With one Slam down, what do you see for the rest of the year?

[El Dude]

The Australian Open and, to a lesser degree, the lead-up low level tournaments, gives us some data and eyewitness impressions to consider for the upcoming year. What do you see and predict for the rest of the year? I'll start.

Clearly Novak Djokovic is still the guy to beat, and if he can remain healthy, has a good chance of spending the whole year at #1 and piling on more accomplishments. He's back to #1 with 373 weeks in the books, and thus can reach the absurd 400 benchmark by July.* He also is now tied with Rafa with 22 Slams and is likely to take the lead, and he's at 38 Masters and 93 titles.

My outlook on Rafael Nadal is even more bearish than it was at the end of last year. While I wouldn't be surprised if he does his usual "get things together for clay season," as things stand right now, I favor Novak over him for the Roland Garros title. But that's still almost four months away, and I've learned never to him write him off. But as things stand right now, I think there's a good chance that he's on his last legs. But there's a fairy tale that I wouldn't mind seeing unfold: One more rise in clay season, one more Roland Garros title, and a retirement announcement as he hoists that trophy.

A brief note on Andy Murray. I liked seeing him do well, but he's really not much different than Lleyton Hewitt was in the latter half of his career. I could see Andy winning a minor title this year, but he'll never win even another Masters. Unfortunately it may be that Dominic Thiem is entering a similar category, though I haven't watched him play recently. But I don't expect a substantial comeback, at least not to his peak form of a few years ago.

As for NEXT GEN, I'm concerned that we might have seen the best of Daniil Medvedev and Alexander Zverev. I do think Medvedev, at least, will remain an elite player for the foreseeable future, but whereas a year and a half ago he looked like he'd be the transitional top player between the Big Three and the Millenials, now I think he's more in the pack with other Next Genners. But I do think he'll remain dangerous, win more big titles, and I'm not writing him off for another Slam or two. Zverev is more concerning, but he's still young enough to bounce back. As things stand, he's the only player in the Open Era with at least 7 big titles (he's got 8) and no Slams, so it seems likely that he'll manage to win at least one or, if not, go down in history as the best player to never win a Slam.

With the futures of the above two in question, Stefanos Tsitsipas emerges as the Next Genner (which I count as players born from 1994-98; he's late '98) with the highest upside going forward. I fully expect him to add to his 3 big titles this year and go deep at other Slams, and is among the top three or four favorites at Roland Garros. I know he just lost to Novak in straights, but it was mostly a very close match, and I see a player who is a bit more mature and clearly hungry. If Novak stumbles this year, he'd be my top candidate to finish the year at #1.

After the "Biggish Three" of the Next Gen, we have Andrey Rublev, Matteo Berretini, Casper Ruud, Taylor Fritz, Hubert Hurkacz, and several others like Frances Tiafoe and Nick Kyrgios who could conceivably win a Masters and/or go deep in a Slam or two. Rublev just seems over-ripe to win at least a Masters, but while he's been competitive at Slams, still hasn't made it past the quarterfinals and doesn't have a diverse enough game to win one, imo - unless he's helped by the draw and/or an upset or two. The other guys are in a similar boat: Masters contenders, but I don't see any of them winning a Slam unless the stars align just right. That said, I think at least one of these guys will win a Slam because the stars do align sometimes, not to mention Novak isn't exactly a spring chicken and the younger, more talented guys like Alcaraz and Rune aren't yet fully "hatched." But there's a narrowing window.

Finally the MILLENIALS. As I've said elsewhere, I suspect that Holger Rune might end up as good as Carlos Alcaraz, or at least wouldn't be surprised if he was. At the very least, he'll be close. I don' think either of these two are ready to dominate the field, and Alcaraz's injury is a setback in that regard, but they're going to continue refining their game and should at least be in the mix. And given their youth and talent, and the fact that they haven't established mental pose of "almost, but no cigar" like the Next Genners, they're prime candidates to sneak in and grab a Slam this year.

Coming into this season I expected big things from Jannik Sinner and Felix Auger Aliassime. My expectations aren't dimmed too much, at least more than they already have. I still think both will be Slam winners and spend a good amount of time in the top 5. But I see them, as a pair, a notch below Rune and Alcaraz, at least in the long-term. I do still think FAA has another gear he has only tapped into in flashes. But he's also old enough now--22, 23 in August--that he should be fully blossoming, and he's teetering on the point of solidifying as more of a second tier than a true elite. As for Sinner, my overall impression of him is a kind of...softness? Maybe it is a lack of pure firepower, or maybe he just feels less competitive, but something is missing. Not saying it won't come, but I would cap his upside a bit.

After those four, three Millenials reached the QF of the AO: Ben Shelton, Sebastian Korda, and Jiri Lehecka. We've seen quite a bit of Korda already, who had a disappointing season last year after a "quasi-breakout" in 2021. But he seems back on track and could conceivably enter the mix with Sinner and FAA as the "lesser elites" of the Millenial cohort. I can't really comment on Shelton and Lehecka, but obviously there's potential there.

We're also at the point where we're going to start seeing the post-Millenial cohort showing up on tour (players born 2004-08...crazy to think). Meaning, guys who were born during Roger's reign! Two players in particular I'm looking for are two Frenchmen (boys), 18-year olds Luca van Assche and Arthur Fils. It is not to say that I think they have the highest upside of this un-named generation, but that they're two that I think have a good chance of reaching the top 100 this year. 17-year old Juncheng Shang of China (turn 18 in a few days) is the youngest player in the top 200, but I know nothing about him.

So what about you? What are your thoughts for the new year, with a Slam and a couple other tournaments in the books?


*Note: While only Roger has also reached 300 weeks during the Open Era, if we had the same system in place, several other players would likely have reached 300, and possibly even 400: Rod Laver, Pancho Gonzales, and Bill Tilden.

 

[don_fabio]

Clearly Novak Djokovic is still the guy to beat, and if he can remain healthy, has a good chance of spending the whole year at #1 and piling on more accomplishments. He's back to #1 with 373 weeks in the books, and thus can reach the absurd 400 benchmark by July.* He also is now tied with Rafa with 22 Slams and is likely to take the lead, and he's at 38 Masters and 93 titles.

I am not sure if it will go that smooth with 400 weeks on a horizon for a July. As I understand, Novak is not allowed to play sunshine double in US, plenty of points there for his current competitor for no.1, Tsitsipas. Also coming into the clay season, there could be no.1 ranking spot changes between the 3, Novak, Alcaraz, Tsitsipas. But if we take a whole season into account and hoping that Novak will be allowed to play in USO then I see Novak with reasonable chance to add more weeks and be again year end no.1. I am also not sure if they are going to count points for a Wimbledon this year, if they don't then it's a massive blow for Novak's points tally in 2023.

My outlook on Rafael Nadal is even more bearish than it was at the end of last year. While I wouldn't be surprised if he does his usual "get things together for clay season," as things stand right now, I favor Novak over him for the Roland Garros title. But that's still almost four months away, and I've learned never to him write him off. But as things stand right now, I think there's a good chance that he's on his last legs. But there's a fairy tale that I wouldn't mind seeing unfold: One more rise in clay season, one more Roland Garros title, and a retirement announcement as he hoists that trophy.

I tend to believe that Rafa will do everything possible to be 100 percent for clay season and RG 2023, get things sorted as you say. Pressure is surely on him to deliver this year in RG again, but he has been in this situation many times before and should be able to handle it.

As for others, all eyes will be on Alcaraz and Rune, two most promising yougsters. 1 with a slam already. They both have really exciting games to watch.

I agree that Medvev dropped his level and is not the same player anymore. I wonder if others just figured him out by now and can handle his game. He needs to go back to the drawing board and figure out what is missing in his game. Playing too far back and too defensive for a start and volley game non existent.

As for the bunch of Rublev, Berettini, Ruud, Fritz, Hurkacz, Tiafoe, can't say I care much

Tsitsipas can be some threat on clay if he plays his best game, but if he meets healthy Rafa in RG, I believe that Rafa would be able to handle him. Tsitsipas might have chance for USO maybe, although it might be too fast for him there, he hasn't performed well there historically too.

Sinner and FAA remain two enigmas for whom we keep waiting to fully develop and prove they are better than what results are showing so far. So I guess we keep waiting again this year too, closely watching them how they perform.

I think there is a high chance that first 3 slams this year are again divided between Rafa and Novak and then USO is snatched by Alcaraz or someone else who will be in a killer form at the time. As for Masters, they will again be going to the hands of other younger guys more than to Nadal and Novak.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

Djokovic is not the guy to beat, he was just lucky to only meet Rublev, Paul and Tsitsipas who are players he can beat with his eyes closed. He didn’t meet players that trashed him the last time like GOATdal, Alcaraz, FAA, Rune, etc. He will be exposed soon. I predict Alcaraz at the FO, GOATdal at Wimbledon and FAA or Rune at the USO. See how it’s possible to post something with more substance and truthful in only one paragraph instead of a long book like you do. Take lessons from me.

 

[Moxie]

As for NEXT GEN, I'm concerned that we might have seen the best of Daniil Medvedev and Alexander Zverev. I do think Medvedev, at least, will remain an elite player for the foreseeable future, but whereas a year and a half ago he looked like he'd be the transitional top player between the Big Three and the Millenials, now I think he's more in the pack with other Next Genners. But I do think he'll remain dangerous, win more big titles, and I'm not writing him off for another Slam or two. Zverev is more concerning, but he's still young enough to bounce back. As things stand, he's the only player in the Open Era with at least 7 big titles (he's got 8) and no Slams, so it seems likely that he'll manage to win at least one or, if not, go down in history as the best player to never win a Slam.

A lot in there to chew on, so I'll take it in bite-sizes. I think it's too early to "sell" on Medvedev. He's got lots of issues, but most of them don't have to do with his game. I sort of love/hate him, but I think he'll find his way to being worth championing again. Zverev I have more of a problem with, for several reasons. Not least of which is how he comes back from serious injury. You can't blame a guy for injury, and his was a bad one. Look at Thiem, though...as far as we can see from this altitude, he'll never be the same player. Aside from that, all things being equal, I think Zverev is a brat. (And possibly worse.) He has behaved as if the titles were going to come to him. (Something I think Tsitsipas is also guilty of.) Who knows if this injury will have an affect on his humility. But if he never wins a Major, would you really call him the best player never to win a Slam? (I think we've had that thread...I'm pretty sure there are others that would beat him out, for now, anyway.)

 

[El Dude]

A lot in there to chew on, so I'll take it in bite-sizes. I think it's too early to "sell" on Medvedev. He's got lots of issues, but most of them don't have to do with his game. I sort of love/hate him, but I think he'll find his way to being worth championing again. Zverev I have more of a problem with, for several reasons. Not least of which is how he comes back from serious injury. You can't blame a guy for injury, and his was a bad one. Look at Thiem, though...as far as we can see from this altitude, he'll never be the same player. Aside from that, all things being equal, I think Zverev is a brat. (And possibly worse.) He has behaved as if the titles were going to come to him. (Something I think Tsitsipas is also guilty of.) Who knows if this injury will have an affect on his humility. But if he never wins a Major, would you really call him the best player never to win a Slam? (I think we've had that thread...I'm pretty sure there are others that would beat him out, for now, anyway.)

It depends upon what else he'll do between now and retirement. Right now he's a borderline consideration, behind guys like Okker, Gottfried, and Ferrer - at least based on Elo and GOAT Points. But if he wins a handful more Masters, he'll probably surpass them.

Remember, he's got TWO Tour Finals, five Masters, and an Olympics gold...that's a nice haul.

Slamless Players By GOAT Points

1. David Ferrer 124
2. Tom Okker 123
3. Alexander Zverev 111
4. Tomas Berdych 84
5. Brian Gottfried 80
6. Marcelo Rios 78
7. Nikolay Davydenko 77
8. Harold Solomon 73
9. Stefanos Tsitsipas 72
10. Jo-Wilfried Tsonga 71

Slamless Players by Peak ELO

1. David Ferrer 2348
2. Brian Gottfried 2324
3. Tom Okker 2317
4. Gene Mayer 2303
5. Alexander Zverev 2303
6. Jose Luis Clerc 2297
7. Kei Nishikori 2296
8. Nikolay Davydenko 2291
9. Eddie Dibbs 2282
10. Robin Soderling 2271

Slamless Players by Big Titles
8 Alexander Zverev
6 Marcelo Rios
4 Tom Okker, Nikolay Davydenko, Miroslav Mecir, Andrei Medvedev

Those are just three criteria, but as you can see, Zverev ranks nicely in all of them. He'll almost certainly finish with more GOAT Points than Ferrer and Okker, and his 2303 Elo is #30 all-time (Open Era), so no small potatoes. He's also 11th in total titles with 19. The "sexy picks" are guys like Rios or Mecir, but Rios really only had that one great year and Mecir's career was super short.

Now if we were to posit the most under-achieving non-Slam winner, maybe guys like Nalbandian would enter the mix...but Zverev, with those 8 big titles, can hardly be considered an under-achiever, at least in that regardless of the lack of Slams, he's achieved quite a bit through age 25.

So yeah, if A) Zverev never wins a Slam, and B) wins another Masters or two and a handful more titles, he'll probably deserve the dubious accolade of best non-Slam winner in Open Era history, imo.

 

[El Dude]

Djokovic is not the guy to beat, he was just lucky to only meet Rublev, Paul and Tsitsipas who are players he can beat with his eyes closed. He didn’t meet players that trashed him the last time like GOATdal, Alcaraz, FAA, Rune, etc. He will be exposed soon. I predict Alcaraz at the FO, GOATdal at Wimbledon and FAA or Rune at the USO. See how it’s possible to post something with more substance and truthful in only one paragraph instead of a long book like you do. Take lessons from me.

If Oldal wins Wimbledon, I'll repent by never watching the 5th set of the AO 2017 final ever again....

 

[Moxie]

It depends upon what else he'll do between now and retirement. Right now he's a borderline consideration, behind guys like Okker, Gottfried, and Ferrer - at least based on Elo and GOAT Points. But if he wins a handful more Masters, he'll probably surpass them.

Remember, he's got TWO Tour Finals, five Masters, and an Olympics gold...that's a nice haul.

Slamless Players By GOAT Points

1. David Ferrer 124
2. Tom Okker 123
3. Alexander Zverev 111
4. Tomas Berdych 84
5. Brian Gottfried 80
6. Marcelo Rios 78
7. Nikolay Davydenko 77
8. Harold Solomon 73
9. Stefanos Tsitsipas 72
10. Jo-Wilfried Tsonga 71

Slamless Players by Peak ELO

1. David Ferrer 2348
2. Brian Gottfried 2324
3. Tom Okker 2317
4. Gene Mayer 2303
5. Alexander Zverev 2303
6. Jose Luis Clerc 2297
7. Kei Nishikori 2296
8. Nikolay Davydenko 2291
9. Eddie Dibbs 2282
10. Robin Soderling 2271

Slamless Players by Big Titles
8 Alexander Zverev
6 Marcelo Rios
4 Tom Okker, Nikolay Davydenko, Miroslav Mecir, Andrei Medvedev

Those are just three criteria, but as you can see, Zverev ranks nicely in all of them. He'll almost certainly finish with more GOAT Points than Ferrer and Okker, and his 2303 Elo is #30 all-time (Open Era), so no small potatoes. He's also 11th in total titles with 19. The "sexy picks" are guys like Rios or Mecir, but Rios really only had that one great year and Mecir's career was super short.

Now if we were to posit the most under-achieving non-Slam winner, maybe guys like Nalbandian would enter the mix...but Zverev, with those 8 big titles, can hardly be considered an under-achiever, at least in that regardless of the lack of Slams, he's achieved quite a bit through age 25.

So yeah, if A) Zverev never wins a Slam, and B) wins another Masters or two and a handful more titles, he'll probably deserve the dubious accolade of best non-Slam winner in Open Era history, imo.

And just when I was hoping we'd get through a whole tread by you in which ELO points wouldn't come up. I almost left off my last question about Best Player Never to win a Major, and I should have. The rest of what I had to say about Medvedev and Zverev were actually the points I wanted to make. I like to think they were far more interesting, and germane to your OP.

 

[El Dude]

And just when I was hoping we'd get through a whole tread by you in which ELO points wouldn't come up. I almost left off my last question about Best Player Never to win a Major, and I should have. The rest of what I had to say about Medvedev and Zverev were actually the points I wanted to make. I like to think they were far more interesting, and germane to your OP.

Huh? You know, I'm reminded of back in the 90s, when lots of baseball fans didn't like advanced statistics, and now its all the rage (even too much so). Maybe tennis is in a similar place as baseball fandom in the 90s, with "old school" thinking still dominating and a general hostility to statistics, especially "weird" ones like Elo. Now of course stats are just one part of the picture - they shouldn't be taken as absolute. I like Elo, but don't see it as absolute (neither does Sackmann, I believe). But I have to shake my head at how some folks react to Elo and other stats (e.g. GOAT Points). I really see it as a combination of tennis traditionalism and even a touch of anti-intellectualism..."stay away from us with those fancy numbers! I see what I see - don't challenge my subjective take with your nerdery!" Wrong crowd for such talk, I guess.

Anyhow, not sure why you're so prickly. Conversations roam about, riffing off the thread topic but rarely stay there. Sometimes we go down different pathways. Nothing wrong with that, really. I gave some data on why I think Zverev is a candidate for greatest Slamless player. Nothing I wrote is un-true, and all of it meaningful to that point. Did you not like the results for some reason? Or just too much stat nerdery?

Did you want me to just echo back what you said about Zverev and Medvedev? I have nothing to add -- it all sounds about right to me, and is congruent with my take. I just don't care that much about personalities..at least beyond a certain point. Zverev is a brat, sure, but I'm more interested in him as a tennis player. What you say does (or could) relate to their future performance, of course, but I don't like to overly focus on personalities, at least beyond a certain point. I mean, Mac was a super brat but terribly fun to watch and a truly great player for awhile. Meaning, brattiness doesn't automatically doom a player's performance, and I'm not sure humility is the key to his future. I think it health is the biggest factor, and--like the rest of his generation--whether he can develop the mental fortitude to perform in the most crucial moments.

That's an element of "Next Gen psychology" that I find very interesting, and really "second tier" players in general. Novak said a year or two ago that the talent and/or skills of the very top players is very close, even almost non-existent, and that the edge was in mind-set. While I think he might under estimate the talent gap between the Big Three and the field, I do think he's right that the larger portion of it is mental.

 

[Moxie]

Huh? You know, I'm reminded of back in the 90s, when lots of baseball fans didn't like advanced statistics, and now its all the rage (even too much so). Maybe tennis is in a similar place as baseball fandom in the 90s, with "old school" thinking still dominating and a general hostility to statistics, especially "weird" ones like Elo. Now of course stats are just one part of the picture - they shouldn't be taken as absolute. I like Elo, but don't see it as absolute (neither does Sackmann, I believe). But I have to shake my head at how some folks react to Elo and other stats (e.g. GOAT Points). I really see it as a combination of tennis traditionalism and even a touch of anti-intellectualism..."stay away from us with those fancy numbers! I see what I see - don't challenge my subjective take with your nerdery!" Wrong crowd for such talk, I guess.

I thought we had a big conversation about this on the other thread, particularly re: Ferrer. There's an inclination to "averaging out" in the ELO, didn't we decide?

Anyhow, not sure why you're so prickly.

OK, so you can call me "prickly," when it suits you, but I can't call you "snide?" I was just saying that I thought I'd made several points that were more interesting to the argument, and more interesting to me. You picked out the chaff.

Conversations roam about, riffing off the thread topic but rarely stay there. Sometimes we go down different pathways. Nothing wrong with that, really. I gave some data on why I think Zverev is a candidate for greatest Slamless player. Nothing I wrote is un-true, and all of it meaningful to that point. Did you not like the results for some reason? Or just too much stat nerdery?

In fairness, I was surprised. I seem to have forgotten some of his accomplishments, in light of his failures, vis-a-vis his promise. You make a fair argument that he's not far from that ignominious position. And I do agree that threads wander. I'm in favor of that. But, yeah, maybe it was a bit too "stat nerdy."

Did you want me to just echo back what you said about Zverev and Medvedev? I have nothing to add -- it all sounds about right to me, and is congruent with my take. I just don't care that much about personalities..at least beyond a certain point. Zverev is a brat, sure, but I'm more interested in him as a tennis player. What you say does (or could) relate to their future performance, of course, but I don't like to overly focus on personalities, at least beyond a certain point. I mean, Mac was a super brat but terribly fun to watch and a truly great player for awhile. Meaning, brattiness doesn't automatically doom a player's performance, and I'm not sure humility is the key to his future. I think it health is the biggest factor, and--like the rest of his generation--whether he can develop the mental fortitude to perform in the most crucial moments.

That's an element of "Next Gen psychology" that I find very interesting, and really "second tier" players in general. Novak said a year or two ago that the talent and/or skills of the very top players is very close, even almost non-existent, and that the edge was in mind-set. While I think he might under estimate the talent gap between the Big Three and the field, I do think he's right that the larger portion of it is mental.

Fine, if you have nothing to add to what I said about Medvedev and Zverev. And good on you if you're able to be completely agnostic about a player's behavior or personality in terms of how you relate to them. Tough to do, in an individual sport. Like Novak, though, I think we agree that the degrees of success tend to be mental, which is where personalities come in. What I call "bratty," might also be called "sense of entitlement," or "expectation of success that precedes actual effort." I would call this a mental hurdle. Likewise, some players can gripe and chatter and yell and complain, and do fine, like Novak, (or McEnroe,) and others only do it to their own detriment. Part of why we dislike them is that they can be the authors of their own destruction. Why is Kyrgios so polarizing? It's hard to like players who let us down, or shoot themselves in the foot. We can like the talent, but we do start to find ourselves on one side of the fence or the other, for many reasons.

 

[El Dude]

Sorry @Moxie , I missed your latest reply. A bit about the last part. It is not that I don't feel it worthwhile to discuss player attitudes, just that I separate it from their accomplishments (and thus greatness/rankings). I agree with you re: Zverev's (seeming) sense of entitlement, and how annoying it is, but that doesn't sway me when considering his all-time rankings.

As for Kyrgios, the episode on Netflix was somewhat illuminating...he came across as a a kid whose bluster was partially a defense mechanism due to outside expectations. But I think he's polarizing partially because he doesn't seem to take the game or his talent seriously. He's an under-achiever, in other words. There are also those who are more traditional, and see tennis as a very dignified sport, and those folks react to him in a similar way that people reacted to McEnroe. There are touches of elitism there, imo.

Oh, one thing about Elo. Yeah, I think it averages out, but still provides useful data. This is one thing I've said about stats, over and over again: they're not absolute, they're just lenses to look through. Elo gives us a different lens, and is one of the best ways to compare across eras. A lot of the "anti-stat critique" boils down to finding a fault and then writing it off completely. This, to me, is just the mirror image of "stat absolutists" - those that find a formula they like and make it absolute.

We can say the same thing about GOAT Points - they are a useful way to look at player records, but shouldn't be seen as some absolute measurement.

As I said in another thread, I like mental puzzles, and I enjoy GOAT systems and such because it is fun for me - like playing Wordle, a puzzle to be solved, but one that may be unsolvable. I don't see it as much as a quest for the "perfect system," but more as an ongoing project of finding less imperfect systems.

 

[Moxie]

Sorry @Moxie , I missed your latest reply. A bit about the last part. It is not that I don't feel it worthwhile to discuss player attitudes, just that I separate it from their accomplishments (and thus greatness/rankings). I agree with you re: Zverev's (seeming) sense of entitlement, and how annoying it is, but that doesn't sway me when considering his all-time rankings.

I think we agree, then, that player attitudes are worth discussing when a) they affect their outcomes (for good or ill,) and b) when just discussing why we like them or not, as fans. (This is a fan-site, after all.) Honestly, I had forgotten how much Zverev had actually accomplished. That's just on me.

As for Kyrgios, the episode on Netflix was somewhat illuminating...he came across as a a kid whose bluster was partially a defense mechanism due to outside expectations. But I think he's polarizing partially because he doesn't seem to take the game or his talent seriously. He's an under-achiever, in other words. There are also those who are more traditional, and see tennis as a very dignified sport, and those folks react to him in a similar way that people reacted to McEnroe. There are touches of elitism there, imo.

I look forward to watching some of the Netflix series. I would also add that there is considerable discussion around here as to how much actual talent there is, though I'm on the side of that he's a talented underachiever. And, for what it's worth, I'm Camp Nick. I do also think there is some elitism in there...maybe not so much around here, but in general. He certainly can make some tennis fans clutch at the pearls.

Oh, one thing about Elo. Yeah, I think it averages out, but still provides useful data. This is one thing I've said about stats, over and over again: they're not absolute, they're just lenses to look through. Elo gives us a different lens, and is one of the best ways to compare across eras. A lot of the "anti-stat critique" boils down to finding a fault and then writing it off completely. This, to me, is just the mirror image of "stat absolutists" - those that find a formula they like and make it absolute.

We can say the same thing about GOAT Points - they are a useful way to look at player records, but shouldn't be seen as some absolute measurement.

I hope I don't come off as being "anti-stat," or in anyway writing-off the stats completely. You are always careful to say that they are flawed, but you do still often bring them up as if they are tie-breakers in arguments, IMO. I agree with you when you say they are conversation starters, not conversation finishers. Where I most "argue" with you over them is when they come up with anomalous results. Ferrer was an example there, and you know I've always championed him.

As I said in another thread, I like mental puzzles, and I enjoy GOAT systems and such because it is fun for me - like playing Wordle, a puzzle to be solved, but one that may be unsolvable. I don't see it as much as a quest for the "perfect system," but more as an ongoing project of finding less imperfect systems.

I like puzzles, too. But I don't think that stats can solve a more ephemeral puzzle, such as a GOAT in a sport. I've said I don't believe there is ONE, and I don't. Too many mitigating factors, and not even just across eras. But sport is a stats game, so there is something in there. I will always be interested as you search for the "less imperfect system," and I will always debate you about it, because the system-maker still makes value judgements. It's inherent in the solution and to the problem.

 

[El Dude]

I think we agree, then, that player attitudes are worth discussing when a) they affect their outcomes (for good or ill,) and b) when just discussing why we like them or not, as fans. (This is a fan-site, after all.) Honestly, I had forgotten how much Zverev had actually accomplished. That's just on me.

Yes, we agree. As for Zverev, I think it is part of what we all suffer from: our expectations of greatness (or even very goodness) is skewed because of the Big Three, so we all have a touch of Fiero in us! (i.e. If they aren't Borg-esque, they suck).

I look forward to watching some of the Netflix series. I would also add that there is considerable discussion around here as to how much actual talent there is, though I'm on the side of that he's a talented underachiever. And, for what it's worth, I'm Camp Nick. I do also think there is some elitism in there...maybe not so much around here, but in general. He certainly can make some tennis fans clutch at the pearls.

Yup. I've only watched the first episode, btw. I hesitated on watching the second one on Berrettini because I worried that at the end of it, after looking at Matteo's face for an hour, I'd either feel really bad about myself or become gay. ;-) (jk, of course)

I hope I don't come off as being "anti-stat," or in anyway writing-off the stats completely. You are always careful to say that they are flawed, but you do still often bring them up as if they are tie-breakers in arguments, IMO. I agree with you when you say they are conversation starters, not conversation finishers. Where I most "argue" with you over them is when they come up with anomalous results. Ferrer was an example there, and you know I've always championed him.

One of the reasons I bring up stats is because they're actually objective. Another related reason is that they give us something solid to bounce off of. That said, I do think they can be used to support an argument, but only if used with some degree of comprehensiveness in mind and without some kind of agenda (e.g. Nadalfan2013). I hear you about the anomalies, but what I take issue with is when the instant reaction is, "Well, this disagrees with my impression so the stat must be wrong," or worse yet, "Therefore stats are dumb (unless they serve my preconceived opinion)."

So that brings up another good usage of stats: To challenge our pre-conceived notions. This is perhaps especially true when we focus mostly on surface level things like trophies. So when we look at Ferrer and see 0 Slams and 1 Masters, we get a very limited view on how good he was historically. Much maligned stats like Elo and GOAT Points help rectify that somewhat. On the other hand, when I see that Ferrer had a higher peak Elo than Wawrinka, Safin or Nalbandian, I can't help but question that. It might mean, as we said in that older conversation, that Ferrer's consistency upped his Elo. We would all probably agree that the latter three were capable of a significantly higher level of tennis in a give match or tournament, but I suppose Elo tells us that Ferrer was more capable of consistently high level of play.

Similarly, I question GOAT Points ranking Connors and Lendl higher than Sampras and Borg. But I also get why it works out that way. But at the least, I do think it tells us something: that we tend to underrate Connors and Lendl because they "only" won 8 Slams...meaning, our collective "Slam bias" makes us underrated those two, and perhaps overrate Sampras (though Borg is a different bird).

I like puzzles, too. But I don't think that stats can solve a more ephemeral puzzle, such as a GOAT in a sport. I've said I don't believe there is ONE, and I don't. Too many mitigating factors, and not even just across eras. But sport is a stats game, so there is something in there. I will always be interested as you search for the "less imperfect system," and I will always debate you about it, because the system-maker still makes value judgements. It's inherent in the solution and to the problem.

Well I usually do appreciate the push back, and will try not to be too defensive about it. I get irked when either A) People attack stats just because they're stats, or B) They use stats to serve their agenda, and in a very narrow or skewed way (e.g. our friend I mentioned above).

And yeah, value judgements are part of it. As soon as you weigh something in some way, you're making a value judgement. Even the ATP points are a value judgement: That, for instance, a Slam Final is worth 60% of a Slam Win (which I mostly agree with - at least for yearly rankings - but when considering all-time greatness, I think the win should be something like doubled in value).

I try to account for that, and whether you believe me or not, I try to check any of my biases and not, say, adjust my pet formulas to make Roger look better ;-). If anything, I might even over-compensate the other way...so if, for instance, if I create a formula that puts Roger too far ahead of Rafa, I question it and re-adjust because regardless of who I'd rank higher than the other, they should be, imo, very close.