Sept/Oct Tennis Mag Part II: Federer 2004-2013 greatest 10 year span ever

[Luxilon Borg]

Page 54 of the Sept/Oct Tennis Mag, page 54;

The Great GOAT Debate, by Jeff Sackman.

Based on specific indicators, Sackman says Federer had the single best decade
of any professional tennis player.

Here are two of the factors:

Wins: 667
Slams:16
Wins against Top 10: 137

 

[NADAL2005RG]

Nadal is the only man ever to win slams for 10 years in a row (2005-2014) and is probably going to extend it far beyond. Federer only did it for 8 years in a row (no slam titles in 2011 and 2013).

 

[El Dude]

I'd much rather take 2003 over 2013 and make the span 2003-2012. Compare:

2003: 7 titles including one Slam (Wimbledon, no less) and the World Tour Finals, an 82% winning percentage and a year-end rank of #2.

2013: 1 title (a measly ATP 250), a 73% winning percentage and a year-end rank of #6.

It isn't even close, which seems like a huge oversight on the part of that publication.

 

[NADAL2005RG]

Nadal's career winning% is .837, so I don't think Federer's 82% (and career of .812) is much to brag about.

 

[El Dude]

Nadal's winning% is .837, so I don't think Federer's 82% is much to brag about.

Roger's career winning % is actually 81%. I was merely pointing out how 2003 was a better year for Roger than 2013, so the ten year span should be 2003-2012.

Anyhow, sorry NADAL2005RG, but I'm not all that interested in a GOAT debate with someone who is so clearly biased that they're unable to look at any data points other than those that support their guy.

 

[NADAL2005RG]

Anyone who is willing to anoint a player as "GOAT" is biased, considering its impossible to determine a "GOAT".
I mean, how do you compare players from the Laver era to players of the 21st Century?
Everything was so different back then and impossible to relate.
And clearly the stats don't matter, because many people say Laver is better than Federer/Nadal, despite only winning 11 slams.
That means winning 14 slams or 17 slams is not an argument, and neither is winning% or rankings.
You won't ever see me anoint a GOAT, even if someone wins The Double Career Grand Slam.

 

[El Dude]

I agree that anointing a definitive GOAT is probably impossible, or at least requires a subjective leap. My point was simply that if you're going to cite random data points, you've got to be more comprehensive about it.

By the way, Laver only won 11 Grand Slams but he won 8 Pro Slams, so his total Slam count is 19. Ken Rosewall won 15 Pro Slams in addition to his 8 Grand Slams, giving him the highest combined total with 23. But Pancho Gonzales is the most criminally underrated GOAT candidate, in my opinion, on account of the fact that he only won 2 Grand Slams, but 15 Pro Slams. Gonzales was competitive into his mid-40s and is a player that many people say was better than Laver.

Anyhow, I'd say you've got six or seven GOAT candidates, all of whom have a valid argument: Bill Tilden, Pancho Gonzales, Ken Rosewall, Rod Laver, Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, Pete Sampras and maybe Bjorn Borg (if we emphasize peak level). Of those eight, I think Sampras and Borg get edged into a "1b" category on account of being surpassed by Federer and Nadal, respectively, in terms of career accomplishments. Tilden played in such a different time period, but it is amazing that his career spanned three decades and he not only won Slams over a 16-year Slam (from age 27 to 42), but made it to Slam semifinals (either Grand or Pro) over a mind-boggling 28-year stretch (from age 25 to 52!).

As for Rafa and Roger, this debate will go on for years. On one hand it depends upon how they end their careers, yet even then it depends upon whether you prefer the short but massive dominance of Federer, filled out by his long plateau performance, or the ongoing up and down brilliance and multiple peak phases of Rafa. Unless Rafa out-Slams Roger by at least 2, there will be arguments on either side. If Rafa passes Roger by at least 2, then I think all but his most vociferous fans will cede the title to Rafa.

Anyhow, I'd rather say that each of those eight players was the greatest of their respective time periods and generations. Not GOAT but GOATS!

 

[Luxilon Borg]

I agree that anointing a definitive GOAT is probably impossible, or at least requires a subjective leap. My point was simply that if you're going to cite random data points, you've got to be more comprehensive about it.

By the way, Laver only won 11 Grand Slams but he won 8 Pro Slams, so his total Slam count is 19. Ken Rosewall won 15 Pro Slams in addition to his 8 Grand Slams, giving him the highest combined total with 23. But Pancho Gonzales is the most criminally underrated GOAT candidate, in my opinion, on account of the fact that he only won 2 Grand Slams, but 15 Pro Slams. Gonzales was competitive into his mid-40s and is a player that many people say was better than Laver.

Anyhow, I'd say you've got six or seven GOAT candidates, all of whom have a valid argument: Bill Tilden, Pancho Gonzales, Ken Rosewall, Rod Laver, Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, Pete Sampras and maybe Bjorn Borg (if we emphasize peak level). Of those eight, I think Sampras and Borg get edged into a "1b" category on account of being surpassed by Federer and Nadal, respectively, in terms of career accomplishments. Tilden played in such a different time period, but it is amazing that his career spanned three decades and he not only won Slams over a 16-year Slam (from age 27 to 42), but made it to Slam semifinals (either Grand or Pro) over a mind-boggling 28-year stretch (from age 25 to 52!).

As for Rafa and Roger, this debate will go on for years. On one hand it depends upon how they end their careers, yet even then it depends upon whether you prefer the short but massive dominance of Federer, filled out by his long plateau performance, or the ongoing up and down brilliance and multiple peak phases of Rafa. Unless Rafa out-Slams Roger by at least 2, there will be arguments on either side. If Rafa passes Roger by at least 2, then I think all but his most vociferous fans will cede the title to Rafa.

Anyhow, I'd rather say that each of those eight players was the greatest of their respective time periods and generations. Not GOAT but GOATS!

All valid points..but remember, the author is talking about Federer having the best 10 year block of any player, based on a few admittedly hand picked stats. I think he implies it could be used as ammo in a GOAT debate, but he does not definitively anoint a GOAT.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

How about COAT?

Coolest player of all time?

Easy...Bjorn Borg.

 

[NADAL2005RG]

No smart person will ever anoint a GOAT.
Seeing people even mention "GOAT" feels like I'm watching sesame street.
This thread is probably gong to wind up like that, so I'll exit to avoid the debacle.

 

[Front242]

Nadal's career winning% is .837, so I don't think Federer's 82% (and career of .812) is much to brag about.

Nadal's winning % is inflated because he's played a lot less tournaments than Federer. That's one of the most worthless stats out there that Nadal fans keep touting. Whether by way of not playing them through injury or simply 'cos of the 5 year age gap, the reason for the difference is obvious. If Nadal should actually hang around till 33+ watch that number drop like a rock too.

 

[Federberg]

Nadal's career winning% is .837, so I don't think Federer's 82% (and career of .812) is much to brag about.

Nadal's winning % is inflated because he's played a lot less tournaments than Federer. That's one of the most worthless stats out there that Nadal fans keep touting. Whether by way of not playing them through injury or simply 'cos of the 5 year age gap, the reason for the difference is obvious. If Nadal should actually hang around till 33+ watch that number drop like a rock too.

A valid point, but pointless arguing with him. He has a poor grasp of statistical comparisons in any case

 

[Front242]

Of course Nadal not playing another single match would mean maintaining a higher winning % over a guy who played till 40 so again, totally worthless stat.

 

[El Dude]

Rafa's winning percentage is also a bit inflated by how many clay matches he's played. Consider that 40.7% of Rafa's total matches have been played on clay compared to 21.6% of Roger's. Rafa's clay winning percentage is 93%, while he's 77.3% everywhere else.

Part of Rafa's huge percentage of clay matches is because he's so good that he goes deeper into tournaments, therefore playing more. But I think he's also customized his schedule to be heavy on clay.

 

[Moxie]

Rafa customized his schedule to be heavier on clay when he was younger, and in 2013, when he was coming back from injury. Otherwise, the only one he would mostly add was Barcelona, for obvious reasons. (And, to be fair, I think he'd like to have skipped Madrid a time or two, especially the inaugural on clay, but he got pressured.) But, basically, he plays the big ones on clay, like most do. Now, Federer has skipped MC a few times, as has Djokovic, at least once. That you can't count against Rafa.

The winning percentage stats are a bit arcane. Federer is the more consistent; Nadal the more likely to win, if he plays. Nadal does have the greatest percentage win outdoors of all time.

 

[atttomole]

Nadal's career winning% is .837, so I don't think Federer's 82% (and career of .812) is much to brag about.

Nadal's winning % is inflated because he's played a lot less tournaments than Federer. That's one of the most worthless stats out there that Nadal fans keep touting. Whether by way of not playing them through injury or simply 'cos of the 5 year age gap, the reason for the difference is obvious. If Nadal should actually hang around till 33+ watch that number drop like a rock too.

I had not seen your posts for a few days and I thought you could have been suspended. I agree that the winning % changes as the player gets older and has to face younger, fitter opponents. For me Roger's 2004 to 2006 was even more impressive when he lost a total of 15 matches, if I am not mistaken..

 

[Front242]

Nadal's career winning% is .837, so I don't think Federer's 82% (and career of .812) is much to brag about.

Nadal's winning % is inflated because he's played a lot less tournaments than Federer. That's one of the most worthless stats out there that Nadal fans keep touting. Whether by way of not playing them through injury or simply 'cos of the 5 year age gap, the reason for the difference is obvious. If Nadal should actually hang around till 33+ watch that number drop like a rock too.

I had not seen your posts for a few days and I thought you could have been suspended. I agree that the winning % changes as the player gets older and has to face younger, fitter opponents. For me Roger's 2004 to 2006 was even more impressive when he lost a total of 15 matches, if I am not mistaken..

I was away from Friday-Monday but suspended for a joke based on an actual quote from Patrick McEnroe? Nah, ain't happening. That's it exactly, Roger's has got noticeably worse 'cos he's hung around so long. He's played way more matches on tour so hence the difference, so when I see Nadal fans touting Rafa's higher winning % I just laugh. What else would you expect but the older guy to lose more matches the last few years and also Nadal not playing often means his numbers don't even change. It's a pointless stat unless both played the exact same number of matches on tour and were the same age from start to finish in their careers.

 

[Federberg]

It would be interesting to see a time series of win % by surface for the top 3, and some of the legends of the open era. I'm sure they're much of a muchness, but all are equally impressive in their own unique ways. I think as with most things, one should always take a nuanced approach when reading the data. I think that there should be some appreciation for things like a player being particularly successful on a surface with few tournaments, similarly if there are many tournaments on their best surface. For me I'm more impressed by a player who is equally successful on different surfaces. But at the end of the day, I like who I like. That's why Mac, Edberg, Rafter, Federer will always be big favs for me. I love the way they play, but I appreciate that their style might predispose them to be great only on certain surfaces.

One thing worth considering when looking at overall stats, is that (and this is probably more the case in the past) some players might (given their success on a particular surface) tend to focus on their strength. I'm thinking someone like Muster might have done that. Nuance...

 

[DarthFed]

The winning % stat has always been overrated. It's mainly about what you win and how many times not how often you win % wise. And of course Rafa is going to be higher than Roger at this point, Roger is a good 5-6 years out of his prime. When Roger was Rafa's age I bet his % was likely as high as Rafa's now or darn close. And if Rafa plays until 33 that winning % will certainly drop. No surprise Borg is #1 when he quit at age 26, he didn't play a single match when he was past his prime.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Nadal's career winning% is .837, so I don't think Federer's 82% (and career of .812) is much to brag about.

Nadal's winning % is inflated because he's played a lot less tournaments than Federer. That's one of the most worthless stats out there that Nadal fans keep touting. Whether by way of not playing them through injury or simply 'cos of the 5 year age gap, the reason for the difference is obvious. If Nadal should actually hang around till 33+ watch that number drop like a rock too.

I had not seen your posts for a few days and I thought you could have been suspended. I agree that the winning % changes as the player gets older and has to face younger, fitter opponents. For me Roger's 2004 to 2006 was even more impressive when he lost a total of 15 matches, if I am not mistaken..

I was away from Friday-Monday but suspended for a joke based on an actual quote from Patrick McEnroe? Nah, ain't happening. That's it exactly, Roger's has got noticeably worse 'cos he's hung around so long. He's played way more matches on tour so hence the difference, so when I see Nadal fans touting Rafa's higher winning % I just laugh. What else would you expect but the older guy to lose more matches the last few years and also Nadal not playing often means his numbers don't even change. It's a pointless stat unless both played the exact same number of matches on tour and were the same age from start to finish in their careers.

I saw that post which was out in public for a brief period. In that particular post, you
were not alleging anybody of any wrong doing. It was a suggestion to augment
a member's signature. Nonetheless, it got deleted because the mods did not like it. :nono

God knows, how many posts are getting deleted. uzzled

I know one of mine got deleted. I had seen one of yours get deleted as I managed to
catch it during the brief 5 minutes or so when it was up. Finally, I am beginning to get
a sense of how life must be in North Korea, China, Russia and similar places.