Who would you have play a tennis match for your life ?
grif
be used on the tours anymore, but they made a big comeback this week
when we got the news that a computer had decided that Jimmy Connors
was the greatest tennis player of the Open era. Programmed by someone
named Boffin Filippo Radicchi, it awarded bonus points for wins over
highly ranked opponents. Connors’ longevity obviously helped him beat
a high number of those players, more than, say, Roger Federer, who
came in at an absurd No. 7, has had a chance to play. The programmer
even said that younger players will be punished for not having played
as many matches as the legends. This is clearly the case when it comes
to Rafael Nadal, who may be the top quality-win player ever—he has 14
of them over the guy I think is the best of all time, and who has been
ranked No. 1 for as many weeks as anyone.
Jimmy Connors may have been the most successful, over the longest
period, of any Open era player so far. Nobody took as many punches and
got off the mat as many times as he did. But he’s not the best of the
last 40 years. The flaw at the digital heart of this program is that
it rewards players for beating certain opponents, while the players
themselves care about winning certain tournaments much more than they
do about beating highly ranked players—it is kind of fitting that
Connors, who loved to make matches personal, should fare the best
under this system. Otherwise, it makes for some pretty good laughs:
Guillermo Vilas, Bjorn Borg’s whipping boy, ends up six places ahead
of Borg himself; ditto for Andre Agassi, who clocks in three spots
ahead of his nemesis, Pete Sampras. And poor Ivan Lendl, who is ranked
second, might be wondering what he had to do to get ahead of Jimbo—
Lendl only beat him the last 17 times they played.
That a computer could be so off-base shows again the logical
impossibility of any GOAT debate. In 2005, for the 40th anniversary of
Tennis magazine, the editors did a countdown of the 40 best players of
those four decades. We looked, roughly, at Slam wins, time at No. 1,
and total titles. There were some misunderstandings along the way—we
judged Rod Laver only on his record within those 40 years, from 1965
on, so he ended up being No. 8, I think, one behind Connors, a fact
that set a lot of people off. And to make it more fun, and more
trouble, we mixed men and women. It was obviously tough to compare
them. In the end, we had to choose between Navratilova, Graf, and
Sampras for No. 1. Graf and Navratilova had the stats (I tried my best
to keep the thought of Seles’ stabbing out of my mind, even though it
almost certainly elevated Steffi’s totals), but we thought Sampras’
achievement relative to his competition was greater, so we went with
him. More outrage. Someone wrote to tell me that I had done
irreparable harm to the sport by choosing Sampras over Graf—I wrote
the Sampras entry, so I guess that’s why I was blamed. And it’s true,
Steffi’s at-least-four-wins-at-all-four-majors stat is hard to argue
with.
Later that year, a statistician and tennis fan who was outraged by the
seemingly arbitrary way we went about this came up with a purely
statistical method for finding out who “the best male player never to
win a Slam” was. Except that, as with Boffin’s computer, a human had
to decide which stats counted most and which could be ignored. In
other words, it wasn’t any more “pure” or logical than six editors
sitting around a table batting names back and forth. His stats ended
up being weighted in favor of shorter careers, so Miloslav Mecir, who
had his cut short due to injury, was determined to be the best never.
Stats don’t lie by themselves, but they also don’t exist by
themselves. Someone has to choose them, and everything is subjective
after that.
The bigger problem with the GOAT debate in tennis is that its stats,
like its players, don’t cross all eras. The Slams, while they are more
valued now than they were in, say, the 1970s, have always been the
most important events; every tennis player has dreamed of winning
Wimbledon. But the majors can’t tell the whole story because, to take
one prime example, Pancho Gonzalez, by consensus the best player in
the world throughout the 1950s, didn’t play in any of them for 20
years. And, as we know, Laver didn’t play in them during five prime
years of his career. There are no what-ifs allowed in this debate—we
can’t speculate that Laver would have won 20 majors and have that
number mean anything—but it does mean that Slams can’t really be the
be-all and end-all, because that would mean anointing a greatest
tennis player ever while ignoring the existence of Pancho Gonzalez and
downgrading Rod Laver.
Which is pretty much what I did a couple of years ago when I wrote
another Tennis magazine article claiming that Federer, with his 15th
Slam win, had earned the GOAT title. Logically, there can be no such
person, but I've always justified having the debate in other ways.
Namely, our minds make these comparisons anyway; everyone is entitled
to an opinion; we all know it’s a parlor game and just for fun; and
why should we deny ourselves that fun, while also realizing that any
GOAT claims we make are going to be flawed. I do consider Federer the
best ever, by the measures we can use. But watching Pete Sampras on
Monday, I thought again that at his peak, when he was at his best (I
think of his 1999 Wimbledon win over Agassi), no one in history,
including Federer at his best, could have beaten him. He had the
ultimate first-strike (with the serve), quick-strike (with the
forehand) game. If Sampras locked you down, you weren’t going to
escape.
That, of course, just brings up another question: Is it possible for
two players to be “at their best” against each other? If they’re
evenly matched to start, it doesn’t seem like it would work that way
in the zero-sum system of tennis. If one guy is bringing his best
stuff, chances are the other guy is going to be struggling; if Sampras
is on, even the world’s best returner isn’t going to be able to do
much about it. The “at his best” argument favors the big servers and
erratic shot-makers too much to be mistaken for a GOAT argument. Have
Federer and Nadal ever both played their best against each other? The
finest I’ve seen Nadal play against Federer was the 2008 French final,
which he won easily. The best I’ve seen Federer play against Nadal
were their two matches at the Masters Cup in Shanghai, which he won in
straight sets (though their were moments in one of those, the one that
ended 4 and 3 for Federer, when they both giving all they had at the
same time; an awesome sight).
As for Jimbo, he inspired our friend Tom Perrotta, who wrote about
this study for the Wall St. Journal, to bring up one other side debate
in the GOAT debate: Who would you have play a tennis match for your
life? He thought Connors was a pretty good choice, and this computer
program does measure ability in individual matches. I agree that
Connors makes sense, but first I have to come to grips with the whole
idea in the first place: Why would someone be playing a tennis match
for my life? Where would I be watching from? How nervous would I be?
Most important, who would my designated choice be playing?
To “play for your life” you want someone tough, a gutty competitor who
knows how to win; someone, above all, whom you can count on. Connors
himself chose Gonzalez when asked this question, then later added John
McEnroe to his list (he put a lot more trust in his old rival Johnny
Mac than I thought he would). I might say Sampras, but he would have
to be “at his best”; often he wasn’t. Jimbo is a solid choice, as long
as he’s not playing Ivan Lendl. Or Borg. Or McEnroe. From that era, I
would go with Borg over Jimmy; the Angelic Assassin was a killer in
his own right. Federer? He’s the best, he's the GOAT—but for my life?
When the chips were truly down? I’ll take Nadal.
http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/41892127/ns/sports-tennis/
felangey
:)
rec.sport.tennis
> Unequivocally, a healthy Nadal.
>
> :)
On clay Nadal otherwise Jimmy Connors
Vari L. Cinicke
What is going on? Bar room brawls and staking one's life on a tennis
player!
If it is a YEC, there is a very good chance that Nadal will find an
excuse not to show up. :)
Vari L. Cinicke
There is a 24% chance that you will be dead in a matter of hours!
Many say though that rst died a long time ago. ;)
TT
Nobody has picked Federer, first you'd get beaten and then killed.
Nadal all the way.
RzR
if so, that eliminates nadal, not that i would have picked him
uly...@mscomm.com
reilloc
[snipped]
Which who, on what, against whom? Obviously, on any surface (or an
unknown surface) against anybody (at the time) it would have to be the
'69 Laver.
You say the match is tomorrow and on _______________, against
______________ ? I'd have to know on what and against whom. If it's
tomorrow on clay against Nadal, I'd pick Nadal, for example.
LNC
felangey
> ______________ ? I'd have to know on what and against whom. If it's
> tomorrow on clay against Nadal, I'd pick Nadal, for example<
Eeeshk....just think if it was tomorrow on clay against healthy
Nadal.....and you picked healthy Nadal to play for your life. The
irresistable force meets the immoveable object. There would probably be a
rift in the space-time continuum and we would all die. :\
Vari L. Cinicke
No, neither player would reach the tunnel, let alone get on court.
:D
Manco
someone's life" I think all of them would crack under the pressure.
pltr...@xhost.org
For me, on grass or hard courts, it would be Kramer. Sampras comes
close, because of the second serve, but he's got a bit too much dog in
him for my taste.
On clay, or anywhere else if Kramer wasn't available, it would be
Borg.
After Borg, Gonzalez. Then Connors.
-- Larry
Whisper
> Weren’t we just talking about bonus points the other day? They may not
> knows how to win; someone, above all, whom you can count on. Connors
> himself chose Gonzalez when asked this question, then later added John
> McEnroe to his list (he put a lot more trust in his old rival Johnny
> Mac than I thought he would). I might say Sampras, but he would have
> to be “at his best”; often he wasn’t. Jimbo is a solid choice, as long
> as he’s not playing Ivan Lendl. Or Borg. Or McEnroe. From that era, I
> would go with Borg over Jimmy; the Angelic Assassin was a killer in
> his own right. Federer? He’s the best, he's the GOAT—but for my life?
> When the chips were truly down? I’ll take Nadal.
> http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/41892127/ns/sports-tennis/
In order;
1 Sampras
2 Hoad
3 Laver
4 Pancho
5 McEnroe
6 Nadal
7 Borg
8 Connors
9 Federer
10 Rosewall
felangey
>
>
> 1 Sampras
> 2 Hoad
> 3 Laver
> 4 Pancho
> 5 McEnroe
> 6 Nadal
> 7 Borg
> 8 Connors
> 9 Federer
> 10 Rosewall<
You value your life as little as I do! ;)
Superdave
Son of Sam or Timothy McVeigh
TT
> Peak Sampras on grass. No one else is close.
Hahaha. Rafa at 80% beats him. On grass.
TT
The rift would become if healthy Rafa ever lost on clay. Not going to
happen. Roger was close once, no cigar though. Unbeatable.
TT
> Well, being an old fart, I've said this here before:
>
> For me, on grass or hard courts, it would be Kramer.
That's very nice. It has to be adjusted to time...or else everybody will
be beaten by Rafa. :(
TT
That's really funny. Hewitt beat Sampras etc.
Whisper
Except peak Tsonga, Murray & Gonzalez?
Whisper
Sampras at age 30 beat peak Hewitt in USO semis in straights. Says it all.
TT
Beating Hewitt is no biggie...losing is. :(
TT
Gonzo beat peak Rafa? That's a new one. :)
Superdave
semis don't count remember? otherwise let's talk about r1/r2 at you know where.
kaennorsing
> Peak Sampras on grass. No one else is close.
Sampras lost on grass almost every year. Federer otoh was unbeaten on
grass for nearly 6 straight years... I'd rather have the latter
playing for my life. Now if you say 90's grass, you may have a point
as we don't know how Fed would have evolved in the 90's. But that's
highly coulda woulda and I'd rather not speculate when my life's at
stake :-)
kaennorsing
> 5.3.2011 19:28, ulys...@msomm.com kirjoitti:
>
> > Peak Sampras on grass. No one else is close.
>
> Hahaha. Rafa at 80% beats him. On grass.
Really? I actually think Sampras had the prototypical game to trouble
Rafa on grass; Big and reliable serves, great under pressure, all or
nothing style approaches on the return, blanketing the net in a flash,
great dropvolleys, flat and heavy groundies and the ability to take
the rhythm out of a match like no one else... If Sampras isn't a bad
matchup for Rafa on grass, who the heck is?
Whisper
> On 5 mrt, 18:28, "ulys...@msomm.com"<ulys...@mscomm.com> wrote:
>> Peak Sampras on grass. No one else is close.
>
> Sampras lost on grass almost every year. Federer otoh was unbeaten on
> grass for nearly 6 straight years... I'd rather have the latter
> playing for my life.
Sampras refused to lose Wimbledon finals, & based on that he's easily
better than Federer on grass. No way would he lose to a claycourter in
wimbledon finals. Maybe drop 1 set if he's off form but that's it.
Whisper
er, this is TT you're debating with.
felangey
Let us examine the evidence....
Ali Asoag
> Sampras refused to lose Wimbledon finals
So did Thomas Muster (e.g.) ...
Ali Asoag
Does that mean tha a younger Sampras got thrashed by pre-peak Hewitt
then (a year earlier)?
Vari L. Cinicke
>> he's easily better than Federer on grass<
>
> Let us examine the evidence....
... in the dark?
--
Cheers,
vc
ocean
NID.
Whisper
Your 'pre-peak' evidence when it relates to Fed/Hewitt, non-Sampras
players seems to be based on whether they win or lose. If Fed loses he
was pre or post peak, if Sampras wins then his opponent was pre or post
peak.
I haven't got time for this nonsense.
Ali Asoag
Your comprehension skills are such limited. What I used in my -
rhetorical - question was exactly your logic: When Sampras beat Hewitt,
Sampras was "old" and Hewitt "peak". So I just cited exact the same
tournament of the previous year and was just confronting you with your
logic. And I see now, you don't like it (your logic) as much. ;-)
> I haven't got time for this nonsense.
Wonder then, why you have been posting all the time. It's almost always
nonsense what you post here ...
topspin
If the venue, date, conditions and opponent were all completely
unknown, and it really was for my life, then any one from
Gonzales, Rosewall, Laver, Borg, Federer
Manco
> Nadal or Connors.
>
> NID.
Esp Nadal when he got trashed by Tsonga and Del Potro right?
Superdave
Correction: You ONLY have time for nonsense. You are 100% nonsense.
Superdave
Not me. I'd take Ted Bundy.
Manco
I'd expect something pyscho out of you Dave. Never fail to disappoint.
How's the "dark passenger"?
John Liang
Base on what Krajicek did to Sampras in straight set I can see Federer
easily pick up a few
Wimbledon tiltles from Sampras.
John Liang
> On 6/03/2011 12:11 AM, grif wrote:
>
> > Weren t we just talking about bonus points the other day? They may not
> > To play for your life you want someone tough, a gutty competitor who
> > knows how to win; someone, above all, whom you can count on. Connors
> > himself chose Gonzalez when asked this question, then later added John
> > McEnroe to his list (he put a lot more trust in his old rival Johnny
> > Mac than I thought he would). I might say Sampras, but he would have
> > to be at his best ; often he wasn t. Jimbo is a solid choice, as long
> > as he s not playing Ivan Lendl. Or Borg. Or McEnroe. From that era, I
> > would go with Borg over Jimmy; the Angelic Assassin was a killer in
> > his own right. Federer? He s the best, he's the GOAT but for my life?
> > When the chips were truly down? I ll take Nadal.
> >http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/41892127/ns/sports-tennis/
>
> In order;
>
> 1 Sampras
> 2 Hoad
> 3 Laver
> 5 McEnroe
> 6 Nadal
> 7 Borg
> 8 Connors
> 9 Federer
> 10 Rosewall
How many matches did you watch Hoad played in your life ? McEnroe is
rated 5th and yet he was 3:7 against Lendl in the
slams. Nadal won 3 real blue chip slams compare to Federer 12
against the same competition.
Superdave
consider the source. whisper lives in nevernever land.
Whisper
You better hope Fed doesn't draw Rafa lolololo
Whisper
Not at peak. Any Mac losses post '84 are irrelevent.
> slams. Nadal won 3 real blue chip slams compare to Federer 12
> against the same competition.
Nadal has 8 blue chip slams - could have 11 within 6 months.
John Liang
Lendl beat Mac 7 times in a row when Mac was already a slam champion
and Lend yet to
reach his own peak.
>
> > slams. Nadal won 3 real blue chip slams compare to Federer 12
> > against the same competition.
>
> Nadal has 8 blue chip slams - could have 11 within 6 months.- Hide quoted text -
FO was not a blue chip and does not require skill to win according to
you. So he only has 1 USO
and 2 Wimbledon that can be count as blue chip.
>
> - Show quoted text -
John Liang
You'd better hope Rafa does not draw anyone like those clowns who beat
him so often on hard court.
If you pick Nadal to play for you then you already lost your life 13
out of 15 hc slams in the last 8 years.
topspin
Oh, I don't know. I'd certainly be happy for 2004-6 Federer to be
playing for my life against any version of Nadal at the USO.
None of the players I list was invincible, but for sustained
competitiveness across the board, on all surfaces, against all-comers,
at all times - they are the creme IMO. Nadal, Lendl, Connors come
close, but I think Borg, for one, was just that bit better.
If it was a one-off and I knew my player was primed and ready, and the
surface suited - then it would still be Hoad.
John Liang
>
I am still curious to know how many Hoad's match did you watch to
place him 2nd on your list ? Logical thinking is well beyond your
capability.
Whisper
Hoad is a good pick. I'd also have Laver, Sampras & probably McEnroe in
there as 'best at peak'.
Federer is a great choice if he plays anyone except the very best
players. Fed rarely loses to lower skilled guys. However against great
players I think his guts are a little suspect.
I think McEnroe did enough to prove his best was better than 3 other
greats in Borg, Connors & Lendl.
TT
Someone with a two-handed bh.
John Liang
>
> - Show quoted text -
Running 3:7 against Lendl hardly make it enough to suggest his best
was better than Lendl.
topspin
> On 3/7/2011 7:42 PM, topspin wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 7, 5:11 am, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
> >> On 7/03/2011 11:04 AM, topspin wrote:
>
> >>> On Mar 5, 1:11 pm, grif<griffin_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> If the venue, date, conditions and opponent were all completely
> >>> unknown, and it really was for my life, then any one from
>
> >>> Gonzales, Rosewall, Laver, Borg, Federer
>
> >> You better hope Fed doesn't draw Rafa lolololo
>
> > Oh, I don't know. I'd certainly be happy for 2004-6 Federer to be
> > playing for my life against any version of Nadal at the USO.
>
> > None of the players I list was invincible, but for sustained
> > competitiveness across the board, on all surfaces, against all-comers,
> > at all times - they are the creme IMO. Nadal, Lendl, Connors come
> > close, but I think Borg, for one, was just that bit better.
>
> > If it was a one-off and I knew my player was primed and ready, and the
> > surface suited - then it would still be Hoad.
>
> Hoad is a good pick.
Good of you to endorse my pick.
> I'd also have Laver, Sampras & probably McEnroe in
> there as 'best at peak'.
I know you would. I wouldn't. Peak play is an over-rated concept IMO.
There are a shedload of players who at their very best are all
approximately the same. I don't think your three stand out against
many, many others.
> Federer is a great choice if he plays anyone except the very best
> players. Fed rarely loses to lower skilled guys. However against great
> players I think his guts are a little suspect.
Maybe I'd prefer a gutless wonder like Federer, who managed,
amazingly, to win week-in-week out despite the competition. Might be a
safer bet for my life to have someone like that than a gutsy type who
somehow managed to go under to a no-mark.
> I think McEnroe did enough to prove his best was better than 3 other
> greats in Borg, Connors & Lendl.
Sorry, I've just picked myself off the floor. Haven't had such a good
laugh in ages.
number_six
wear down his luckless opponent.
drew
>
> To “play for your life” you want someone tough, a gutty competitor who
> knows how to win; someone, above all, whom you can count on.
I don't want anybody playing for my LIFE. It's bad enough losing a
bundle
of cash backing the wrong horse.
I've won and lost backing Nadal. On balance I'm up but only Jesus can
lose a bet for his life and come back to break even.
No wager.
But if it came to a bet for his life, I think I'd take Davydenko. :-)
felangey
It was an arb. ;)
drew
LOL. You have the largest appetite for nonsense of anybody in the
world.
If you could bottle and sell nonsense for a penny a litre, you'd be a
billionaire by now. I mean, really.