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.