The Roar
The Roar

Bell31

Roar Rookie

Joined August 2019

1k

Views

4

Published

134

Comments

Published

Comments

I think I agree – he isn’t quite top 10 yet – im guessing somewhere in the top 20 bracket but if could land another one or two titles and at least add one finals MVP and maybe another MVP to his CV, I think he would likely be comfortably in the top 5 to 10 argument — I think his time with Durant will always get in the way of him getting too high in that list (similar to how Abdul jabaar can’t really be ahead of mj and probably has been surpassed by le Bron as he wasn’t the best player on a few of his title teams)

NBA Week: Anyone who doesn't think Curry's an all-time great doesn't know Steph from Klay

It does seem like Nadal and Joker faced stiffer competition overall and certainly sustained their peaks for longer, but wow, Fed’s peak was out of this world. The reason for writing these articles is I’d been reading quite a bit about how Joker was the GOAT and a few that argue for Fed, and I thought ‘it comes down to Slams’ and then I was interested to see whether ‘in slam’ performance made any difference (this article), which it doesn’t, so yes indeed, I’m happy to view them all the GOAT’s.

Only slams matter for GOAT status: Part 2

thanks Peter. I don’t hold a strong view of GOAT vs GOATPee – as you know, I started with an emphasis on the GOATPee and then changed my mind. Better tennis player is as you indicate is difficult (probably impossible) to evaluate. I think you got confused in some of your argument above – I think it might’ve been matth who made the comment re quality of Laver’s opponents, so I’m not sure if your comments that follow re ‘adjusting for circumstances’ also relate to that perceived comment of mine? I would only tend to make a comment re quality of opposition if there was some stats to back it up. As a general rule, I’m not into making comparisons of different conditions between eras as making performance in one era better or worse than another era, mainly b/c I find that these lead to circular argument. My personal favourite in this regard is people who argue that Bradman’s performance should be discounted given the limited teams he played against etc. You can only ‘beat who you can beat’ in any given era. Thanks for commenting. I might try the UFC (MMA) GOAT next, although there’s probably a GOATpee aspect to that too… You should have a look at my other GOAT article on NBA!

Only slams matter for GOAT status: Part 2

Yep, certainly entertaining, but appreciate your challenge and also @matth. You’re right, I called it the ‘modern era GOAT’ throughout my articles, but yes, GOATPee is right. However, I’ve revised my opinion after thinking this through and I actually think the Big 3 are legitimate GOAT, not just modern era. I’d like to do a bit more research to refresh myself on the 1950’s/60’s professional era and probably the pre-1950’s era as well, where my knowledge is more sketchy, but in short, the players who went professional ‘ruled themselves out’ of the GOAT debate, at least in terms of not counting their non-amateur performances, as the professional tournaments, to my knowledge, just don’t compare to the grand slams (even if the better players were pro’s at that time). It’s like saying that the cricketers who went on rebel tours or the Packer’s super-tests of the 1970s should be counted in the cricketers’ overall career stats. So I think I’ve been too kind to Laver, as I rate him SO highly, but no, he’ll have to sit second tier.

Only slams matter for GOAT status: Part 2

I think Novak is 6-0 against Fed in the French, so by my count, he is 4-4 against Fed at other slams. I think he is 7-2 against Novak in the French, so that would make him 3-4 on that count. I’d say that’s pretty special for a clay-court specialist!

Only slams matter for GOAT status: Part 2

Yes indeed!

Only slams matter for GOAT status: Part 2

Thanks Peter85 – I like your comments – I don’t think you can count Fed’s head-start as counting against him in the GOAT race – his ‘peak value’ period was astonishing and I don’t think (from memory) anyone has ever been close — I’d really need to see some hard-core stats to say that the standard of competitiveness in his era was less than subsequent era, even if intuitively, there might be some merit to it. I think if you look at the stats above, what I’m basically saying, is that on an objective level, if you agree performance in Slams is the main game, then you can’t separate the Big 3.

Only slams matter for GOAT status: Part 2

I can’t agree with above as much as I rate Laver. I’d like to do some more research on the 1950/60’s professional era before commenting, but it’s a hectic end to the week, so a few preliminary comments — correct me if I’m wrong, but my recollection is that the professional tournaments were nothing like the slams in format (a very limited number of players and not same intensity of format), so Laver effectively rules himself out of the GOAT argument – I hadn’t thought about this so clearly until you challenged me on it, but it feels right — it’d be like saying that the cricket rebel tours count in a cricketer’s career stats or the break-away Packer cricket super tests of the 70s – it’s unfortunate as Laver may well have been the GOAT, especially with 2 grand slams to his name, but he rules himself out unfortunately. Nonetheless, I respect his achievements and rate him incredibly highly.

Only slams matter for GOAT status: Part 1

Agree that Rosewell and Gonzales are both under-rated (as per @matth’s comment) and agree that Laver’s ’62 GM might’ve been a lot more challenging had all players been playing amateur circuit – interesting, I read that Laver didn’t win many significant games in his first year after he made the move to the pro’s, which was apparently pretty typical for players making that move!

Only slams matter for GOAT status: Part 1

Thanks matth – make a case for me how laver’s performance is superior? Copying from a reply above, it was an utter mess really pre-1969 – you had the best players playing eg, 8-men tournaments, sometimes with less good players to make up the numbers (as I understand it), and so it’s hard to fathom how to rank victories in those tournaments even though it was probably the top pro’s of the time (I liken those tournaments a bit to the ATP Finals) – some commentators want to say Laver has the equivalent of eg 20+ slams if we count his wins in those tournaments, but they’re almost impossible to weight as a ‘like for like’. I assume btw that I’m on topic when you’re referring to ‘amateur and pro sides of his career’? Btw, I don’t like saying ‘modern era GOAT, but I make an exception for tennis, as I just can’t fathom a way to evaluate the 1950’s and 1960s (I guess if I was being a purist I might count pre-1950s in my GOAT analysis!)

Only slams matter for GOAT status: Part 1

Thanks matth. Hmmm – interesting take but make a case for me how you can objectively justify that comment re Laver? – I’ll cheat by copying part of a reply above – pre-1969 was an utter mess really – you had the best players playing eg, 8-men tournaments, sometimes with less good players to make up the numbers, and so it’s hard to fathom how to rank victories in those tournaments even though it was probably the top pro’s of the time (I liken those tournaments a bit to the ATP Finals) – some commentators want to say Laver has the equivalent of eg 20+ slams if we count his wins in those tournaments, but they’re almost impossible to weight as a ‘like for like’. I assume I’m ‘on topic’ though when you’re referring to ‘amateur and professional’ sides of his career? Btw, I do say ‘modern era GOAT’ which is equivalent to ‘best in modern era’ – I don’t like doing this, but I make an exception for tennis, which I don’t feel applies in most other sports.

Only slams matter for GOAT status: Part 1

Interesting – I wouldn’t have omitted them from my top tier b/c they can’t be undisputed best on their own, but understand your criterion. Interesting what would’ve happened if it was a Big 2 – I guess if it had been Fed and Rafa, I could never have got enough of it 🙂

Only slams matter for GOAT status: Part 1

Rod Laver is a tricky one – I don’t know how much you know about the pre-1969 era. It was an utter mess really – you had the best players playing eg, 8-men tournaments, sometimes with less good players to make up the numbers (as I understand it), and so it’s hard to fathom how to rank victories in those tournaments even though it was probably the top pro’s of the time (I liken those tournaments a bit to the ATP Finals) – some commentators want to say Laver has the equivalent of eg 20+ slams if we count his wins in those tournaments, but they’re almost impossible to weight as a ‘like for like’. As a result, Rod’s between a rock and a hard place, missing 7 prime years of his career between 2 grand slams!

Only slams matter for GOAT status: Part 1

thanks for the summary of this thorny issue Justin. The key issues seem to be right to freedom of thought, but also not putting fellow players etc at risk by your decisions. However, the nagging thought in all of this is that ‘it’s kyrie’ and i find it difficult to trust and decipher his intentions – this is the guy who asked to leave LeBron, then claimed he’d learnt a lot from LeBron re leadership before proceeding to blow things up in Boston, before being part of a super team in Brooklyn, and then going off on ‘unexplained personal leave’ for a few weeks, before we even get to the latest saga — I believe he does a lot of good outside of basketball, but within the confines of basketball, it certainly seems like ‘Kyrie is about Kyrie’ and doesn;t appear to really take into account the organisations and players he works with – of course, this is the outside looking in…

'To hell with you': The reaction and ripple effect of Kyrie Irving's vax choice, and what's at stake

kyrie getting paid is more complicated than that – if the team is ‘choosing’ that he doesn’t play away games, they;ve probably had advice that they should still pay him in those circumstances, but don’t need to when it;s home games, where it;s purely his choice not to play

'To hell with you': The reaction and ripple effect of Kyrie Irving's vax choice, and what's at stake

lol, funny observation!

'To hell with you': The reaction and ripple effect of Kyrie Irving's vax choice, and what's at stake

Really good article – I’m late to the party, but one of my favourite ones on the TheRoar for a while. I agree that I would’ve liked to seen more of Neale, and I was amused by the lack of reference to Roos — after the end of the Pies ‘coaching transition’ followed shortly by the Hawks ‘coaching transition’, it would’ve been good to reflect on the a transition done well and Roos’ early contribution to laying the foundation to setting the club on the right direction.

Relentless thirst for trade gossip robbed Demons, and fans, chance to drink in legendary GF triumph

Nice work – i felt a lot like that back in 1990! Lol, funny that you’ve watched the Couch and 360 a few times – I found them 2 of the more ‘boring’ episodes I’ve watched, mainly because they had understandably very little insightful to say other than how amazing the Demons were (which is precisely why you liked them, no doubt!)

Relentless thirst for trade gossip robbed Demons, and fans, chance to drink in legendary GF triumph

This is not the first time I’ve said this on here, but I just don’t understand the references to ‘year end titles, masters titles, etc’ — having followed tennis fairly closely for 40 years, the real focus is Slams and everything else is not that significant in terms of legacy etc — the Slams are what the ex-pros talk about when they look back at their career and how pros appear to judge success — I respect that masters titles, time at no. 1 etc are probably somewhat relevant when trying to split GOATs (although personally I like H2H’s as more compelling, at least between the big 3). Yes though – the Joker will end up as the ‘modern era’ GOAT – but for me, he needs to win more Slams than the other 2 to make that argument compelling – otherwise there will always be pros & cons of the other arguments (eg, I read somewhere that Fed is the GOAT b/c he was better at his peak – I don’t buy that – but Novak winning some more slams will put that kind of argument to bed).

No calendar year slam for Novak - so what's next?

I’m very late to this party, but good work @ matth – I’ve done some reading on the pre-open era and I’ll only use the words ‘modern era GOAT’ to describe any of the Big 3. Pre-1969 was just a mess in tennis for about 15 years from what I can gather — from what I can gather almost no one took Roy Emerson’s 14 slams during that era as especially meaningful, since many of the top players were playing on the professional circuit. I agree that on a ‘like for like’ basis you can mount an argument for Laver having more ‘slams’ than the Big 3. Also, minimising Laver’s 69 slam due to 2 surfaces and physicality doesn’t appear to have much basis – you can only ‘beat who you can beat’ at the time and there were some damn good players around then from what I know.

No calendar year slam for Novak - so what's next?

Fair enough – I didn’t watch the game, but from all accounts, Medvedev was on fire, but as is usually the case, there are 2 angles to look at it from, and it just seemed a bit un-Novak like, as he is a true competitor. I hadn’t thought about the unique scheduling – that probably really explains why Novak was underdone – that’s a good point really. I certainly didn’t put too much importance on his Olympics losses – yes it’s nice to win a medal for their country, but I’d argue it’s still a ways behind a grand slam.
And no, the GOAT debate isn’t going anywhere – but it probably would’ve, to some extent, if Nole had won the grand slam. I’m very clear that my evaluation of GOAT has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not I like a player – there can’t be any question that Novak is Fed and Rafa’s equal – the stats don’t lie. I’d just prefer he doesn’t get ahead of them…!
Btw, one GOAT debate point that I’m less familiar with is the idea of how great a player was at his peak, which one article I read recently used to say that the GOAT debate is only between Novak and Fed (due to Fed’s mid-2000s run) and Nadal isn’t in that equation. That’s feels like a debate about the GOATIE (greatest of all time in an era)!

Quiet please: It's time for the Novak knocking to stop

Hi @Rik J – what did you make of Novak losing the US open final? I wasn’t all that surprised, after he lost at the Olympics and then kept dropping a set most matches in the lead-up to the final — it’s such an unbelievably tough thing to achieve the Grand Slam and arguably, tougher than when Laver did it in 1969 (given 3 slams were then on Grass and my guess is that Aussie open wasn’t well attended by overseas players). I think he just ran out of steam in the end. As you’d guess, I was kind of relieved he didn’t succeed, as given the enormity of the achievement, in my view, it would put to rest, probably once and for all, any GOAT discussions! (and probably for a long time too)

Quiet please: It's time for the Novak knocking to stop

Nice wrap-up Avatar. I’m not much of a Djokovic fan and was a bit relieved he didn’t get the Grand Slam – it’s just such a mythical achievement in tennis and potentially would’ve really elevated him to another level in the public eye. He will likely, of course, end up the modern-era GOAT of course, as Fed is probably past the point of getting another slam and Nadal is often injured. I didn’t get a lot of chance to watch Novak’s matches, but reading about him constantly going to 4 sets at the US open seemed unlike Novak, which suggested some pressure / fatigue building up, especially in an Olympics year as well. It’s a bloody tough achievement getting the Grand Slam – there’s a reason it’s barely happened in the Open era.

No calendar slam for Djokovic as Medvedev breaks through for maiden major title

Loved the article Chucka – I nearly wrote a comment just based on the head-line – you had me at ‘F-minus’ – made me laugh out loud! It really was ‘an everything that could go wrong, did’ year, although surprisingly, there were still some nice moments (Queen’s B’day – fyi best game of the year – I was there live, so I’m biased, but it was brilliant; the youngsters, Tigers game). I think it will still take us a while to recover from the trade calamity in particular, and given that I’m pretty much open to moving on any of our top 10 players, as I don’t think any will be around when we’re genuine contenders again (exceptions – probably Moore, DeGoey and Adams – I see latter as next captain and heart-beat of the club – I think Maynard is fantastic, but he is probably replaceable). Btw, I would like to see a new captain – Pendles has been marvellous, but I think it’s time, along with the new influx of leadership at the club.

'What didn’t work? Everything': Collingwood's F-minus season in review

In some ways, it might be easier inheriting a rebuilding team than a strong one as per Bucks, as Bucks could never really get rid of the question of ‘should we have changed coaches’, but with a rebuilding team, he should have more latitude to grow the team back into contention.

'I'm not a star of the game': The four greats who helped shape Magpies' humble new coach

close