Print

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[kban1]

1. The numercial and psychological factors are to be understood jointly. Ergo, take Fed out of the equation and it is not just 12-16 titles that are up for grabs, but a massive psychological block that is removed. In other words, if one assumes the perspective of a top ten tennis player, this is how I think he views Fed: this man has the best all court game in history, his serve is tremendous, his volleying great, his base line game sublime; he has no weaknesses and can hit winners from any part of the court. Most importantly, he has astonishingly few bad days in office. He wins with a regularity unprecedented in tennis history. I do not think anybody saw that on the other side of the net in the past. Neither Borg, nor Connors, or McEnroe had that air of infallibility. This factor cannot, of course, be computed, but it has to be understood in tandem with the numbers. How do you know that Roddick would not have matured differently, Safin would not have stayed focussed or Hewitt emerged more confident had Fed not been around? Don't you think the stinking feeling, that no matter how much you improve yourself, the best prizes of the game as well as the number 1 ranking will remain out of your reach has a cumulative effect? Consider what Robert Ryan said about Marlon Brando: "Hes destroyed an entire generation of actors."

I did consider the two factors together.

I agree somewhat with the basic premise underlying your theory but I disagree strongly with your specific application.

By your theory, repeated defeats to federer would dishearten these players so much that it would waste their motivation and ultimately their careers.

This does not jive for more than one reason:

1)
None of the players who would qualify at the top of the list during the Federer era have suffered that many defeats against Federer.  There isnt a case for ultimate decimation as was with gerulaitis vs Connors whereby Connors had beaten Gerulaitis 16 times in  a row --which then prompted Gerulaitis to say "Nobody beats Vitas 17 times in a row " after finally beating Connors.

There just isnt anyone that Fed has played and decimated so many times.

2)
the fact remains that none of these players had suffered multiple defeats of such numbers to Fed in the closing stages of a tournament.  So why then would these players lose hope of ever winning and give up in the earlier rounds itself ?

If you look at the record, most of Fed's opponents have undistinguished performances in GS even before they met Fed !!

3)
Here is another reason this theory does not fly --  These players are playing for their careers --they are professional tennis players whose job and motivation comes from playing tennis. There is a lot of pride and ego involved for it --aside from money for it not to be a factor. gerulaitis's example is one that illustrates the point.

As an aside, here is a personal example. When I started playing tennis, I tried to get a couple of my friends to join in --which they did, reluctantly, and several months after I did. What I did not know or realize was that they were much better natural athletes than I ever was. And so, even though they joined later, for the better part of the 1st 3 years, they would beat me fair and square --and often without effort, day after day --in fact almost every time we played, which was 4 times a week.  In this 2.5 to 3 years, I managed to win a grand total of 1 match against these 2 friends.

Did that discourage me from playing ? Did that destroy me as a player ? Did that kill my motivation as a player ? No. I kept improving until I was able to turn the tables on them -- it took almost 3 years but I got to a point where it became difficult for them to win against me.

I know this is not comparable to the pros --but the point is, if anything, at the pro level, the motivational aspect should be even less of a factor.

Sans the overwhelming number of fed victories over his opponets in Slams,  and based on the pyschological reaction of even an amateur competitor like myself, its a harder theory to accept. I respectfully disagree with this line of reasoning when it is used to explain a lack of notable opponents for Fed.

Fed's record on clay is still better than Lendl's on grass. Fed has beaten other clay court specialists on grass (except Nadal, who he has beaten on clay, but not at the French Open). Lendl was a great player, and I do take your point that Fed has a problem with Nadal, but I do not understand your overall point. Federer has chinks in his record. He is not the PERFECT player. Just the greatest. Frankly, I do not understand these gambits you play. Many such chinks can be found in the records of Laver, Borg, Lendl or whoever. So?

Why are we comparing Fed's record on clay against Lendl on grass ? Lendl would have won multiple Wimbledons had he been playing in this era of slower courts with conssitent even and high bounce. Lendl played some of the best grass courters of his time -- he changed his entire game and played serve and volley in order to accomplish that on slippery, low and fast W courts with uneven bounce. Fed has played 2 clay courters worth their salt -- Nadal and an older kuerten -- and lost to both-- comprehensively in the French. 

I brought in Lendl to illustrate that even on his worst surface, he acquitted himself better against top opposition on that surafce than Fed has. The point of course was to rebut your bringing in every Tom, Dick, and becker's record on clay to exonerate Fed's showing - do go back and read your post which prompted that response.

Now we are talking. You seemed to have presumed a GOAT standard and have imputed it to me. What is it? To me GOAT is simply the greatest tennis player who ever lived in the modern era.

A player who is not even the most dominant player of his own era --how can be called the most dominant in the history of the game ? His record against Nadal is a significant chink in his armor. Even if you make concessions for clay, it is still a pertinent issue.

I know you bring in examples of some players having trouble with some other players because there is a style mismatch. I agree that this happens from time to time in sport whereby an otherwise far superior player has problems with a good or average player in terms of matchup -- fisher, Anand, lendl (vs Leconte) all had these issues.

However, when these issues recur against another player who is not average but a contender for the throne of the no 1 player --when it happens against your chief rival, especially in  a career marked as much for numerous wins as for wins against anonymity, this takes on a much more significance.

When you boldly proclaim THE GREATEST OF ALL TIME, then the standard is extremely strict, the standard is extremely high -- you may have your personal reasons to opine so (as you have laid out), but dont expect others to join in without adopting a significantly critical approach.

This is important because you did start this thread (even in jest) questioning the wisdom / judgment of those who believe that a person anointed as GOAT needs to pass  a stricter test than what has been applied to him thus far.

This is where I made a genuine error. I did not present my argument well. Responding to your original point about the importance of speed and fitness in today's game (that is, unlike a slower bygone era, just skills will not get you by on a given day when you are not fully fit), I simply wanted to say that it makes Fed's consistency and fitness all the more remarkable. Not just that he rarely loses, but even when he does it is not before the finals or semis at least. The simple fact that Fed has competed in 41 consecutive grand slam tourneys in such a high intensity atmosphere is a great achievement to me. I brought up Rosewall, Connors, and Ashe not to run them down, but to illustrate the point that the game has gotten younger, more unforgiving, and competitive. That is, it is difficult to imagine any 40 year old surviving in the circuit today, leave alone competing in the finals or semis. I am sure if Connors were around today, it would be an updated, fitter and faster version of him with the same talent to boot.

Fair enough.

I have always said Federer's feats are admirable and it is true that his consistency is remarkable. And yes, players of yesteryears would not last past 35 --true.

But I have  a problem giving Fed extra credit for this -- after all his consistency is comparable to mcEnroe, lendl, Connors on an overall basis and the strong GS performance is still mitigated by his facing weaker opposition. This may be a wash at best, not a building block to a GOAT argument unless his GS numbers reach such stratospheric proportions that the quality of opposition is no longer an issue given the vast gap between him and other all time Greats (the Bradman standard --more about that in the next post).

We are not talking about simple platitudes. Nobody is compelled to announce anyone as the greatest ever. Borg's peers for example never announced him as the greatest ever just to be nice and polite. Even after he had 11 majors by the time he was 25. As a matter of fact, people always reminded him Laver was the best ever (Vijay Amritraj voted for Pancho Gonzalves). There are some who do not think Federer is the greatest. But there is a growing, voluble crowd of experts who think that he is. I do not think anyone, apart from perhaps Laver, commanded such historical scrutiny during his playing days. People who know a thing or two about the game have been talking about Fed's all time greatness since 2006. He still did not have the numbers back then, but to people who can see properly, he had the game to merit such a discussion.

Borg was never talked seriously about because Laver was still fresh in the memory. 30 years have passed, some observers who saw laver have passed away, memory has faded --plus half the people talking about Fed never saw Borg play, forget Laver. It is fair that Laver  got scrutinised as much as he was when the pronouncement of GOAT was made --any such pronouncement deserves the same.

Unfortunately Fed hasnt gotten that scrutiny -- partly because of the media. Its usually mainstream media (yes, those mwith 25-35 year olds manning their sports editiors desks with little understanding of history) which comes out with catchwords and slogans in trying to garner eyeballs. A debate topic is created, it snowballs, and then the question is posed in every forum possible -- to every possible player, tennis historian, tennis writer.


What results is some coming out in favor of the current incumbent (past is so far away), players themselves shower platitudes, others say its a toss up between the current and the past --which of course gets reported as a vote for the present. We know how media works, and especially how media has worked in this specific case -- fed and Goat. Seriously, how many people have you heard off who have not anointed him as GOAT ? you havent because their voice gets drowned in the majority rave. That does not translate to the rave being right.

How many times have you heard Laver's own opinion about the issue ? he has acknowledged Fed's greatness but not Fed as GOAT.  And he has said that in the most gracious way possible, without being a sourpuss --yet how many times is his opinion or that of a more discerning minority heard ?

These comments by players when prompted to say something mean little in the ultimate scheme.

BTW, as an side, amidst all the hoopla about SRT being the best since Bradman, have you ever heard Viv's opinion about SRT and how he views himself and SRT ? You wouldnt because  thats the minority opinion in the midst of a media rave.

No I am not joking. McEnroe recently stated that he will be looking closely to see if fatherhood causes a decline in Fed's game. He thinks it is bound to, just as it happened with champions of the past (only eight players in history have managed that. Only Connors has done it more than once). Fed has won 2 slams already after becoming dad. I was just wondering if Mac would change his mind. Anyway it is not a big deal. I thought the reference was clear because JM's speculation has been in the news. I was not trying to belittle him at all!

See this for instance:

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/sports/fatherhood-wont-affect-my-game-federer_100304761.html

I stand educated on this. Comments withdrawn with apologies.

[LosingNow]

Finally, I wrote that in response to the statements explaining why Bradman's near 100 average by itself qualifies him for GOAT,  and can exclude discussion about his game etc. By the same kind of standards, these numbers similarly show that RF and BB are way
out compared to the other greats in the discussion.

See..

http://www.cricketvoice.com/cricketforum2/index.php/topic,18879.0.html


In absolute terms Bradman’s record standard at 4.4 standard deviations above the mean. He tops Pelé in this metric who’s record for goal’s per game is only 3.7 standard deviations above the mean, Ty Cobb’s Batting average at 3.6, Jack Nicklaus’ Major golf titles at 3.5 and Michael Jordan in Points per game at 3.4.

In order to post a similarly dominant career statistic as Bradman, a baseball batter would need a career batting average of .392, while a basketball player would need to score an average of 43.0 points per game.

[kban1]

It seems the Don's GOATness can also be questioned! Apart from a fading Tate and Voce, he never really played a great fast bowler. Apart from Verity and Mankad, hardly any spinners who qualify as great. Minnow basher!

of course it can be.

What prevents that from happening is the sheer weight of numbers. Also, the fact that the others in his time while facing the same opposition did a fraction of what he did. See unlike tennis where the winner takes all, in crciket, more than one players had a shot against same / similar bowling.

Also, I saw you questioning Don's volume of runs by bringing in his double and triple hundreds in relation to Fed's slams. Perhaps you would consider another parameter -- the one of 100's scored since after all a 100 scored counts the same for doubles and triples.

he scored 29 100's in 80 innings, which works out to a 100 every 2.76 innings. Considering that even the best of batsmen in the latter years scored a 100 every ~6.25 innings (SRT, Ponting, SMG) and even the ones with better frequency dont get past the 5.5-6 mark -- the metric of being twice as good as the next best (not the average but the next in line) applies here too.

So despite the weaker bowling attack, when one player does what his contemporaries cannot and when one player does it at least twice as well than the BEST OF THE REST, then its fair to say that even after the subjective adjustments for minnow bashing, he still stands above the rest.

Thats what 30 GS for Fed would do. thats the standard that brroks no counter

[LosingNow]

Your euphemistic descriptor of a motley crew of good players as "diverse" clouds precisely 1 of the 2 central tenets of the argument against GOAT status, namely lack of opposition.

By diverse, I meant courts not players

[dextrous]

And, hate to bring this up again, but Australian open, until the 90s, was not highly regarded and one that many top players skipped.

[WicketView]

Finally, I wrote that in response to the statements explaining why Bradman's near 100 average by itself qualifies him for GOAT,  and can exclude discussion about his game etc. By the same kind of standards, these numbers similarly show that RF and BB are way
out compared to the other greats in the discussion.

See..

http://www.cricketvoice.com/cricketforum2/index.php/topic,18879.0.html


In absolute terms Bradman’s record standard at 4.4 standard deviations above the mean. He tops Pelé in this metric who’s record for goal’s per game is only 3.7 standard deviations above the mean, Ty Cobb’s Batting average at 3.6, Jack Nicklaus’ Major golf titles at 3.5 and Michael Jordan in Points per game at 3.4.

In order to post a similarly dominant career statistic as Bradman, a baseball batter would need a career batting average of .392, while a basketball player would need to score an average of 43.0 points per game.

Thanks ... I was trying to recall what this exactly was in my post #67.

Of course, I am not sure what they mean by standard deviation. Are they are taking the standard deviation of all test batsmen to date?

[WicketView]

And, hate to bring this up again, but Australian open, until the 90s, was not highly regarded and one that many top players skipped.

I think most players competed in the late 80s too. By the way, if what you are suggesting is true, this would go towards diluting the "lots of competition in 80s" idea.

[feverpitch]

And, hate to bring this up again, but Australian open, until the 90s, was not highly regarded and one that many top players skipped.

I think most players competed in the late 80s too. By the way, if what you are suggesting is true, this would go towards diluting the "lots of competition in 80s" idea.

If memory serves me right, Lendl gave up th Oz after winning it back to back, in order to concentrate on Wimb. Others have too. French and Oz are ones which were often given the slip by top players.

[LosingNow]

Finally, I wrote that in response to the statements explaining why Bradman's near 100 average by itself qualifies him for GOAT,  and can exclude discussion about his game etc. By the same kind of standards, these numbers similarly show that RF and BB are way
out compared to the other greats in the discussion.

See..

http://www.cricketvoice.com/cricketforum2/index.php/topic,18879.0.html


In absolute terms Bradman’s record standard at 4.4 standard deviations above the mean. He tops Pelé in this metric who’s record for goal’s per game is only 3.7 standard deviations above the mean, Ty Cobb’s Batting average at 3.6, Jack Nicklaus’ Major golf titles at 3.5 and Michael Jordan in Points per game at 3.4.

In order to post a similarly dominant career statistic as Bradman, a baseball batter would need a career batting average of .392, while a basketball player would need to score an average of 43.0 points per game.

Thanks ... I was trying to recall what this exactly was in my post #67.

Of course, I am not sure what they mean by standard deviation. Are they are taking the standard deviation of all test batsmen to date?

std deviation of batting average of all test batsmen to date (I presume with appropriate filters for min number of tests)..

I had posted an analysis a few months ago here..
http://www.cricketvoice.com/cricketforum2/index.php/topic,19417.0.html

The average for top 331 batsman was 38.45 and std dev 9.09 runs.

Inoc would say, the distribution is not normal.. therefore, if we look at quintile breaks, Q2 = 45.74, Q5=30.91 for this set, which means 80% of the players had average less than 45.74 and 60% of the players are dispersed  within approx 7.5 runs of a measure of central tendency of this distribution.

Clearly, Bradman at 99.94 is many "average dispersions" (7-9 runs) away from an average PROPER (filter criteria of 40 innings in batting pos 1-7) batsman who scores approx 38 runs.

Statistically, he is a GOAT in cricket.. and perhaps all sports as pointed out by the commenter.

[WicketView]

And, hate to bring this up again, but Australian open, until the 90s, was not highly regarded and one that many top players skipped.

I think most players competed in the late 80s too. By the way, if what you are suggesting is true, this would go towards diluting the "lots of competition in 80s" idea.

If memory serves me right, Lendl gave up th Oz after winning it back to back, in order to concentrate on Wimb. Others have too. French and Oz are ones which were often given the slip by top players.

No, he stopped playing French. Makes sense for the Wimbledon.

[kban1]

And, hate to bring this up again, but Australian open, until the 90s, was not highly regarded and one that many top players skipped.

I think most players competed in the late 80s too. By the way, if what you are suggesting is true, this would go towards diluting the "lots of competition in 80s" idea.

Why ?

Aus Open was the only tourney people avoided, not others. That too, the tourney started attracting back top players by 87 and in 88, when the new facility opened , everybody joined back

if you see the GS totals of the greats of the time, very few had won an Aussie Open before late 80's. They just didnt go. not sure how competition enters the picture.

[LosingNow]

Gourav posted this on his FB...posting it here.

http://blog.oregonlive.com/tennis/2010/02/australian_open_wrap_up_the_truth_about_the_roger_federer-rafael_nadal_rivalry.html

The progression of the game..


As a result of Federer's dominance -- and other players' attempts to catch up -- the game arguably has progressed more in the past five years than at any time since the introduction of graphite rackets in the early 1980s. During the Federer-Murray final yesterday, ESPN roving reporter Mary Joe Fernandez, a three-time Grand Slam finalist, cornered Ken Rosewall, whose career spanned from the 1950s into the 1970s. She asked Rosewall if Federer's "throwback" style seemed similar to his game. Rosewall almost did a spit-take. The old Aussie legends don't go in for the romanticizing of their era that the rest of us do. There's "just no comparison," he said simply.

True enough. In many ways, professional tennis today is an entirely different sport than the one Rosewall and his great rival, Rod Laver, played. We tend to relate Federer to the heroes of the '50s and '60s not because what he's doing on court resembles what they did. It's because he's broken tennis out of the modern power-game straight jacket that the wood-racket generations never had to deal with. In the '90s it appeared that brute force was what tennis would be from now on. Boris Becker, Goran Ivanisevic and Pete Sampras, all half a head taller than Laver and Rosewall on tippy-toes, kept it simple: crank up the booster engines and blast the ball past the other guy. In the second part of his career, John McEnroe, with his classic, artistic game, ended up being little more than a bystander against opponents who could have been playing linebacker for USC.

That power is now the price of admission for a professional tennis career (as Donald Young, the best juniors player of his generation, is learning). Same goes for the half-volley groundstrokes that, not so long ago, Andre Agassi and only Andre Agassi could consistently pull off. The top players of recent years have taken the revolutionary changes harnessed so successfully by Sampras and Agassi and broken them open to reveal all of their varied possibilities. The nuclear bomb exploded, and the mutants who survived are truly scary, freakish athletes.


But there's never been a mutant quite like Federer.



Trying to keep up with Federer..


The simple fact is, it's not easy to keep up with Roger Federer. It has caused truly exceptional athletes to push themselves to their physical limits and beyond. Novak Djokovic, Andy Roddick and Juan Martin del Potro have all struggled with injuries, including at the 2010 Australian Open. Nadal, just a couple of days after declaring that he was in excellent condition and had no lingering pain in his knees, defaulted mid-match against Andy Murray in the quarterfinals. Now he's going to be out of action for four weeks, and observers increasingly wonder if he'll ever again reach his 2008 level of play. Federer, meanwhile, floats on from major to major, unimpeded by physical problems despite having to lift up all those heavy trophies. Sixteen major titles; eight straight major finals; 23 consecutive major semifinals.

Yes, Federer is 2-5 in Grand Slam finals against Nadal. But look at Nadal now and look at Federer and tell me who really won those seven matches

[WicketView]

And, hate to bring this up again, but Australian open, until the 90s, was not highly regarded and one that many top players skipped.

I think most players competed in the late 80s too. By the way, if what you are suggesting is true, this would go towards diluting the "lots of competition in 80s" idea.

Why ?

Aus Open was the only tourney people avoided, not others. That too, the tourney started attracting back top players by 87 and in 88, when the new facility opened , everybody joined back

if you see the GS totals of the greats of the time, very few had won an Aussie Open before late 80's. They just didnt go. not sure how competition enters the picture.

Because, for many of these people, the quantity we are comparing is the SR = GS wins/GS played. If this includes wins in an Australian open in the early 80s, (eg. Wilander, Edberg from the list you had), then it plays their wins down. Or for someone like Lendl/McEnroe  who played in some of these but did not win, this would imply they could not win despite the lack of competition?

[feverpitch]

And, hate to bring this up again, but Australian open, until the 90s, was not highly regarded and one that many top players skipped.

I think most players competed in the late 80s too. By the way, if what you are suggesting is true, this would go towards diluting the "lots of competition in 80s" idea.

If memory serves me right, Lendl gave up th Oz after winning it back to back, in order to concentrate on Wimb. Others have too. French and Oz are ones which were often given the slip by top players.

No, he stopped playing French. Makes sense for the Wimbledon.

He actually also stopped playing Oz after back to back titles in 1988-89 and 89-90 I guess. Again, so he could devote six months for his quest of the holy grail... with the newly laid grass court in his backyard.

[12th_Man]

...
Lendl won 8/57=0.14 grandslams, Federer won 16/43= 0.364, McEnroe 7/45=0.16,
Becker 6/46= 0.13, Edberg 6/52 =0.12, Borg 11/27= 0.41, Sampras 14/52 = 0.27
....

Just looking at Lendls conversion and as i had pointed in my earlier post abt Lendl's no special love for GS's, He's probably the player i have watched most among the list.
But i bolded his number in context withthe point Kban is making:
Lendl lost more finals then he could win against most of the greats whom we are taliking here.
Borg,Connors,Wilander,McEnore,Becker,Pat Cast etc ave been some of the player he had lost finals against. Each of them barring Pat cash can make a great player list.
Federes only enounter agaiinst Sampras was very close 5 setter game, that could have gone either way 7-6(7)  5-7  6-4  6-7(2)  7-5 .
His numbers against a worthy opponent like NADAL are for all to see.
While Agassi and Roddik also have come close to Federer in finals, I don't even remember the name of other opponents in finals. Thus just the number 16 GS's  should be read with proper context.

I don't think the finalist is what you should be looking at. What is important is that Lendl might have had to win against multiple great players on his way to the finals. This is what you need to compare against the numbers Federer faced.
I also think talking about all these players indiscriminately as great is wrong. Of course they were great players, but they were not always great opponents. For some period of time, they were top class opponents on certain surfaces. However, one should not count an Ivan Lendl in the Wimbledon as a great opponent all the years, or Becker in French.

Finally, I wrote that in response to the statements explaining why Bradman's near 100 average by itself qualifies him for GOAT,  and can exclude discussion about his game etc. By the same kind of standards, these numbers similarly show that RF and BB are way
out compared to the other greats in the discussion.

Ok..
Now who would some of the consistent great player( or good players that Fed has faced).
In Aus10 open, if you look at progression, it was only finals where he faced Murray you can call good opponent. As you are aware how the top seeds are scheduled to play matches, The basic idea is top 4 players reach the semis.
While it may be time consuming to collect all the opponents list agaisnt Fed, but as an example let us take 2009 as an example as it is a complete season.
http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/players/profile?playerId=425&year=2009
you will find that against some good players,playing good tennis at the time, he has struggled,
Infact he lost last 5 ATP's for the year against decent opponents.
Novak Djokovic, if you note in 09 had a  good year and has beaten at least twice in ATP's last year.The record of Murray and Nadal stands for itself against Fed.

[kban1]

Because, for many of these people, the quantity we are comparing is the SR = GS wins/GS played. If this includes wins in an Australian open in the early 80s, (eg. Wilander, Edberg from the list you had), then it plays their wins down. Or for someone like Lendl/McEnroe  who played in some of these but did not win, this would imply they could not win despite the lack of competition?

The comparison of GS win / played was your metric wasnt it ?

First the record -----

Lendl for example played this tournament in the mid 80's (skipped in the early 80's) because he needed preparation and acclimation on grass, a surface he famously talked of  as  "grass is for cows".

Wilander for example won this tournament beating McEnroe and Lendl  in 1983. Only notable name absent from the draw was Connors. The rest including Edberg and Cash were all present.

Wilander again won in 1984 by beating kevin Curran, the grass court specialist in the final. Again, only notable absentees were Connors and McEnroe. The rest including Lendl, Edberg, Cash, (even Becker) etc played.

Edberg won in 1985 beating Wilander in the final --in a tournament that included lendl, WIlander, Becker, McEnroe, Cash etc -- only notable absentee was Connors.

Edberg won in 1987 beating Cash in the final --in  atournament where again, the only notable absentee was Connors.

1988 onwards is irrelevant --tournament moved to Flinders Park (now Melbourne Park) -- everyone played.

and now the reason why your argument does not apply --

1) As seen above, the only absentee was Connors. Given the depth of the field without Connors, I am not sure how the dilution of competition principle (as it applies in Fed's case) can be applied here on an equal scale.

I mean the winners here in the periods in question
a) still faced the rest of the stacked field (other than Connors), and
b) created their legacy as greats not just on the strength of this GS but also a definitive body of work which came against a fully stacked house in other GS tournaments.

2) And secondly, you are suggesting using a dilution in competition component to judge Edberg and Wilander ??

Last I checked, they were not being mentioned for GOAT. How is this even relevant from a premise standpoint (I have already shown its not relevant from a factual standpoint) ?

[Cover Point]

is that enough? OK maybe atleast one more

[pieterSAN]

You cannot compare tennis across eras - the game has evolved exponentially.


1. The equipment - this has already been discussed in length and Kban has provided a very nice explanation of how reaction times have decreased with the advances in racket technology.

2. The format for the year has changed quite a bit from back in the day. The Masters Series tournaments are important for rankings purposes and they began only 1990.

3. Physical intensity of the game. Long rallies are played at frightening intensity - this places an additional level of importance on fitness so that injuries do not become a factor. Case in point - Nadal is shopping for a wheelchair.

4. The relative parity in the top 100 of men's tennis. Perhaps this does not apply for Federer/Nadal, but it is a lot easier for someone with a power game to blow someone away. In other words, on some days your skills are almost completely nullified by someone who is having a good day.

5. The surfaces. Not just for Grand Slams, but over all the other tournaments year round. Far more tournaments on clay than before. Not so many on grass.


Honestly, comparing Federer to Borg or Laver is as good as comparing Federer to Hadlee or Sobers. Apples and Oranges.

CLR - I do sympathize with your viewpoint. I started watching tennis when I was 4 and I remember watching JP, Becker and Edberg....that was how I got into it. Federer has the most seductive game I have seen of any athlete in my life. At a time when everyone else looks like barbarians in comparison, he is glorious to watch.

But you can't compare.

[CLR James]

Once again, figures and facts are being considered in isolation. Here is what I want to say:

Federer has:

1. Numbers, titles etc.: check. These can be contextualized and contested of course, they are not absolute.

2. Consistency, fitness: check. It is an almost inhuman feat to appear in 41 consecutive GS tournaments and reach so many finals and semis. Check the others. Connors (leaving out his late years) has had one 3rd round loss in the Big W and one 1st round, apart from a QF one. In  the US open, he once lost in the 3rd round.

3. Style and all round game. CHECK. His game has a very low impact on his body. It keeps evolving and has changed the way tennis is played. I think only Lendl and Becker have had (to lesser degrees), such transformative influences. The former for inaugurating an era of power tennis with punishing ground strokes, and the latter for fathering an entire generation of boom boom servers. Hitting a ball hard with a high-tech racket is something everyone does today; but in an age where it is difficult to hit it slowly, when one hits those delectable drop-shots regularly in the French Open to win it, I call that pure genius.

The GOAT, all three combined: CHECK.

[CLR James]

GOAT ROAST   
Goat, hind quarter leg
4 c. water
6 potatoes
6 tomatoes
4 onions
2 cans tomato sauce
6 carrots
Salt and pepper
Put goat leg in roaster. Add 4 cups water. Cook slow until almost done. Add remaining ingredients until all cooked tender.

http://www.cooks.com/rec/doc/0,1727,152178-249196,00.html

Trust me. Lousy recipe. What do you have against garlic and ginger CP? Goat and lamb dishes often smell horribly unless you have these two ingredients.

[pieterSAN]

GOAT ROAST   
Goat, hind quarter leg
4 c. water
6 potatoes
6 tomatoes
4 onions
2 cans tomato sauce
6 carrots
Salt and pepper
Put goat leg in roaster. Add 4 cups water. Cook slow until almost done. Add remaining ingredients until all cooked tender.

http://www.cooks.com/rec/doc/0,1727,152178-249196,00.html

Trust me. Lousy recipe. What do you have against garlic and ginger CP? Goat and lamb dishes often smell horribly unless you have these two ingredients.

This recipe...truly for those who are in tune with the gamey flavor of goat.

[vincent]

Meanwhile. Austria has dedicated a stamp for Federer with the caption "Greatest Player in the World" (It does not say GOAT).

 

[12th_Man]

Meanwhile. Austria has dedicated a stamp for Federer with the caption "Greatest Player in the World" (It does not say GOAT).

[WicketView]

First the record -----

Lendl for example played this tournament in the mid 80's (skipped in the early 80's) because he needed preparation and acclimation on grass, a surface he famously talked of  as  "grass is for cows".

Wilander for example won this tournament beating McEnroe and Lendl  in 1983. Only notable name absent from the draw was Connors. The rest including Edberg and Cash were all present.

Wilander again won in 1984 by beating kevin Curran, the grass court specialist in the final. Again, only notable absentees were Connors and McEnroe. The rest including Lendl, Edberg, Cash, (even Becker) etc played.

Edberg won in 1985 beating Wilander in the final --in a tournament that included lendl, WIlander, Becker, McEnroe, Cash etc -- only notable absentee was Connors.

Edberg won in 1987 beating Cash in the final --in  atournament where again, the only notable absentee was Connors.

1988 onwards is irrelevant --tournament moved to Flinders Park (now Melbourne Park) -- everyone played.

and now the reason why your argument does not apply --

1) As seen above, the only absentee was Connors. Given the depth of the field without Connors, I am not sure how the dilution of competition principle (as it applies in Fed's case) can be applied here on an equal scale.

I mean the winners here in the periods in question
a) still faced the rest of the stacked field (other than Connors), and
b) created their legacy as greats not just on the strength of this GS but also a definitive body of work which came against a fully stacked house in other GS tournaments.

2) And secondly, you are suggesting using a dilution in competition component to judge Edberg and Wilander ??

Last I checked, they were not being mentioned for GOAT. How is this even relevant from a premise standpoint (I have already shown its not relevant from a factual standpoint) ?

kban, Read the conversation which led to this statement. Summary: Dex claimed that great players did not play Aus Open during 80s, because it was not . I replied saying that I thought they usually did, particularly in the late 80s ... and if his contention was true, it would dilute the competitveness argument.  Now, after I was asked to explain the logic of that, you come back to tell me that a number of greats did in fact participate in Aus Open during the 80s.

[kban1]

WV:

First the record -----

Lendl for example played this tournament in the mid 80's (skipped in the early 80's) because he needed preparation and acclimation on grass, a surface he famously talked of  as  "grass is for cows".

Wilander for example won this tournament beating McEnroe and Lendl  in 1983. Only notable name absent from the draw was Connors. The rest including Edberg and Cash were all present.

Wilander again won in 1984 by beating kevin Curran, the grass court specialist in the final. Again, only notable absentees were Connors and McEnroe. The rest including Lendl, Edberg, Cash, (even Becker) etc played.

Edberg won in 1985 beating Wilander in the final --in a tournament that included lendl, WIlander, Becker, McEnroe, Cash etc -- only notable absentee was Connors.

Edberg won in 1987 beating Cash in the final --in  atournament where again, the only notable absentee was Connors.

1988 onwards is irrelevant --tournament moved to Flinders Park (now Melbourne Park) -- everyone played.

and now the reason why your argument does not apply --

1) As seen above, the only absentee was Connors. Given the depth of the field without Connors, I am not sure how the dilution of competition principle (as it applies in Fed's case) can be applied here on an equal scale.

I mean the winners here in the periods in question
a) still faced the rest of the stacked field (other than Connors), and
b) created their legacy as greats not just on the strength of this GS but also a definitive body of work which came against a fully stacked house in other GS tournaments.

2) And secondly, you are suggesting using a dilution in competition component to judge Edberg and Wilander ??

Last I checked, they were not being mentioned for GOAT. How is this even relevant from a premise standpoint (I have already shown its not relevant from a factual standpoint) ?

kban, Read the conversation which led to this statement. Summary: Dex claimed that great players did not play Aus Open during 80s, because it was not . I replied saying that I thought they usually did, particularly in the late 80s ... and if his contention was true, it would dilute the competitveness argument.  Now, after I was asked to explain the logic of that, you come back to tell me that a number of greats did in fact participate in Aus Open during the 80s.

My apologies --I should have paid more attention to the context.

[WicketView]

Kban,  No problem. We all know how these things go ... the thread is long, with sub-threads forming.

[WicketView]

...
He actually also stopped playing Oz after back to back titles in 1988-89 and 89-90 I guess. Again, so he could devote six months for his quest of the holy grail... with the newly laid grass court in his backyard.

No he did not. He lost the finals in the year after his back to back wins. He continued playing Australian Open till 94.

[RicePlateReddy]

McEnroe calls a spade a spade and the GOAT the GOAT:

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/news/story?id=4900220

McEnroe: Federer is best ever
Associated Press
ZURICH -- John McEnroe thinks Roger Federer is the best men's tennis player of all-time.

We've had a little more than a week to digest and dissect Roger Federer's latest Grand Slam title. So what, if anything, did we learn from Slam No. 16? First and foremost, it's time to stop doubting the guy, writes Matt Wilansky. Blog

McEnroe, also considered one of the game's greats, said Tuesday he ranks the Swiss star ahead of Rod Laver, the only man to win all four Grand Slam events in one year, and seven-time Wimbledon champion Pete Sampras.

Promoting an ATP Champions Tour event in Zurich, McEnroe said Laver was his idol and Sampras was the greatest grass-court player ever. But the American left-hander said Federer, who has won a record 16 Grand Slam titles, was the greatest of all.

McEnroe said Federer's ability to average two Grand Slam titles a year was "phenomenally consistent and amazing."

[kban1]

As i said, the GOAt talk was first fueled and carried out by 20 something journos and sub editors of sports magazines -- this guy is  a case in point.

Run with the line till the topic gains enough traction to be the subject of every water cooler conversation and then every tom dick and harry as well as the greats are questioned repeatedly on it.

The great responds --yes (what is he going to say, NO !!) and now you have a story, with the sanctioned approval of a great.




if you ever ask gavaskar who is greater, gavaskar will answer every time that SRT is.

Interesting sidebar to that pice is that Cullinan was talking on TV yesterday about how out of the international players who played from the 60's to 80's and he had spoken to, an overwheming majority however felt that SMG was better than SRT.

[RicePlateReddy]

if you ever ask gavaskar who is greater, gavaskar will answer every time that SRT is.

Sure - that is a one-on-one conversation where Gavaskar comes across as self-effacing/humble. If you want to make an analogy, then it really should be: "Gavaskar says that Tendulkar is the Greatest of All Time". Now even though he is immensely proud of Tendulkar, he hasn't said that afaik.

It is very pertinent to the tennis GOAT debate that a great like McEnroe called Federer a GOAT. This was a news snippet from ESPN today. It is worth noting that he specifically mentions Laver in the conversation. I believe he meant it and  he wasn't coerced into saying it.

[WicketView]

As i said, the GOAt talk was first fueled and carried out by 20 something journos and sub editors of sports magazines -- this guy is  a case in point.

Run with the line till the topic gains enough traction to be the subject of every water cooler conversation and then every tom dick and harry as well as the greats are questioned repeatedly on it.

The great responds --yes (what is he going to say, NO !!) and now you have a story, with the sanctioned approval of a great.




if you ever ask gavaskar who is greater, gavaskar will answer every time that SRT is.

Interesting sidebar to that pice is that Cullinan was talking on TV yesterday about how out of the international players who played from the 60's to 80's and he had spoken to, an overwheming majority however felt that SMG was better than SRT.

To some extent I agree with your point. It is not that these guys said this out of context ... they were asked this, or were commenting after federer's feats. However, your comparison with Gavaskar is slightly off. McEnroe would probably find it hard to say that he was better than Federer, even if he so felt. But he is saying that Federer is better than Rod Laver. I think that is important.

[RicePlateReddy]

The great responds --yes (what is he going to say, NO !!) and now you have a story, with the sanctioned approval of a great.

Also, it is quite easy for persons as intelligent as McEnroe to answer the question honestly and not ruffle any furthers if he doesn't believe Federer can be called the GOAT. E.g.: "I think Federer is  brilliant and among the greatest tennis players who has ever graced the tennis court. ABC, XYZ too were phenomenal players and it is impossible to declare who is the the greater player because they lived and played in times that were very different. Having said that Federer's talent, achievements, stats, and consistency are staggering in any context."

Contrast that with McEnroe choosing to contrast Laver and Sampras, qualifying their supreme status, and explicitly indicating that he felt Federer was the greatest of them all. I don't think McEnroe is a kind of guy who will say something for political correctness if he believed otherwise.

[kban1]

Sure - that is a one-on-one conversation where Gavaskar comes across as self-effacing/humble. If you want to make an analogy, then it really should be: "Gavaskar says that Tendulkar is the Greatest of All Time". Now even though he is immensely proud of Tendulkar, he hasn't said that afaik.

I didnt mean the Gavaskar example as a direct and exact analogy but more as what likely happens when you ask a great a question like this.

In any case, with Bradman's presence, the point of GOAT in any cricketing conversation is rendered obsolete.

It is very pertinent to the tennis GOAT debate that a great like McEnroe called Federer a GOAT. This was a news snippet from ESPN today. It is worth noting that he specifically mentions Laver in the conversation. I believe he meant it and  he wasn't coerced into saying it.

This is not new news, McEnroe has been saying this for a long time.

There is nothing specific to note about him mentioning Laver -- Laver would have to be mentioned in justifying federer's GOAT status.

Again, I dont doubt McEnroe's comments.

I question how much of this is contextual obligation as a commentator, how much of this is self effacing humility, how much of this is image protection, and how much of this is genuine belief.

When there is a flurry of opinions which favor granting Fed GOAT status, with the stats to support on cursory view, when the other most prominent claimant to the status is 40 years+ in the past, it strikes a significantly discordant note for a retired great to argue against the tide for a variety of reasons.

[kban1]

To some extent I agree with your point. It is not that these guys said this out of context ... they were asked this, or were commenting after federer's feats.

However, your comparison with Gavaskar is slightly off. McEnroe would probably find it hard to say that he was better than Federer, even if he so felt. But he is saying that Federer is better than Rod Laver. I think that is important.

The gavaskar analogy was not meant to be a direct comparison but more as a general example of how self effacement, modesty, and humility comes into the picture.

Yes, he is saying that Fed is better than Laver, and he may genuinely believe that. Fair enough.

However, I suspect how much of this is predicated on honest appraisal and how much of this is influenced by image, consensus, going against the grain, etc etc.

[kban1]

Also, it is quite easy for persons as intelligent as McEnroe to answer the question honestly and not ruffle any furthers if he doesn't believe Federer can be called the GOAT. E.g.: "I think Federer is  brilliant and among the greatest tennis players who has ever graced the tennis court. ABC, XYZ too were phenomenal players and it is impossible to declare who is the the greater player because they lived and played in times that were very different. Having said that Federer's talent, achievements, stats, and consistency are staggering in any context."

Contrast that with McEnroe choosing to contrast Laver and Sampras, qualifying their supreme status, and explicitly indicating that he felt Federer was the greatest of them all. I don't think McEnroe is a kind of guy who will say something for political correctness if he believed otherwise.

Sampras does not belong in the GOAt conversation --seriously speaking.  Good that you broughht this up.


the fact that mcEnroe first anointed Sampras as the GOAT before he anointed federer when fed equaled or was on the verge of equaling Sampras initself tells me the factors mcEnroe concentrates on

-- the number of wins in exclusion to most everything else

When the clamor was on to declare Sampras a s the best of all time, McEnroe fell in line -- all too easily I thought. However,that clamor never reached a crescendo because of more obvious holes in Sampras' resume, such as clay court play -- holes that Fed has closed, which is why his candidacy has taken on such fervor.

And Mcenroe has obliged -- again.

Either he does not evaluate thoroughly or is too eager about his image or is too modest or pays undue emphasis on cursory numbers and general prevailing winds.

[RicePlateReddy]

Either he does not evaluate thoroughly or is too eager about his image or is too modest or pays undue emphasis on cursory numbers and general prevailing winds.

  Either all that, or he is right.

[RicePlateReddy]

"He has achieved so many great things in tennis and if he stays clear of injuries, stays motivated and continues at the same pace as he is doing, he will definitely be the greatest player of all time." -- Bjorn Borg on Federer prior to the '07 Wimbledon championship.

Since then, Federer won the Wimbledon and US Open in '07, the US Open in '08, French and Wimbledon in '09 and Australian in '10. Continues at the same pace as he is doing? Check. Greatest player of all time? Check.

[kban1]

Either he does not evaluate thoroughly or is too eager about his image or is too modest or pays undue emphasis on cursory numbers and general prevailing winds.

  Either all that, or he is right.

 

[kban1]

"He has achieved so many great things in tennis and if he stays clear of injuries, stays motivated and continues at the same pace as he is doing, he will definitely be the greatest player of all time." -- Bjorn Borg on Federer prior to the '07 Wimbledon championship.

Since then, Federer won the Wimbledon and US Open in '07, the US Open in '08, French and Wimbledon in '09 and Australian in '10. Continues at the same pace as he is doing? Check. Greatest player of all time? Check.

All that is is a quote and an extrapolation forward from that.

As I have said before, many players have said or hinted that Fed is GOAT or is on the way to being there.

And these comments dont happen in a vacuum. With all the myriad factors involved in an ex player expressing his opinion about such an issue, I am reluctant to put as much stock in these.

maybe they are right, maybe they are taking the politically expedient path, maybe they dont want to scrutinize a record the way the ultimate accolade should be scrutinized because its not a pleasant sight for a retired great to raise issues with a current great's achievements (smells like sour grapes to the public).

Ultimately, its  a matter of personal choice. It appears that some, perhaps including you, gain strength from statements from ex greats such as Mc and Borg as you see then bolstering or backing your independent observations.

Others such as me, find the concept of comparison across generations a little more difficult to accomplish. As brilliant as the present looks and as far as the object in the rear view mirror appears, its hard for me not to take into consideration the changes in the game and the performance of past greats.

GOAT is such an absolute title that the case for it needs to be water tight. Federer's case does not pass that bar. Thats my opinion.

[CLR James]

Question for kban and all folks: who do you think is the most graceful tennis player you have ever seen? Just in terms of style, these would be my picks:

1. Federer

2. McEnroe

3. Rosewall

4. Nastase

5. Laver

6. Ashe

7. Borg

8. Mecir

9. Agassi

10. Becker/Edberg