The Big 3 has left Borg, Sampras and everyone else way behind in achievements, and these three guys have the three-most played rivalries of the Open Era. Maybe, numbers would have looked different if they were all born in the same year, or in each other’s years (nobody has any clue if it would look different if that were the case), and it’s cool to speculate. But all the same junk about weak eras and weak draws and Career Inflation Eras, etc, is incredibly tiresome and either pure excuse-making or exercises in denigrating others.

So unless Rafa (and I love the guy and would never count him out) makes a miraculous comeback, how do you spin that he’s better than Novak when he has two fewer slams, three fewer M1000s, two fewer YE#1s, and 186 less weeks at #1? This doesn’t even mention ATP Finals and the Nole Slam.

And unless Roger unretires and performs more miracles (and I have all the admiration in the world for him), how do you spin that he’s better than Novak when he has four fewer slams, 11 fewer M1000s, two fewer YE#1s, and 85 less weeks at #1…not to mention the Nole Slam, two more career slams, etc.

Yes, I have long regarded the B3 as three mythical goats, and perhaps, to some degree, always will as they’re forever intertwined. But the achievement gap is sizable now, and nobody who is being honest can spin it differently – at least as it applies to these three.
I don't understand this. Why not let other people have their own opinions about an inherently somewhat subjective debate instead of trying to force other people to see it from your viewpoint and disguising it underneath the veneer of objectivity?
 

RS

Bionic Poster
f90e1ed4-de23-4230-97c9-f90872142a2a_text.gif


Great points but unfortunately it will fall on deaf ears. Some people are too invested in the way they feel or what they've felt all these years to accept the hardcore numbers and irrefutable stats at this point.
You have been in tons of subjective debates one of the most in NoleFam :p
 

RaulRamirez

Legend
The issue is that Nole fans think their idol is the goat and demand everyone has to accept it too. If other fans don't share the same view, Nole fans get all upset and offended. Why?

Rather than just let it go, they resort to spam this place with goat threads and echoing the same tiresome topic.

Djokovic fans are not objective, they are in no position to request more objectivity from other fan base
Yes, those pro-Djoko threads can get very tiresome, and one can debate which is more tiresome -- those zealously pro-Djoko threads or all the weak era / weak draw / career inflation / age disadvantage threads. If they all disappeared -- along with all the GOAT wars -- I'd be happy. Surely there'd be other things to discuss.
 
Last edited:

RaulRamirez

Legend
Hmmm. Not denigrating. Or at least not intentionally.

Just facts and - yes - my subjective conclusion from the facts.

And my hypothesis as to why is about Fed’s greatness, not a denigration of Novak.

The facts you have is that Novak won the most slams, etc … so in your view he is better than Fed.

But…Better at what?

Winning slams? Yes.

But that’s essentially restating His stats with other words.

Better at tennis? In what way? In winning more slams? But you already said that when you said he won more slams, etc.

Unless you make clear what you mean by better, I’m not sure what your conclusion is … or how your conclusion is any less subjective than mine.

Maybe a better question to ask from my perspective is this: why couldn’t Novak dominate the tour in his peak years like Federer did? The typical answer is - he had better competition. But that just raises another question: if he really is qualitatively better at tennis than Federer and Nadal and others, then why did they stop him from dominating the tour in his peak years like Federer did?

Why did he have to wait till Federer was diminished so far past his peak years before he took over the H2H? Isn’t he just a better player? Don’t his fans claim he’s the GOAT?

Fed was still able to beat him soundly at slams up to2012, when Roger was almost 31 and Novak was peak at 25. How does this prove Novak is better at tennis?

That’s why to me it sounds like you’re really just saying “why don’t we just admit Novak has the better records”.

You got my vote. No one can deny that.

Novak’s stats are unimpeachable, but there are other numbers.

Like …28 years old.
There's much more nuance to what I'm saying, but yes, essentially that's it.
Again, if there was no GOAT talk, that would be cool with me, but it's natural for people to rank people and things, and sports lends itself to this.
But yes, when it's an individual sport - and the best individuals (in the OE) have played each other the most of any other paired rivalries - when one is leading the pack by considerable margins in the most important categories, there's a point at which you have to recognize reality.

Believe me, if they were all retired, and Federer or Rafa...or whomever...clearly had the best numbers, I'd have the same frustration with Novak fans who couldn't accept the obvious.
 

RaulRamirez

Legend
I don't understand this. Why not let other people have their own opinions about an inherently somewhat subjective debate instead of trying to force other people to see it from your viewpoint and disguising it underneath the veneer of objectivity?
There's no disguise and no veneer. Please don't hold me to the same low standards you hold others.
I've expressed myself in the original post as well as in some replies.
It's the inability of people to be objective that drives me bonkers. Including bright people who really know tennis.
 

thrust

Legend
I reject the idea that the GOAT has to be entirely determined by stats. I also don't think completely rejecting the validity of all subjective takes makes you objective either.
Perhaps not entirely determined by stats, but accomplishments/stats are for me, the most important measure as to is the greatest of the open or pre-open eras. Federer played most of his career vs Nadal and Novak and Rafa is practically the same age as Novak, therefore, the age argument or competition quality against Novak is unfair and wrong.
 

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
Tiresome, yes. But that’s as far as I agree with this. Everything else you have said just here presents a simplistic, reductionist, childish way of looking at sports debates.

If you think that any attempt to discuss the context behind achievements, especially in an individual sport, is always automatically just “excuses”, and that there is never any validity or fun in examining conditions, competition, level of play, etc, rather than just looking at numbers on a Wikipedia page, then I don’t really know why you are here or what you have actually been reading while you have been on this forum. This is literally the bread and butter of what keeps GPPD alive outside of the match threads and match reports from Wasp lol.

Suit yourself if you want to treat a slam final vs Ruud in the same tier as one vs any slam finalist from whenever, whether that be vs peak PETE or prime Lendl, purely because they are all slam finalists and that in itself is enough. But the idea that it is always just butthurt to point out that they might have been a bit tougher to play against than him is dishonest
GPPD is now becoming former players talk when two retired players fans are trying to ruin it for us. Lol
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Perhaps not entirely determined by stats, but accomplishments/stats are for me, the most important measure as to is the greatest of the open or pre-open eras. Federer played most of his career vs Nadal and Novak and Rafa is practically the same age as Novak, therefore, the age argument or competition quality against Novak is unfair and wrong.
This is too simplistic imo but ok.
 
There's no disguise and no veneer. Please don't hold me to the same low standards you hold others.
I've expressed myself in the original post as well as in some replies.
It's the inability of people to be objective that drives me bonkers. Including bright people who really know tennis.
In that case, forgive me for being cynical.
I just think that in a discussion such as this, where the definition of 'greatness' can be interpreted differently from person to person, ignoring the contextual arguments being offered and marking them as excuses is just as unobjective as people who throw the numbers out of the window entirely.
At the end of the day, people not agreeing on this debate doesn't seem to be a problem to me. I think it's fine when there is subjectivity in a discussion which can be viewed from different lenses.
That said, we are in agreement that this forum has suffered from an excess of the GOAT debate and it would be nice for other, more interesting topics to come up.
 

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
A Quick Rant – Not My First, and Probably not My Last

Especially with large portions of the world at war or in great turmoil, and personal challenges that we all face, there are a zillion things much more important than tennis, and GOAT races. And I admit that I enter a lot of these threads, and also know that tennis (playing, watching and discussing) can all be great fun. I wouldn’t be here otherwise.

And it really doesn’t matter to me, per se, that everyone agree with me on various discussion points, such as who the mythical GOAT is. It just bothers me (it’s how I’m wired, I suppose) that people can’t either present objective arguments or distinguish between their preference (what they’d like to see) and reality (what they have seen).

Some aspects of these discussions are truly subjective, and disagreements – if civil – can be fun, as they’re inherently unwinnable or I suppose, unlosable. There are no stats to support or rebut who your favorite player is, or who you find to be the most exciting, the greatest ambassador, even if you want to say who the “best person” is, not that we really know them personally. But bringing these considerations to objective discussions is ludicrous.

I see a lot of subjectivity as to who one sees as the best player at their absolute peak (even if just confined, as I do, to players who only competed in the Open Era. Subjectively, I don’t know who was the most talented or skilled player, but it seems that this comes down to, chronologically, Borg, Sampras, Roger, Rafa and Novak. Yes, there’s subjectivity there.

But if we – as I think is the only way to look at it – try to come to terms with who the mythical goat (Open Era) is, it has to be achievement-based or you’re just letting subjectivity come into play. Each of The Big 3 has left Borg, Sampras and everyone else way behind in achievements, and these three guys have the three-most played rivalries of the Open Era. Maybe, numbers would have looked different if they were all born in the same year, or in each other’s years (nobody has any clue if it would look different if that were the case), and it’s cool to speculate. But all the same junk about weak eras and weak draws and Career Inflation Eras, etc, is incredibly tiresome and either pure excuse-making or exercises in denigrating others.

So unless Rafa (and I love the guy and would never count him out) makes a miraculous comeback, how do you spin that he’s better than Novak when he has two fewer slams, three fewer M1000s, two fewer YE#1s, and 186 less weeks at #1? This doesn’t even mention ATP Finals and the Nole Slam.

And unless Roger unretires and performs more miracles (and I have all the admiration in the world for him), how do you spin that he’s better than Novak when he has four fewer slams, 11 fewer M1000s, two fewer YE#1s, and 85 less weeks at #1…not to mention the Nole Slam, two more career slams, etc.

Yes, I have long regarded the B3 as three mythical goats, and perhaps, to some degree, always will as they’re forever intertwined. But the achievement gap is sizable now, and nobody who is being honest can spin it differently – at least as it applies to these three.
The problem is not stats or objectivity and subjectivity. It's some fans of other two who would always find problems with the GOAT.

Arguments will go like this.

Novak has the best stats but he is not the GOAT for xyz personal reasons. When you finally convince them to stick to stats, they will start exploiting terms like inflation era when especially some fraudster Nadal fans are exposed for this. And same with fedfans.

This is circular argument. You can't win with everyone. Only thing you can do is make your own point and leave it for others to make theirs, however stupid it would be.

This certainly doesn't mean you stop creating GOAT posts. They have been part of most sports. In tennis, how many posts are made about top 11-100 players or top 5-10 players? It's just the very top that people are interested in. Their is no local league or playing for the country. So it's fair that only the very top will be discussed.

But at this pt I would reject any other players GOAT candidacy out of the hand. There is no objective argument left. Subjectively even your own local club hero can be the GOAT.
 

RaulRamirez

Legend
Always appreciate a civilized and objective discussion. Here's my take.

There is much debate because "greatness" is by nature a subjective term. For example, let's look outside of sports for a moment. Who is the greatest singer? The one with most awards? In tech - who is greater, Bill Gates, Elon Musk or Steve Jobs? Is it the one that has achieved the greatest level of net worth, or the one that had the most profound impact on their industry?
Some would argue that sports are competition-driven and therefore easier to compare. Yes, but while not as obvious corporations are also by their very nature intended to compete in capitalist markets. This analogy is only to illustrate the high-level concept that "greatness" is not a perfectly defined term and is inherently highly subjective based on personal preference. So I will refrain from diving further as means to avoid misinterpetation or subsequent straw-man counterarguments.

Within my circle of friends, and from observation on TW, there is no doubt that Fedal fans acknowledge Djoko's achievements as being superior. However there are multiple sentiments holding back why Fedal fans do not accept Djoko as "GOAT" - being the many controversies and also the regular on-court tantrums and destruction of racquets and/or property of tournament. This does not seem to be a "good look" or representation of the sport. This matters to them, but it might not to you. Who cares?

Another aspect is entertainment value. Sports are a form of entertainment. Period. Otherwise there is no $ to be generated. Many Fedal fans simply do not find Djoko's game entertaining. Yes, it is effective and you absolutely cannot blame Djoko for employing the style of play that allows him to win the most. But again, sports are a form of entertainment. If you have a soccer great come along and overtake the records of Messi, Ronaldo, Pele, Maradona etc. by ~10-20% but they play a very consistent defensive style that relies on pressuring errors from the opposing team, many fans will likely still consider the other players with more flair as "greater" as there is a higher entertainment value and perceived level of difficulty/skill in executing a difficult game. Obviously this only applies to greats with comparable ranges of numbers, as Kyrgios or Rios are entertaining but would never be in GOAT discussions.

Finally, from what I can tell Fedal fans react negatively in threads not due to hate for Djoko; but rather because they are fed up with the constant posts about every single record Djokovic sets, or every article that shows how his popularity went up. It's almost a vicious cycle where Fedal fans do not find Djoko entertaining, so Djoko fans post more stats to try to convince Fedal fans to like him more, which actually ironically results in more dissent.

Imo - none of this should matter. If the qualitative factors above don't matter to you, then that's fine. Djoko is your GOAT. Fedal fans will have different opinions and that is fine too. No need to care too much about convincing each other about this inherently subjective and physically non-existent title of GOAT. But this is a tennis forum, so it is fun to debate.

Tl;dr - people have different preferences and GOAT is subjective. Debate respectfully and don't need to feel so invested about the successes of multi-millionaires that don't even know who we are.
Good reply, and this line especially resonated with me: Tl;dr - people have different preferences and GOAT is subjective. Debate respectfully and don't need to feel so invested about the successes of multi-millionaires that don't even know who we are.


...

As for "greatness" as a concept, I agree that it's nebulous in almost all endeavors. In my opinion, The Beatles are the greatest rock band of all time. Many may agree, and many disagree. I can point to records sold (objective) and influence (less objective) and to popularity (which could be backed by various surveys and stats), but I don't have a way of saying that their music was better than The Rolling Stones, The Who, U2, whoever. At its core, it's subjective -- who do you prefer? to generalize, I love music, and generally prefer their body of work to all others, including many others that I love. And even if 98% of those surveyed might agree, it's still largely a subjective matter.

But when it comes to individual sports -- especially among players whose careers largely overlapped --I simply don't see room for that much subjectivity.
If someone wants to say that Roger or Rafa excites you more, fine. If someone wants to say that they comport themselves better on court, fine. it's the mixing of the elements that infuriates me, and I'd say the same thing if these were different names being discussed or the names were reversed.

I disagree with the below - not about your circle of friends (I believe you - and many within my circle, of those who follow tennis, tend to see things similarly. But no, to generalize, I don't think that many "Fedal" fans do acknowledge this. Of course, they know the numbers, but all the contextualizing is usually done to not give credit -- to denigrate his achievements or to falsely prop up their own favorite players.
Within my circle of friends, and from observation on TW, there is no doubt that Fedal fans acknowledge Djoko's achievements as being superior.
 

RaulRamirez

Legend
In that case, forgive me for being cynical.
I just think that in a discussion such as this, where the definition of 'greatness' can be interpreted differently from person to person, ignoring the contextual arguments being offered and marking them as excuses is just as unobjective as people who throw the numbers out of the window entirely.
At the end of the day, people not agreeing on this debate doesn't seem to be a problem to me. I think it's fine when there is subjectivity in a discussion which can be viewed from different lenses.
That said, we are in agreement that this forum has suffered from an excess of the GOAT debate and it would be nice for other, more interesting topics to come up.
I'm all for different opinions on a ton of subjects, and I'm very open-minded in life. I'm a mediator by nature.

It's the mixing of the elements that gets me down. If someone wrote, "Roger Federer, to me, will always be the greatest because I think that his style of play was thrilling, he played with amazing grace, was a wonderful ambassador for the sport, and I think that for a 4 to 6 -year period, he was the greatest player I've ever seen".
I can't disagree with any of that. And there are other arguments to be made for Rafa, and possibly Pete.

But it's then taking that personal preference and contorting stats by constantly whining about weak draws, weak eras, career inflation, etc, that takes this from the reasonable, and possibly interesting, to the absurd.
 

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
Tennis scoring is different than Athletics.

The best athlete in Olympics is someone who ran fastest, jumped longest etc. But there is no such criteria in Tennis.
The best gymnast in Olympics is someone who had the most visually appealing split. But there is no such criteria in Tennis.

What wins the matches is tennis rules. So the GOAT can only be by Tennis rules. Not by aesthetics and/or power.
 

Federev

G.O.A.T.
In that case, forgive me for being cynical.
I just think that in a discussion such as this, where the definition of 'greatness' can be interpreted differently from person to person, ignoring the contextual arguments being offered and marking them as excuses is just as unobjective as people who throw the numbers out of the window entirely.
At the end of the day, people not agreeing on this debate doesn't seem to be a problem to me. I think it's fine when there is subjectivity in a discussion which can be viewed from different lenses.
That said, we are in agreement that this forum has suffered from an excess of the GOAT debate and it would be nice for other, more interesting topics to come up.
This is great.
 

Federev

G.O.A.T.
There's much more nuance to what I'm saying, but yes, essentially that's it.
Again, if there was no GOAT talk, that would be cool with me, but it's natural for people to rank people and things, and sports lends itself to this.
But yes, when it's an individual sport - and the best individuals (in the OE) have played each other the most of any other paired rivalries - when one is leading the pack by considerable margins in the most important categories, there's a point at which you have to recognize reality.

Believe me, if they were all retired, and Federer or Rafa...or whomever...clearly had the best numbers, I'd have the same frustration with Novak fans who couldn't accept the obvious.

Thanks. You always reply without vindictive - which is very appreciated.

But I still would like you to answer some questions:

What do you mean when you say Novak is “better than Federer”?

What exactly is he better at?

Do you think his stats prove that at the USO or at Wimbledon or RG - he would beat Federer if they both played at the highest levels in their respective careers?

I ask these questions because - as much as you say I’m simply being subjective - I look at the USO in ‘11, RG in ‘11, and WB in ‘12 - all actual real historical matches - and I conclude that if well post-peak Federer could play peak Novak this well - then it’s highly likely peak Federer would do even better.

Thus my assessment is that it’s highly likely that Federer - at his best - is a better tennis player than Novak - at his best.

Honestly - Why is that so unreasonable?

You may not agree - but is that really entirely subjective and without any evidence - even if you don’t accept it?

In fact - there is little to no data at all to prove that Novak - at his best - is a better tennis player than Federer - at his best.

Give him the next two years of CYGS against the Ruuds and the Medvedevs of the current field and it still doesn’t change his performances against Federer from 2007-2012.
 
Last edited:

RaulRamirez

Legend
Tiresome, yes. But that’s as far as I agree with this. Everything else you have said just here presents a simplistic, reductionist, childish way of looking at sports debates.

If you think that any attempt to discuss the context behind achievements, especially in an individual sport, is always automatically just “excuses”, and that there is never any validity or fun in examining conditions, competition, level of play, etc, rather than just looking at numbers on a Wikipedia page, then I don’t really know why you are here or what you have actually been reading while you have been on this forum. This is literally the bread and butter of what keeps GPPD alive outside of the match threads and match reports from Wasp lol.

Suit yourself if you want to treat a slam final vs Ruud in the same tier as one vs any slam finalist from whenever, whether that be vs peak PETE or prime Lendl, purely because they are all slam finalists and that in itself is enough. But the idea that it is always just butthurt to point out that they might have been a bit tougher to play against than him is dishonest
Okay, but your analysis of my post strikes me as simplistic, reductionist and childish. So let's take this down from the extremes, as I'm anything but an extremist.

I'm spending way too much time on this thread, but in a nutshell, context and nuance is great. But, to generalize, what serves as context and nuance - as played out here - is not particularly enlightening or done with a spirit of discovery and open-mindedness.
 

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
Thanks. You always reply without vindictive - which is very appreciated.

But I still would like you to answer a question:

What do you mean when you say Novak is “better than Federer”?

What exactly is he better at?
What is he better at?
Winning slams. He won his first slam earlier than Federer won his first. At same age Nole has 24, Fed had 19.

Reaching slam finals - 10 finals at USOpen vs 6 (no weak era excuses can save him). Longetivity matters.

Clay record - Better winning %, won all the clay masters many times, a genuine Rome Great something very hard to replicate with 6 titles. 3 RG takes him to top of tennis

Masters champion - 39 masters to 28. 11 more masters

Slam semis - Youngest player to reach all four slam semis and did so consecutively at the age of 20/21 between Wimbledon 2007 to RG 2008. Federer didn't reach a single semis. More slam semis at USOpen than everyone except Connors, more slam semis at RG than anyone except Nadal

Weeks at number 1 - This is achieved by dominating the game, more dominance over the field than Federer.

Winning 4 slams in a row - something not done for 50 years before

Reaching 7 YE number 1 - a record in pre open as well as open era.

Now please don't try to make excuses for any of these.
 

RaulRamirez

Legend
Thanks. You always reply without vindictive - which is very appreciated.

But I still would like you to answer a question:

What do you mean when you say Novak is “better than Federer”?

What exactly is he better at?
Okay. Well, if we just discuss components of the game, (with both, essentially, at their "best"...and doing some form of Brad Gilbert's check marks), I would consider Djokovic to have the better backhand and return of serve, and slightly better movement...or to pin "movement" down - as Fed's movement was also exceptional - slightly more speed and flexibility to produce great shots while fully extended. The better defensive player when that was called for -- perhaps, better shot tolerance.

Roger would merit the edge on serve, the more explosive forehand and net play (obviously including the overhead). Thing is, none of them really had weaknesses --we're comparing 9s and 10s for the most part. And while I never considered Fed to be anything but a strong competitor, perhaps, Novak would merit a slight edge in (the term is overused) mental strength/resilience during matches. Between matches, Roger was amazingly resilient and strong, and also pretty strong mid-match.

This all said, even when doing pre-match analysis, I don't think that you can just compare who has more checkmarks.
And when talking about careers, how can it not be about actual accomplishments? I get that it's impossible to compare any of the Big3 with, say, Laver and Rosewall (let alone Pancho and guys preceding him).It's tough to compare any of them with Sampras, harder to compare them with Borg. And yes, hypothetical matches -- while impossible to predict accurately - can be interesting. But when three guys are contemporaneous, why look at hypothetically how they would line up? One can even throw out head-to-head if you think that (just talking Roger and Novak for now) Novak had the age advantage more often. He's better...greater...simply because he is leading, fairly significantly, in the key accomplishment categories. Since when is that not enough? It may not be enough to like him as much, or his style of play or his temperament (and all this is pretty subjective), but there's really no contextualizing a deficit of 4 slams, 11 Masters, two additional YE#1s and roughly 90 more weeks at #1.
 
Top