Requesting More Objectivity Here

Fedforever

Hall of Fame
I tend to think discussion forums and social media in general would benefit from more kindness and tolerance rather than more objectivity.

Five years ago I might have felt differently - I might have felt duty bound to try and reach some kind of "objective" opinion of GOATNESS.

But now...sod it. Only today I was enjoying an ATP Tweet about Arthur Fil's great Tweener shot in Antwerp and the thread was getting spammed with 40/15 gifs because the commentator had referred to the shot as Federer-like. "OMG, this might give Federer fans a smile and that can't be allowed so let's try and spoil it for them".

Weak Era is just as bad an argument now as it was when Djokodal fans invented the concept but honestly, if Federer fans want to use it in their turn I just can't bring myself to care.
 

AnOctorokForDinner

Talk Tennis Guru
I disagree that only looking at the numbers is the right way to form your opinions. Saying the numbers alone is what determines the best is itself a subjective take. There is no objective argument for stats alone being a better evaluative process than stats supplemented by subjective elements. That said Djokovic has every single stat in his favor and given the massive amount of overlap between these players and the huge samples we have it's pretty implausible that one guy could have so benefitted to make up such a gap. I mean the difference between Fed and Djok for example at this point is a top 15 player ever achievement wise.
Implausible from a djokofan standpoint, of course.
 

Gary Duane

Talk Tennis Guru
The tenants of most modern mainstream thought is based around the fact that most people have a two bit brain. Hence, only four states can be represented, allowing for only two binary variables, the first one being, "does concept X have the best stats", and the second one then being "is concept X therefore the best".

To break this down into any further detail requires either additional bits or higher base computing systems, both of which are sorely lacking in the general population. Hence why most takes you here are two bit takes, a take is only as good as the amount of people that can comprehend it.
I agree 100%. But for simplicity I prefer: you can't fix stupid!!!
 

AnOctorokForDinner

Talk Tennis Guru
I mean, I'd rather everyone rated by level than sheer numbers, and let everyone have their own idea, and I can LOL at the ideas I consider silly (such as Djokovic being in the vicinity of Federer on grass), and you can lol too if you want, no one's there to stop you. That keeps the debate running forever, which is entertaining, yet is potentially more fair than 'bean counting', so it's two in one. It's like Borg being better than Rafter at the USO - a stat warrior should find the idea ridiculous but competition analysis shows the way.
 
I tend to think discussion forums and social media in general would benefit from more kindness and tolerance rather than more objectivity.

Five years ago I might have felt differently - I might have felt duty bound to try and reach some kind of "objective" opinion of GOATNESS.

But now...sod it. Only today I was enjoying an ATP Tweet about Arthur Fil's great Tweener shot in Antwerp and the thread was getting spammed with 40/15 gifs because the commentator had referred to the shot as Federer-like. "OMG, this might give Federer fans a smile and that can't be allowed so let's try and spoil it for them".

Weak Era is just as bad an argument now as it was when Djokodal fans invented the concept but honestly, if Federer fans want to use it in their turn I just can't bring myself to care.
To be fair you are right. I was partly trolling earlier saying Alcaraz is benefiting in weak era.

The weak era concept though is nonsense if you think about it. As no player can control the field so it’s ridiculous to try bring players down based on that.

Obviously the 2008-2016 was the golden spell with most epic matches but outside that it’s not been much different. You can only beat what is there and all titles count the same despite the field.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
To be fair you are right. I was partly trolling earlier saying Alcaraz is benefiting in weak era.

The weak era concept though is nonsense if you think about it. As no player can control the field so it’s ridiculous to try bring players down based on that.

Obviously the 2008-2016 was the golden spell with most epic matches but outside that it’s not been much different. You can only beat what is there and all titles count the same despite the field.
lol at including 2015-2016 but not 2007.
 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
Fair enough. I agree. 2007-2016 then. Probably more accurate.

2007 should not be included as a whole, the aus open was weak, the wimbledon draws pf Fedal were weak as well, US open is also not that strong a slam since roddick met federer in the final and the final opponent was an inexperience choker named glutenovic.

The strong era actually started in 2008 but the french open final and wimbledon final of 07 were super strong matches, cant say the same for the entire year.
 
To be fair you are right. I was partly trolling earlier saying Alcaraz is benefiting in weak era.

The weak era concept though is nonsense if you think about it. As no player can control the field so it’s ridiculous to try bring players down based on that.

Obviously the 2008-2016 was the golden spell with most epic matches but outside that it’s not been much different. You can only beat what is there and all titles count the same despite the field.
Its not nonsense what if djokovics competition was just college tennis players it'd clearly be extremely weak era
 
Its not nonsense what if djokovics competition was just college tennis players it'd clearly be extremely weak era
True but it wouldn’t change how much a slam is worth. The fact is every slam is still recorded the same despite the competition. It is what it is. No one is going to asterisk any of these slams in years to come except a lot of us on TTW. In reality and in tennis world they won’t.

The college tennis players would never happen but I know what you saying. At the end of the day the ATP tennis system is open to same age range of players in teens, 20s or 30s, etc and whatever is on the field is on the field. We will probably never get that golden era level again for a long time or maybe never in our lifetimes so it’s difficult to always expect that to be the norm.
 
Last edited:

TheFifthSet

Legend
2007 should not be included as a whole, the aus open was weak,

Wot?

How was ‘08 AO noticeably stronger?

I’d put ‘07 Fed over ‘08 Djoko, ‘07 Gonzo ~ ‘08 Tsonga and ‘07 Ned ~ ‘08 Ned.


the wimbledon draws pf Fedal were weak as well,

‘07 Nadal had a very difficult draw consisting of Fish, Youz, Soderling, Berdych and Djokovic (albeit an injured one). He also had perhaps his best baselining performance on grass in the the final, or at least on par with his destruction of Murray the following year. A few words on ‘07 Nadal:

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/nadal-in-‘07-vs-nadal-in-‘08.617472/

US open is also not that strong a slam since roddick met federer in the final

?

and the final opponent was an inexperience choker named glutenovic.


‘07 Djokovic played a much better final than ‘08 Murray, so I don’t how mentioning finalists helps your argument.

The strong era actually started in 2008 but the french open final and wimbledon final of 07 were super strong matches, cant say the same for the entire year.

Plenty more arguments for ‘07 being outright better than ‘08 being worlds apart from ‘07.

Winner and finalist levels are one avenue where ‘07 probably holds up well here. How I see it:


AO: 07 Fed > 08 Djoko

IW: 07 Nadal ~ 08 Djoko

Miami: 07 Djoko > 08 Davy

MC: 07 Nadal ~ 08 Nadal

Rome: 07 Nadal > 08 Djokovic

Hamburg: 07 Federer ~ 08 Nadal, could see 08 Ned having the match-up edge though

RG: 07 Nadal < 08 Nadal

Wimby: 07 Fed ~ 08 Nadal

Canada: 07 Djokovic ~ 08 Nadal (generous given how daunting Djokovic’s competition was).

Cincy: 07 Federer < 08 Murray

USO: 07 Federer > 08 Federer

Madrid: 07 Nalbandian > 08 Murray

Paris: 07 Nalbandian ~ 08 Tsonga

YEC: 07 Federer > 08 Djokovic


There’s obviously more that goes into making a year than 14 individual campaigns, but what better place do we have to start?
 
Last edited:

ppma

Professional
It's funny how the same crowd of people who stated that Nadal's 2022 AO was worthless cause Djokovic was banned from Australia are now claiming that the weak era is nonsense.

Yes, much unlikely that Nadal would've won against a potential match against Djokovic in a semi or final in AO, the same way it's unlikely that Djokovic (and Nadal post 2018) could still have been winning big titles with the level of competition that there was in the top 20 during the 2000s and 2010s. But it's always some manipulated rethoric depending on the narrative that one tries to sell as "objective".

The statement that one cannot chose the field (or the draws, lol) does not lead to objectivity, but actually quite to the opposite.
 
Last edited:

jl809

Legend
Even 2004-2005 being below 2015-2016 is sketchy at best.

2006 > 2016
For whole competition / field not just winner:

AO: hard to say really as different surfaces, but maybe 2005 > 2004 > 2016 > 2015 = 2006
RG: 2005 > 2006 > 2015 > 2004 > 2016. Dope Boy gives 2005 the edge over 2006 imo
W: obviously 2016 > all ok so maybe 2006 > 2015 = 2004 > 2005 > 2016
USO: Ehh… maybe 2005 > 2015 > 2006 = 2004 >> 2016
 

RS

Bionic Poster
For whole competition / field not just winner:

AO: hard to say really as different surfaces, but maybe 2005 > 2004 > 2016 > 2015 = 2006
RG: 2005 > 2006 > 2015 > 2004 > 2016. Dope Boy gives 2005 the edge over 2006 imo
W: obviously 2016 > all ok so maybe 2006 > 2015 = 2004 > 2005 > 2016
USO: Ehh… maybe 2005 > 2015 > 2006 = 2004 >> 2016
Wim 05 could be equal Wim 15 because Hewitt 05 ~ Fed 15 and Roddick 05 ~ Anderson 15. Fed possibly best winner and then possibly Stan Gasquet makes it back to the tie.
 

Wurm

Professional
I tend to think discussion forums and social media in general would benefit from more kindness and tolerance rather than more objectivity.

Very much so.

Being able to add reactions to posts is, in my opinion, often the worst thing a forum can have as it leads towards positive feedback loops for attention seeking hyperbole, hysteria and sometimes hostility.

Reddit's up/down voting tends towards forcing people to behave but too many people there think "disagree = downvote" and you can see pile-on downvoting for some really innocuous comments and that creates a parochial community where conformity is king.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
For whole competition / field not just winner:

AO: hard to say really as different surfaces, but maybe 2005 > 2004 > 2016 > 2015 = 2006
RG: 2005 > 2006 > 2015 > 2004 > 2016. Dope Boy gives 2005 the edge over 2006 imo
W: obviously 2016 > all ok so maybe 2006 > 2015 = 2004 > 2005 > 2016
USO: Ehh… maybe 2005 > 2015 > 2006 = 2004 >> 2016

Not much I really disagree with, would put 2004 first for Wimbledon other Wimbledon fine.
 

Clay lover

Legend
Very much so.

Being able to add reactions to posts is, in my opinion, often the worst thing a forum can have as it leads towards positive feedback loops for attention seeking hyperbole, hysteria and sometimes hostility.

Reddit's up/down voting tends towards forcing people to behave but too many people there think "disagree = downvote" and you can see pile-on downvoting for some really innocuous comments and that creates a parochial community where conformity is king.
Cannot agree more about the psychology at play for here and Reddit. Also want to add that the Reddit downvote system just encourages lazy disagreement which allows you to cancel/disregard someone's idea without providing an ounce of argument yourself, which can only discourage actual intellectual discussion
 

TearTheRoofOff

G.O.A.T.
For whole competition / field not just winner:

AO: hard to say really as different surfaces, but maybe 2005 > 2004 > 2016 > 2015 = 2006
RG: 2005 > 2006 > 2015 > 2004 > 2016. Dope Boy gives 2005 the edge over 2006 imo
W: obviously 2016 > all ok so maybe 2006 > 2015 = 2004 > 2005 > 2016
USO: Ehh… maybe 2005 > 2015 > 2006 = 2004 >> 2016
Wasn't Dope Boy in both editions?...
 

RS

Bionic Poster
Who played at a higher level?

1. Puerta RG 05 final or Djokovic RG 08 SF
2. Djokovic RG 08 SF or Nadal Wim 11 final
3. Djokovic Wim 14 final or Djokovic Wim 13 SF
4. Djokovic Wim 12 SF or Djokovic RG 21 SF
5. Federer USO 15 final or Roddick AO 03 QF
6. Nadal Wim 06 final or Nadal RG 22 QF
 

Fedforever

Hall of Fame
Very much so.

Being able to add reactions to posts is, in my opinion, often the worst thing a forum can have as it leads towards positive feedback loops for attention seeking hyperbole, hysteria and sometimes hostility.

Reddit's up/down voting tends towards forcing people to behave but too many people there think "disagree = downvote" and you can see pile-on downvoting for some really innocuous comments and that creates a parochial community where conformity is king
Being old enough (ahem) to remember days before social media, debates about "greatness" were always carried out in a spirit of "it's just my opinion".

Going back to Borg and McEnroe days, when one journalist said "well, I think it's Borg because of his clay record" and another went for "No, McEnroe has the better shots" they didn't have to fear being besieged with hysterical fans claiming that their fave was being grossly insulted. Now, even in football where you can't begin to have objective criteria you get people demanding that you "have" to acknowledge Messi or Ronaldo or whoever as the greatest.
 

Kralingen

Bionic Poster
Who played at a higher level?

1. Puerta RG 05 final or Djokovic RG 08 SF
2. Djokovic RG 08 SF or Nadal Wim 11 final
3. Djokovic Wim 14 final or Djokovic Wim 13 SF
4. Djokovic Wim 12 SF or Djokovic RG 21 SF
5. Federer USO 15 final or Roddick AO 03 QF
6. Nadal Wim 06 final or Nadal RG 22 QF
Puerta
Not sure
Djokovic
Djokovic
Federer
Nadal
 
  • Like
Reactions: RS

Fedforever

Hall of Fame
It's funny how the same crowd of people who stated that Nadal's 2022 AO was worthless cause Djokovic was banned from Australia are now claiming that the weak era is nonsense.
I think this point also shows up the incredibly fine margins all these judgements are based on.

If Federer had served up an ace in the right moment, if Medvedev had converted one of three points, if Novak's advisors had handled the situation a bit better then the GS score could have easily been equal between Federer and Nadal. Equally, if Roddick had converted a point in 2009, if Federer's shot against Tommy Haas had landed in the net, if the winning shot in 2017 had been half an inch the other side.... Nadal could be even further ahead. And so on and so on.....

And on such small things we declare someone is "best" or "second best" or "third best" - with the implication that the "second and third" best should'nt really have bothered playing at all. Just very small things over twenty year careers
 
Last edited:

TheFifthSet

Legend
Cannot agree more about the psychology at play for here and Reddit. Also want to add that the Reddit downvote system just encourages lazy disagreement which allows you to cancel/disregard someone's idea without providing an ounce of argument yourself, which can only discourage actual intellectual discussion

Kind of funny that there’s no good way to refute that almost every popular subreddit is a haven for casuals. I mean it’s basically an unavoidable consequence: the comments which reflect the general consensus get vaulted to the top, which in turn only strengthens that consensus.
 

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
Being old enough (ahem) to remember days before social media, debates about "greatness" were always carried out in a spirit of "it's just my opinion".

Going back to Borg and McEnroe days, when one journalist said "well, I think it's Borg because of his clay record" and another went for "No, McEnroe has the better shots" they didn't have to fear being besieged with hysterical fans claiming that their fave was being grossly insulted. Now, even in football where you can't begin to have objective criteria you get people demanding that you "have" to acknowledge Messi or Ronaldo or whoever as the greatest.
After spoiling this thread for almost 3 days, I concede.
Yes there can be subjective criteria for GOATness. That means Novak is not universal GOAT.
We just have to be more open minded which is more difficult in social media days. Everything is worse since the advent of twitter. The politics, the sports debates and the basic decency.

I think as Nolefams we are more angry about Federer fans for a long time since Nole was vilified by what we see as Federer biased media. Gill Gross here says the same since 15:00

I would from here onwards leave it to experts about who is the GOAT. Novak is the most accomplished player of all time. Who is the GOAT is personal choice and not objective choice.
 

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
I think the records will push Djokovic more and more towards new heights. And when he is done, he will be regarded as the most successful player of all time. There is no issue in calling him the GOAT.
There is also no issue in calling Federer/Nadal/Sampras/Borg/Laver the GOAT. They did all create some incredible records.

It would be funny to call Andy Murray the GOAT and we can out of the hand reject it. But these above legends did have something special which is why we watch sports. They can be your GOAT as well.
 

mtommer

Hall of Fame
And on such small things we declare someone is "best" or "second best" or "third best" - with the implication that the "second and third" best should'nt really have bothered playing at all. Just very small things over twenty year careers
I think it's more that some fans of x player expect "their" second and third to come out and pay homage to their pick...along with the fans of second and third "best".

The fact of the matter is, all three are equally a threat to one another and there is no assured outcome.
 
I think the records will push Djokovic more and more towards new heights. And when he is done, he will be regarded as the most successful player of all time. There is no issue in calling him the GOAT.
There is also no issue in calling Federer/Nadal/Sampras/Borg/Laver the GOAT. They did all create some incredible records.

It would be funny to call Andy Murray the GOAT and we can out of the hand reject it. But these above legends did have something special which is why we watch sports. They can be your GOAT as well.
He already obviously is the SOAT (successfullest of all time), but greatest is far more unclear due to problems of one handed backhand (two hander simply far superior for modern baseline grinding tennis, is Federer greater for being so good despite a one hander?), age disparity always way younger than Federer, lack of that flair that makes Federer and Nadal so much more popular than him despite less results, etc.
 

BorgTheGOAT

Legend
He already obviously is the SOAT (successfullest of all time), but greatest is far more unclear due to problems of one handed backhand (two hander simply far superior for modern baseline grinding tennis, is Federer greater for being so good despite a one hander?), age disparity always way younger than Federer, lack of that flair that makes Federer and Nadal so much more popular than him despite less results, etc.
Greater because of a one-hander? That is a new one I haven’t heard so far. Could have come from TMF. As far as I know nobody forced Fed to play a one-hander instead of two-hander.
 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
I think this point also shows up the incredibly fine margins all these judgements are based on.

If Federer had served up an ace in the right moment, if Medvedev had converted one of three points, if Novak's advisors had handled the situation a bit better then the GS score could have easily been equal between Federer and Nadal. Equally, if Roddick had converted a point in 2009, if Federer's shot against Tommy Haas had landed in the net, if the winning shot in 2017 had been half an inch the other side.... Nadal could be even further ahead. And so on and so on.....

And on such small things we declare someone is "best" or "second best" or "third best" - with the implication that the "second and third" best should'nt really have bothered playing at all. Just very small things over twenty year careers

and Yet despite all these things happening simultaneously Nole would still be probably tied or so in the slams race and next year he would win more slams
He just cannot be stopped, 2011 onwards till now he has been everywhere, most of the slams not won by him in this period you have to go past him to win. Huge task... His hold on the slams has been firm minus a few lapses which could have been avoided

I truly believe Federer and Nadal are truly below him, on natural surfaces they are ahead of him on their home turf and lagging him on the other turf, on HCs they both lag him, so this seems like a scenario where they just could not beat him. If his 2011 self had appeared in 2009 then this gap would only be bigger.... more can expect him to be more than 24 slams now....
 

Fedforever

Hall of Fame
so this seems like a scenario where they just could not beat him.
Quite possibly.

Ironically the Fed haters may well have ensured a lot of people underrate Djokovic since they often attribute Fed defeats to his apparently innumerable weaknesses rather than the quality of the opponents.
 
Greater because of a one-hander? That is a new one I haven’t heard so far. Could have come from TMF. As far as I know nobody forced Fed to play a one-hander instead of two-hander.
So? Not being forced to has nothing to do with it. He did play with one and if you're so talented you won 20 grand slams with a one hander in modern baseline tennis thats much greater than winning 20 with a 2 hander
 

BorgTheGOAT

Legend
So? Not being forced to has nothing to do with it. He did play with one and if you're so talented you won 20 grand slams with a one hander in modern baseline tennis thats much greater than winning 20 with a 2 hander
It isn’t greater at all nobody cares about it other than you lol. It is like saying we give Nadal extra points because he played with his left despite being a natural righty. Seriously this is getting ridiculous.
 
D

Deleted member 758560

Guest
garrincha is greater than pele coz he had one leg shorter than another one.. same logic (imagine what would happen if he had both legs the same)
 

BorgTheGOAT

Legend
garrincha is greater than pele coz he had one leg shorter than another one.. same logic (imagine what would happen if he had both legs the same)
Great analogy. On top, it wasn’t even his fault that he had a shorter leg, whereas Fed very much chose to be a one-hander. He might have had good reasons for it and whether he had been more or even equally successful with a two hander is completely speculative. Better comparison would be imagine if Garrincha didn’t drink so much alcohol, playing how he played despite being alcoholic is so much greater than being a role model athlete like Pele.
 
Exactly. It's just different and each way has its own pluses and minuses.
Nope as someone else said here a few days ago the only benefit of a one hander is easy power. Two hand is better control (and control is the most important for pros not power), stability, consistency (theres a coach who refuses to even teach one hander cause he says too much can go wrong with it), doesnt have the extreme difficulty of dealing with high balls, etc.

Federer himself says he wouldn't recommend a one hander cause its too limited
 
It isn’t greater at all nobody cares about it other than you lol. It is like saying we give Nadal extra points because he played with his left despite being a natural righty. Seriously this is getting ridiculous.
Difference is a left hand can do anything a right hand can do, both your hands are exactly the same. Do you wanna claim a one hander is the same as a two hander? And he actually played lefty because it gave him the advantage that opponents are less prepared against lefties than righties. So he did it for an advantage not in spite of disadvantages.
 

BorgTheGOAT

Legend
Difference is a left hand can do anything a right hand can do, both your hands are exactly the same
I guarantee you for 99% of people it is not.
And he actually played lefty because it gave him the advantage that opponents are less prepared against lefties than righties. So he did it for an advantage not in spite of disadvantages.
If Fed chooses to play a style that gives him a disadvantage it is on him and shouldn’t add to his greatness. Maybe a one hander simply suited him better, we cannot possibly know how a two hander would have integrated in his playing style, saying that he would have been more successful is pure speculation.
 

mtommer

Hall of Fame
theres a coach who refuses to even teach one hander cause he says too much can go wrong with it
All that tells me is that coach isn't much of a coach.

I play both backhands and neither has more power over the other. I'd say the 2HBH has more consistent power because it doesn't require as much effort to get into position to hit a return ball but it also limits angles and pace in those angles. Frankly, the best backhand play is to play both as the situation warrants them.
 

Federev

G.O.A.T.
Do you mean - "Do I agree that the number 24 equals the number 24"?

I'm not being glib - but that's sort of my point. Who can deny he has the best stats now? What you seem to be arguing is that his better stats equal him being a better player. I do disagree with that.



No. Where did I say that? It's great! ...But it's not the best thing. Things aren't binary here. I think results are always best judged in context.



This surprises me. I think I've been clear throughout. I think?

As I said in another post to you here: "It’s highly likely that Federer - at his best - is a better tennis player than Novak - at his best."

That's the point I'm making.

And I've used several objective historical data points/ concrete realities in my previous posts to come to my subjective conclusion... so I won't repeat them here.

Peace!
This was a good post. It needs more likes.

Just being honest.
 
It isn’t greater at all nobody cares about it other than you lol. It is like saying we give Nadal extra points because he played with his left despite being a natural righty. Seriously this is getting ridiculous.
So why are almost all pros coming onto the scene with a two hander these days if there isn't anything wrong with having a one hander in modern baseline dominated tennis?

If they were objectively equal strokes and just a matter of taste and preference we'd surely see far closer to 50/50 representation rather than 99% 2 hander?
 
Top