Stats the big 3 need to become the goat

[mike danny]

As often on your posts, my head spins from the sheer circularity of your reasoning. First of all, you should probably lose the "Djokodal"; they don't team up to try to beat anyone. Tacky nickname, even if they were a doubles team or an off-court couple. It also serves to trivialize them as individual greats.

Secondly, ...what Fed had in 2012?! Djokovic was #1 in '11 and 12, and he had Fed and Nadal, as Fed has Nadal and Djokovic, and.... I really don't know what lines you're drawing to try to prop up an All-Time-Great who doesn't need such "help". Fed is unbelievable, and I like and appreciate him, but the sjheer volume of the Fed-centric posts are stunning to me.

What Fed mostly has going for him in all these GOAT discussions - besides his ridiculous talent, drive, passion for the game, etc. - is remarkable longevity and being born 5 years before Rafa and 6 before Novak. Of course, he's accomplished more. He may end up by the time they all retire with more accomplishments as well, but to try to downplay what either Rafa and Novak have done and may do in the future - because of so-called weak competition that is premature to judge now - is disingenuous at best.

Fed being born 5 years before Nadal doesn't matter too much considering how age-wise Nadal was more accomplished than Fed by the time they were both 23. It's actually Fed who caught up with Nadal age-wise, not the other way around. As for Djokovic, he was more accomplished than Fed by the time they were both 21. Him sucking in 2009-2010 and not taking his opportunities in 2012-2014 is the main reason why Fed is ahead, not because he is 6 years older.

Fed in 2012 at age 31 had Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Delpo among others from the younger players. Djokovic and Nadal at the same age have Zverev, Thiem and Coric. You don't think the difference is staggering? Djokovic was 24 in 2011, not 31, so apples and oranges.

Djokovic and Nadal are still playing very well, but the lack of genuine young talent is making tgem look better than they are. Fed was just as good as them at the same age in 2012, but had actual great competition from the younger ones.

 

[thrust]

Not really.

My apologies, as Djokovic has only had 3 attempts at Olympic Gold. Federer has had 4.

This is a really big blot on their copybooks.

Times have moved on. The Olympic Singles Gold is now one of the greatest prizes in tennis. And it's an area where two out of the Big 4 are sorely lacking. We can even cut Roger some slack, because he has a famous Olympic Gold Medal in doubles, partnering Stan Wawrinka in Beijing.

It's just Novak who is lacking on the biggest sporting stage of all.

Total Nonsense! Olympics, played only once every four years, is not a serious tennis tournament. So Roger has a doubles Gold, big deal-LOL! It is the Big Three's slams and Masters count that make them ATG players, NOT an Olympic Medal.

 

[RaulRamirez]

Fed being born 5 years before Nadal doesn't matter too much considering how age-wise Nadal was more accomplished than Fed by the time they were both 23. It's actually Fed who caught up with Nadal age-wise, not the other way around. As for Djokovic, he was more accomplished than Fed by the time they were both 21. Him sucking in 2009-2010 and not taking his opportunities in 2012-2014 is the main reason why Fed is ahead, not because he is 6 years older.

Fed in 2012 at age 31 had Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Delpo among others from the younger players. Djokovic and Nadal at the same age have Zverev, Thiem and Coric. You don't think the difference is staggering? Djokovic was 24 in 2011, not 31, so apples and oranges.

Djokovic and Nadal are still playing very well, but the lack of genuine young talent is making tgem look better than they are. Fed was just as good as them at the same age in 2012, but had actual great competition from the younger ones.

Exhibit B...

 

[BeatlesFan]

The thread title is an utter misnomer. Fed doesn’t need to do anything to become GOAT. He’s been GOAT since June, 2009 and no ones close to getting 21 slams.

 

[robthai]

When you are already the GOAT, you dont need to break any more records. All the achievements after 2013 has been a bonus for Federer. But same haters try to spin it against Federer. Reaching all those slams and losing to one of the best players in history is better than losing to a "Rosol" or "Istomin" in the early rounds. Those haters can't relate to this.

 

[Pheasant]

One could argue that all of the Big 3 have had it far easier than their predecessors with the much more homogenized courts, far better nutrition, better better workout routines,and the advances in medicine to allow them to maintain their peak much longer. Also, the court conditions and technology of the rackets today allow one style of play to transfer rather seamlessly to all four slam events, which is inflating the slam counts immensely.

Imagine Lendl with today’s much slower surfaces and oversized rackets. I think Lendl played in the wrong era. The court conditions didn’t favor his style of tennis. And yet, he still spent 270 weeks at #1, won 93 titles, had 4 seasons of .900 winning pct, won 5 year end titles, which includes going to a record 9 straight finals. Also, the USO was a very fast surface in the 1980s. Lendl still had enough skill to win 3 of them and go to 8 consecutive finals there. Had that been a slower hard court, he might have won 6. I also think that the 1980s was the most difficult time by far to dominate. I believe that the 1980s featured very diverse talent that was very deep.

My point is that playing the weak era card, something that each of the Big 3 crowd is guilty of, will end up blowing up in your face. Playing that card will then open up the door for all other ATG. And weak eras cannot be proven anyway.

Djoker is starting to cloud the issue for the Big 3. As another poster said, if he gets to 18 slams , but has more WTF and weeks at #1, then he and Fed are potentially a wash. And Nadal would be right there. So these 3 guys arguably didn’t win their era. That could actually hurt them. It could an indication that today’s conditions actually inflate slam titles, which is something that I believe anyway.

OTOH, Lendl clearly was the greatest of his era, despite playing on faster surfaces that didn’t suit his style of play. His weeks at #1, number of career titles,and most of his other stats completely the players of his era. Lendl was screwed over because two of the slams during the majority of his prime were on his worst surface.

And then we have Borg, the guy that still holds the highest career winning pct in the Open Era. The guy was a GOAT contender for clay and grass. This guy belongs in the conversation.

Also, we have Laver, a guy who won a calendar slam in the amateur era, the pro era, and the Open Era, despite being past his prime foe that last one. And his Pro Era calendar slam was impressive since he had to beat players that would go on to win slams in the Oper era. Laver has 2-3 legit CYGS. He is quite unique.

There are several others that I am missing here. We really cannot prove GOAT. We can look at which player won their own era. But from there, the game is so different, that it is impossible to compare eras.

We can compare numbers though. Which player will be the the numbers GOAT. That will be huge bragging rights. This is still subjective, since we will argue on which numbers are more important.

I wouldn’t even know how to weight these numbers.

 

[BeatlesFan]

I just don't agree that Slam count is the be-all, end-all in the this debate and other things have to be considered. It's not absolute.

You’d agree in a heartbeat if it was Novak with 20 slams. You disagree because he’s 7 behind at 31 and know deep down he’s never passing Fed. So the goalposts are moved to desperately pretend Djoker already is GOAT by cherry picking inanities, like “DCGS will change everything!!”

 

[robthai]

You guys just want us to dismiss age because otherwise Djokovic's competition doesn't look as strong anymore. You just want your cake and to eat it too: Djokovic didn't just beat Federer, he beat the best Federer.

Just hold Djokovic to the exact same standards when he is 36

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

One doesn't have to break Fed's Slam record by a bigger margin to be the greatest, let's get that out of the way. I certainly won't give extra credit to the guy who happened to be born a few years or an era earlier and achieved something first as a result of that, and I especially don't believe that the future great would be stupidly incapable of setting a very high bar for himself anyway if it wasn't for what the past great achieved.

And one more thing, younger opponents aren't the only competition a player faces throughout his career or the crucial indicator of how impressive that player's achievements are. Yes, current youngsters have been unimpressive to say the least, but let's not forget, Djokovic and Nadal are the greatest pair of peers, which also reflects fairly in the record number of meetings between any two players, and I highly doubt you can think of a tougher older opponent than Federer, no matter how much some want to portray him as a massive underdog in all of his meetings against the two of them ever since he became old... gazillion years ago. Djokovic and Nadal have already won plenty before it became obvious that NextGen won't make a big impact soon anyway so this hysteria about the current state is a bit over the top, though it's quite obvious why it's happening.

 

[CYGS]

You’d agree in a heartbeat if it was Novak with 20 slams. You disagree because he’s 7 behind at 31 and know deep down he’s never passing Fed. So the goalposts are moved to desperately pretend Djoker already is GOAT by cherry picking inanities, like “DCGS will change everything!!”

6 behind, but Fed at 31 had 17, so in fact it's only 3 behind.

 

[mike danny]

Exhibit B...

Aha, so no retort...

I mostly wanted to put to rest the idea that Fed is more accomplished simply because he is older. I pointed out why that's not true.

 

[RaulRamirez]

Aha, so no retort...

I mostly wanted to put to rest the idea that Fed is more accomplished simply because he is older. I pointed out why that's not true.

Put it to rest...with that?! I think you woke it up and gave it terminal insomnia!

Mike, As you should know, I greatly like and admire Fed. I also have always seen (since his emergence) the tour mostly through Rafa's eyes and increasingly in recent years, through Novak's and Rafa's. It's not bandwagon jumping; just my subconscious progression as a tennis fan. Having said all this (and while I may not always succeed), I'm not going to try to make a point in support of one of my favorite players that is so Rafa-centric or Novak-centric that I have to go through all kinds of contortions to justify it. I naturally try to stake out reasonable stands, as I care about the integrity of an opinion. I also try hard not to be sarcastic, though I do have a naturally irreverent streak.

You know tennis quite well perhaps better than I do, and I'm fairly knowledgeable. You also seem to treat other points of view - and other posters - with respect, which I applaud. Here comes the but...BUT it is really hard to follow your reasoning at times, and your posts (at times) become so Roger-centric that I end up scratching my remaining hairs.

So, how do I retort your convoluted retort to my statement that (in effect) Roger is ahead of his two greatest rivals mostly because he was born 5 years before Rafa and 6 years before Novak. (I also recognizd his amazing talent, passion for the game, and remarkable longevity - all things that I admire about Fed.) I didn't talk about "weak era", and I've also acknowledged that Rafa and/or Novak may not play long enough at this level to top wherever Roger ends up, "slam-wise." But my statement was so obvious that there is no good retort, and certainly stating that Rafa and Novak both developed a little quicker than Roger and something about Roger actually catching up to Rafa age-wise (huh?) and who ...in a very Roger-centric way, mind you ...they all had to beat as 31-year-olds or something like that. Those are retorts to a very obvious statement on my part?! And my statement is mostly ignored....so yeah, I have no retort for all that gibberish.

 

[toby55555]

The General Public in any poll will say Federer and Laver and whatever I may think that's what counts. Novak has a few more years in which to change that perception.

 

[NoleFam]

You’d agree in a heartbeat if it was Novak with 20 slams. You disagree because he’s 7 behind at 31 and know deep down he’s never passing Fed. So the goalposts are moved to desperately pretend Djoker already is GOAT by cherry picking inanities, like “DCGS will change everything!!”

Actually no I wouldn't and I don't think anyone would if they are having a serious discussion about who is the greatest. Also I'm talking about if Djokovic has 18 Slams and leads in the other metrics, not 14 Slams. It was easy to see what I was saying since I spelled it out pretty simply. He is 6 Slams behind not 7 and I would love for you to find one post where I have ever said Djokovic was GOAT.

 

[TMF]

If Nole gets 20(far-fetched) and assuming Federer stay at 20, number of Wimbledon titles is another important factor since it's the "holy grail" of tennis.

 

[RaulRamirez]

If Nole gets 20(far-fetched) and assuming Federer stay at 20, number of Wimbledon titles is another important factor since it's the "holy grail" of tennis.

Was the "Holy Grail" awarded on an annual basis?

 

[TMF]

Was the "Holy Grail" awarded on an annual basis?

One of the most well-known special sport event, Wimbledon is the most prestigious/significant tournament in tennis, that's why people say it's the "holy grail" of tennis.

 

[RaulRamirez]

Was the "Holy Grail" awarded on an annual basis?

Just having fun - you don't have to explain Wimbledon to me. But no, I don't think it should be weighted more than the other three majors.

 

[mike danny]

Put it to rest...with that?! I think you woke it up and gave it terminal insomnia!

Mike, As you should know, I greatly like and admire Fed. I also have always seen (since his emergence) the tour mostly through Rafa's eyes and increasingly in recent years, through Novak's and Rafa's. It's not bandwagon jumping; just my subconscious progression as a tennis fan. Having said all this (and while I may not always succeed), I'm not going to try to make a point in support of one of my favorite players that is so Rafa-centric or Novak-centric that I have to go through all kinds of contortions to justify it. I naturally try to stake out reasonable stands, as I care about the integrity of an opinion. I also try hard not to be sarcastic, though I do have a naturally irreverent streak.

You know tennis quite well perhaps better than I do, and I'm fairly knowledgeable. You also seem to treat other points of view - and other posters - with respect, which I applaud. Here comes the but...BUT it is really hard to follow your reasoning at times, and your posts (at times) become so Roger-centric that I end up scratching my remaining hairs.

So, how do I retort your convoluted retort to my statement that (in effect) Roger is ahead of his two greatest rivals mostly because he was born 5 years before Rafa and 6 years before Novak. (I also recognizd his amazing talent, passion for the game, and remarkable longevity - all things that I admire about Fed.) I didn't talk about "weak era", and I've also acknowledged that Rafa and/or Novak may not play long enough at this level to top wherever Roger ends up, "slam-wise." But my statement was so obvious that there is no good retort, and certainly stating that Rafa and Novak both developed a little quicker than Roger and something about Roger actually catching up to Rafa age-wise (huh?) and who ...in a very Roger-centric way, mind you ...they all had to beat as 31-year-olds or something like that. Those are retorts to a very obvious statement on my part?! And my statement is mostly ignored....so yeah, I have no retort for all that gibberish.

I appreciate all the thought you put into your post and it's good that we have mutual respect I like to have decent conversations with a level-headed poster like yourself

The way I see it, both Rafa and Novak were more accomplished than Roger at one point age-wise. Take Rafa for example: when they were both 22, Rafa had 5 slams and Roger just 1. So it was Roger who caught up to Rafa, who had a great head-start age-wise. Novak too. He accomplished more by age 21 than Roger.

And the reason why Novak is behind is because he wasted 5 years when he should have won more: 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013 and 2014. Wasting these years is the reason why Novak is still significantly behind Roger, not because Roger is 6 years older.

After seeing how Rafa had a huge head-start age-wise compared to Roger (5 slams by age 22 vs just 1 in Roger's case), that's why I disagree that Roger is more accomplished ONLY because he is 5 years older. Given how Rafa started winning slams 3 years before Federer, he is the one with the head-start, not Federer Federer is actually ahead now because of his 2017-2018 accomplishments, not because of extra years on the tour

 

[RaulRamirez]

This post explains better how you're approaching this, but where we agree, we're terming it differently, and where we disagree... (not sure).

I picture you plotting out their careers in terms of their own ages, rather than say, calendar years 2008 or 2018, which is one way to look at it. Where it becomes a problem for me: I read so many posters qualifying both achievements and losses in terms of prime and non-prime, where that is so hard to define and not always the same for each player (in any sport). And, many will just take out a span of years if it corresponds with months/years when a player was defeated or not performing as well.

To me, the record is the record, so while I wonder (for instance) how much Rafa could've achieved without his frequent injuries and time off the tour, all of it is part of his record. The same for any player. Where I, admittedly, get impatient is when I see anybody (commentator, pundit or people like us) make so many hard-to-follow allowances and excuses. And these 3 guys don't really need allowances and excuses!

Back to The Big 3. They've peaked and waned at different points within their own careers which don't always line up exactly, in terms of age-23, or 27 or 31. It's all a part of their records - and they all have amazing records with no end dates known.

What I can't fathom - after all the age-plot analysis (whether conscious or not), how can you not just say that Federer - being 5 and 6 years older - has not had more opportunities to win those 20 majors than Fed and Rafa?! I'm not talking about "weak era" or state of competition; it's just a fact. Their winning percentages overall are very similar, but Fed has had more opportunities as he's older and been on tour longer. Rafa and Novak actually have better percentages of winning "Big Tourneys" than Federer so far. Does that make them better overall? Not yet, but they are better in that one dimension. And we don't know if either of them can keep it up with similar longevity as Fed.

To me, all of this can't be quantified that easily - and there seem to be an endless supply of stats - so earlier today, I tried to arrive at a way of weighting different titles. I don't think all Big Titles should be weighted the same, but do think that the 4 majors should carry the same weight as one another. I'm also not that hung up on distribution of titles. So, if we say that the 4 majors should be worth twice as much as 1000s, WTFs and Olympic Gold (Olympics barely tilts anything), I think that's fair, as would, alternatively, assigning 1.5 to majors as opposed to the others. More than twice as much seems too high.

My conclusion is that Fed - as awesome as he still is - has achieved more than Rafa and Nole because he's older and been on the tour longer. As far as relative age among them, he figured to have the advantage during their early meetings, and both Rafa and Novak figure to have it now. It's worked out as it has, with some surprises along the way.

As far as perception of GOAThood, Fed has had the extra time to accomplish what he has - and of course, he's extraordinarily popular - so it's hard for his most ardent fans (and even general tennis fans) to knock him off this pedestal. He may end up with the best overall record when they've all retired from the ATP. I won't predict. I will say to all who will listen and read that the margins among them are very tight. For instance, 20 is a fair amount bigger than 14, but even those slam numbers are about even (I'm not doing the exact math) when you consider their ages and times on tour. With their respective ages in mind, 17 is probably more impressive than 20.

And for all those caring about distribution, I really don't. Thinking about it another way, Rafa has one opportunity to cash in on a clay major each year, and goes all in on that surface. It's probably reduced how much he's won at the other 3 majors (educated speculation on my part), but that's also part of the deal.

It's also not easy for a Fed advocate to just explain away how both Rafa and Novak already...already...have more Masters 1000s titles than Fed in fewer opportunities.

So, there it is...I see Fed as slightly ahead of both of his greatest rivals at this juncture. I don't know what the future will hold.

 

[mike danny]

This post explains better how you're approaching this, but where we agree, we're terming it differently, and where we disagree... (not sure).

I picture you plotting out their careers in terms of their own ages, rather than say, calendar years 2008 or 2018, which is one way to look at it. Where it becomes a problem for me: I read so many posters qualifying both achievements and losses in terms of prime and non-prime, where that is so hard to define and not always the same for each player (in any sport). And, many will just take out a span of years if it corresponds with months/years when a player was defeated or not performing as well.

To me, the record is the record, so while I wonder (for instance) how much Rafa could've achieved without his frequent injuries and time off the tour, all of it is part of his record. The same for any player. Where I, admittedly, get impatient is when I see anybody (commentator, pundit or people like us) make so many hard-to-follow allowances and excuses. And these 3 guys don't really need allowances and excuses!

Back to The Big 3. They've peaked and waned at different points within their own careers which don't always line up exactly, in terms of age-23, or 27 or 31. It's all a part of their records - and they all have amazing records with no end dates known.

What I can't fathom - after all the age-plot analysis (whether conscious or not), how can you not just say that Federer - being 5 and 6 years older - has not had more opportunities to win those 20 majors than Fed and Rafa?! I'm not talking about "weak era" or state of competition; it's just a fact. Their winning percentages overall are very similar, but Fed has had more opportunities as he's older and been on tour longer. Rafa and Novak actually have better percentages of winning "Big Tourneys" than Federer so far. Does that make them better overall? Not yet, but they are better in that one dimension. And we don't know if either of them can keep it up with similar longevity as Fed.

To me, all of this can't be quantified that easily - and there seem to be an endless supply of stats - so earlier today, I tried to arrive at a way of weighting different titles. I don't think all Big Titles should be weighted the same, but do think that the 4 majors should carry the same weight as one another. I'm also not that hung up on distribution of titles. So, if we say that the 4 majors should be worth twice as much as 1000s, WTFs and Olympic Gold (Olympics barely tilts anything), I think that's fair, as would, alternatively, assigning 1.5 to majors as opposed to the others. More than twice as much seems too high.

My conclusion is that Fed - as awesome as he still is - has achieved more than Rafa and Nole because he's older and been on the tour longer. As far as relative age among them, he figured to have the advantage during their early meetings, and both Rafa and Novak figure to have it now. It's worked out as it has, with some surprises along the way.

As far as perception of GOAThood, Fed has had the extra time to accomplish what he has - and of course, he's extraordinarily popular - so it's hard for his most ardent fans (and even general tennis fans) to knock him off this pedestal. He may end up with the best overall record when they've all retired from the ATP. I won't predict. I will say to all who will listen and read that the margins among them are very tight. For instance, 20 is a fair amount bigger than 14, but even those slam numbers are about even (I'm not doing the exact math) when you consider their ages and times on tour. With their respective ages in mind, 17 is probably more impressive than 20.

And for all those caring about distribution, I really don't. Thinking about it another way, Rafa has one opportunity to cash in on a clay major each year, and goes all in on that surface. It's probably reduced how much he's won at the other 3 majors (educated speculation on my part), but that's also part of the deal.

It's also not easy for a Fed advocate to just explain away how both Rafa and Novak already...already...have more Masters 1000s titles than Fed in fewer opportunities.

So, there it is...I see Fed as slightly ahead of both of his greatest rivals at this juncture. I don't know what the future will hold.

Good post, but like I said, Fed is ahead of Rafa now because of the last 2 years, not because of him being older.

As for masters, there's nothing to discuss. Fed could have won more masters, but didn't. Whether he put maximum effort into winning them or not, that's his problem. But given how close he was to the slam record in 2008 and 2009, I don't blame him for caring less about the masters.

 

[jussumman]

Djoker on the rise. I say weighted top 3 ranking. These are the stats I think the big 3 need to become the GOAT.

 

[upchuck]

Federer at least was in his prime when he was dominating his own generation. But they were at least providing some challenge for prime Fed. Nadal and Djokovic are old men and the young ones aren't even scratching them. Ridiculous.

They might be old men but at least one of them is playing as well as ever again (Djokovic) and the other ain't too far from his peak either. Age becomes irrelevant in this context and can't always be assumed to be a crutch.

 

[mike danny]

They might be old men but at least one of them is playing as well as ever again (Djokovic) and the other ain't too far from his peak either. Age becomes irrelevant in this context and can't always be assumed to be a crutch.

Like I said, of course they look unaffected by age when the young players aren't providing any challenge.