Fedalovic Wars

[shawnbm]

I mean under El Dude's reference to PEP years

 

[Moxie]

In my opinion, these three guys would have crushed it an any era.

I don't think that's controversial. The argument is about what happened when they played each other, and sort of, but not exactly in the same era.

 

[Moxie]

I mean under El Dude's reference to PEP years

"PEP?" Anyway, El Dude has also said that his classifications of years are not meant to be taken too literally. And I'm not sure if they were compared to history, but I might have missed that in this thread.

 

[nehmeth]

I don't think that's controversial. The argument is about what happened when they played each other, and sort of, but not exactly in the same era.

I was in no way trying to be a part of your ongoing argument with Dude.

You had stated: “They are/were, let's face it, head-and-shoulders above basically everyone for the past 20 years”. To which I commented my belief they would have crushed the best from any era.. That was all that I was responding to.

 

[El Dude]

Moxie, seasoned veteran of the Fedal Wars, senses the current conflict with a regular foe, El Dude, is waning, and scans the field for another opportunity for hostile engagement. She throws down the gauntlet but finds no takers.

 

[Kieran]

I don’t think the Big 3 would “crush it” in every era. They happen to operate in an era that’s become very subdued and promiscuous when it comes to allowing them to have their way - and they have each other aware of the potential in the situation, and pushing each other on…

 

[Kieran]

Talking about stats only (not narrative elements), Rafa's biggest problem relative to Novak is highlighted by weeks at #1 -- not just the stat itself, but the sustained dominance and underlying accomplishments it represents. What is striking about Novak's career resume is how full it is: he has some of everything, and a lot of most things (see list above). But the weeks at #1 might actually be his most mind-boggling stat: I mean, 400+...he just needs about four or five months more to have two years worth on Roger, and has a chance to more than double Rafa's total. That speaks not only to peak level, but sustained dominance.

Even if you ignore rankings and focus only on accomplishments, like me "PEP" system, you still have the problem of Novak having more big years. 20 PEP is basically an elite year - there are usually 3-4 guys in that range, in a given year; it is the type of season that 2nd tier guys dream of having but usually don't have, or a typical Andy Murray prime season. 30 is great (about top 100 Open Era), and 40 is probably the best player on tour (top 50 Open Era), with 50+ being rare historic seasons (about top 20 in the Open Era).

To compare Roger, Rafa, and Novak, here is how many seasons they have at the 50, 40, 30, and 20 thresholds:

RF: 4/7/11/15
RN: 3/5/12/13
ND: 5/8/11/16

Note that Novak's current season is at 49 through today's result; chances are that "5" becomes a "6."

Anyhow, as you can see, Novak and Roger have more 50 and 40 seasons than Rafa. Rafa has one more 30+ PEP season than either one, but two and three fewer 20 seasons than Roger and Novak, respectively. But this points to the fact that in terms of tour dominance, Roger and even more so Novak, reigned more prominently.

If Rafa wins a couple more Slams and gets to #24, it might distance himself enough from Roger to make him a solid #2. Due to what I described above, Roger's still a bit ahead of him in career PEP, but I'm not a "PEP Absolutist." Haha.

But to pass Novak he needs a lot more, because of the completeness of Novak's resume. Meaning, even if you focus on Slams, you have to look at everything else as a tiebreaker, and Novak's "everything else" is a lot...more. The big gap in YECs (Novak 6, Rafa 0) and widening gap in Masters (Novak 40, Rafa 36) is hard to make up, even if he ties Novak's Slam count. Not only is Rafa running out of time, but Novak is still a moving target. Meaning, even if Rafa resurges, he'd really need Novak to collapse in order to have a chance of equalling his overall resume...and really, he needs more than one year's return to form.

Not to go on too long, but another way to look at is that using GOAT points, Novak's at 1094, Roger at 926, and Rafa at 885. Rafa's 41 points behind Roger; that's Rafa's 2018 season. Meaning, another really good (but not one of his very best) seasons and he equals Roger; or it could merely be a couple merely decent ones (by Rafa's standards), like his 2020 year.

But he's 209 GP behind Novak - which is the equivalent of five 2018 seasons. That is really hard to make up, especially going into a season in which Rafa turns 37 years old.

(It should go without saying but I'm not advocating for GOAT points as an absolute measurement of greatness; I'm just using it as a tool to illustrate the point...and it does a fairly good job of accumulation of records).

I don’t like Pep Guardiola, if that’s what you’re talking about. I can’t stand the bastard.

But when you’re talking about weeks at number 1, it’s definitely in the realm of opportunity, which he’s having now in ways that probably even Roger didn’t have, and certainly never Rafa. Someday when the 3 are gone we’ll hopefully understand this better. Novak is 36. He’s doing better than he did at his peak.

How?

 

[nehmeth]

I don’t think the Big 3 would “crush it” in every era. They happen to operate in an era that’s become very subdued and promiscuous when it comes to allowing them to have their way - and they have each other aware of the potential in the situation, and pushing each other on…

Of course you don’t and you’ve been using similar arguments for years. Do you know how many professional players were on the tour in 1973?? 185. And today?? 1500. Go back another decade or two with the Aussies and their regimen of beer and cigarettes, there were probably less than 100, way less. All of your unproven hypotheses based on intangibles pales to nothing when you consider the money that’s out there today, the necessary athleticism to compete and the level of technical excellence. The level is much higher today than any era. And these three crushed it.

 

[Kieran]

Of course you don’t and you’ve been using similar arguments for years. Do you know how many professional players were on the tour in 1973?? 185. And today?? 1500. Go back another decade or two with the Aussies and their regimen of beer and cigarettes, there were probably less than 100, way less. All of your unproven hypotheses based on intangibles pales to nothing when you consider the money that’s out there today, the necessary athleticism to compete and the level of technical excellence. The level is much higher today than any era. And these three crushed it.

I’ve been using it so long that I was using it about Federer when you were a Rafa fan in the old days, and you agreed with me.

But what you’re talking about is both alt-history and recency bias. The fact is, we don’t have any way of proving that if the Big 3 were born 40 years earlier, that what you said would be true…

 

[nehmeth]

I’ve been using it so long that I was using it about Federer when you were a Rafa fan in the old days, and you agreed with me.

But what you’re talking about is both alt-history and recency bias. The fact is, we don’t have any way of proving that if the Big 3 were born 40 years earlier, that what you said would be true…

I agreed when Fed had just surpassed Sampras and my guy’s loss of relevancy was on the line. That day has passed and we have had the Big Three for 15 years. Recency bias? You have 10X more players competing now - better athletes, better trained, better competition. They have sports psychologists and visualization techniques to help optimize performance under stress. You have fitness regimens, diet and recovery science that is light years ahead.from 20 years ago. Better athletes, fitter athletes, stronger competition in the earliest rounds. Djokovic, Federer and Nadal have stood head and shoulders above them.

 

[Kieran]

I agreed when Fed had just surpassed Sampras and my guy’s loss of relevancy was on the line. That day has passed and we have had the Big Three for 15 years. Recency bias? You have 10X more players competing now - better athletes, better trained, better competition. They have sports psychologists and visualization techniques to help optimize performance under stress. You have fitness regimens, diet and recovery science that is light years ahead.from 20 years ago. Better athletes, fitter athletes, stronger competition in the earliest rounds. Djokovic, Federer and Nadal have stood head and shoulders above them.

That’s not actually saying anything. Yes, they’re better than the field. But if you’re comparing them with the greatest players of previous eras who played against their own field, how are you able to say they’d do as well? I’m not saying they wouldn’t - but you can’t say that if the Big 3 were born forty years earlier they’d be the same as they are now, given all the advantages you mention that modern players benefit from.

Nor can you say that if Laver or Borg were born 40 years later, that they’d struggle. It’s impossible to compare things this way.

And yes, it’s recency bias. 15, 20 years? I’m watching tennis 47 years, which includes many different eras…

 

[shawnbm]

I love the never ending battle. All I can do is admire the level of all the greats. I sill enjoy watching an old Connors v. Borg match as much as a match between any of the Big Three. Same with throwing in McEnroe or Lendl. Sampras, Agassi, Becker, Edberg and all were as riveting as the guys of this era if not more so at times!

 

[shawnbm]

Those guys were stellar players--elite players, many of them with a great all-court game. Love them still.

 

[britbox]

I don't think it's a never-ending battle. Djokovic has established the separation. It's kind of amusing how we had all the GOAT discussions from the dawn of these tennis forums, and now that Djokovic has started owning most of the records... the title shouldn't exist... unless it's about Clay court tennis.

 

[shawnbm]

Oh, don't misunderstand my britbox. I am on record as saying Nole is the most accomplished player of the Open Era. He has practically every record worth having and the only player in the Open Era who ever had close to that level of across-the-board dominance of weeks at #1, grand slams, Masters (until seven or so years ago), tournament victories (only a few behind Connors), most years winning three majors in a year, most year end championships, SW-19s, most US Opens in a row, etc. was Fed. Now almost all of those are gone and by one guy! I have no illusions about his stats.

 

[Kieran]

I don't think it's a never-ending battle. Djokovic has established the separation. It's kind of amusing how we had all the GOAT discussions from the dawn of these tennis forums, and now that Djokovic has started owning most of the records... the title shouldn't exist... unless it's about Clay court tennis.

Good luck with that one, brother. We’re only getting started..

 

[nehmeth]

That’s not actually saying anything. Yes, they’re better than the field. But if you’re comparing them with the greatest players of previous eras who played against their own field, how are you able to say they’d do as well? I’m not saying they wouldn’t - but you can’t say that if the Big 3 were born forty years earlier they’d be the same as they are now, given all the advantages you mention that modern players benefit from.

Nor can you say that if Laver or Borg were born 40 years later, that they’d struggle. It’s impossible to compare things this way.

And yes, it’s recency bias. 15, 20 years? I’m watching tennis 47 years, which includes many different eras…

I started watching tennis in 1966. I began playing competitively in 1973. I’ve watched the greats all the way back. And I can say, in my opinion, these three guys would have won out against the greats of any generation. You are welcome to disagree.

 

[Kieran]

I started watching tennis in 1966. I began playing competitively in 1973. I’ve watched the greats all the way back. And I can say, in my opinion, these three guys would have won out against the greats of any generation. You are welcome to disagree.

You’d have to lay out a reasonable criteria to base the comparison on. It’s like saying Usain Bolt is better than Jesse Owen. Of course he is, because of the obvious advantages he has.

But it’s impossible to say this if we place them on a level playing field - either both runners with the modern advantages or else both runners without them. So we can’t say that the Big 3 would be the same without the advantages - and nor can we say that if players of the past played under the same advantageous conditions that they’d be crushed.

In this simple comparison without conditions, Sissypussy would also crush all the previous generations, especially any before the 90’s, and so would Nick…

 

[nehmeth]

In this simple comparison without conditions, Tsitsipas would also crush all the previous generations, especially any before the 90’s, and so would Nick…

And I would agree about Stefanos. Nick has about the same disciplined regimen of the lads in the 80’s. He would have loved Studio 54.

 

[Kieran]

And I would agree about Stefanos. Nick has about the same disciplined regimen of the lads in the 80’s. He would have loved Studio 54.

Using this logic though, we’d have to say that Muhammad Ali is not comparable with even average fighters, and Pele is not one of the greatest of all footballers…