What if they all won 20 slams? who would be GOAT?

[The Iceberg]

Suppose Nadal comes back like crazy in new year and wins the AO, stunning a tired Djoker in the semi and Fed in the final. He plays limited schedule but wins FO again, beating Djoker in the final. Then he goes to Wimbledon and beats Djoker again in the semi and wins the final against Zverev. He then decides to retire as he too tired to play USO.
So Djoker wins that one and goes on to win another 5 over the next 2 years, although Kevin Anderson wins Wimbledon and Stan the AO. Fed keeps playing but can't quite win finals but takes out the newgen clowns most of the time.

So you got Fed, Djoker, Nadal all on 20. Who is the GOAT?

I say Nadal, as he had the best ever level of tennis in 2008 and had to contend with both Fed(older) and slam winners Djoker/Murray(younger). He also won the Olympics.

[soccerfan777]

Is Federer really greater than Pancho Gonzales and Bill Tilden? How about Rod Laver? When you say GOAT, do you just mean Open era? Or do you mean post Rod Laver?

What is your criterion for GOAT?

[heyg...@gmail.com]

So no 7543 for you?

[Calimero]

Federer.


Max

[The Iceberg]

not in this exceptional case cos as Whisper has said there would be factors it didn't account for eg. the clown era etc.

[The Iceberg]

eh? since when haven't you known what the criteria for GOAT was??

[RaspingDrive]

On Monday, November 26, 2018 at 11:01:33 AM UTC-5, The Iceberg wrote:

If Djoker reaches 20, he is the goat.

[Whisper]

Agreed. Rafa has reached the highest peak form since Sampras.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

[Whisper]

Good point. I took it to mean best of post-Sampras era. These 3 guys
are elite all time greats based on sheer slams won/insane consistency
over 10+ yrs, but yes if we equalize for equipment/technology I'd have a
few guys ahead of them eg Hoad, Laver, McEnroe & Sampras at least.

[Whisper]

Fed's 'bad days' are few & far between, so based on that he has strong
goat claims. However Rafa's peak was better, & probably Djoker too.

[*skriptis]

Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com> Wrote in message:

The greater the time difference between the eras, the harder it is
to compare them. Comparing Federer vs Tilden is almost
impossible.

Sampras and the current big 3, did not play in the same era, and
the comparisons are not that easy either. Even for them, there
are some issues.

For example, current tour is more standardized, unified, surfaces
are homogenized, ATP pts mean something, they're more reflective
etc.

But even if the Sampras vs Federer/Nadal/Djokovic comparisons are
challenging, the comparisons between the big 3 are easier due to
them being contemporaries.

Having said all that, why do you believe it was Rafa who achieved
greatest peak since Sampras and not Djokovic?

Djokovic won most ATP pts in history, achieved NCYGS, elo ratings
have him ahead of others, and even in that 2011 season, when
tutor peaks coincided, he beat peak Nadal half a dozen time in MS
series finals, and in Wim, USO and AO finals. It's just one year,
but it's long for a peak level.

So, whose level has been greatest ever? It depends if you mean,
overall, or as a surface dominator?

http://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/peakEloRatings

I say again, Sampras had a different approach in a differently
organized tour, he was a slam player so any elo will be
unfavorable to him, so we might as well ignore him, but these big
3 played in the same era, and they're totally comparable. I focus
only on them.


Look at the top 5, their respective overall peaks.

1 Djokovic 01-02-2016, 2619
2 Borg 07-07-1980, 2604
3 McEnroe 08-04-1985, 2574
4 Nadal 09-09-2013, 2544
5 Federer 05-03-2007, 2540

Nadal is ahead of Federer by a whisker, but not ahead of Djokovic.


Best scores on single surface and overall and that comparison?

1. Clay, Nadal 24-02-2014 2664
2. Hard, Djokovic 01-08-2016 2662
3. Carpet, McEnroe 08-04-1985 2639
4. Overall, Djokovic 01-02-2016, 2619
5. Grass, Federer 16-06-2008, 2499

That's interesting to see.
And it's not wrong imo.

Djokovic in 2015-16 was as dominant on hard virtually to the same
level Nadal has been on clay during his best there.


It's just that Nadal had up to 10 similar seasons, which is mind
boggling. But as for level achieved? Pretty similar, almost
identical.

How is winning AO, USO, YEC, Indian Wells, Miami, Shanghai and
Paris, with finals in Montreal and Cincinnati, not similar to
winning FO, Monte Carlo, Barcelona, and Madrid/Rome.


In fact, it's more impressive within a context of a single season.
Djokovic had some lesser losses, e.g. Karlovic in Doha ATP 250,
that deceased his elo, Nadal's clay season was too short for him
to even play ATP 250s.

So I think, Djokovic's hard peak, it's very similar to Nadal's
clay peak. Nadal's achievements are greater as he repeated and
repeats near-peak performances almost every year, which is itself
impressive on another level.

But as for their very best, reaching almost peak invincibility on
their best surfaces, they're similar.

As for overall, Nadal had impressive runs in 2008-09, 2010-11 and
2013 and maybe 2017.

Respect for 2008-09.

Howeever that which is his peak on paper, in terms of silverware
won, FO, Wim, USO, won in 2010, he won against lesser opposition,
Soderling, Berdych and pre-peak Djokovic.

When he reached back to back FO-Wim-USO finals in 2011 he was
crushed in two of those.

Respect for 2013 again, but losing in Wim R1 negates the year a bit.

2017, losing AO to Fed and Wim to Muller, winning FO and winking
USO without beating top 10 guys, that's not peak.




So his peak in terms of silverware is 2010, part of his 2010-11
season, where he was clearly dominated by Djokovic, everywhere,
other than FO. Even in clay tune ups.

So in terms of peak play you can only go by 2008-09 run. Nothing
else is left.

Is that so much more better level, subjectively, than the Djokovic
of 2011 or 2015-16?

Pehraps? But like I said, it appears to be subjective. Nadal had
the luxury of having a pigeon in that season (similar to Djokovic
having the same in 2011).


So it does appear that the greatest peak ever has been Djokovic in
2015-16.




--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[MBDunc]

tiistai 27. marraskuuta 2018 10.54.57 UTC+2 *skriptis kirjoitti:
> <comprehensive analysis snipped>; great stuff; just see all those names in the top of ELO lists.

ELO is ruthless in that sense that it leaves no room for gutfeelings, wouldacouldashoulda or fanboyism.

Technically we can speculate that Sampras at Cinci late 90:ies played boatest stuff or it was actually Mac at YEC 84 or it was actually Hoad who had the boatest 30s ever in B/W clip? Every great champ has their own golden untouchable zone moments.

.mikko

[Whisper]

On 27/11/2018 7:54 pm, *skriptis wrote:
> Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com> Wrote in message:


>>

>> Agreed. Rafa has reached the highest peak form since Sampras.
>
>
>
> The greater the time difference between the eras, the harder it is
> to compare them. Comparing Federer vs Tilden is almost
> impossible.

Sure, but Hoad v Federer using Hoad's racket/technology? It's logical
Hoad would look better because we've seen Hoad perform using that stuff,
and we don't know how Fed would adapt to those tiny poor quality
rackets. It would then come down to pure tennis skills with zero help
from racket material/strings. Sure it's possible Fed would be better,
but absolutely not a given.

>
> Sampras and the current big 3, did not play in the same era, and
> the comparisons are not that easy either. Even for them, there
> are some issues.
>
> For example, current tour is more standardized, unified, surfaces
> are homogenized, ATP pts mean something, they're more reflective
> etc.

Yes, & all of this makes it easier for higher ranked players to win v
lesser players. There are no wildcards like vastly differing surfaces &
many styles of opponent to contend with. Everyone knows exactly what to
expect when Rafa steps on court v Djoker or Murray, & the surface makes
no difference today. I can't remember ever seeing a surprising point
between these guys - every point is exactly what I expected.

I don't think we can logically assume guys in this era playing a more 1
dimensional game (albeit at very high level) would just easily dominate
in an era that had more varied surfaces & opponents. Logically it has to
be harder to prepare for many different surface speeds & opponents.

>
> But even if the Sampras vs Federer/Nadal/Djokovic comparisons are
> challenging, the comparisons between the big 3 are easier due to
> them being contemporaries.
>
> Having said all that, why do you believe it was Rafa who achieved
> greatest peak since Sampras and not Djokovic?

I could be wrong about Djoker, but my instincts tell me Rafa's peak was
better than Djoker & Fed. Rafa has lost only 4 times to Djoker in slams
while beating him like 10 times. 2 of the losses were epic matches like
6 hr AO final where Rafa had an easy pt to lead 5-2 in 5th, & this yr's
Wimbledon semi was a match Rafa could have won in 4 had he won 3rd set
t/b. Also Rafa had 2 pretty easy wins v Djoker in USO finals, beaten
him 6 times at FO etc.

>
> Djokovic won most ATP pts in history, achieved NCYGS, elo ratings
> have him ahead of others, and even in that 2011 season, when
> tutor peaks coincided, he beat peak Nadal half a dozen time in MS
> series finals, and in Wim, USO and AO finals. It's just one year,
> but it's long for a peak level.

Sure, & all of this makes me feel Djoker's peak may have been better
than Fed's.

>
> So, whose level has been greatest ever? It depends if you mean,
> overall, or as a surface dominator?
>
> http://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/peakEloRatings

It's not easy as we're talking about results v absolute peak form. I'd
like Djoker's claims a lot more if he beat Rafa in all 3 of their USO
finals rather than just 1. That's Djoker's best surface by far & those
losses tell me a lot.

>
> I say again, Sampras had a different approach in a differently
> organized tour, he was a slam player so any elo will be
> unfavorable to him, so we might as well ignore him, but these big
> 3 played in the same era, and they're totally comparable. I focus
> only on them.

Yes, that's the sensible way to approach it. Sampras & Mac did not play
in an era where the style was the same on all surfaces. If they did
they would have had far more success as you just use cookie cutter
approach everywhere you go & win in the end because you're better.

>
>
> Look at the top 5, their respective overall peaks.
>
> 1 Djokovic 01-02-2016, 2619
> 2 Borg 07-07-1980, 2604
> 3 McEnroe 08-04-1985, 2574
> 4 Nadal 09-09-2013, 2544
> 5 Federer 05-03-2007, 2540
>
> Nadal is ahead of Federer by a whisker, but not ahead of Djokovic.
>
>
> Best scores on single surface and overall and that comparison?
>
> 1. Clay, Nadal 24-02-2014 2664
> 2. Hard, Djokovic 01-08-2016 2662
> 3. Carpet, McEnroe 08-04-1985 2639
> 4. Overall, Djokovic 01-02-2016, 2619
> 5. Grass, Federer 16-06-2008, 2499
>
> That's interesting to see.
> And it's not wrong imo.
>
> Djokovic in 2015-16 was as dominant on hard virtually to the same
> level Nadal has been on clay during his best there.

Maybe, but that makes those 2 4-set losses in USO finals valuable
analysis tool.

>
>
> It's just that Nadal had up to 10 similar seasons, which is mind
> boggling. But as for level achieved? Pretty similar, almost
> identical.
>
> How is winning AO, USO, YEC, Indian Wells, Miami, Shanghai and
> Paris, with finals in Montreal and Cincinnati, not similar to
> winning FO, Monte Carlo, Barcelona, and Madrid/Rome.

But we don't see Djoker beating Rafa in 2 routine FO finals. Indeed the
h2h just at FO is 6-1 to Rafa, 2-0 in FO finals.

>
>
> In fact, it's more impressive within a context of a single season.
> Djokovic had some lesser losses, e.g. Karlovic in Doha ATP 250,
> that deceased his elo, Nadal's clay season was too short for him
> to even play ATP 250s.
>
> So I think, Djokovic's hard peak, it's very similar to Nadal's
> clay peak. Nadal's achievements are greater as he repeated and
> repeats near-peak performances almost every year, which is itself
> impressive on another level.
>
> But as for their very best, reaching almost peak invincibility on
> their best surfaces, they're similar.

In terms of results maybe, but if Djoker was as good on hard as Rafa was
on clay he'd have shut Rafa out in USO finals. That's the ultimate test
of hardcourt greatness - USO finals. Djoker has lost 5 of those to 3
different players - ouch. That's the same as Lendl. Now if he won all
of those or just lost 1 final I'd be firmly in his camp. That's too
many losses at the ultimate level in this game. The greats have to have
some aura of invincibility like Borg at FO/Wim (11-1 in finals), Sampras
at Wimbledon (7-0) etc

>
> As for overall, Nadal had impressive runs in 2008-09, 2010-11 and
> 2013 and maybe 2017.
>
> Respect for 2008-09.
>
> Howeever that which is his peak on paper, in terms of silverware
> won, FO, Wim, USO, won in 2010, he won against lesser opposition,
> Soderling, Berdych and pre-peak Djokovic.
>
> When he reached back to back FO-Wim-USO finals in 2011 he was
> crushed in two of those.
>
> Respect for 2013 again, but losing in Wim R1 negates the year a bit.
>
> 2017, losing AO to Fed and Wim to Muller, winning FO and winking
> USO without beating top 10 guys, that's not peak.
>
>
>
>
> So his peak in terms of silverware is 2010, part of his 2010-11
> season, where he was clearly dominated by Djokovic, everywhere,
> other than FO. Even in clay tune ups.
>
> So in terms of peak play you can only go by 2008-09 run. Nothing
> else is left.
>
> Is that so much more better level, subjectively, than the Djokovic
> of 2011 or 2015-16?
>
> Pehraps? But like I said, it appears to be subjective. Nadal had
> the luxury of having a pigeon in that season (similar to Djokovic
> having the same in 2011).
>
>
> So it does appear that the greatest peak ever has been Djokovic in
> 2015-16.
>

I look at 1995 & I see Agassi won AO over Sampras in the final, & then
won 4 hardcourt tune-ups leading up to USO v Sampras again. Even so
everyone knew Sampras would rise to his best & beat him, & that's what
happened. On paper/'silverware' you could make a case for Agassi in
1995, but Sampras was at his supreme best at Wim/USO.

I just think Rafa's best 'beast form' wouldn't lose a 6 hour AO final &
this yr's marathon Wimbledon semi to Djoker. I could be wrong, but
that's my assessment based on watching these guys over 10+ yrs.

Put it this way - if I was forced to bet my life on a tennis match I
would have to take peak 'beast form' Rafa over Fed or Djoker.

[Whisper]

On 27/11/2018 8:34 pm, MBDunc wrote:
> tiistai 27. marraskuuta 2018 10.54.57 UTC+2 *skriptis kirjoitti:
>> <comprehensive analysis snipped>; great stuff; just see all those names in the top of ELO lists.
>
> ELO is ruthless in that sense that it leaves no room for gutfeelings, wouldacouldashoulda or fanboyism.
>
>

ELO also doesn't explain why Sampras would beat Agassi in '95 USO final
despite Agassi being on fire leading in. Also why Serena can pretty
much just play the slams & at least make final if not win. Lesser
players winning all the tune-ups etc might make great ELO, but isn't
helpful if we want to conclude Serena can't win based on the ELO score.

[*skriptis]

MBDunc <mich...@dnainternet.net> Wrote in message:

Elo also factors in tune ups, which is a whole another dimension.

Guy like Sampras would always look worse in elo ratings, just as
e.g. Borg or McEnroe would suffer in mpoat, due to not playing AO
and not accumulating any points there.

So elo is really nice tool to determine peak seasons, but then
again Sampras peak season might have been 1994, and his best peak
performance Wim 99 final.


But, like I said, the big 3 of this era, are very very similar,
they play under same rules ij same tour, so elo comparisons are
very useful in their case.


I was just interstated in Whisper picking Rafa (and not Djokovic)
to play match for his life out of greats in this era.


Not that I disagree with it, but I wanted to hear more.

[*skriptis]

Points taken. I will not quote you sentence by sentence, I will
simply ask.

I apologise to iceberg for going off topic. ;)



Ok, we're not taking about greatness here, are we, we're talking
about peaks.

Simply exchanging our subjective views on who had the highest peak
level?

So technically speaking, if we don't go by the data, ATP points,
elo ratings etc, which are not perfect indicators, I agree, so if
we drop those numbers however imperfect they might be, then
nothing prevents us, or anyone, to go full subjective and claim
e.g. peak Muster is the best ever on clay?

He had great run one season.



So back to Nadal vs Djokovic peaks, when I saw those data that
Djokovic's 2015-16 level on hard is as good as Nadal's best level
on clay, it made me think why is that so and when I thought more,
it made sense.

Djokovic literally won everything on HC that season, and made
Montreal and Cincinnati finals losing them to Murray and Federer.


That's how Nadal sweeps clay.


Nadal's greatness on clay lies in the fact that he had many
similar such near-peak seasons, while otoh Djokovic had *only* 2
on hard.

So my point is, does it matter that Djokovic lost many USO finals
and wasn't near peak on HC to be comparable to Nadal on clay for
entire decade if he did it couple of times, 1, 2 or
3?

We are talking about peaks here. If you reached e.g. level 1000 on
hard and your opponent level 1000 on clay, you're virtually the
same in terms of peak performance, despite your opponent reaching
levels 900, 950 etc for an entire decade.

You mention Borg invincibility, 11-1 in FO/Wim finals?
Djokovic is 10-1 in AO/Wim finals.

[MBDunc]

tiistai 27. marraskuuta 2018 13.51.02 UTC+2 Whisper kirjoitti:
> ELO also doesn't explain why Sampras would beat Agassi in '95 USO final
> despite Agassi being on fire leading in.

ELO notes this and the score is affected.

While fanboy stuff remains unaltered. Fanboy effect only cumulates as you usually like the other and dislike the other (Rafa vs Fed being a good example). Agendas are usually clear due to attached excuses.

In tennis (and in golf) fans have a luxury to select isolated timeframes to support absolute boatness/goatness cases. E.g. it might as well be that Rafa played his best ever tennis 2011 or that Lendl 1986-87 was better than Mac ever or that Sampras was better than Fed on grass or that Hoad was the boatest ever based on three weeks and B/W clips on pro circuit.

If you just shrug off any counter-evidence you can make anyone BOAT. Maybe it is Paire with this shot? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UM-fXREz-HM

.mikko

[The Iceberg]

Yes was going to say the best test is who’d you pick
to play for your life line, would pick peakest (in my view 2008) Nadal before Djoker and Fed. Would pick Sampras one above Nadal.

[The Iceberg]

Yes that was the point was trying to discuss, it kind of has to be post-Sampras.

[kaennorsing]

Op maandag 26 november 2018 17:01:33 UTC+1 schreef The Iceberg:

Once Roger Bannister ran the mile in under 4 minutes everyone else suddenly followed suit. Nobody remembers the rest though, so the answer is obviously the one who made it there first. Especially as it was in the presence of 2 other GOAT pretenders who were both 5 years younger and so had far less pressure on them for most of their careers - and had those 5 years to build their games around stopping him... But failed.

When talking about peak level though you can argue all sides. There are decent arguments for both Djoker and Rafa but of course neither of them managed to bagel the other two GOAT candidates on their favorite surfaces (neither actually), a surface where they are considered GOATs. Fed did manage to do that, not with one but with both GOAT candidates - during their peak years - along with pretty much any other top players he met regularly during his peak years. Remember how he bagelled Hewitt 7 matches in a row?

Beyond that though, Djoke's and Rafa's games are more about retrieving and not allowing winners. They are counterpunchers and are therefore betting on the other guy's less than peak play. Of course they are so good at it that they can shut out the opponents best play about 99% of the time. But if peak level is about totally shutting the other guy out then Fed is tops. His game has the most options (by far), is the most complete and is more designed to take opportunities away by hitting winners.

And of course he also happens to be the guy who managed to win the most important and prestigious tournament a record number of times... More times than Djoker and Rafa combined... coincidentally.

[John Liang]

On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 10:48:19 PM UTC+11, Whisper wrote:
> On 27/11/2018 7:54 pm, *skriptis wrote:
> > Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com> Wrote in message:
>
>
> >>
> >> Agreed. Rafa has reached the highest peak form since Sampras.
> >
> >
> >
> > The greater the time difference between the eras, the harder it is
> > to compare them. Comparing Federer vs Tilden is almost
> > impossible.
>
>
> Sure, but Hoad v Federer using Hoad's racket/technology? It's logical
> Hoad would look better because we've seen Hoad perform using that stuff,
> and we don't know how Fed would adapt to those tiny poor quality
> rackets. It would then come down to pure tennis skills with zero help
> from racket material/strings. Sure it's possible Fed would be better,
> but absolutely not a given.

Then there is more reason for you to shut the fuck up on Hoad been better, in fact Hoad wasn't even the best of his own generation or against the competition he faced.

>
>
> >
> > Sampras and the current big 3, did not play in the same era, and
> > the comparisons are not that easy either. Even for them, there
> > are some issues.
> >
> > For example, current tour is more standardized, unified, surfaces
> > are homogenized, ATP pts mean something, they're more reflective
> > etc.
>
>
> Yes, & all of this makes it easier for higher ranked players to win v
> lesser players. There are no wildcards like vastly differing surfaces &
> many styles of opponent to contend with. Everyone knows exactly what to
> expect when Rafa steps on court v Djoker or Murray, & the surface makes
> no difference today. I can't remember ever seeing a surprising point
> between these guys - every point is exactly what I expected.

So the surfaces make no difference? Then why is Federer winning 8 Wimbledon, 6 AO, 5 USO and 1 FO, and Nadal only won 1 AO and far fewer grass court and hard court titles than both Fed and Djoker. Think with your head before posting this type of nonsense specially when all available facts about these players does not back up the theory there is no difference between surfaces.

>
> I don't think we can logically assume guys in this era playing a more 1
> dimensional game (albeit at very high level) would just easily dominate
> in an era that had more varied surfaces & opponents. Logically it has to
> be harder to prepare for many different surface speeds & opponents.
>
>
> >
> > But even if the Sampras vs Federer/Nadal/Djokovic comparisons are
> > challenging, the comparisons between the big 3 are easier due to
> > them being contemporaries.
> >
> > Having said all that, why do you believe it was Rafa who achieved
> > greatest peak since Sampras and not Djokovic?
>
>
> I could be wrong about Djoker, but my instincts tell me Rafa's peak was
> better than Djoker & Fed. Rafa has lost only 4 times to Djoker in slams
> while beating him like 10 times. 2 of the losses were epic matches like
> 6 hr AO final where Rafa had an easy pt to lead 5-2 in 5th, & this yr's
> Wimbledon semi was a match Rafa could have won in 4 had he won 3rd set
> t/b. Also Rafa had 2 pretty easy wins v Djoker in USO finals, beaten
> him 6 times at FO etc.

So 6 times at FO on clay that was Nadal's home turf but on everything else Djoker is even, Djoker beat Nadal easily in 2011 at USO and W when both were pretty close to their peak. We all know they are about the same age and Djoker did not reach his peak until 2011 is like 18:9.

>
>
>
> >
> > Djokovic won most ATP pts in history, achieved NCYGS, elo ratings
> > have him ahead of others, and even in that 2011 season, when
> > tutor peaks coincided, he beat peak Nadal half a dozen time in MS
> > series finals, and in Wim, USO and AO finals. It's just one year,
> > but it's long for a peak level.
>
>
> Sure, & all of this makes me feel Djoker's peak may have been better
> than Fed's.


>
>
>
> >
> > So, whose level has been greatest ever? It depends if you mean,
> > overall, or as a surface dominator?
> >
> > http://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/peakEloRatings
>
>
> It's not easy as we're talking about results v absolute peak form. I'd
> like Djoker's claims a lot more if he beat Rafa in all 3 of their USO
> finals rather than just 1. That's Djoker's best surface by far & those
> losses tell me a lot.

If tennis is played on just one surface clay then Nadal is without doubt the king but when considering he has inferior record on 3 out of 4 slam to two of his main rivals and lack of successful defence on non clay court surface told us a lot more when he departed from his best surface.

He lost and it was his problem not finding the beast form, anyway prior to that match he played Wimbledon and USO final against the same guy, had another 4 tune up matches to find the beast form and he couldn't.

>
> Put it this way - if I was forced to bet my life on a tennis match I
> would have to take peak 'beast form' Rafa over Fed or Djoker.

No way I would put my life in Nadal's hand if matches are played on grass and hard court knowing this guy had a habit of shitting his own pants in defending a non clay court titles.

[MBDunc]

On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 3:17:19 PM UTC+2, The Iceberg wrote:
> Yes was going to say the best test is who’d you pick
> to play for your life line, would pick peakest (in my view 2008) Nadal before Djoker and Fed. Would pick Sampras one above Nadal.

Considering their best peaks, assets and aura/zoning: 14 slams minimum club

HC: Djokovic > Fed > Sampras > Nadal
Clay: Nadal >> Djokovic > Fed >>> Sampras
Grass: Sampras > Fed > Djokovic > Nadal
-----------------------------------------
Indoor: Djokovic > Fed > Sampras >>> Nadal

.mikko

[*skriptis]

kaennorsing <ljub...@hotmail.com> Wrote in message:

Bageling Nadal on wet clay in Hamburg in one set, or Djokovic in
humid Cincinnati, ok, ignore the weather, but both times in
tune-ups, which are no pressure matches, is no sign of boatness
for me.

You know what I perceive as boatness?

Djokovic saving 19/23 break points in USO 2015 final and beating
Federer who hadn't lost a set before the final.

It means Federer's level was really high in the tournament and he
beat Djokovic in Cincinnati final three weeks ago, and had 23
break points in the final.

And then converting 4 out of 23, it means something.


Federer plays fluid and all that but it's mostly against the
clowns and/or when the stakes are low.

[*skriptis]

MBDunc <mich...@dnainternet.net> Wrote in message:

I'd put Sampras first here. Djokovic disappointed me with losing
YEC finals to Zverev and Murray, great attack of Sampras would
kill him there, if Zverev did it, so could Sampras, easily.


Sampras > Djokovic > Federer >> Nadal

Only two >> between Federer and Nadal.

[MBDunc]

On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 4:15:25 PM UTC+2, *skriptis wrote:
> > Indoor: Djokovic > Fed > Sampras >>> Nadal
>
> I'd put Sampras first here. Djokovic disappointed me with losing
> YEC finals to Zverev and Murray, great attack of Sampras would
> kill him there, if Zverev did it, so could Sampras, easily.

Then again Djoker lost *only one* indoor match between Paris '12 - Paris '16 and that was round robin YEC match vs Federer '15 - which tournament he won anyway.

.mikko

[*skriptis]

MBDunc <mich...@dnainternet.net> Wrote in message:

> On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 4:15:25 PM UTC+2, *skriptis wrote:
>> > Indoor: Djokovic > Fed > Sampras >>> Nadal
>>
>> I'd put Sampras first here. Djokovic disappointed me with losing
>> YEC finals to Zverev and Murray, great attack of Sampras would
>> kill him there, if Zverev did it, so could Sampras, easily.
>
> Then again Djoker lost *only one* indoor match between Paris '12 - Paris '16 and that was round robin YEC match vs Federer '15 - which tournament he won anyway.

Ok, that's a good one. :)

[RaspingDrive]

That Federer would struggle in that match was clear in the first game itself. It was clear Djker was in his head by that time.

[Whisper]

Rafa had arguably the best top peak level performance ever when he won
Wim/USO/FO in 2010. No man has ever won the 3 biggest slams on
grass/hard/clay in the 1 year. There is no year of Fed/Djoker I would
swap that for.

[John Liang]

Sure, he was also in peak form in 2011 but failed to defend any of his titles and has a habit of when the going get tough he simply melted away against the competition. You use his tough losses as sort of back up arguments for his greatness but at the same time in those matches he was ahead but managed to loss those matches, he was the one that crack more often, he was also the one who could not handle the pressure of defending a non clay court events.

[guypers]

Rafa is a good #3 behind Fed aNd Novak! Mac is behind Lendl at 11, Hoad at 22 behind Nobody!

[MBDunc]

On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 9:15:04 PM UTC+2, Whisper wrote:
> Rafa had arguably the best top peak level performance ever when he won
> Wim/USO/FO in 2010. No man has ever won the 3 biggest slams on
> grass/hard/clay in the 1 year. There is no year of Fed/Djoker I would
> swap that for.

FO/Wimb/USO is unique for sure.

This article is from 2016, but its value is its graphs showing when players' peak actually were...

https://ig.ft.com/sites/novak-djokovic-the-best-tennis-season-ever/

(note: no specific mention about Rafa's 2010)

.mikko

[PeteWasLucky]

MBDunc <mich...@dnainternet.net> Wrote in message:

> On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 3:17:19 PM UTC+2, The Iceberg wrote:

>> Yes was going to say the best test is who?d you pick

>> to play for your life line, would pick peakest (in my view 2008) Nadal before Djoker and Fed. Would pick Sampras one above Nadal.
>
> Considering their best peaks, assets and aura/zoning: 14 slams minimum club
>
> HC: Djokovic > Fed > Sampras > Nadal
> Clay: Nadal >> Djokovic > Fed >>> Sampras
> Grass: Sampras > Fed > Djokovic > Nadal
> -----------------------------------------
> Indoor: Djokovic > Fed > Sampras >>> Nadal
>
> .mikko
>

lol, Icey should see you are djokovic fan here :)

On what basis is Djokovic better than Federer on HC?
Then when you answer this, we should get into what kind of hard
court, slow, fast, etc?


Also on clay, why is Djokovic better than Federer there? How many
times did Federer reach the FO final? Who did he lose to? Did
Djokovic play peak Nadal on clay like Federer did? Who beat
Djokovic in his peak in the FO SF 2011 when djokovic was one in
unbeaten for 43 matches? It's Federer when they were calling him
grandpa :)

On clay, I will order them like this:
Nadal, Federer, Djokovic, Sampras
On HC: Federer, Djokovic, Sampras, Nadal
On grass: Federer, Sampras, Djokovic, Nadal

Federer would have enjoyed playing Sampras on grass everyday.

[TennisGuy]

+1

[kaennorsing]

Op dinsdag 27 november 2018 15:10:18 UTC+1 schreef MBDunc:

> On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 3:17:19 PM UTC+2, The Iceberg wrote:
> > Yes was going to say the best test is who’d you pick
> > to play for your life line, would pick peakest (in my view 2008) Nadal before Djoker and Fed. Would pick Sampras one above Nadal.
>
> Considering their best peaks, assets and aura/zoning: 14 slams minimum club
>
> HC: Djokovic > Fed > Sampras > Nadal
> Clay: Nadal >> Djokovic > Fed >>> Sampras

During Djoker's peak Fed beat him at the FO so Fed>Djoker on clay

> Grass: Sampras > Fed > Djokovic > Nadal

Sampras never won Wimbledon as easily as Federer did in 2003, 2005, 2006 and 2017... So Fed>Sampras, basically everywhere actually. Perhaps on fast hard you can argue for Sampras with at least some level of credibility.

> -----------------------------------------
> Indoor: Djokovic > Fed > Sampras >>> Nadal

No doubt Fed's peak is tops indoors overall. Just look at his WTF stats; most wins, most finals, most semis etc. At peak he absolutely killed everyone there across 3 different generations when he was zoned in. Only arguments can be between Sampras and Djoker. I feel Sampras would have edged Djoker there h2h at peak though. His peak on fast courts was scary. Might have even edged Fed there, who knows, although Fed matches up much better with Pete than Djoker would have, I believe.

[*skriptis]

kaennorsing <ljub...@hotmail.com> Wrote in message:

> Op dinsdag 27 november 2018 15:10:18 UTC+1 schreef MBDunc:
>> On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 3:17:19 PM UTC+2, The Iceberg wrote:
>> > Yes was going to say the best test is who’d you pick
>> > to play for your life line, would pick peakest (in my view 2008) Nadal before Djoker and Fed. Would pick Sampras one above Nadal.
>>
>> Considering their best peaks, assets and aura/zoning: 14 slams minimum club
>>
>> HC: Djokovic > Fed > Sampras > Nadal
>> Clay: Nadal >> Djokovic > Fed >>> Sampras
>
> During Djoker's peak Fed beat him at the FO so Fed>Djoker on clay
>
>> Grass: Sampras > Fed > Djokovic > Nadal
>
> Sampras never won Wimbledon as easily as Federer did in 2003, 2005, 2006 and 2017... So Fed>Sampras, basically everywhere actually. Perhaps on fast hard you can argue for Sampras with at least some level of credibility.
>
>> -----------------------------------------
>> Indoor: Djokovic > Fed > Sampras >>> Nadal
>
> No doubt Fed's peak is tops indoors overall. Just look at his WTF stats; most wins, most finals, most semis etc.

You do realize most wins, most finals, most semis (lol), all that
is irrelevant when discussing peaks.

[kaennorsing]

Op dinsdag 27 november 2018 15:10:41 UTC+1 schreef *skriptis:

> Djokovic saving 19/23 break points in USO 2015 final and beating
> Federer who hadn't lost a set before the final.
>
> It means Federer's level was really high in the tournament and he
> beat Djokovic in Cincinnati final three weeks ago, and had 23
> break points in the final.
>
> And then converting 4 out of 23, it means something.
>
>
> Federer plays fluid and all that but it's mostly against the
> clowns and/or when the stakes are low.

An ancient, tired Federer choking vs peak Djoker on his favorite surface doesn't mean Djoker's peak > Federer. Far from it... Remember, old Fed always had less time to recover in all those late career slam matches vs Djoker post 2012. On top of being 5 years older and past his peak, it matters... And invalidates anything about their respective peaks.

For what it's worth I think Djoker's consistency at peak (and off peak) is clearly greater than Fed's. So if that's what you're saying I think you're right. Absolute peak level (say the level within a given match) I would take Federer though; 2004-2007 on pretty much all surfaces over Djoker; when Fed hit his stride it was just magical and probably just looked too easy for people to really appreciate. You never knew what he was going to do and his defense was off the charts back then (on par with peak Rafa and Djoker) but his offense (serve + early strike) was crazy good.

He basically murdered everyone (apart from Rafa on clay) for half a decade... without breaking a sweat.

[kaennorsing]

Op dinsdag 27 november 2018 23:09:11 UTC+1 schreef *skriptis:

Most wins is irrelevant? How about easiest wins? Most bagel sets? Says nothing either?

Djoker better retire quickly or you'll quickly dismiss all his past accomplishments once he starts losing more often.

[*skriptis]

That's not peak, is it?

[John Liang]

And you do realize that all these players were at peak at different time. The main reason they are all time great is what they achieved on court, winning slmas so after all most wins in grand slam, most finals that put them into the discussion. Wawrinka would not be in the discussion even when most of his slam wins were against Djokovic.

[*skriptis]

kaennorsing <ljub...@hotmail.com> Wrote in message:

> Op dinsdag 27 november 2018 15:10:41 UTC+1 schreef *skriptis:
>
>> Djokovic saving 19/23 break points in USO 2015 final and beating
>> Federer who hadn't lost a set before the final.
>>
>> It means Federer's level was really high in the tournament and he
>> beat Djokovic in Cincinnati final three weeks ago, and had 23
>> break points in the final.
>>
>> And then converting 4 out of 23, it means something.
>>
>>
>> Federer plays fluid and all that but it's mostly against the
>> clowns and/or when the stakes are low.
>


> An ancient, tired Federer choking vs peak Djoker on his favorite surface doesn't mean Djoker's peak > Federer. Far from it... Remember, old Fed always had less time to recover in all those late career slam matches vs Djoker post 2012. On top of being 5 years older and past his peak, it matters... And invalidates anything about their respective peaks.

This is tiresome, but federer wasn't really that old in 2015 and
neither was Djokovic young himself. 34 vs 28? In current era,
it's all relative.

If Federer had struggled to reach the final, I'd have agreed with
you. But he hasn't lost the set, and hadn't lost a serve to reach
Wim final, and beat Djokovic in Cincinnati that year and was #2.
So he was in good form.

>
> For what it's worth I think Djoker's consistency at peak (and off peak) is clearly greater than Fed's. So if that's what you're saying I think you're right. Absolute peak level (say the level within a given match) I would take Federer though; 2004-2007 on pretty much all surfaces over Djoker; when Fed hit his stride it was just magical and probably just looked too easy for people to really appreciate. You never knew what he was going to do and his defense was off the charts back then (on par with peak Rafa and Djoker) but his offense (serve + early strike) was crazy good.

Ok. I respect that opinion but totally disagree.

Throw him a guy who can defend a bit, or isn't a mental midget and
Federer isn't that divine anymore.

> He basically murdered everyone (apart from Rafa on clay) for half a decade... without breaking a sweat.

Please, I want to forget about Federer vs Ljubicic, Davydenko,
Roddick, Blake rivalries....

[PeteWasLucky]

> Djoker better retire quickly or you'll quickly dismiss all his past accomplishments once he starts losing more often.

Djokovic needs Roddick.

[*skriptis]

John Liang <jlia...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

Nobody is saying peak is important, but this turned into
discussion about whose peak was highest.

[John Liang]

On Wednesday, November 28, 2018 at 9:54:38 AM UTC+11, *skriptis wrote:
> kaennorsing <ljub...@hotmail.com> Wrote in message:
> > Op dinsdag 27 november 2018 15:10:41 UTC+1 schreef *skriptis:
> >
> >> Djokovic saving 19/23 break points in USO 2015 final and beating
> >> Federer who hadn't lost a set before the final.
> >>
> >> It means Federer's level was really high in the tournament and he
> >> beat Djokovic in Cincinnati final three weeks ago, and had 23
> >> break points in the final.
> >>
> >> And then converting 4 out of 23, it means something.
> >>
> >>
> >> Federer plays fluid and all that but it's mostly against the
> >> clowns and/or when the stakes are low.
> >
>
>
> > An ancient, tired Federer choking vs peak Djoker on his favorite surface doesn't mean Djoker's peak > Federer. Far from it... Remember, old Fed always had less time to recover in all those late career slam matches vs Djoker post 2012. On top of being 5 years older and past his peak, it matters... And invalidates anything about their respective peaks.
>
>
> This is tiresome, but federer wasn't really that old in 2015 and
> neither was Djokovic young himself. 34 vs 28? In current era,
> it's all relative.

34 is old for a tennis player, I think we will have a better understanding of it when Nadal and Djoker turns 34/35 and see what they can do at that age.

>
> If Federer had struggled to reach the final, I'd have agreed with
> you. But he hasn't lost the set, and hadn't lost a serve to reach
> Wim final, and beat Djokovic in Cincinnati that year and was #2.
> So he was in good form.
>
>
>
>
> >
> > For what it's worth I think Djoker's consistency at peak (and off peak) is clearly greater than Fed's. So if that's what you're saying I think you're right. Absolute peak level (say the level within a given match) I would take Federer though; 2004-2007 on pretty much all surfaces over Djoker; when Fed hit his stride it was just magical and probably just looked too easy for people to really appreciate. You never knew what he was going to do and his defense was off the charts back then (on par with peak Rafa and Djoker) but his offense (serve + early strike) was crazy good.
>
>
> Ok. I respect that opinion but totally disagree.
>
> Throw him a guy who can defend a bit, or isn't a mental midget and
> Federer isn't that divine anymore.

um, I guess 99% of the tour could not defend a bit and 99% of them are mental midget to make Federer great.

[PeteWasLucky]

> 34 is old for a tennis player, I think we will have a better understanding of it when Nadal and Djoker turns 34/35 and see what they can do at that age.

You think so? :)

It was interesting seeing Djokovic losing two consecutive finals in the last month at age 31.

[John Liang]

Yup, if he felt tired after about 6 months of top performance this year at 31 then just wait for him to get to 34/35.

[*skriptis]

PeteWasLucky <waleed...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

> > 34 is old for a tennis player, I think we will have a better understanding of it when Nadal and Djoker turns 34/35 and see what they can do at that age.
>
> You think so? :)
>
> It was interesting seeing Djokovic losing two consecutive finals in the last month at age 31.

I don't think it's age, or if it is, it's minimal.

Primarily, it's been a tough, tiring, season for him.

He was basically out of serious tennis for 2 years, and he was out
of tennis entirely for a year. Getting match fitness back is
tough.

He was probably more tired at the end of this season, both
physically and emotionally than he was, or would be, at the end
of a normal season.


Two guys he lost to, are big servers. You can always lose to them
indoors. E.g. he lost to Querrey in Paris 2012.

He lost but also won against Zverev.


People/haters think that him losing to Tsitsipas, Khachanov those
guys, Zvetev, means he's visibility declining, but ironically it
could be that they just "surprised" him, them being new players
on the scene.

Since he's a great and meticulous observer of the game, and
achieved his success because of it, I actually expect those guys
to have less success against him in the future, after couple of
first wins, and when he analyzes their games.

Before age really catches up with him.

[John Liang]

On Wednesday, November 28, 2018 at 11:05:10 AM UTC+11, *skriptis wrote:
> PeteWasLucky <waleed...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> > > 34 is old for a tennis player, I think we will have a better understanding of it when Nadal and Djoker turns 34/35 and see what they can do at that age.
> >
> > You think so? :)
> >
> > It was interesting seeing Djokovic losing two consecutive finals in the last month at age 31.
>
>
>
> I don't think it's age, or if it is, it's minimal.
>
> Primarily, it's been a tough, tiring, season for him.

So playing a much fuller season at 34/35 for Federer is not tiring compare to someone who played half a season at 31/32.

[*skriptis]

John Liang <jlia...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

> On Wednesday, November 28, 2018 at 11:05:10 AM UTC+11, *skriptis wrote:
>> PeteWasLucky <waleed...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>> > > 34 is old for a tennis player, I think we will have a better understanding of it when Nadal and Djoker turns 34/35 and see what they can do at that age.
>> >
>> > You think so? :)
>> >
>> > It was interesting seeing Djokovic losing two consecutive finals in the last month at age 31.
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't think it's age, or if it is, it's minimal.
>>
>> Primarily, it's been a tough, tiring, season for him.
>
> So playing a much fuller season at 34/35 for Federer is not tiring compare to someone who played half a season at 31/32.

Correct.

[bob]

On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 08:01:31 -0800 (PST), The Iceberg
<iceber...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Suppose Nadal comes back like crazy in new year and wins the AO, stunning a tired Djoker in the semi and Fed in the final. He plays limited schedule but wins FO again, beating Djoker in the final. Then he goes to Wimbledon and beats Djoker again in the semi and wins the final against Zverev. He then decides to retire as he too tired to play USO.
>So Djoker wins that one and goes on to win another 5 over the next 2 years, although Kevin Anderson wins Wimbledon and Stan the AO. Fed keeps playing but can't quite win finals but takes out the newgen clowns most of the time.
>
>So you got Fed, Djoker, Nadal all on 20. Who is the GOAT?
>
>I say Nadal, as he had the best ever level of tennis in 2008 and had to contend with both Fed(older) and slam winners Djoker/Murray(younger). He also won the Olympics.

as long as nadal got another wimbledon, i'd lean nadal. OG plus H2H.

bob

[bob]

On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 11:18:26 -0800 (PST), Calimero
<calim...@gmx.de> wrote:

>On Monday, November 26, 2018 at 5:01:33 PM UTC+1, The Iceberg wrote:
>> Suppose Nadal comes back like crazy in new year and wins the AO, stunning a tired Djoker in the semi and Fed in the final. He plays limited schedule but wins FO again, beating Djoker in the final. Then he goes to Wimbledon and beats Djoker again in the semi and wins the final against Zverev. He then decides to retire as he too tired to play USO.
>> So Djoker wins that one and goes on to win another 5 over the next 2 years, although Kevin Anderson wins Wimbledon and Stan the AO. Fed keeps playing but can't quite win finals but takes out the newgen clowns most of the time.
>>
>> So you got Fed, Djoker, Nadal all on 20. Who is the GOAT?
>>
>> I say Nadal, as he had the best ever level of tennis in 2008 and had to contend with both Fed(older) and slam winners Djoker/Murray(younger). He also won the Olympics.
>
>
>

>Federer.

aesthetics?

bob

[bob]

On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 04:47:33 -0800 (PST), MBDunc
<mich...@dnainternet.net> wrote:

>tiistai 27. marraskuuta 2018 13.51.02 UTC+2 Whisper kirjoitti:
>> ELO also doesn't explain why Sampras would beat Agassi in '95 USO final
>> despite Agassi being on fire leading in.
>
>ELO notes this and the score is affected.
>
>While fanboy stuff remains unaltered. Fanboy effect only cumulates as you usually like the other and dislike the other (Rafa vs Fed being a good example). Agendas are usually clear due to attached excuses.
>
>In tennis (and in golf) fans have a luxury to select isolated timeframes to support absolute boatness/goatness cases. E.g. it might as well be that Rafa played his best ever tennis 2011 or that Lendl 1986-87 was better than Mac ever or that Sampras was better than Fed on grass or that Hoad was the boatest ever based on three weeks and B/W clips on pro circuit.
>
>If you just shrug off any counter-evidence you can make anyone BOAT. Maybe it is Paire with this shot? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UM-fXREz-HM

not at a slam.

i actually brought up this concept a decade or more ago: when
discussing peak, are we talking years, year, season, tournament,
match, game, pt?

bob

[Whisper]

> Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com> Wrote in message:
>>
>> Put it this way - if I was forced to bet my life on a tennis match I
>> would have to take peak 'beast form' Rafa over Fed or Djoker.
>
>
>
> Points taken. I will not quote you sentence by sentence, I will
> simply ask.
>
> I apologise to iceberg for going off topic. ;)
>
>
>
> Ok, we're not taking about greatness here, are we, we're talking
> about peaks.
>
> Simply exchanging our subjective views on who had the highest peak
> level?

Correct. There are about 10 guys who can make some kind of claims to
boat/peak status.


>
> So technically speaking, if we don't go by the data, ATP points,
> elo ratings etc, which are not perfect indicators, I agree, so if
> we drop those numbers however imperfect they might be, then
> nothing prevents us, or anyone, to go full subjective and claim
> e.g. peak Muster is the best ever on clay?
>
> He had great run one season.


Muster can't really make a claim because everything he did Borg did 6
times better, & Rafa 12 times. You look at everything, including level
of opposition, diversity of era etc. Ofcourse if somebody sertiously
wants to claim Muster is best ever claycourter they are welcome to try.
I'd be interested in the arguments.




>
>
>
> So back to Nadal vs Djokovic peaks, when I saw those data that
> Djokovic's 2015-16 level on hard is as good as Nadal's best level
> on clay, it made me think why is that so and when I thought more,
> it made sense.
>
> Djokovic literally won everything on HC that season, and made
> Montreal and Cincinnati finals losing them to Murray and Federer.


Yes, but it's always about slams 1st & foremost. Everything else is
secondary. Secondary achievements can't trump slams.



>
>
> That's how Nadal sweeps clay.
>
>
> Nadal's greatness on clay lies in the fact that he had many
> similar such near-peak seasons, while otoh Djokovic had *only* 2
> on hard.

Rafa's clay greatness is 95% due to his FO record. If he only won 10
clay tune-ups but still the 11 FO titles his clay stature wouldn't be
diminished. But if he only won 2 FO's & 100 clay tune-ups? Different
category of greatness.


>
> So my point is, does it matter that Djokovic lost many USO finals
> and wasn't near peak on HC to be comparable to Nadal on clay for
> entire decade if he did it couple of times, 1, 2 or
> 3?
>


Unfortunately it matters a lot. Djoker would be 100 times greater if he
won all 8 USO finals, his tune-up record would not matter at all in that
case.



> We are talking about peaks here. If you reached e.g. level 1000 on
> hard and your opponent level 1000 on clay, you're virtually the
> same in terms of peak performance, despite your opponent reaching
> levels 900, 950 etc for an entire decade.
>
> You mention Borg invincibility, 11-1 in FO/Wim finals?
> Djokovic is 10-1 in AO/Wim finals.
>
>


Djoker is only invincible status at AO. His USO record is Lendl level.

[John Liang]

Only a tool would reach that sort of conclusion, enough said.

[MBDunc]

tiistai 27. marraskuuta 2018 22.52.15 UTC+2 PeteWasLucky kirjoitti:
> MBDunc Wrote in message:

> > On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 3:17:19 PM UTC+2, The Iceberg wrote:
> >> Yes was going to say the best test is who?d you pick
> >> to play for your life line, would pick peakest (in my view 2008) Nadal before Djoker and Fed. Would pick Sampras one above Nadal.
> >
> > Considering their best peaks, assets and aura/zoning: 14 slams minimum club
> >
> > HC: Djokovic > Fed > Sampras > Nadal
> > Clay: Nadal >> Djokovic > Fed >>> Sampras
> > Grass: Sampras > Fed > Djokovic > Nadal
> > -----------------------------------------
> > Indoor: Djokovic > Fed > Sampras >>> Nadal
> >

> Federer would have enjoyed playing Sampras on grass everyday.

The reason why I put Sampras > Fed on grass is exacly this hypotetchical scenario that requires everything being 100% (which just does not happen in real life).

I believe that if they played 100 grass matches - for various reasons I think Fed would win 65-70% of them. This mostly because Fed's 95% is undoubtedly better than Pete's 95% - and that's how you play your career.

However if they had THE match and all variables even and both at absolute peak. I think Pete's better big point/mental would prevail. Fed has a game but also a nagging history to snatch a defeat from the jaws of victory.

.mikko

[Whisper]

On 28/11/2018 12:53 am, kaennorsing wrote:
> Op maandag 26 november 2018 17:01:33 UTC+1 schreef The Iceberg:

>> Suppose Nadal comes back like crazy in new year and wins the AO, stunning a tired Djoker in the semi and Fed in the final. He plays limited schedule but wins FO again, beating Djoker in the final. Then he goes to Wimbledon and beats Djoker again in the semi and wins the final against Zverev. He then decides to retire as he too tired to play USO.
>> So Djoker wins that one and goes on to win another 5 over the next 2 years, although Kevin Anderson wins Wimbledon and Stan the AO. Fed keeps playing but can't quite win finals but takes out the newgen clowns most of the time.
>>
>> So you got Fed, Djoker, Nadal all on 20. Who is the GOAT?
>>
>> I say Nadal, as he had the best ever level of tennis in 2008 and had to contend with both Fed(older) and slam winners Djoker/Murray(younger). He also won the Olympics.
>

> Once Roger Bannister ran the mile in under 4 minutes everyone else suddenly followed suit. Nobody remembers the rest though, so the answer is obviously the one who made it there first. Especially as it was in the presence of 2 other GOAT pretenders who were both 5 years younger and so had far less pressure on them for most of their careers - and had those 5 years to build their games around stopping him... But failed.
>
> When talking about peak level though you can argue all sides. There are decent arguments for both Djoker and Rafa but of course neither of them managed to bagel the other two GOAT candidates on their favorite surfaces (neither actually), a surface where they are considered GOATs. Fed did manage to do that, not with one but with both GOAT candidates - during their peak years - along with pretty much any other top players he met regularly during his peak years. Remember how he bagelled Hewitt 7 matches in a row?
>
> Beyond that though, Djoke's and Rafa's games are more about retrieving and not allowing winners. They are counterpunchers and are therefore betting on the other guy's less than peak play. Of course they are so good at it that they can shut out the opponents best play about 99% of the time. But if peak level is about totally shutting the other guy out then Fed is tops. His game has the most options (by far), is the most complete and is more designed to take opportunities away by hitting winners.
>
> And of course he also happens to be the guy who managed to win the most important and prestigious tournament a record number of times... More times than Djoker and Rafa combined... coincidentally.
>

Good post with some good points. Of course I was talking about 'peak v
peak', so 6-0 sets are more likely to mean the other guy wasn't peak at
the time.

I also agree the guy with more weapons to attack, playing at peak, is
more likely to win than a great counterpuncher. By this measure Sampras
is a very strong boat contender.

Federer is far more consistent than Rafa or Djoker, so if I had to pick
a player to win 'any' random match over a decade then I would pick
Federer. His lows were still much higher than Rafa/Djoke's lows. That
alone gives him strong points in boat/goat stakes. If the conversation
moves to 'peak v peak' then I definitely would choose Rafa from this
era, & Sampras from past 2 or 3 eras.

[Whisper]

On 28/11/2018 1:00 am, John Liang wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 10:48:19 PM UTC+11, Whisper wrote:

>> On 27/11/2018 7:54 pm, *skriptis wrote:
>>> Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com> Wrote in message:

>>
>> Put it this way - if I was forced to bet my life on a tennis match I
>> would have to take peak 'beast form' Rafa over Fed or Djoker.
>

> No way I would put my life in Nadal's hand if matches are played on grass and hard court knowing this guy had a habit of shitting his own pants in defending a non clay court titles.
>>

I'm talking 'peak' form. Rafa's 2010 USO form would top peak Fed/Djoker
at USO imo.

[Pelle Svanslös]

On 28/11/2018 11.12, Whisper wrote:
> On 28/11/2018 1:00 am, John Liang wrote:
>> On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 10:48:19 PM UTC+11, Whisper wrote:
>>> On 27/11/2018 7:54 pm, *skriptis wrote:
>>>> Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com> Wrote in message:
>
>>>
>>> Put it this way - if I was forced to bet my life on a tennis match I
>>> would have to take peak 'beast form' Rafa over Fed or Djoker.
>>
>> No way I would put my life in Nadal's hand if matches are played on
>> grass and hard court knowing this guy had a habit of shitting his own
>> pants in defending a non clay court titles.
>>>
>
> I'm talking 'peak' form.  Rafa's 2010 USO form would top peak Fed/Djoker
> at USO imo.
>

A "peak" should last a bit longer than 2 weeks. The next time Rafa was
on a slam court he was playing for a NCYGS. But wilted under pressure.

[Whisper]

For me the player has to have goat level achievements to be considered,
so '1 shot', tournament etc means nothing.

Rafa has;

- arguably best season ever 2010 (better than any Fed/Djoker yr)
- 11 time champ at 1 slam (all time record)
- dominant slam h2h v 2 other goat candidates Fed/Djoker

When you compare Rafa v Fed v Djoker you have to look at their biggest
matches in slams, that's what defines careers/boat levels. Fed only
beat Rafa once in slams off grass surface, & that was 2017 AO final when
Rafa led 3-1 in 5th. That's it. Rafa has beaten Fed on all 3 surfaces
in slams. Rafa has easy wins over Djoker in USO finals - that's huge.
If Djoker was as good as some are suggesting then he would have shut
Rafa out at USO every time, like Sampras did v Agassi (4-0).

[Whisper]

Agreed. I was the 1st to criticize Rafa's feeble choking effort at AO.

Rafa did beat Djoker in 2 USO finals in routine fashion, so it's a
little more than 1-off. But yes point taken I prefer to see more wins
than the 3 USO Rafa won. Still, I feel there is enough there for me to
pick his 2010 form as my pick to play for my life v Fed/Djoker.

[Pelle Svanslös]

On 28/11/2018 11.36, Whisper wrote:
> On 28/11/2018 8:26 pm, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
>> On 28/11/2018 11.12, Whisper wrote:
>>> On 28/11/2018 1:00 am, John Liang wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 10:48:19 PM UTC+11, Whisper wrote:
>>>>> On 27/11/2018 7:54 pm, *skriptis wrote:
>>>>>> Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com> Wrote in message:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Put it this way - if I was forced to bet my life on a tennis match I
>>>>> would have to take peak 'beast form' Rafa over Fed or Djoker.
>>>>
>>>> No way I would put my life in Nadal's hand if matches are played on
>>>> grass and hard court knowing this guy had a habit of shitting his
>>>> own pants in defending a non clay court titles.
>>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm talking 'peak' form.  Rafa's 2010 USO form would top peak
>>> Fed/Djoker at USO imo.
>>>
>>
>> A "peak" should last a bit longer than 2 weeks. The next time Rafa was
>> on a slam court he was playing for a NCYGS. But wilted under pressure.
>>
>
>
> Agreed.  I was the 1st to criticize Rafa's feeble choking effort at AO.
>
> Rafa did beat Djoker in 2 USO finals in routine fashion, so it's a
> little more than 1-off.

Pre-peak Djok.

[*skriptis]

Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com> Wrote in message:

But Djokovic wasn't the favorite in those 2 USO finals he lost to
Nadal.

Bookies, ie tennis community expected Nadal to win those matches,
and he won them.

Nadal was favoured cca 60% in 2013 and 70% in 2010.

You may ask, why wasn't Djokovic the favorite, and it's a valid
question, but the fact he wasn't the favorite, means he wasn't at
his best at the time.

Djokovic was the favorite in 2011, 2015 and 2018 and he won those
finals.

So objectively, his failures at USO finals are 2012 and 2016 which
he lost as the favorite, but both times, it was USO at the end of
a season after he had had his incredible runs and was arguably,
on a decline. It can be argued that those loses are not
indicative of his peak level.

Same as nobody would USO Federer del Potro 2009 loss to claim
Federer's peak is low. It's simply not reasonable.


Of course losses matter in assessing greatness, but we're
discussing peaks here.

I agree for a legendary status, you need to win as much as you
can, win everything you're supposed to win (meaning for Djokovic
it is 2012 and 2016 USO as well) and then pull an an upset or two
(2007, or 2010 or 2013).

He could have won 5 or 6 and be a legend there, with 3 he's just a
great player. But do you need 10 titles to be in boat
conversations or couple are enough?

So I fail to see how is his inability to win dozen USO titles
indicative of his peak level, as we discuss peaks
here?

His level was nothing special in 2010, and it's a fact.

E.g. in 2010 he hasn't won a single masters series, and somehow
his US final loss that year was supposed to be indicative of his
peak level ability?

It's simply a year he was not at the highest level. Djokovic e.g.
won no masters series in 2010.

It's easy for Rafa to win FO/Wim/USO in 2010 against Soderling,
Berdych and Djokovic 1.0

In those three slams he didn't face Federer, Murray and he faced
Djokovic 1.0 only once.

That's great year on paper, winning FO-Wim-USO but in terms of
peak play, come on? Beating Berdych in Wim final, what's next,
praising Djokovic for beating Anderson this year?


2011 is much more fun. Nadal actually improved, had much greater
consistency.

He reached all the slam finals he did in 2010, and reached 5 first
master series finals, Indian, Miami, Monte, Madrid, Rome. And he
also beat Murray on HC in slams for the first time in his career
that year.

So, his 2011 level was no doubt greater than 2010, yet he was a
second fiddle to
Djokovic.

Djokovic 2011 > Nadal 2011 > Nadal 2010




I think however Nadal in 2008 was so young, so explosive, so
resilient that he could have taken down anyone, on any surface,
with his perseverance.

Even in that year he couldn't play the entire season so in terms
of peak seasons, Djokovic 2015-16 > Nadal 2008-09.


But Nadal in 2008 is tough, and in way special, for the fact no
matter how down, he was never done. There's a psychological
aspect to it.

And because of that, I can think about Nadal 2008 as boat.

But Nadal 2010-11?
No.

[Whisper]

If so that's more reason Djoker can't be boat. Djoker's best surface is
hardcourt & if he is a serious boat contender (not just best of the
field when Rafa/Fed aren't firing) then he needs to rise to his best
game & beat a guy who's best surface is definitely not hardcourt.
Especially at USO, which is the ultimate hardcourt title. It's not
enough to win a string of tune-ups & say that's the boatiest tennis
ever. If it was then Lendl would have claims in '82 when he won like 15
tournaments (but no slams).

Also Agassi was fave to beat Sampras in 3 of their 4 USO matches - '90,
'95 & 2002. In fact many considered Agassi fave in '01 as well, so
arguably at the time Agassi was fave to win all 4 matches, yet Sampras
won all 4 in 3 or 4 sets. It's only in hindsight we say Agassi was his
bunny - at the time Andre was fave. Sampras did what real boat
candidates do - shut out your biggest rivals when it really counts. Let
them have the tune-ups because history doesn't credit those titles.

> Nadal was favoured cca 60% in 2013 and 70% in 2010.
>
> You may ask, why wasn't Djokovic the favorite, and it's a valid
> question, but the fact he wasn't the favorite, means he wasn't at
> his best at the time.

You can't be in a slam final on your best surface & have an excuse for
not being at your best. That's what Fedfuckers say about Fed's losses
to Djoker & Rafa.

>
> Djokovic was the favorite in 2011, 2015 and 2018 and he won those
> finals.

Hmm, yet he beat Fed in semis of both 2010 & 2011 semis in identical
fashion? Everyone acknowledges Rafa's 2010 USO form was his best ever
at a hardcourt tournament, & that's why he beat Djoker.

>
> So objectively, his failures at USO finals are 2012 and 2016 which
> he lost as the favorite, but both times, it was USO at the end of
> a season after he had had his incredible runs and was arguably,
> on a decline. It can be argued that those loses are not
> indicative of his peak level.

This is just boiling down to excusing every player when he loses because
it must be because they weren't 'at their best' : )

>
> Same as nobody would USO Federer del Potro 2009 loss to claim
> Federer's peak is low. It's simply not reasonable.

1-off losses can be excused as flukes. Fed shoulda won that Potro match
in straights imo. He just got sloppy at unfortunate times in the 2nd set.

>
>
> Of course losses matter in assessing greatness, but we're
> discussing peaks here.
>
> I agree for a legendary status, you need to win as much as you
> can, win everything you're supposed to win (meaning for Djokovic
> it is 2012 and 2016 USO as well) and then pull an an upset or two
> (2007, or 2010 or 2013).

Imo Djoker should have beaten Rafa every time at USO, 'if' he really was
the hardcourt boat.

>
> He could have won 5 or 6 and be a legend there, with 3 he's just a
> great player. But do you need 10 titles to be in boat
> conversations or couple are enough?
>
> So I fail to see how is his inability to win dozen USO titles
> indicative of his peak level, as we discuss peaks
> here?
>
> His level was nothing special in 2010, and it's a fact.
>
> E.g. in 2010 he hasn't won a single masters series, and somehow
> his US final loss that year was supposed to be indicative of his
> peak level ability?
>
> It's simply a year he was not at the highest level. Djokovic e.g.
> won no masters series in 2010.
>
> It's easy for Rafa to win FO/Wim/USO in 2010 against Soderling,
> Berdych and Djokovic 1.0
>
> In those three slams he didn't face Federer, Murray and he faced
> Djokovic 1.0 only once.
>
> That's great year on paper, winning FO-Wim-USO but in terms of
> peak play, come on? Beating Berdych in Wim final, what's next,
> praising Djokovic for beating Anderson this year?
>
>
> 2011 is much more fun. Nadal actually improved, had much greater
> consistency.

That's subjective. To me he looked worse - eg his serve from 2010 USO
was noticeably gone.

>
> He reached all the slam finals he did in 2010, and reached 5 first
> master series finals, Indian, Miami, Monte, Madrid, Rome. And he
> also beat Murray on HC in slams for the first time in his career
> that year.
>
> So, his 2011 level was no doubt greater than 2010, yet he was a
> second fiddle to
> Djokovic.
>
> Djokovic 2011 > Nadal 2011 > Nadal 2010
>
>

Djokovic simply lost too many blue-chip slam finals to be a legit boat
candidate imo. He has time to turn it around by maybe even winning a
calendar slam?

Djoker lost;

5 USO finals
3 FO finals
1 Wim final

9 blue-chip slam finals is a lot to lose. It's the same as Lendl.
Djoker & Lendl are tied as goats in this category.

Yes he has some great stats eg 6 AO titles, but 4 of those finals were v
Murray & 1 v Tsonga. Very nice, but what's absent is great players in
these matches. Nice bonus for Novak. He did have 1 final win over
Rafa, but that was from 2-4 down in 5th set & a letcord from going down
2-5.

He also beat Murray for his lone FO title, & his last 2 slam wins this
yr were v Anderson and Potro.

Not convincing stuff if we're talking boat level displays.

He also lost 2 slam finals (Wim & USO) to Murray. Those are very bad
losses in my book for a boat type candidate.

I'm not saying all this to be critical of Djoker, in fact I was hoping
he'd win calendar slam in 2016 & then 2017 AO which in my book would
have given him legit claim at goat status. I'm just looking at the
facts as they stand.

I have no problem with other fans thinking he's boat, but the reasons I
don't accept it are as per above.

>
>
> I think however Nadal in 2008 was so young, so explosive, so
> resilient that he could have taken down anyone, on any surface,
> with his perseverance.
>
> Even in that year he couldn't play the entire season so in terms
> of peak seasons, Djokovic 2015-16 > Nadal 2008-09.
>
>
> But Nadal in 2008 is tough, and in way special, for the fact no
> matter how down, he was never done. There's a psychological
> aspect to it.
>
> And because of that, I can think about Nadal 2008 as boat.
>
> But Nadal 2010-11?
> No.
>

We'll probably never agree and that's fine. It would be boring if every
fan rated every player the exact same way. There would be nothing to
debate : )

If I had to pick 1 player to play for my life then it would be peak
Sampras, & peak Nadal 2nd. If I had to pick a player most likely to win
any random match over a 10 yr period then I'd go with Federer. If we're
going back to wood rackets then Mac/Hoad/Laver would be my choices.

[MBDunc]

keskiviikko 28. marraskuuta 2018 12.22.53 UTC+2 *skriptis kirjoitti:
> He could have won 5 or 6 and be a legend there, with 3 he's just a
> great player. But do you need 10 titles to be in boat
> conversations or couple are enough?

If Hoad with his non-existent pro circuit creds

I think Nadal's physical and movement peak indeed was 2008 - especially how he same time had managed get wiser and had cut off the most extensive running.

But his strategy, variability and general playbook improved especially for hardcourts later. For clay succee these improvements are not necessarily required or are improvements at all ...

.mikko

[MBDunc]

keskiviikko 28. marraskuuta 2018 13.24.22 UTC+2 Whisper kirjoitti:
> Djokovic simply lost too many blue-chip slam finals to be a legit boat
> candidate imo. He has time to turn it around by maybe even winning a
> calendar slam?

So that writes off Hoad completely from any BOAT discussions?

Pro circuit majors: Wembley, French, USPro

Hoad: Pro Circuit Major titles: 0
Hoad: Pro Circuit Major Runner-ups: 7 ( 3 x Pancho, 4 x Rosewall)

Seems that even the most experienced here are confused about BOAT and GOAT differences? Usually this confusion is identified by subjective approaches:

1) where all career losses lumped together are used to prove lack of boat creds?
2) carefully selected win periods to prove boat creds.

See Ron Clarke. BOAT long distance runner until 70:ies. Superb world records mid-60:ies and those best times would have been still great times until 90:ies.

But he never won anything big. This still does not take away his WRs which were yardsticks for almost a decade.

.mikko



.mikko







.mikko

[The Iceberg]

Murray beat peak Djoker fairly easily everywhere except the AO - USO, Olympics, Wimbledon, USO, O2 WTF exo for world #1 place.

[John Liang]

On Wednesday, November 28, 2018 at 8:12:08 PM UTC+11, Whisper wrote:
> On 28/11/2018 1:00 am, John Liang wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 10:48:19 PM UTC+11, Whisper wrote:
> >> On 27/11/2018 7:54 pm, *skriptis wrote:
> >>> Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com> Wrote in message:
>
> >>
> >> Put it this way - if I was forced to bet my life on a tennis match I
> >> would have to take peak 'beast form' Rafa over Fed or Djoker.
> >
> > No way I would put my life in Nadal's hand if matches are played on grass and hard court knowing this guy had a habit of shitting his own pants in defending a non clay court titles.
> >>
>
> I'm talking 'peak' form. Rafa's 2010 USO form would top peak Fed/Djoker
> at USO imo.

And he was at his peak form in 2011 and was the defending champion at USO and Wimbledon but he got whipped by Djoker in the finals.

[John Liang]

I feel there were 7 matches they played during 2011 and there was enough time for Nadal to reverse the losing trend, he was at his peak and he lost easily to Djoker each time when he was the USO and Wimbledon defending champion. I would not pick someone who has a fine tradition in shitting his pants when he is defending a non clay championship or playing a match of historical importance on non clay court surfaces. You just know he would shit his pants .

[The Iceberg]

no, it's just you hate Nadal, you Fedfan liar.

[John Liang]

Sorry when we judge players the most important criteria is what they won and reaching a final is a great achievement. Yes, Djoker lost 5 USO and he also won 3, he lost 1 Wimbledon final but won 4, so a player like Nadal is reward for losing early while Djoker was penalised for going deeper in the slam tournament.

>
> Djoker lost;
>
> 5 USO finals
> 3 FO finals
> 1 Wim final
>
> 9 blue-chip slam finals is a lot to lose. It's the same as Lendl.
> Djoker & Lendl are tied as goats in this category.

Nadal is not that far behind 7 loses in slam finals

>
> Yes he has some great stats eg 6 AO titles, but 4 of those finals were v
> Murray & 1 v Tsonga. Very nice, but what's absent is great players in
> these matches. Nice bonus for Novak. He did have 1 final win over
> Rafa, but that was from 2-4 down in 5th set & a letcord from going down
> 2-5.

And where is Nadal in those finals ? He lost to Tsonga in semi and lost to MUrray in 2010 AO in QF, so Nadal get the benefit of losing early in a tournament. Again I find myself need to correct you on some fact, Nadal was a break up in the fifth when he broke for 4:2 but he never had a chance to get to 5:2 because Djoker broke back immediately in the next at 30:40. Another reason why I would not allow to Nadal to play a match if life depend on it when he just shit his own pants in a winning position.

>
> He also beat Murray for his lone FO title, & his last 2 slam wins this
> yr were v Anderson and Potro.

Cherry picking Nadal's last 2 slam wins were against Thiem and Anderson.

>
> Not convincing stuff if we're talking boat level displays.
>
> He also lost 2 slam finals (Wim & USO) to Murray. Those are very bad
> losses in my book for a boat type candidate.

And at the same tournament Nadal was losing to Justine brown type at Wimbledon. A boat type player should not have a record of losing 4 or 5 Wimbledon to absolute journeymen on men's tour.

[kaennorsing]

Op woensdag 28 november 2018 07:08:57 UTC+1 schreef MBDunc:

One can say the same about Rafa and in a year or two also probably about Djoker. The older they get the more they will choke eventually.

I do respect your opinion and there's certainly some validity to it but the final analyses isn't correct; Fed at 100% does not choke. None of the greats do. I believe we define peak at where they are not only physically fit, have their entire games working well but where they are also confident. Confident Fed is very clutch. Maybe not quite at the level of Djoker/Rafa/Sampras but close enough not to make it about choking at all.

Fed only really choked imo primarily vs Rafa on clay (where he had reason to be less than confident/was forced to overplay) and vs Djoker post 2011. He was really no longer peak post 2011 though. Even if you consider early 2017 as good as his peak he unfortunately didn't play Djoker during that timeframe, but I believe Fed would have won... Look what he did to Rafa at the time.

[sawfish]

On Wednesday, November 28, 2018 at 6:35:04 AM UTC-8, kaennorsing wrote:
> Op woensdag 28 november 2018 07:08:57 UTC+1 schreef MBDunc:
> > tiistai 27. marraskuuta 2018 22.52.15 UTC+2 PeteWasLucky kirjoitti:
> > > MBDunc Wrote in message:
> > > > On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 3:17:19 PM UTC+2, The Iceberg wrote:
> > > >> Yes was going to say the best test is who?d you pick
> > > >> to play for your life line, would pick peakest (in my view 2008) Nadal before Djoker and Fed. Would pick Sampras one above Nadal.
> > > >
> > > > Considering their best peaks, assets and aura/zoning: 14 slams minimum club
> > > >
> > > > HC: Djokovic > Fed > Sampras > Nadal
> > > > Clay: Nadal >> Djokovic > Fed >>> Sampras
> > > > Grass: Sampras > Fed > Djokovic > Nadal
> > > > -----------------------------------------
> > > > Indoor: Djokovic > Fed > Sampras >>> Nadal
> > > >
> > > Federer would have enjoyed playing Sampras on grass everyday.
> >
> > The reason why I put Sampras > Fed on grass is exacly this hypotetchical scenario that requires everything being 100% (which just does not happen in real life).
> >
> > I believe that if they played 100 grass matches - for various reasons I think Fed would win 65-70% of them. This mostly because Fed's 95% is undoubtedly better than Pete's 95% - and that's how you play your career.
> >
> > However if they had THE match and all variables even and both at absolute peak. I think Pete's better big point/mental would prevail. Fed has a game but also a nagging history to snatch a defeat from the jaws of victory.
> >
> > .mikko
>
> One can say the same about Rafa and in a year or two also probably about Djoker. The older they get the more they will choke eventually.

I disagree with the general premise that players choke *more* as they get older. I think that they tend to choke less, but possibly tank more.

For the sake of this discussion, I'd define choking as managing to lose a match that you were either a) expected to win; or b) had every reason to think the match was a competitive toss-up. Significant and objective physical distress plays no major factor.

Tanking I'd define as consciously deciding at some point during a match to curtail expenditure of effort in pursuit of win. This may often be driven by objective physical concerns.

[PeteWasLucky]

> I disagree with the general premise that players choke *more* as they get older. I think that they tend to choke less, but possibly tank more.

For the sake of this discussion, I'd define choking as managing to lose a match that you were either a) expected to win; or b) had every reason to think the match was a competitive toss-up. Significant and objective physical distress plays no major factor.

Tanking I'd define as consciously deciding at some point during a match to curtail expenditure of effort in pursuit of win. This may often be driven by objective physical concerns.

I agree but I wouldn't even say they are tanking . They may look like they are tanking because of the score, but they are failing to keep a grip on play trying different strategies based on their physical condition and the opponent.

[The Iceberg]

Yes, Stan is a good example of this. Fed has never choked in any match vs the clowns.

[sawfish]

What you're describing here seems like there's every intent of winning, but the player is being beaten down. To mean, tanking is a conscious decision to not expend further energy, and the ultimate expression of tanking is to forfeit the match, often citing non-existent or trivial physical issues.

I thought about tanking as a subset of choking--that is to say, getting mentally/physically beaten down to the point that they just decide to toss it in. To me, that's choking.

But a distinguishing characteristic of tanking is that one would NEVER see it in the final of a significant event, whereas you see choking quite often. We might even extend that to the advanced rounds, but for the sake of a clear discussion, any professional player who gets to the final is going to want to win it; they may choke, but they'd never decide consciously to throw the towel in out of convenience or some specious idea of season strategy.

...at least I wouldn't consider them to be a real professional.

This is just my opinion, though.

[TennisGuy]

On 11/28/2018 9:14 AM, John Liang wrote:

> And at the same tournament Nadal was losing to Justine brown type at
> Wimbledon. A boat type player should not have a record of losing 4 or
> 5 Wimbledon to absolute journeymen on men's tour.
>

ABSOLUTELY!

That's totally unacceptable. A disgrace!
It immediately disqualifies him from ANY BOAT discussion.

[bob]

On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 20:30:51 +1100, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com>
wrote:

rafa has djok 9-5 in slams.
rafa has fed 9-3 in slams.
rafa has the OG that they don't.
true, 2/3 at USO on djok's favorite fast HC is big for rafa.

bob

[bob]

On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 03:56:40 -0800 (PST), MBDunc
<mich...@dnainternet.net> wrote:

>keskiviikko 28. marraskuuta 2018 13.24.22 UTC+2 Whisper kirjoitti:
>> Djokovic simply lost too many blue-chip slam finals to be a legit boat
>> candidate imo. He has time to turn it around by maybe even winning a
>> calendar slam?
>
>So that writes off Hoad completely from any BOAT discussions?
>
>Pro circuit majors: Wembley, French, USPro
>
>Hoad: Pro Circuit Major titles: 0
>Hoad: Pro Circuit Major Runner-ups: 7 ( 3 x Pancho, 4 x Rosewall)
>
>Seems that even the most experienced here are confused about BOAT and GOAT differences? Usually this confusion is identified by subjective approaches:
>
>1) where all career losses lumped together are used to prove lack of boat creds?
>2) carefully selected win periods to prove boat creds.

GOAT is subjective, unless you just want to count slams which
insinuates all slams are equal.
BOAT is subjective, obviously.

H2H against a particular rival in slams though goes a very very long
way toward BOAT.

>See Ron Clarke. BOAT long distance runner until 70:ies. Superb world records mid-60:ies and those best times would have been still great times until 90:ies.
>But he never won anything big. This still does not take away his WRs which were yardsticks for almost a decade.

bob

[bob]

my favorite football team was 4pt favorite to beat their rival last
weekend in biggest game in a few years, and lost by 23pts. the
conclusion i draw is the bookies knew shit.

there can be rare excuses for losing (for ex same 2 teams 2 years ago
referee blatantly cheats on national TV in overtime, costs my team the
game), but who was the favorite is no excuse.

bob

[bob]

On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 06:35:02 -0800 (PST), kaennorsing
<ljub...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Op woensdag 28 november 2018 07:08:57 UTC+1 schreef MBDunc:
>> tiistai 27. marraskuuta 2018 22.52.15 UTC+2 PeteWasLucky kirjoitti:
>> > MBDunc Wrote in message:
>> > > On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 3:17:19 PM UTC+2, The Iceberg wrote:
>> > >> Yes was going to say the best test is who?d you pick
>> > >> to play for your life line, would pick peakest (in my view 2008) Nadal before Djoker and Fed. Would pick Sampras one above Nadal.
>> > >
>> > > Considering their best peaks, assets and aura/zoning: 14 slams minimum club
>> > >
>> > > HC: Djokovic > Fed > Sampras > Nadal
>> > > Clay: Nadal >> Djokovic > Fed >>> Sampras
>> > > Grass: Sampras > Fed > Djokovic > Nadal
>> > > -----------------------------------------
>> > > Indoor: Djokovic > Fed > Sampras >>> Nadal
>> > >
>> > Federer would have enjoyed playing Sampras on grass everyday.
>>
>> The reason why I put Sampras > Fed on grass is exacly this hypotetchical scenario that requires everything being 100% (which just does not happen in real life).
>>
>> I believe that if they played 100 grass matches - for various reasons I think Fed would win 65-70% of them. This mostly because Fed's 95% is undoubtedly better than Pete's 95% - and that's how you play your career.
>>
>> However if they had THE match and all variables even and both at absolute peak. I think Pete's better big point/mental would prevail. Fed has a game but also a nagging history to snatch a defeat from the jaws of victory.
>>
>> .mikko
>
>One can say the same about Rafa and in a year or two also probably about Djoker. The older they get the more they will choke eventually.
>
>I do respect your opinion and there's certainly some validity to it but the final analyses isn't correct; Fed at 100% does not choke. None of the greats do. I believe we define peak at where they are not only physically fit, have their entire games working well but where they are also confident. Confident Fed is very clutch. Maybe not quite at the level of Djoker/Rafa/Sampras but close enough not to make it about choking at all.

i personally don't think fed chokes at all, i don't think he ever
choked.

i think when he lost nearly every time it was to better players
(rafa/djok) at their best.

for it to be a choke, i'd have to see fed do things that chokers do -
start to play visibly poorly, DF a lot, etc. that doesn't happen.

>Fed only really choked imo primarily vs Rafa on clay (where he had reason to be less than confident/was forced to overplay) and vs Djoker post 2011. He was really no longer peak post 2011 though. Even if you consider early 2017 as good as his peak he unfortunately didn't play Djoker during that timeframe, but I believe Fed would have won... Look what he did to Rafa at the time.

bob

[bob]

On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 09:01:26 -0800 (PST), PeteWasLucky
<waleed...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> I disagree with the general premise that players choke *more* as they get older. I think that they tend to choke less, but possibly tank more.
>
>For the sake of this discussion, I'd define choking as managing to lose a match that you were either

>a) expected to win;

irrelevant.

>b) had every reason to think the match was a competitive toss-up.

irrelevant.

> Significant and objective physical distress plays no major factor.
>Tanking I'd define as consciously deciding at some point during a match to curtail expenditure of effort in pursuit of win. This may often be driven by objective physical concerns.
>I agree but I wouldn't even say they are tanking . They may look like they are tanking because of the score, but they are failing to keep a grip on play trying different strategies based on their physical condition and the opponent.

the very definition of a choke, i think you'll agree, is playing below
your best because mentally you cannot take the pressure of losing. the
key here is your PLAY LEVEL DROPS. it MUST drop for it to be a true
choke. and there must be no other reason for it to drop except the
pressure of losing.

example, missing free throw in basketball, DF in tennis - those are
chokes. losing cause you "expect to win" has nothing to do with how
well you played relative to your best.

bob

[John Liang]

Djoke has 6 AO titles to Nadal's 1
Djoke has 4 Wimbledon titles to Nadal's 2
Djoke performed better at USO than Nadal
So the only slams that Nadal was better is at FO
13 non clay court slam to Nadal's 6.

Federer has 8 Wimbledon titles to Nadal's 2
Federer has 5 USO titles to Nadal's 3
So in the bluest of blue chip slam it is 13 to 5.

[TennisGuy]

+1

[Whisper]

On 28/11/2018 10:29 pm, MBDunc wrote:
> keskiviikko 28. marraskuuta 2018 12.22.53 UTC+2 *skriptis kirjoitti:
>> He could have won 5 or 6 and be a legend there, with 3 he's just a
>> great player. But do you need 10 titles to be in boat

>> aspect to it.
>>
>> And because of that, I can think about Nadal 2008 as boat.
>
> I think Nadal's physical and movement peak indeed was 2008 - especially how he same time had managed get wiser and had cut off the most extensive running.
>
> But his strategy, variability and general playbook improved especially for hardcourts later. For clay succee these improvements are not necessarily required or are improvements at all ...
>
> .mikko
>

Rafa at his best seemed to transcend the sport. Look at '08 FO final v
Federer 61 63 60. It's not just that scoreline, but the way Rafa moved
& hit the ball - it was like an athletic man playing a kid. McEnroe in
'84 transcended the sport more than any player I can think of, & Rafa is
2nd.

[Whisper]

On 28/11/2018 10:56 pm, MBDunc wrote:
> keskiviikko 28. marraskuuta 2018 13.24.22 UTC+2 Whisper kirjoitti:
>> Djokovic simply lost too many blue-chip slam finals to be a legit boat
>> candidate imo. He has time to turn it around by maybe even winning a
>> calendar slam?
>
> So that writes off Hoad completely from any BOAT discussions?
>
>

You need to do more research on Hoad. He was actually more consistent
than Rosewall. Wikipedia is a poor source of information.

[Whisper]

Blue chip slams;

Nadal 16
Federer 14
Djoker 8

[Whisper]

Nadal has more blue chip slams than any guy in history. He also won all
3 in 2010 - wow!

[The Iceberg]

yes this is the standout for me too, McEnroe 84 and that 2008 Nadal was ridiculous. Fed did play slightly better at FO 2011(his best level ever on clay), but even then he'd still have been 60'd in same way in that final set. It not a discredit to Fed, in fact it good it was him cos wouldn't be able to measure it so well with a lesser player.

[*skriptis]

Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com> Wrote in message:

I agree with that.

That's the reason I suggested we might think of Rafa 2008 as a
boat or peakity peak or whatever, despite him not yet perfecting
hardcourt game at the time.

But certainly, he was at his clay best, and arguably, if you had
thrown him elsewhere, he would have fight until death, he did
project something special, he was huge at the time. He seemed
impossible to beat etc.


But 2010-2011 Rafa, despite improving massively in some areas, was
crushed by 2011 Djokovic. And that Djokovic didn't crush Federer
at the time.

My take is Rafa post 2009 was more mature, more cautious, more
self-aware of his fragility, more calculated, which took away
some of his strengths.



Not all players, but these great players often have two peaks.

Youthful peaks, and more mature ones.
Ususually, they're more exciting to watch in their youthful peaks.

Federer 2003-04
Nadal 2008-09
Djokovic 2011, etc.

Their mature peaks are usually higher, but they lack some youthful
stuff, bravery, arrogance, risk taking etc.

Federer 2006-07
Nadal 2010-11
Djokovic 2015-16


Since physicality is a large part of Nadal's game, and physicality
is diminished as players age, I would say that if you need to
choose someone to play for your life, it's safer to go with Nadal
2008.

Forget about Nadal 2010-2011.

With Federer and Djokovic otoh, you go with their mature peaks.


So the debate should be?

Nadal 2008
Federer 2006
Djokovic 2015


I would pick Nadal on clay, but if I had to pick an overall guy,
I'd go with Djokovic.


--

[MBDunc]

On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 2:21:21 PM UTC+2, *skriptis wrote:
> Their mature peaks are usually higher, but they lack some youthful
> stuff, bravery, arrogance, risk taking etc.

Bruguera provided pretty insightful analysis of this in 1997 interview. He said that as a player he is definitely better than ever but that younger version from 93-94 would beat him thanks to (see *skriptis parameters just above).

.mikko

[John Liang]

Bluest of blue chip slam

Federer 13
Djoker 7
Nadla 5

[John Liang]

Yes, pretty consistent in losing to Gonzalez after his first part of his pro career.

[John Liang]

The blue chip of slam are USO and Wimbleon and Nadal is 6th in open era.

[guypers]

Yesssss, snowshoe clay monkey!

[RaspingDrive]

On Wednesday, November 28, 2018 at 7:37:28 PM UTC-5, bob wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 03:56:40 -0800 (PST), MBDunc
> <mich...@dnainternet.net> wrote:
>
> >keskiviikko 28. marraskuuta 2018 13.24.22 UTC+2 Whisper kirjoitti:
> >> Djokovic simply lost too many blue-chip slam finals to be a legit boat
> >> candidate imo. He has time to turn it around by maybe even winning a
> >> calendar slam?
> >
> >So that writes off Hoad completely from any BOAT discussions?
> >
> >Pro circuit majors: Wembley, French, USPro
> >
> >Hoad: Pro Circuit Major titles: 0
> >Hoad: Pro Circuit Major Runner-ups: 7 ( 3 x Pancho, 4 x Rosewall)
> >
> >Seems that even the most experienced here are confused about BOAT and GOAT differences? Usually this confusion is identified by subjective approaches:
> >
> >1) where all career losses lumped together are used to prove lack of boat creds?
> >2) carefully selected win periods to prove boat creds.
>
> GOAT is subjective, unless you just want to count slams which
> insinuates all slams are equal.
> BOAT is subjective, obviously.
>

Slam count doesn't "insinuate". It clearly says so. No insinuation involved there. When Whisper says Rafa has several blue chip (BC) slams more than Federer, it is an objective fact (no insinuation involved there as well) based on the premise that the BC slams should all be treated equally. Skriptis's excellent MPOAT also treats all slams equally. Any numerical measure that doesn't do so will eventually unravel or be "found out". If you want to be subjective in your assessment of goat, however, go ahead :)

[TennisGuy]

Exactly.

That's why the famous 7543 GOAT formula assigns points this way to the
Blue Chips:
7 - Wimbledon
5 - U.S. Open

Yellow Chips:
4 F.O.
3 A.O.

[heyg...@gmail.com]

The 754 total from blue chip wins shows the real blue chip king, right? When Nadal passes Fed’s 84 blue chip points, let us know.

[TennisGuy]

On 11/29/2018 11:17 AM, heyg...@gmail.com wrote:
> The 754 total from blue chip wins shows the real blue chip king,
> right? When Nadal passes Fed’s 84 blue chip points, let us know.
>

Exactly.

I probably won't live to see that. :(

[guypers]

Nadyal is done, fork time???

[Whisper]

On 29/11/2018 11:21 pm, *skriptis wrote:
> Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com> Wrote in message:
>

> Forget about Nadal 2010-2011.

Can't ignore 2010. It's unique in tennis history. The only time ever a
guy has won all 3 blue-chips in the same year on grass/hard/clay. 150
yrs of tennis history & Rafa is the only guy to do it. That's a big
feather in the cap for any goat/boat candidate.

>
> With Federer and Djokovic otoh, you go with their mature peaks.
>
>
> So the debate should be?
>
> Nadal 2008
> Federer 2006
> Djokovic 2015

Sampras would have to be in this discussion for sure. Many say his
'mature peak' was his very last match at 2002 USO final.

>
>
> I would pick Nadal on clay, but if I had to pick an overall guy,
> I'd go with Djokovic.
>
>
>

It's an interesting debate & still fluid in what the final outcome will
be. For me I'd have to pick Federer in terms of consistency & just
picking 1 guy to win any random match drawn out of a hat over 10+ years.
Fed has not dipped too low from his A game in his whole career. We
can't say that about Rafa/Djoker.

Fed has the slam record (may change), Rafa has had the best year (2010)
& also 11 time champ at 1 slam (mind blowing - almost double Djoker's 6
AO's), & Djoker has won all 4 slams in a row.

Rafa hasn't won WTF, but he has Olympic singles gold which imo is better
to have on your resume.

[Whisper]

Nope. FO has always been a blue-chip, mainly due to clay surface.
Can't ignore clay as it's a big part of the tour.