The noGOAT thread

[jimlosaltos]

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.

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.

#

[arturohernandez]

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.