Which opinions have you come around on?

[brokenshoelace]

Most of us have been on the many iterations of these boards for many, many years. We were here for many of the big wars that shaped discussion around here. Real OG's will remember that before Fedal, and subsequently, Fedalovic, there was Sampras vs. Federer...the battle the created many Nadal fans out of convenience (which perhaps later turned into genuine love). If you know, you know.

So with many of our heroes all but retired, and the dust having settled, what are some of the heavily discussed topics that you've changed your mind on? It doesn't have to be related to any of the above and it could touch on a subject that isn't often discussed.

They say with age comes wisdom. So let us have it...

 

[brokenshoelace]

I'll get the ball rolling...

Let's start out with a really controversial one:

Injury excuses ARE valid.

Yeah, I know. They're irritating. Nobody wants to hear them, especially when they seemingly discredit your favorite player or are meant to absolve someone you dislike. Additionally, as a disclaimer, you are absolutely entitled to not want to hear it. They're boring, and often times unsubstantiated. They also can be thrown around wildly and liberally.

Excuse makers are annoying, no doubt. Many have absolutely mastered the art, whether by directly mentioning them (Nadal), or as Novak masterfully displayed last night, by indirectly alluding to them (ie...now is not the time to talk about physical issues, I don't want to take anything away from *insert winner name here*, etc...).

But yes, they are valid. And yes, they can greatly affect results. I fully understand the very pragmatic "if you're injured, don't play. If you play, you're not injured" and that's a motto meant to put an end to a potential rabbit hole, which again, I understand. It is however, crazy to take it literally.

Having listened to so many podcasts/interviews from retired players, you'd be surprised by how injuries are perceived by players. These guys are in the locker room and see everything. They know when players are hurt or playing through injury, especially significant ones. Hearing Casper Ruud himself discuss Nadal being on crutches after his defeat to Rafa at the French Open in 2022 was eye opening, as well as other players' take on the subject. While the partisan crowd on forums finds this tedious, quite understandably, I've noticed that players see it differently, most likely due to being so close to the action AND being professionals who are hampered by injuries themselves.

I realize that as a Nadal fan, this is quite convenient for me to say. And I've always been of the opinion that Nadal fans around these parts can be majorly annoying (Hi Anti-Pusher, in case you're reading this), or in some cases, grade A idiots (Hi MikeOne). But the way "Nadal's injuries are a product of his playing style" was just a go-to discussion ender thrown around with stunning ignorance and complete lack of credible knowledge to end any potential discussion on the subject, always struck me as ridiculous. There is zero evidence to that, especially when his body broke down with a wide variety of injuries, and not just some chronic tendinitis. It's also silly to say this with that level of irrational confidence when other top tennis players were also covering so much ground, sliding all over the place on hards (now more than ever), retrieving everything, etc...

Rafael Nadal has missed about 17 Majors due to injuries (by my count). Among those, at least 10 have come sandwiched between his first and final grand slam wins. So while I fully get why this is a slippery slope that could lead to some never-ending debates, it is equally ludicrous to deny that he could have, and yes, would have won more if he played even half of those. Rafa roughly won 1 out of 3 majors he played during that span. He almost definitely would have won more had it not been for injuries, and that's not counting the toll of constant rehabs, getting back into shape, playing himself back into form, etc...

Listening to Nadal talk about how his grass game was affected by his knees between 2012 and 2017, and how much better he was able to play on grass after that in that amazing interview with Roddick (I urge you to listen to it as his breakdown of his matchups with Roger and Novak alone are worth it) puts it in perspective. Incidentally, I've said that over the years around here and got into endless debates with everyone about it.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Another one, and I promise you I haven't been hacked/kidnapped...

Cali was right in the spirit of his takes re: talent. Obviously, he's borderline clinically insane and went overboard. The mental gymnastics to justify every time his opinions were proven wrong were silly and emotional.

But he was right about one thing:

There absolutely is merit to aesthetics as an indicator of talent, and yes, skill. All things are not equal and watching sports strictly from a results oriented perspective is a joyless approach that absolutely fails to capture the essence of why we watch any sport, much less tennis. The way you do things matter. The way you play matters. Obviously, it has to be backed up by results to a large extent. So no, sorry, Nalbandian is not the most talented player of all time.

But when it comes to the real elite, yes, Roger Federer winning the way he was in his prime absolutely makes him the greatest to ever touch a tennis racket. The same way Messi is the greatest football player of all time because of how he did what he did, not just the numbers and accolades. Remember when this was a debate around here just cause he hadn't won a world cup? Utterly ridiculous, and really highlights how flawed the pure results driven approach is. Messi finally won the World Cup in 2022, when he was way past his prime. Was he a better player in 2022 than he was in 2010 or 2014?

Between 2004 and 2007, Federer played tennis in a way nobody has ever played until then, or since.

 

[Federberg]

Another one, and I promise you I haven't been hacked/kidnapped...

Cali was right in the spirit of his takes re: talent. Obviously, he's borderline clinically insane and went overboard. The mental gymnastics to justify every time his opinions were proven wrong were silly and emotional.

But he was right about one thing:

There absolutely is merit to aesthetics as an indicator of talent, and yes, skill. All things are not equal and watching sports strictly from a results oriented perspective is a joyless approach that absolutely fails to capture the essence of why we watch any sport, much less tennis. The way you do things matter. The way you play matters. Obviously, it has to be backed up by results to a large extent. So no, sorry, Nalbandian is not the most talented player of all time.

But when it comes to the real elite, yes, Roger Federer winning the way he was in his prime absolutely makes him the greatest to ever touch a tennis racket. The same way Messi is the greatest football player of all time because of how he did what he did, not just the numbers and accolades. Remember when this was a debate around here just cause he hadn't won a world cup? Utterly ridiculous, and really highlights how flawed the pure results driven approach is. Messi finally won the World Cup in 2022, when he was way past his prime. Was he a better player in 2022 than he was in 2010 or 2014?

Between 2004 and 2007, Federer played tennis in a way nobody has ever played until then, or since.

Oh you sneaky devil! Are you using Roger as a weapon against me in our Messi debate! I love the deviousness, it’s so evil!

 

[brokenshoelace]

Oh you sneaky devil! Are you using Roger as a weapon against me in our Messi debate! I love the deviousness, it’s so evil!

In fairness, there is no "Messi debate" anymore

 

[britbox]

I think the biggest one I've come full circle on is the "GOAT" debate... that there probably isn't one really (in any sport). You can only really be the best of your era.

We've discussed the origin before - US-based pro sports where the commentators/analysts have to create talking points and they need stats to do it.

The GOAT thing really got going with Jordan and then in tennis it shifted onto Pete Sampras when he was hunting down Roy Emerson's major count. But let's be honest - nobody in their right mind would have Roy Emerson as the "GOAT" anyway. I don't remember anybody talking about GOATs when Mac, Borg, Connors, Becker, Edberg, Lendl etc were in their heyday.

Obviously the Internet has amplified all this talk.

In football, (and basketball) and any other team sport for that matter - considering there are so many different positions and far more variables with team mates that factor in, it does become mildly funny. Also the pitches now are like bowling greens compared to what they used to be, and players are far better protected by referees.

One of the biggest realisations is how temporary everything is. Not just in sports - the human race has a very short memory.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I think the biggest one I've come full circle on is the "GOAT" debate... that there probably isn't one really (in any sport). You can only really be the best of your era.

We've discussed the origin before - US-based pro sports where the commentators/analysts have to create talking points and they need stats to do it.

The GOAT thing really got going with Jordan and then in tennis it shifted onto Pete Sampras when he was hunting down Roy Emerson's major count. But let's be honest - nobody in their right mind would have Roy Emerson as the "GOAT" anyway. I don't remember anybody talking about GOATs when Mac, Borg, Connors, Becker, Edberg, Lendl etc were in their heyday.

Obviously the Internet has amplified all this talk.

In football, (and basketball) and any other team sport for that matter - considering there are so many different positions and far more variables with team mates that factor in, it does become mildly funny. Also the pitches now are like bowling greens compared to what they used to be, and players are far better protected by referees.

One of the biggest realisations is how temporary everything is. Not just in sports - the human race has a very short memory.

I fully agree with this and in ties into another thread I've been meaning to make.

 

[Federberg]

In fairness, there is no "Messi debate" anymore

Well I’ve officially invited him into the tier one group. Pele and Maradona welcomed him with some Brazilian rum

 

[Federberg]

I think the biggest one I've come full circle on is the "GOAT" debate... that there probably isn't one really (in any sport). You can only really be the best of your era.

We've discussed the origin before - US-based pro sports where the commentators/analysts have to create talking points and they need stats to do it.

The GOAT thing really got going with Jordan and then in tennis it shifted onto Pete Sampras when he was hunting down Roy Emerson's major count. But let's be honest - nobody in their right mind would have Roy Emerson as the "GOAT" anyway. I don't remember anybody talking about GOATs when Mac, Borg, Connors, Becker, Edberg, Lendl etc were in their heyday.

Obviously the Internet has amplified all this talk.

In football, (and basketball) and any other team sport for that matter - considering there are so many different positions and far more variables with team mates that factor in, it does become mildly funny. Also the pitches now are like bowling greens compared to what they used to be, and players are far better protected by referees.

One of the biggest realisations is how temporary everything is. Not just in sports - the human race has a very short memory.

Great take. I agree with this. I think the Big 3 are the GOATs of tennis on the men’s side

In team sports it’s much harder to figure things out. I prefer to go with tiers. In football I have Messi, Pele and Maradona in tier one. My only difficulty is whether R9 should be in there or not. But for injuries it wouldn’t even be a discussion. He’s certainly above my tier 2 guys that include the likes of Zizou, Ronaldinho, Cruyff. There are a few more (not CR7!) but you get the point.

But generally that’s the way I think. It’s almost impossible to normalise for eras and motivations. For example the fact that in tennis the Australian Open only became a thing in the mid to late 80s, so how does one adjust for the fact that previous eras didn’t factor that in? And so on.. you get the point

My biggest change is that now I fully embrace the Big 3 in a way that my fandom didn’t allow me previously. Each did things likely never to be replicated again. Rafa at RG, Roger with his consecutive record in two slams. Novak with his numbers. All equally worthy of goat level respect

 

[PhiEaglesfan712]

I think the biggest one I've come full circle on is the "GOAT" debate... that there probably isn't one really (in any sport). You can only really be the best of your era.

We've discussed the origin before - US-based pro sports where the commentators/analysts have to create talking points and they need stats to do it.

The GOAT thing really got going with Jordan and then in tennis it shifted onto Pete Sampras when he was hunting down Roy Emerson's major count. But let's be honest - nobody in their right mind would have Roy Emerson as the "GOAT" anyway. I don't remember anybody talking about GOATs when Mac, Borg, Connors, Becker, Edberg, Lendl etc were in their heyday.

Laver was considered the GOAT before Pete Sampras, and possibly even after Sampras retired. I remember when Federer tied and passed Sampras in the summer of 2009, there were still talks of Laver being the GOAT. That was finally put to bed when Federer was competitive, and even winning, on a consistent basis in 2017-19 (when he was age 35-38).

Right now, the GOAT debate is between Federer and Djokovic. No tennis players were more well rounded and had better longevity than those two. Djokovic would probably clinch the GOAT title with one more great season in 2026, especially if he passes Federer in total titles and takes his Wimbledon match wins record. He has already claimed Federer's Australian Open match wins record.

 

[britbox]

Laver was considered the GOAT before Pete Sampras, and possibly even after Sampras retired. I remember when Federer tied and passed Sampras in the summer of 2009, there were still talks of Laver being the GOAT. That was finally put to bed when Federer was competitive, and even winning, on a consistent basis in 2017-19 (when he was age 35-38).

Right now, the GOAT debate is between Federer and Djokovic. No tennis players were more well rounded and had better longevity than those two. Djokovic would probably clinch the GOAT title with one more great season in 2026, especially if he passes Federer in total titles and takes his Wimbledon match wins record. He has already claimed Federer's Australian Open match wins record.

Maybe it's a US thing mate, because I don't remember the term GOAT being used at all in the UK until Sampras was chasing down Laver (in tennis). My old man used to reckon Rosewall was a better player than Laver... but GOAT wasn't a term he used.

... and paying dues to the theme and spirit of the thread title - you can't leave Nadal out of the conversation.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Laver was considered the GOAT before Pete Sampras, and possibly even after Sampras retired. I remember when Federer tied and passed Sampras in the summer of 2009, there were still talks of Laver being the GOAT. That was finally put to bed when Federer was competitive, and even winning, on a consistent basis in 2017-19 (when he was age 35-38).

Right now, the GOAT debate is between Federer and Djokovic. No tennis players were more well rounded and had better longevity than those two. Djokovic would probably clinch the GOAT title with one more great season in 2026, especially if he passes Federer in total titles and takes his Wimbledon match wins record. He has already claimed Federer's Australian Open match wins record.

The whole "if this player achieves this feat, then he surpasses that player" is everything that's wrong with the GOAT debate. If Novak isn't already the GOAT for you, then nothing he does now should change anything. His best years are already behind him and his longevity is already ludicrous. So what kind of achievement would NOW convince you he's better than Federer that he hasn't already done? Meanwhile, if Federer is your GOAT, then nothing Novak does now should change your mind.

 

[britbox]

The whole "if this player achieves this feat, then he surpasses that player" is the everything that's wrong with the GOAT debate. If Novak isn't already the GOAT for you, then nothing he does now should change anything. His best years are already behind him and his longevity is already ludicrous. So what kind of achievement would NOW convince you he's better than Federer that he hasn't already done? Meanwhile, if Federer is your GOAT, then nothing Novak does now should change your mind.

Fed, Nadal, Novak and Laver haven't won the Winston Salem 250.

 

[El Dude]

I don't think the GOAT debate is between Federer and Djokovic, but Djokovic and Laver - and then comes in the problem of very different eras.

If "GOAT" was "MTOAT" (Most Talented of All Time), then I think Roger gets the nod. He could do more on the court than anyone I've ever seen. But "greatness" has to start and end with actual results, with other factors being secondary, and Novak's results are only challenged by Laver. But you have to translate pre-Open Era to Open Era, and that's hard to do. I've given it a shot and will say that Laver's 1969 season is one of the two best seasons in the Open Era (along with Novak's 2015), and he had three or four similar years in the 1960s, in terms of dominance over the field.

I agree with Britbox, that ultimately you can't--or it is very hard to--pinpoint a singular GOAT, especially for a sport with 150 years of history. Even just focusing on the Open Era, and you have a range of "sub-eras" and very different contexts of play. That's why, in Days of Yore on this forum (or its predecessor) I posited that we should think of a "Herd of GOATs" - the Big Three and at least Laver and Tilden, with players like Gonzales and Rosewall (and maybe one or two others) on the cusp.

 

[Federberg]

I don't think the GOAT debate is between Federer and Djokovic, but Djokovic and Laver - and then comes in the problem of very different eras.

If "GOAT" was "MTOAT" (Most Talented of All Time), then I think Roger gets the nod. He could do more on the court than anyone I've ever seen. But "greatness" has to start and end with actual results, with other factors being secondary, and Novak's results are only challenged by Laver. But you have to translate pre-Open Era to Open Era, and that's hard to do. I've given it a shot and will say that Laver's 1969 season is one of the two best seasons in the Open Era (along with Novak's 2015), and he had three or four similar years in the 1960s, in terms of dominance over the field.

I agree with Britbox, that ultimately you can't--or it is very hard to--pinpoint a singular GOAT, especially for a sport with 150 years of history. Even just focusing on the Open Era, and you have a range of "sub-eras" and very different contexts of play. That's why, in Days of Yore on this forum (or its predecessor) I posited that we should think of a "Herd of GOATs" - the Big Three and at least Laver and Tilden, with players like Gonzales and Rosewall (and maybe one or two others) on the cusp.

Disagree. Looking at Laver purely in the Open era he cannot be a part of a serious goat debate. Respect to him and I’m a huge fan of his style as a Fed fan. But for the same reason we can’t take the 60s Celtics that seriously as depth has to be a part of factoring, we can’t do it for the Rocket

 

[El Dude]

Disagree. Looking at Laver purely in the Open era he cannot be a part of a serious goat debate. Respect to him and I’m a huge fan of his style as a Fed fan. But for the same reason we can’t take the 60s Celtics that seriously as depth has to be a part of factoring, we can’t do it for the Rocket

Well, consider this: there wasn't the same depth in the pro tours of the 60s and before, but you mostly played other good players. In any given year, probably about two-thirds or three-quarters of the twenty best players were on the pro tour (and the rest as amateurs), and they mostly played each other, plus a couple dozen lesser guys. Most top guys cut their teeth as amateurs then, after winning a Slam or three, moved to the pro tour, so you had the best talent "pooling there." And then it was grueling - not just the generally high level of competition, but the extended tours with other tournaments sprinkled in.

Laver's early years on the Open Era give us a taste of how good he was as a pro. By my estimation, he was the top player through 1971, the first four years of the Open Era. Meaning, it isn't like we don't have Open Era years to get a sense of how good Laver was - and he was 29-30 in 1969. How good was he at 25-26? He and Rosewall won the first seven Open Era Slams, and

But I hear you about the problem of comparing the pro/amateur era to the Open Era. I just don't think it is impossible, especially for those guys that straddle eras (e.g. Laver, Rosewall, Newcombe, Ashe, etc; even Gimeno, Emerson, Santana, and others). At the least, it is fun to consider!

 

[Kieran]

Another one, and I promise you I haven't been hacked/kidnapped...

Cali was right in the spirit of his takes re: talent. Obviously, he's borderline clinically insane and went overboard. The mental gymnastics to justify every time his opinions were proven wrong were silly and emotional.

But he was right about one thing:

There absolutely is merit to aesthetics as an indicator of talent, and yes, skill. All things are not equal and watching sports strictly from a results oriented perspective is a joyless approach that absolutely fails to capture the essence of why we watch any sport, much less tennis. The way you do things matter. The way you play matters. Obviously, it has to be backed up by results to a large extent. So no, sorry, Nalbandian is not the most talented player of all time.

But when it comes to the real elite, yes, Roger Federer winning the way he was in his prime absolutely makes him the greatest to ever touch a tennis racket. The same way Messi is the greatest football player of all time because of how he did what he did, not just the numbers and accolades. Remember when this was a debate around here just cause he hadn't won a world cup? Utterly ridiculous, and really highlights how flawed the pure results driven approach is. Messi finally won the World Cup in 2022, when he was way past his prime. Was he a better player in 2022 than he was in 2010 or 2014?

Between 2004 and 2007, Federer played tennis in a way nobody has ever played until then, or since.

Well. Swipe to the right: Mr Broken _Shoelace back!



Glad to see you, brother, hope you’re well, and glad to see you ditched that dreadful underscore. Didn’t suit you!

I think Cali was wrong, because he believed that the aesthetic was the best proof of greatness. And can certainly can be more proof of greatness, especially if you’re Federer or Carlos, but Cali seemed to think that on its own, aesthetic beauty was on a par with the stuff great players do when they’re digging deep and pulling off the incredible. Look at Carlos yesterday, he’s as highlight reel a chap as we’ve seen, but yesterday he was pragmatic and as offensively defensive as Novak at his best. He dialled back the show in order to focus on the win.

Cali never understood that these are virtues greater than trick shots, basically.

And I agree, if results were the only thing that mattered, we’d feel excluded, as fans.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Another one, which ties into the GOAT debate, that I've completely come around about is the how impossible it is to compare different eras for so many reasons. I know the below might sound contradictory considering I called Roger the GOAT above but A) that's an opinion and I don't feel super strongly about it. Really any of the big 3 has a case and I wouldn't begrudge anyone for having a different opinion and B) I just happen to put emphasis on peak rather than longevity. But this is hardly an exact science.

My opinion has come around on this largely due to watching other sports. I think tennis fans and media turned the GOAT debate into some objective mathematical race: ie whoever wins the most slams is the GOAT. Most of us were guilty of this at one point or another. This is just reductive and overly simplistic and completely ignores major factors that just cannot possibly be undermined.

Surfaces, technology and modern medicine make this an impossible debate. To me, beyond the obvious surface differences between say, the 80's an now, where back then, natural surfaces were a much bigger deal compared to hards, the homogenization of the surfaces (which I've been very guilty of downplaying) is a huge factor. Perhaps it took for my favorite player to retire to gain some perspective, but I think more than anything else, it's watching surfaces play the same even more nowadays that hammered the point home. It's not just surfaces. Balls play the same too. The conditions have been homogenized so much that baseline tennis is even more dominant than ever. The balls fly through the air faster than ever. Tennis is just too quick right now, for my taste at least. Don't get me wrong, Alcaraz and Sinner are ridiculously good and this might be a bit of a boomer take but I don't enjoy the game as much as I used to. Obviously modern technology also shapes how the game is played, hence these players hitting the ball the way they do.

Further, athletes now can play at a high level much longer into their careers than ever before. Sampras retired in his early 30's. Could you imagine someone doing that nowadays? They'd be leaving so many majors on the table. It's just not an apples to apples comparison.

Another factor that often gets overlooked is that we stand on the shoulders of giants. Guys like Sinner and Alcaraz, just like the previous generation before them, have so many greats to watch and learn from. Not just in terms of shot making and how to play the game, but also to draw examples from as far as professionalism, longevity and potential. The latter I think often gets overlooked. Sinner and Alcaraz surely believe they can win 20+ slams for the simple reason that they just watched other players do it.

To use other sports as an example, there is zero doubt that NBA players right now are on average far superior in every way to players from the 90's. It's not really debatable. But they have decades of basketball to draw from. Which only makes guys like Magic or MJ more impressive. How did they get to be so innovative? Who inspired them? Yeah you can name guys like Dr. J or Pistol Pete but those guys took it to a whole new level that just didn't look like it was possible. Meanwhile, every guard of the early 00's was basically a Jordan clone.

How did Pele do what he did in the 60's? How did Cruyff play such a futuristic game? And how on earth was Maradona so fucking good that his highlights still look impossible even today while playing on a diet of booze, women and cocaine and on pitches akin to potato fields?

 

[Kieran]

Another one, which ties into the GOAT debate, that I've completely come around about is the how impossible it is to compare different eras for so many reasons. I know the below might sound contradictory considering I called Roger the GOAT above but A) that's an opinion and I don't feel super strongly about it. Really any of the big 3 has a case and I wouldn't begrudge anyone for having a different opinion and B) I just happen to put emphasis on peak rather than longevity. But this is hardly an exact science.

My opinion has come around on this largely due to watching other sports. I think tennis fans and media turned the GOAT debate into some objective mathematical race: ie whoever wins the most slams is the GOAT. Most of us were guilty of this at one point or another. This is just reductive and overly simplistic and completely ignores major factors that just cannot possibly be undermined.

Surfaces, technology and modern medicine make this an impossible debate. To me, beyond the obvious surface differences between say, the 80's an now, where back then, natural surfaces were a much bigger deal compared to hards, the homogenization of the surfaces (which I've been very guilty of downplaying) is a huge factor. Perhaps it took for my favorite player to retire to gain some perspective, but I think more than anything else, it's watching surfaces play the same even more nowadays that hammered the point home. It's not just surfaces. Balls play the same too. The conditions have been homogenized so much that baseline tennis is even more dominant than ever. The balls fly through the air faster than ever. Tennis is just too quick right now, for my taste at least. Don't get me wrong, Alcaraz and Sinner are ridiculously good and this might be a bit of a boomer take but I don't enjoy the game as much as I used to. Obviously modern technology also shapes how the game is played, hence these players hitting the ball the way they do.

Further, athletes now can play at a high level much longer into their careers than ever before. Sampras retired in his early 30's. Could you imagine someone doing that nowadays? They'd be leaving so many majors on the table. It's just not an apples to apples comparison.

Another factor that often gets overlooked is that we stand on the shoulders of giants. Guys like Sinner and Alcaraz, just like the previous generation before them, have so many greats to watch and learn from. Not just in terms of shot making and how to play the game, but also to draw examples from as far as professionalism, longevity and potential. The latter I think often gets overlooked. Sinner and Alcaraz surely believe they an win 20+ slams for the simple reason that they just watched other players do it.

To use other sports as an example, there is zero doubt that NBA players right now are on average far superior in every way to players from the 90's. It's not really debatable. But they have decades of basketball to draw from. Which only makes guys like Magic or MJ more impressive. How did they get to be so innovative? Who inspired them? Yeah you can name guys like Dr. J or Pistol Pete but those guys took it to a whole new level that just didn't look like it was possible. Meanwhile, every guard of the early 00's was basically a Jordan clone.

How did Pele do what he did in the 60's? How did Cruyff play such a futuristic game? And how on earth was Maradona so fucking good that his highlights still look impossible even today while playing on a diet of booze, women and cocaine and on pitches akin to potato fields?

Great post! We’re always unfair on players from the past because the present is so exciting and advanced. I also think that opportunity is a thing. There are eras where it was tougher and there are times when opportunity is greater, and a player maxes out on that. It doesn’t make them better, or just means they had a better opportunity and they took it.

Example: Novak has won half his slams long after his so called peak. He won a career slam unaffected by any challenging rivals when he won his final four slams..

 

[El Dude]

As a general rule, all sports get a bit better over the years. And it is impossible to accurately compare eras, especially the further they are from each other. But, but, but...we can get a sense of how dominant a player was relative to the context he played in. We can compare Borg vs. the late 70s to Federer vs. the 00s. We can even somewhat compare Ellsworth Vines to Jannik Sinner in that fashion. Sort of. The problem comes when we don't look at context, or when we try to imagine Vines playing today. But we can get a sense of how dominant Vines was against his competition and compare that to how dominant Sinner is vs. his - if we're willing to do the work and deep-dive into the records that are available. That, I think, is the best way to approach comparing players across different eras: contextual dominance.