The noGOAT thread

[arturohernandez]

The GOAT debate is mostly just fun and something played out in one's mind, and one's mind is usually riddled with bias and prejudice whether one admits it or not.

The homogenization of pace and play is nothing new. Back in the classic era all but one of the slams were played on grass....fast grass. Everyone played the same way and ran to the net.

Borg is always in the conversation in my view. He's easy to dismiss because he was a baseliner whose baseline strokes don't compare to today's players. They look like a joke comparatively. But tackling him with a wooden racket would be a challenging prospect for any player today. With the power gone, players would have to rally with him and Borg was a player who could rally forever. Again, it's a pointless argument as we truly have no way of knowing what the outcome would really be.

The GOAT debate these days is measured by a player's achievements. By that metric Novak has won more than anyone else hands down so he's the GOAT. Fair enough. But he cannot volley for toffee despite Feliciano Lopez having him down as the second best volleyer in the world, next to Carlitos.

Prior to the 80's players weren't concerned about grand slam tallies. I don't have to tell most members of the forum that because you knew it already You all know that players back then never journeyed to the AO, for example.

Tim Henman says (privately) that today's best volleyers are a joke compared to his generation and the generations before. No quarrel here. Frank Sedgman, who played in the 50's, was an infinitely better volleyer than anyone around today, no question. The problem today is absolutely no one on the tour knows how to deal with volleys below the height of the net...not a clue.

In 50 years time people will likely view Novak as obsolete old fogey much like players of 50 years ago are often viewed today. We all know how great Roger and Novak are...but try telling folk that 50 years from now. I am assuming, of course, that all of us on the forum are going to live to well over a 100 years old.

It is interesting how Federer might be the last "great" volleyer. The only problem is that Lundgren told me in person that his volleys were terrible when he was a junior. He is a very good volleyer but I would put him below the great volleyers of the 90's. Not because of ability. I am sure that he could have been a great volleyer. He just didn't need to do it nearly as much during the height of his career.

I would say that Sampras might be the last great singles volleyer. He had no trouble with any height and just understood volleying and what his best plays were given the shot he received.

Anyone else come to mind in the singles game?

[jimlosaltos]

Thanks everyone for all your comments. I figured this one would get people talking.

I keep thinking about what Jerry Rice said about Tom Brady. In the 80's there is no way he would have played as long as he did? Football was way more physical and players were beat up at an early age.

Can we say the same about tennis? Did they protect players in some way? Maybe the slowing of the courts favors older players.

I am just fishing here but hey maybe you guys will throw me some trout.

How about a carp?

1) Enforce the rules starting with the shot clock. No other sport stops the clock depending on who you are.
2a) Enable more variety in playing pace, and set a minimum, e.g. make Indian Wells put in a real hard court
2b) Standardize and speed up the balls. Can do that without making everyone go back to 60 sq in rackets. Side benefit of saving lots of wear and tear on wrists and elbows.

[stotty]

Thanks everyone for all your comments. I figured this one would get people talking.

I keep thinking about what Jerry Rice said about Tom Brady. In the 80's there is no way he would have played as long as he did? Football was way more physical and players were beat up at an early age.

Can we say the same about tennis? Did they protect players in some way? Maybe the slowing of the courts favors older players.

I am just fishing here but hey maybe you guys will throw me some trout.

Slowing down the courts would only make matters worse. Speeding up the courts will send us back to days of Sampras and Goran. Regressing the equipment would be a non-starter as racket manufacturers would be apoplectic. We're doomed.

We could alter the rules however. No rallies longer then 10 strokes or incentives for winning points from the net, or with finesses shots, such as drop shots.

Anything is worth considering at this stage.

[arturohernandez]

Thanks everyone for all your comments. I figured this one would get people talking.

I keep thinking about what Jerry Rice said about Tom Brady. In the 80's there is no way he would have played as long as he did? Football was way more physical and players were beat up at an early age.

Can we say the same about tennis? Did they protect players in some way? Maybe the slowing of the courts favors older players.

I am just fishing here but hey maybe you guys will throw me some trout.

[arturohernandez]

2)Borg is simply not in the conversation vs Nadal.
4)Poly strings or not, Sampras' results on clay say it all.
5)Agassi no doubt to me the 2nd best returner of all time, but to say he was better at it than Novak is ridiculous.
Side note, no one seems to care about the Masters 1000's results except me, but Novak has won them all twice. No one else has won them all once. That is all.

Not in terms of numbers. Borg is nowhere near Nadal. But at the time, no one even dreamed of that many slams. He didn't even play the Australian that was on Grass.

Is there a win percentage or some HELO metric that someone can create?

I know we can't correct for conditions changing but is there some way to try and equate the generations by considering what someone did at the time and what they did.
How good they were against the competition? Can we change or stretch their record in some way to make it look more like today's record?

I mean we have computers that can write cover letters for jobs. Do we have a computer that can morph Borg into a 2000's player and then kind of guess what a record would look like?

[arturohernandez]

I respectfully disagree with you and DB. I think Novak's, Nadal's, and Fed's resume in Majors AND Masters 1000's says it all.

I don't agree but let's say you are right. Majors and Masters are the tell all. Why was there a sudden jump in these records?

As far as I see it, there are only two reasons.

One, it was a blip. We just happened to get three REALLY great players and they appeared at once.

Two, it is environmental. Nutrition, court conditions, training regimens, physios. All of these external conditions created players that could dominate for much longer.

actually, I messed up. There are three.

Both 1 and 2 are true. The players were exceptional. Conditions changed. They became even more exceptional.

The fact that the number of majors and masters basically doubled in one generation is weird. It's like the old California housing market around 2006. Everyone said it was different and then it crashed and then it went up again. Low interest rates inflate housing prices.

I think the big 3 are incredible but something made them more incredible than their predecessors.

Was it them, the outside tennis world or both? That is what is bugging me.

[jimlosaltos]

It is the reason Borg retired. He knew Mac would have owned him since he was younger!

Yup.

[arturohernandez]

Excellent summary.

There is no definition of what makes the Greatest Player of All Time, so who one backs depends on the criteria. It's only been in recent years that total 'slams was championed by many as the definitive metric. Ironically, I think this started with a subset of Federer fans, who now find it comes back to bit them. If that summary is what someone believes, then the discussion is over. Nothing wrong with that. It's subjective.

To me, total titles is what other industries such as the movies would call a "Lifetime Achievement Award". Lawrence Oliver has fewer Oscars than many, yet very many would call him the greatest actor. Much of the ability of the Big 3 to rack up so many titles -- beyond their great skills -- is simply the homogenization of courts and playing conditions quite possibly done deliberately by the industry to promote the top stars. Is that truly a qualification for greatness? The "if Rod Laver had played" argument is valid to debunking any comparisons between generations, and devalues the term goat, lower case.

I tend to be on your end of the spectrum, arturo. I don't think there is such a thing as a GOAT.

I recall Rod Laver at Wimbledon years back saying that if there is a GOAT (and he was skeptical, despite being on the list himself) it should include players such as Lew Hood & Ellsworth Vines. Neither remotely claims longevity nor total tonnage of trophies. Clearly, that is not The Rocket's metric.

If -- IF-- I were to pick one, my criteria would be two-fold: 1) Highest- and longest-sustained period of excellence and 2) Influence on the sport.

Roger Federer's 2004-2007.5 period to me covers the first criteria. As Andy Roddick put it, "Federer was both the best defensive and the best offensive player." Not "just" for a year, or some disjointed years but sustained excellence.

Secondly, Roger's influence on the sport dwarfs that of any player during my lifetime. On multiple levels.

I recall a lengthy, biting and amusing article on ESPN's web site that basically said, "Every kid grows up wanting to be Kobe. Nobody grows up wanting to play like Shaq."

Listening to players like Carlos Alcaraz, Holger Rune & Stefanos Tsitsipas, I think we all know who tennis' Kobe is. <g>

Recency bias is one of the most powerful. Some tennis follower, wish I could remember his name, that often has some great stats did a table to debunk the importance of head-to-head records. Basically, what he shows is that over long careers, the younger of two players in a rivalry almost always ends up winning the head-to-head by winning most of the later matches. Always. Going back decades.

#

It is the reason Borg retired. He knew Mac would have owned him since he was younger!

[jimlosaltos]

The GOAT debate is mostly just fun and something played out in one's mind, and one's mind is usually riddled with bias and prejudice whether one admits it or not.

The homogenization of pace and play is nothing new. Back in the classic era all but one of the slams were played on grass....fast grass. Everyone played the same way and ran to the net.

Borg is always in the conversation in my view. He's easy to dismiss because he was a baseliner whose baseline strokes don't compare to today's players. They look like a joke comparatively. But tackling him with a wooden racket would be a challenging prospect for any player today. With the power gone, players would have to rally with him and Borg was a player who could rally forever. Again, it's a pointless argument as we truly have no way of knowing what the outcome would really be.

The GOAT debate these days is measured by a player's achievements. By that metric Novak has won more than anyone else hands down so he's the GOAT. Fair enough. But he cannot volley for toffee despite Feliciano Lopez having him down as the second best volleyer in the world, next to Carlitos.

Prior to the 80's players weren't concerned about grand slam tallies. I don't have to tell most members of the forum that because you knew it already You all know that players back then never journeyed to the AO, for example.

Tim Henman says (privately) that today's best volleyers are a joke compared to his generation and the generations before. No quarrel here. Frank Sedgman, who played in the 50's, was an infinitely better volleyer than anyone around today, no question. The problem today is absolutely no one on the tour knows how to deal with volleys below the height of the net...not a clue.

In 50 years time people will likely view Novak as obsolete old fogey much like players of 50 years ago are often viewed today. We all know how great Roger and Novak are...but try telling folk that 50 years from now. I am assuming, of course, that all of us on the forum are going to live to well over a 100 years old.

The GOAT argument is the best marketing the consortium of major tournaments has ever done.

Can't be the best if you don't enter ALL four of our events ! Oh, and you can't win a handful and retire. You have to play until your knees or hips of shoulder give out <g>

Heck, to give someone a chance to break Djokovic's record, maybe they'll add a Fifth Major. Say, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

[stotty]

The GOAT debate is mostly just fun and something played out in one's mind, and one's mind is usually riddled with bias and prejudice whether one admits it or not.

The homogenization of pace and play is nothing new. Back in the classic era all but one of the slams were played on grass....fast grass. Everyone played the same way and ran to the net.

Borg is always in the conversation in my view. He's easy to dismiss because he was a baseliner whose baseline strokes don't compare to today's players. They look like a joke comparatively. But tackling him with a wooden racket would be a challenging prospect for any player today. With the power gone, players would have to rally with him and Borg was a player who could rally forever. Again, it's a pointless argument as we truly have no way of knowing what the outcome would really be.

The GOAT debate these days is measured by a player's achievements. By that metric Novak has won more than anyone else hands down so he's the GOAT. Fair enough. But he cannot volley for toffee despite Feliciano Lopez having him down as the second best volleyer in the world, next to Carlitos.

Prior to the 80's players weren't concerned about grand slam tallies. I don't have to tell most members of the forum that because you knew it already You all know that players back then never journeyed to the AO, for example.

Tim Henman says (privately) that today's best volleyers are a joke compared to his generation and the generations before. No quarrel here. Frank Sedgman, who played in the 50's, was an infinitely better volleyer than anyone around today, no question. The problem today is absolutely no one on the tour knows how to deal with volleys below the height of the net...not a clue.

In 50 years time people will likely view Novak as obsolete old fogey much like players of 50 years ago are often viewed today. We all know how great Roger and Novak are...but try telling folk that 50 years from now. I am assuming, of course, that all of us on the forum are going to live to well over a 100 years old.

[stroke]

Exactly. To win the Channel Slam, Bjorn Borg had to beat great, clay court specialists on slow clay, then a week later beat great serving, volleying grass court specialists on fast, slick grass. Today, top players can play virtually the same game everywhere. To win today's Chunnel Slam, pack the bags on the Eurostar and take your same game plan with you. Some players, like Novak, don't even play tune-ups. Why bother?

The homogenization of pace of play was specifically done to make it much more likely the same, marketable players were around on finals weekend to fill the seats. So, then crediting the players for that result, being around on the final weekend repeatedly -- while ignoring the changes, is misleading IMHO.

I respectfully disagree with you and DB. I think Novak's, Nadal's, and Fed's resume in Majors AND Masters 1000's says it all.

[jimlosaltos]

The GOAT discussion is one of the stupidest of all time. SOAT. All one has to do is remember this little fun fact...three of the four SLAMS used to be played on slick grass. Wimbledon, Australian and the U. S. Open all were played on grass. Not to mention the equipment engineering. Some like to call it evolution. More stupidity. Djokovic, Nadal and all of the other modern day graphite bazooka racquet playing imposters, save Roger Federer, would be cat food in the first round at three of the four tournaments of SLAM status. Discussion...derailed.

There are great players. A few names have been mentioned in this thread. There are others. Eliminating great players from the discussion is moronic. Put them all in the same draw and the let the best player win. Impossible to do...right? So is the GOAT discussion.

Exactly. To win the Channel Slam, Bjorn Borg had to beat great, clay court specialists on slow clay, then a week later beat great serving, volleying grass court specialists on fast, slick grass. Today, top players can play virtually the same game everywhere. To win today's Chunnel Slam, pack the bags on the Eurostar and take your same game plan with you. Some players, like Novak, don't even play tune-ups. Why bother?

The homogenization of pace of play was specifically done to make it much more likely the same, marketable players were around on finals weekend to fill the seats. So, then crediting the players for that result, being around on the final weekend repeatedly -- while ignoring the changes, is misleading IMHO.

[don_budge]

The GOAT discussion is one of the stupidest of all time. SOAT. All one has to do is remember this little fun fact...three of the four SLAMS used to be played on slick grass. Wimbledon, Australian and the U. S. Open all were played on grass. Not to mention the equipment engineering. Some like to call it evolution. More stupidity. Djokovic, Nadal and all of the other modern day graphite bazooka racquet playing imposters, save Roger Federer, would be cat food in the first round at three of the four tournaments of SLAM status. Discussion...derailed.

There are great players. A few names have been mentioned in this thread. There are others. Eliminating great players from the discussion is moronic. Put them all in the same draw and the let the best player win. Impossible to do...right? So is the GOAT discussion.

[jimlosaltos]

2)Borg is simply not in the conversation vs Nadal.
.

Borg and Fed are undefeated in their entire careers on blue clay. Pretenders are not. That is all.

{Sorry, I tried hard but just could not resist. It's always futile around the Borg. Forgive me }

[stroke]

Now that everyone is crowning Djokovic as the male goat and maybe soon to be GOAT with 25 majors. I thought it would be a good time to revisit the GOAT idea but this time from a noGOAT perspective.

Tennis changes and players adapt accordingly. It is easy to say that in XX era these players would have YY. Fill in whatever you would like for the XX and YY. I mean Bill Tilden describes learning to hit a shot after losing part of a finger. Amazing to think that people had parts of fingers amputated. Something that no modern player has had to deal with.

Okay, so I will star with a few thoughts myself.

1) Most majors goes to Djokovic. He will likely gain the record of 25 and be untouchable for the foreseeable future. The asterisk I would put on this is that winning the French and Wimbledon was not as difficult as it was in the past. Borg did that 5 (?) times in a row. He would be playing moon ball tennis one week and then shift to all court tennis a few weeks later. He did serve and volley and approach the net plenty of times. So the most majors is not what it used to be.

2) Best Clay Courter. Nadal and Borg. I mean Nadal is one of the greatest of all time but he just racked up FO. Again, he benefited from conditions that likely would have yielded fewer wins outside of clay. Of course, he adapted so maybe he would have learned to S&V more if needed to. It's impossible to say. Borg was a great clay court player too. Just burned out too early.

3) Roger. I think Federer is in a category all to himself. He beat Sampras at Wimbledon using S&V and all court play. He won the AO in completely different conditions many years later. Beat Djokovic at the RG semis in 2011 which in my opinion is the best match he ever played. It took every tool in his toolbox to win that match. He did not get the major or a tournament win but it was an incredible match that shows his versatility. This versatility was cut off when all the surfaces starting being very similar. I think this benefited Nadal and Djokovic more than it benefitted Roger. But you can only play under the conditions which are in front of you. Also, an incredible peak. Those few years were the most incredible tennis I have ever seen. They just kept slowing the conditions down. Roger adapted but he could no longer play the hyper aggressive tennis he had grown up with. So he is not the GOAT but he is my GOAT.

4) Sampras. Talk about what if. Had he switched to Poly he says he would have won RG. Had he switched to a larger racket he might not have lost to Safin. Remember when Federer was losing to Nadal then he stopped losing. Well, Sampras was playing with an even smaller racket and without poly. His 14 stand as a testament to his incredible ability. I still contend that today with his S&V game he would KO a LOT of players.

5) Agassi. Great champion! Best returner of all time. Yeah, Djokovic is great. But Agassi stood up to Ivanisevic on grass in the super slick fast conditions of the 90's. He also beat Sampras at his very best and often took him the distance many times. Agassi has to be in the discussion of best returner. I put Djokovic second because he never had to play against Sampras. My personal opinion is that Sampras would have taken the racket out of Nole's hand very often. Also, Nole's less compact forehand would have been a liability against Sampras. Of course, I know that we don't know how Djokovic would have adapted. If there is one thing we know, is that Nole will do whatever it takes to win.

I cannot write any more. I will just end by saying that conditions were ripe for winning more majors. I get it that nutrition is better that players know more than they ever did. That they have physios , etc. All of these things contribute. But I am still stumped about why it took 20 years to get another great player (Alcaraz) when it used to take 10 years between generations.

If things had operated as they did before, the big 3 would be sitting somewhere around 15, 12, and 11. Around the place that all the greats had stood at before this last anomalous tennis period.

Okay, I am pooped. Please feel free to contradict me and put me in my place. Call me a sore looser because my GOAT is not the GOAT. Whatever you did, please comment. I am still trying to make peace with calling Djokovic the GOAT.

2)Borg is simply not in the conversation vs Nadal.
4)Poly strings or not, Sampras' results on clay say it all.
5)Agassi no doubt to me the 2nd best returner of all time, but to say he was better at it than Novak is ridiculous.
Side note, no one seems to care about the Masters 1000's results except me, but Novak has won them all twice. No one else has won them all once. That is all.