There is no such thing as a great player in a competitive era

[EtePras]

"Competitive" era, more like. If a player's opponents are multiple grand slam champions, then the player has failed to do his job to dominate them and thus is not great at tennis no matter what his accomplishments are. Let's take the hypothetical example of the best possible player: let's say starting from age 20, this player doesn't lose a single grand slam match until he's lost a few steps at age 30. Yeah, he's got 10 calendar slams. Then how many slams would the other players in that era have? None each. That is the sign of a dominant player: that his contemporaries have no accomplishments.

The conclusion of my argument is a simple one: the more majors a player's competition has, the more times that player has failed to win majors himself, and the less of a GOAT candidate he is.

 

[JennyS]

"Competitive" era, more like. If a player's opponents are multiple grand slam champions, then the player has failed to do his job to dominate them and thus is not great at tennis no matter what his accomplishments are. Let's take the hypothetical example of the best possible player: let's say starting from age 20, this player doesn't lose a single grand slam match until he's lost a few steps at age 30. Yeah, he's got 10 calendar slams. Then how many slams would the other players in that era have? None each. That is the sign of a dominant player: that his contemporaries have no accomplishments.

The conclusion of my argument is a simple one: the more majors a player's competition has, the more times that player has failed to win majors himself, and the less of a GOAT candidate he is.

Great post! This is the argument I've been using for Federer. People count Roddick's one Slam against him, but the guy lost to Federer in 8 Slams (7 of which Federer won!). And Hewitt might have another US Open if not for Federer.

 

[FedNad316]

Great post! This is the argument I've been using for Federer. People count Roddick's one Slam against him, but the guy lost to Federer in 8 Slams (7 of which Federer won!). And Hewitt might have another US Open if not for Federer.

so what does that mean......You cannot be GOAT if you have several Slam winners in your Era since you were never able to dominate the field enough to stake a true claim to Goathood....but since you won the slams(fewer) against tougher opposition (read other slam winners), you are more accomplished....

You cannot be GOAT if you have 1 or 2 players winning and dominating all the slams......This is because you are in a weak era where the field isnt able to rise up to the challenge........so even though you have many more slam victories, You got them against weaker opposition (read no slam winners).

So Who is the GOAT???

 

[RoddickAce]

so what does that mean......You cannot be GOAT if you have several Slam winners in your Era since you were never able to dominate the field enough to stake a true claim to Goathood....but since you won the slams against tougher opposition (read other slam winners), you are more accomplished....

You cannot be GOAT if you have 1 or 2 players winning and dominating all the slams......This is because you are in a weak era where the field isnt able to rise up to the challenge........so even though you have many more slam victories, You got them against weaker opposition (read no slam winners).

So Who is the GOAT???

There is no G.O.A.T.

 

[tacou]

chicken or egg?

 

[ClarkC]

Just to show how illogical the original post is, if we had a revelation from God that a certain pair of players were the two best ever, and those players played at the same time and split the slams between them evenly, then we would have to rank them behind some player who had weaker opposition in a different era, according to the "logic" used in the original post.

Not only would we have to rank them behind that third player, neither player could even be called great.

 

[FedFan_2009]

There is no GOAT until someone can dominate for 5 years across all surfaces. Nadal has dominated clay, so now he has to dominate hard & grass for 4 more years if he wants the GOAT mantle.

 

[FedNad316]

Just to show how illogical the original post is, if we had a revelation from God that a certain pair of players were the two best ever, and those players played at the same time and split the slams between them evenly, then we would have to rank them behind some player who had weaker opposition in a different era, according to the "logic" used in the original post.

Not only would we have to rank them behind that third player, neither player could even be called great.

My only problem with the weaker and stronger era theory is that it is based on number of slam winners in the era.....

Assume Player A is the leading GOAT candidate in a ERA and he has several other slam winners with him playing alongside in his Era.
-> so, Player A is not so dominant as to prevent other players from occasionally winning slams.....so the difference in ability between player A and the field is not that great......What can we interpret from this

1) Player A has a tougher opposition and therefore his accomplishments are greater and ability is also great

2) It can also be inferred that since player A never dominated his opposition completely, he is only marginally better than the field (maybe certain key areas like serve, mental fortitude etc as examples).

Assume Player B is the leading GOAT candidate in a ERA and he has no / few slam winners with him playing alongside in his Era.
-> so, Player B is very dominant and prevents other players from even occasionally winning slams.....so the difference in ability between player A and the field is great......What can we interpret from this

1) Player B has a weaker opposition and therefore his accomplishments are not as great and his ability may be over exaggerated.

2) It can also be inferred that since player B dominated his opposition completely, he is a lot better than the field.

This only gives us a comparison between the difference of capabilities of players A and B with their respective fields.....
If the fields in the 2 era's were identical in terms of ability then we can clearly establish that B > A but there is no way to establish that........slam results do not provide this imo.....

Unless we can unequivocally prove B's era is weaker than A's we cannot say that A is more accomplished than B.........I f we can somehow measure the strengths of the 2 fields and relatively compare them, we cannot establish either way that A>B or B>A......there are too many variables here.......


SO talk of weak era, strong era is completely wrong.... so the result is indeterminate unless god can provide a field = A's field + B's field all playing at their respective primes for us to establish who the true GOAT is.........

 

[FedNad316]

There is no GOAT until someone can dominate for 5 years across all surfaces. Nadal has dominated clay, so now he has to dominate hard & grass for 4 more years if he wants the GOAT mantle.

The ****s would simply raise the bar once these criteria are met (If ever)

 

[jmverdugo]

This is too deep for me ...

 

[TheMagicianOfPrecision]

"Competitive" era, more like. If a player's opponents are multiple grand slam champions, then the player has failed to do his job to dominate them and thus is not great at tennis no matter what his accomplishments are. Let's take the hypothetical example of the best possible player: let's say starting from age 20, this player doesn't lose a single grand slam match until he's lost a few steps at age 30. Yeah, he's got 10 calendar slams. Then how many slams would the other players in that era have? None each. That is the sign of a dominant player: that his contemporaries have no accomplishments.

The conclusion of my argument is a simple one: the more majors a player's competition has, the more times that player has failed to win majors himself, and the less of a GOAT candidate he is.

Im a little confused about this, it says black,then white,then black again...:shock:

 

[Blinkism]

I guess the GOAT is someone who comes into an era of multiple slam winners and then dominates them and then doesn't let anyone else win slams until some left-handed punk from majorca comes along and starts stealing slams but it doesn't count because its on clay oh no wait now hes won on grass but its ok because it green clay and while were on the subject the AO is just a practice slam its all about the US Open basically which is played on a superfast diamond surface which is impervious to topspin monkeys from spain

So, basically

Rod Laver = GOAT

 

[soyizgood]

My argument in the Sampras and Fererer's Peers thread factored not just slams, but head-to-head and results from Master's events. Master's events is probably a better barometer because nobody has won more than 2 Master's Shields in a row, there are/were several different surfaces, and there are 9 of these events each year.

 

[Deleted member 21996]

it makes sense... but then we look at a certain old guy cominig form the late 80's with a bad back that was the only one really threatenening Mr Fed Bag... and one cannot help to wonder if that guy is really that dominant or his peers were just a few notches bellow making him look above average...

but i'm really not the coolest guy in the block so no one should listen to me...

 

[fed_rulz]

it makes sense... but then we look at a certain old guy cominig form the late 80's with a bad back that was the only one really threatenening Mr Fed Bag... and one cannot help to wonder if that guy is really that dominant or his peers were just a few notches bellow making him look above average...

but i'm really not the coolest guy in the block so no one should listen to me...

you've repeatedly mentioned mr. old guy threatening Fed bag - where exactly did he threaten Fed? he went 3-0 initially, and then went 0-8 after that.. granted, a couple of their USO matches went to 5 & 4 sets, but that's hardly threatening. There were some beatdowns too. So again, when was this perceived threat?

 

[rwn]

it makes sense... but then we look at a certain old guy cominig form the late 80's with a bad back that was the only one really threatenening Mr Fed Bag... and one cannot help to wonder if that guy is really that dominant or his peers were just a few notches bellow making him look above average...

but i'm really not the coolest guy in the block so no one should listen to me...

Someone who loses 8 times in a row is a threat ? You're really not very cool - or rational - indeed.

 

[Deleted member 21996]

Someone who loses 8 times in a row is a threat ? You're really not very cool - or rational - indeed.

yes yes... you are the man!

3 Record 8

Turned Pro
Agassi:1986 vs Federer 1998

now, let me adress that lonely brain cell in your skull:

the almighty FedBag was getting pushed to 5 set finals of slams by a guy who became pro 12 years before him! who was 11 year older than him

impressive... really... i can see Federer deliver bagels to guys in crutches... hell he could beat my grandma with his backhand only...

i'm terrified!

 

[GameSampras]

Andre lost the 8 matches, but he was very competitive in a few. Took Fed to 5 sets at 34 years old at the USO.. Played 3 straight 5 setters and made the final very competitive. ANdre still had the game, but didnt have the body holding up.

But I still think there is something telling that can come out of the though.. With Fed being at his best, Andre at the tail end of his career

 

[fed_rulz]

Andre lost the 8 matches, but he was very competitive in a few. Took Fed to 5 sets at 34 years old at the USO.. Played 3 straight 5 setters and made the final very competitive. ANdre still had the game, but didnt have the body holding up.

But I still think there is something telling that can come out of the though.. With Fed being at his best, Andre at the tail end of his career

Applying your reasoning, late 80s to early 90s must have been the worst era ever. connors at 39 made the SF of the uso 91! is that true?

 

[GameSampras]

Applying your reasoning, late 80s to early 90s must have been the worst era ever. connors at 39 made the SF of the uso 91! is that true?

I was talking about Andre wasnt I? What does this have to do with Connors?? I am just saying Andre even at his older age made it pretty competitive even though the h2h obviously favored Fed

 

[Blinkism]

Applying your reasoning, late 80s to early 90s must have been the worst era ever. connors at 39 made the SF of the uso 91! is that true?

Not to mention Old Man McEnroe making slam semi's at Wimbledon and at the USO well into the late 80's and early 90's. Real strong field, there.

Old man Gomez picking up a slam off of young hotshot Agassi.

 

[fed_rulz]

I was talking about Andre wasnt I? What does this have to do with Connors?? I am just saying Andre even at his older age made it pretty competitive even though the h2h obviously favored Fed

All I'm saying is Andre is a good player, regardless of age. you make it sound as if it was a big deal that he managed to take Fed to 4 & 5 sets. Andre was an exception, just like connors, so using him & his age to assess the competition that existed in 2005 is flawed. Plus, using that one or two matches as proof of weak competition is only as reasonable as using the sampras- fed h2h as proof of anything substantial.

 

[Deleted member 21996]

Not to mention Old Man McEnroe making slam semi's at Wimbledon and at the USO well into the late 80's and early 90's. Real strong field, there.

Old man Gomez picking up a slam off of young hotshot Agassi.

oh yes... you got us there! still not as shamefulll as the "no power Santoro" winning 4 titles in this so deep era of amazing players... while only taking 2 in the 90's...

i feel like posting a picture:

 

[GameSampras]

All I'm saying is Andre is a good player, regardless of age. you make it sound as if it was a big deal that he managed to take Fed to 4 & 5 sets. Andre was an exception, just like connors, so using him & his age to assess the competition that existed in 2005 is flawed. Plus, using that one or two matches as proof of weak competition is only as reasonable as using the sampras- fed h2h as proof of anything substantial.

Yes Andre still had the game... But didnt have the health, the movement, etc. His body wouldnt permit as many things as it would just a few years earlier when returned and was in phenemonal physical conditioning. 34-35 year old Andre was nowhere near was he was just a few years prior. Dont kid yourself. To think otherwise is just plain foolish.. And his results at 34-34 years old kind of prove that.. He didnt even play much tennis in 05. He was due to various injuries

 

[P_Agony]

Andre lost the 8 matches, but he was very competitive in a few. Took Fed to 5 sets at 34 years old at the USO.. Played 3 straight 5 setters and made the final very competitive. ANdre still had the game, but didnt have the body holding up.

But I still think there is something telling that can come out of the though.. With Fed being at his best, Andre at the tail end of his career

You're saying Andre was very competitive and took Fed to 5 sets, and you also say Federer had no competition at all.

How about making up your mind?

 

[Steve132]

Sampras in his prime lost to far worse players than the Agassi of 2005. Schaller, Yzaga and Delgado were definitely not superstars except possibly in the fevered imagination of certain Sampras fanboys.

 

[FiveO]

My only problem with the weaker and stronger era theory is that it is based on number of slam winners in the era.....

Assume Player A is the leading GOAT candidate in a ERA and he has several other slam winners with him playing alongside in his Era.
-> so, Player A is not so dominant as to prevent other players from occasionally winning slams.....so the difference in ability between player A and the field is not that great......What can we interpret from this

1) Player A has a tougher opposition and therefore his accomplishments are greater and ability is also great

2) It can also be inferred that since player A never dominated his opposition completely, he is only marginally better than the field (maybe certain key areas like serve, mental fortitude etc as examples).

Assume Player B is the leading GOAT candidate in a ERA and he has no / few slam winners with him playing alongside in his Era.
-> so, Player B is very dominant and prevents other players from even occasionally winning slams.....so the difference in ability between player A and the field is great......What can we interpret from this

1) Player B has a weaker opposition and therefore his accomplishments are not as great and his ability may be over exaggerated.

2) It can also be inferred that since player B dominated his opposition completely, he is a lot better than the field.

This only gives us a comparison between the difference of capabilities of players A and B with their respective fields.....
If the fields in the 2 era's were identical in terms of ability then we can clearly establish that B > A but there is no way to establish that........slam results do not provide this imo.....

Unless we can unequivocally prove B's era is weaker than A's we cannot say that A is more accomplished than B.........I f we can somehow measure the strengths of the 2 fields and relatively compare them, we cannot establish either way that A>B or B>A......there are too many variables here.......


SO talk of weak era, strong era is completely wrong.... so the result is indeterminate unless god can provide a field = A's field + B's field all playing at their respective primes for us to establish who the true GOAT is.........

That's not all there is to consider. Most of what makes a particular era or any player's peak years deep, is not solely dependant on his contemporaries, but generational overlap. The guys who came before and had established themselves and carried over the experience of success into the ensuing years coupled with the younger generation(s) following them.

The guys preceding a particular generation aren't unknown quantities, we knew who was good, had greatness in them and who disappeared for large and larger swatches of time. The generation who should have been and were reaching their peaks in or about 2000.

Kuerten, Magnus Norman, Rios, Moya, Philippoussis, Henman, Haas, Kiefer, Corretja, Enqvist, Costa, Canas, Thomas Johansson, a ton of guys from the generation immediately preceding Federer's emergence. Think of the time lossed to an assortment of injuries, surgeries, illnesses, suspensions, meltdowns, other personal issues, etc., and how many befell this group. Were all of them going assuredly by top tier one type players? Of course not. But should 2 or 3 of them have followed the same path as the preceding generations in the fully Open Era? Yeah there should have been. This group was decimated.

Much is made by how much peak time Agassi missed in the 90's, however when compared to the guy who is widely considered the second best if not the equal of Federer talent-wise, in Safin, it make's Agassi appear omnipresent in the 90's. Now consider the other guys suffering career limiting injury, meltdown, lack of commitment issues, loss of significant time, etc. of Federer's stone cold peers, Ferrero, Coria, Ancic, Nalbandian, Massu, Dent, Joachim Johansson, Blake, even Hewitt swooned as the result of some respiratory malady in 2003. Again were all of these guys destined for absolute top tier contending? The consensus is that Safin and Nalbandian should have, but what about surface guys like Coria on clay or Ancic who showed real promise on grass?

Couple that with the guys missing from Kuerten's generation. A ton of guys simply were not there. Some were certainly speculative, but others had proven themselves though at least on certain surfaces and they were quite literally MIA a ton or forever and much earlier than they should have been.

Would they ALL have impacted the middle 2000's profoundly? No. Would they have impacted the environment significantly and presented a much tougher gauntlet with their continued, less interrupted presence as a group?

If you can identify where anything like this occurred in the history of Open tennis prior, please point it out.

The latter 2000's are recovering with the early emergence of Nadal, the much later arrival of Djokovic and Murray and they're being followed by guys like DelPotro and Cilic, but even that will be contingent on Fed and one or two guys continuing forward as well.

5

 

[abmk]

it makes sense... but then we look at a certain old guy cominig form the late 80's with a bad back that was the only one really threatenening Mr Fed Bag... and one cannot help to wonder if that guy is really that dominant or his peers were just a few notches bellow making him look above average...

but i'm really not the coolest guy in the block so no one should listen to me...

How about a certain 41 year old pancho gonzalez actually beating a 31 year old laver coming off his 'Grand Slam' Season in a best of 5 match ??? 10 year difference ???

 

[tikkimonkey]

chicken or egg?

egg because the chicken would come from the egg.

PLUS the being that was not yet a chicken hatched an egg that was then a chicken. it evolved during reproduction which then means that the birth giver was not a chicken, but the egg it hatched was a chicken egg.

 

[Deleted member 21996]

How about a certain 41 year old pancho gonzalez actually beating a 31 year old laver coming off his 'Grand Slam' Season in a best of 5 match ??? 10 year difference ???

well... i am not the one constantly claiming superiority of a certain era like all federer fans. i only try to prove that all eras have players that would be top contenders at any given time with the given circumstantces...

hence Pancho winning over laver, and connors reaching sf at 39, agassi being finalist at 34, santoro winning newports at 36!

 

[FedNad316]

egg because the chicken would come from the egg.

PLUS the being that was not yet a chicken hatched an egg that was then a chicken. it evolved during reproduction which then means that the birth giver was not a chicken, but the egg it hatched was a chicken egg.

The answer is not so simple I am afraid.....There is this to consider -
* If the egg is not necessarily of any specific type: Then it could be said that the egg came first, because other animals had been laying eggs long before chickens existed, such as the dinosaurs. In biology, egg is used as a general term in this way.
* If only an egg that will hatch into a chicken can be considered a chicken egg: Then a re-consideration of the original question suggests: Some animal other than a chicken laid the first chicken egg which contained the first chicken. In this case the chicken egg came before the chicken. In reality, many scientific theories suggest that this would not have been a simple event. For example, the theory of punctuated equilibrium theorizes that the actual speciation of an organism from its ancestral species is usually the result of many mutations combined with new geographical surroundings, called cladogenesis.
*If only an egg laid by a chicken can be considered a chicken egg: Then a re-consideration of the original question suggests: The first chicken (which hatched from a non-chicken egg) laid the first chicken egg. In this case the chicken came before the chicken egg. Again, this would not necessarily be a straightforward event.

Lol:twisted::twisted:

 

[thalivest]

yes yes... you are the man!

3 Record 8

Turned Pro
Agassi:1986 vs Federer 1998

now, let me adress that lonely brain cell in your skull:

the almighty FedBag was getting pushed to 5 set finals of slams by a guy who became pro 12 years before him! who was 11 year older than him

impressive... really... i can see Federer deliver bagels to guys in crutches... hell he could beat my grandma with his backhand only...

i'm terrified!

Agassi and Federer have never played a 5 set final. Their only finals ever were a U.S Open final that Federer won 6-1 in the 5th set, and the ATP Masters final in 2003 where Agassi was spanked in straight sets and fed an embarassing bagel in the middle.

The scary thing for Agassi is most of his "prime age" years in the 90s- 1991, 1993, 1996, 1997, 1998, he was playing lower level tennis than he was in his 30s. I shudder to think what prime Federer would have been doing to him all those years then. I wonder if Federer and Nadal would be scared playing a guy who made it past the round of 16 of 2 slams between September 1995-May 1999 and who had a 0-2 record vs Doug Flach and 0-1 vs Luke Jensen during this time frame. Or the Agassi who in 1990-1991 didnt play the Australian Open either year, skipped Wimbledon 1 of 2 years and lost to the legendary David Wheaton in the other, couldnt beat career quarterfinalist Andres Gomez in the twlight of his career in a French Open final, and who lost 1st round of a U.S Open in straight sets to the same guy who couldnt even beat 39 year old Jimmy Connors later that same tournament allowing 39 year old Connors to come out of Agassi's quarter to the semis instead. Or the Agassi in 1993 didnt play Australia, didnt play the French Open, lost 1st round of the U.S Open, and ended the year World #24.

Agassi in his greatest year ever lost in Australia to Vince Spadea (who was then pounded by teenage Tommy Haas, who was then himself pounded by Kafelnikov), was 2 points from losing in the French Open final to Arnaud Clement and 20 more minutes of non-choking from losing the final 6-1, 6-2, 6-2 to a 100th ranked opponent, and took 5 sets to beat 0-time slam winner Todd Martin in the twilight of his own career in the U.S Open final. Yep even prime Agassi (something that lasted about 2 years) would be untouchable for someone like Federer, ROTFL!

 

[thalivest]

it makes sense... but then we look at a certain old guy cominig form the late 80's with a bad back that was the only one really threatenening Mr Fed Bag

More comedy from you. Here is a fact: Nadal, Hewitt, Roddick, Nalbandian, and Safin, all had more wins over Federer from 2003-2005 than an old Agassi and none played many more matches than the 8 Agassi got. Obviously Agassi wasnt even a top 5 threat to Federer at that point in time, let alone even close the biggest one.

 

[clayman2000]

Exactly. No offence to Sampras, but if you put Federer in the 90's, instead of Pete, guys like Kaflenikov, Rafter and company would have less slams, if any at all

 

[grafrules]

Exactly. No offence to Sampras, but if you put Federer in the 90's, instead of Pete, guys like Kaflenikov, Rafter and company would have less slams, if any at all

I actually did a breakdown of Federer in the 90s instead of Pete and I believe Federer would have won more than his current 15 slams in the 90s in fact. He also would be about to end his 6th straight year at #1 instead of possibly (and not even certain yet) only his 5th. In 2008 Nadal took the #1 from him. In 1998 he wouldnt have faced anyone who would have even been within 3000 points of him that year. Sampras in 1998 really was off form all year long, much more than Federer in 2008 and still pulled it out. Rafter had a shot to end #1 based on only a great summer and complete mediocrity (not even hardly ever making quarters) the rest of the year, had he just not gotten injured at the end. Rios also might have ended 1998 #1 without his late season injuries and withdrawals despite going slamless and finals, quarters, 1st round, 2nd or 3rd round in the slams.