Started By
Message

Novak Djokovic and Appropriate GOAT Criteria

Posted on 7/7/14 at 1:13 am
Posted by kidbourbon
Member since Jul 2009
1306 posts
Posted on 7/7/14 at 1:13 am
A sizable chunk of posts on this board are directed to the subject of GOAT in various sports. And a sizable chunk of that sizable chunk would, blissfully, have never been written if only the person initiating the GOAT discussion had clarified the question to be answered. In other words, what in the hell does GOAT even mean? Or, what do you want it to mean?

1. Who played the game at the very highest level that it's ever been played? Or,

2. Who had the most accomplished career?


Most of the GOAT talks around here center on point #2, and the result of that is posts that resemble the following:

"Let's just wait until it's all said and done and then we can talk about who the GOAT"

Yeah, great idea, dipshit. You know what else is a great idea? You never reproducing. You want an even better idea? Take the easy way out. There's no shame in it.

Anyway, that was a long way of saying that I find question #1 far more interesting and amenable to conversations that don't include the above-quoted anonymous but ubiquitous words of anti-wisdom. And so I'm starting this thread to discuss tennis players with question #1 as our guide.

Check out this interview between Mats Wilander and Pete Sampras from 2011: And yes I realize that this was when Djokovic was at the absolute peak of his powers, but the analysis from Sampras and Wilander is about his game, not merely his recent results, and so it still applies:


LINK /

quote:

Mats Wilander: World Number 1 Novak Djokovic. For me if there was a world record in tennis [for playing at the highest level ever], you might hold it because you played some matches where you were unbeatable because you serve so well and hit your forehand big and obviously you close in so well. But Novak Djokovic, to me, has played some tennis in the lat four or five months that I don’t think I’ve ever seen before.

Pete Sampras: He’s lost one match in eight months. It’s incredible. Great mover. Mentally he’s turned the corner. He’s so much more positive. To win two majors this year and to lose only one match, it’s one of the best achievements in all of sports not just tennis. It’s incredible.

Mats Wilander: I mean, he has something in common with you to me, which is I hate to play you. Everybody hates to play you. They love to play you because you’re a great player. But your style…you knew what was coming and you’re just hoping you’re not playing at your best because you know you”re in trouble.

With Federer, there’s a certain way to force unforced errors. With Nadal, you take the ball early and try to drill it into his forehand. But Djokovic….he just neutralizes and absorbs power.

Pete Sampras: There are no holes in his game.

Mats Wilander: how do you approach a match like that? Do you just close your eyes and go for wiinners?

Pete Sampras: Well I think you have to get to this net right here, and chip and charge. And his second serve, he can miss that sometimes if you can get that in his head. My service games I would serve and volley on both serves and try to get into the net and try to be aggreessive.

These long rallies that he gets into, he’s such a good mvoer. and especially off his backhand side he just sort of flicks and his defensive game is incredible. he’s the best mover out there, his forehand is big. I mean, he has no holes in his game.

You felt like Novak a few years ago he would go up and down a little bit with his emotions. Now he’s much more positive and he hits a bad shot and he recovers quickly. You can see it.

And ooooph, I mean, it’s a tough matchup. Even as good as I thought I was in my day…I mean, "how would I beat this guy?" And it’s not easy.
This post was edited on 7/7/14 at 1:21 am
Posted by BayouBengals03
lsu14always
Member since Nov 2007
99999 posts
Posted on 7/7/14 at 1:18 am to
Djokovic in 2011 was the greatest tennis player in the history of the sport for a 9-month period.

It was impossible how good he was.
Posted by LSUTigers1986
Member since Mar 2014
1336 posts
Posted on 7/7/14 at 1:19 am to
I loved when Roddick made Djokovic look like a huge bitch in the 2009 Australian Open Quarters.
Posted by kidbourbon
Member since Jul 2009
1306 posts
Posted on 7/7/14 at 1:23 am to
quote:

I loved when Roddick made Djokovic look like a huge bitch in the 2009 Australian Open Quarters.


I love staying on topic.
Posted by BayouBengals03
lsu14always
Member since Nov 2007
99999 posts
Posted on 7/7/14 at 1:23 am to
And then Federer shite talked Djokovic for basically being a pussy.

Kind of glad to see that Djokovic turned the corner and has pretty much shut everyone's mouth.


I wonder who Nadal was for today? I mean, a Federer win would have moved Fed one more major ahead of Nadal. But I mean, you know he doesn't like seeing Djokovic win, especially against his bro Federer.

I'm excited for the US Open. Djokovic should honestly be a huge favorite. But we've seen Nadal look less-than-stellar at Wimbledon before, just to turn it around and perform very well in the US Open series and in New York.

Wouldn't be surprised to see another Djokovic/Nadal final for the 4th time in 5 years.
Posted by kidbourbon
Member since Jul 2009
1306 posts
Posted on 7/7/14 at 1:40 am to
quote:

Djokovic in 2011 was the greatest tennis player in the history of the sport for a 9-month period.

It was impossible how good he was.



He was amazing, and he still achieves that level in spurts but can't always sustain for whole matches like he did in 2011. Like in the 2012 French Open Final against Nadal, where, after losing the first two sets, he rattled off 8 straight games, and was running Nadal around the court like he had him on a string.

Nadal got saved by the rains that day, or Djokovic would have won that match. Maybe...or maybe not. That's the thing about Djokovic. His best is still the best I've ever seen, but, since that 2011, he hasn't been able to sustain that level throughout the big matches.
Posted by kidbourbon
Member since Jul 2009
1306 posts
Posted on 7/7/14 at 1:48 am to
Also, I'm gonna nominate Rafael Nadal starting from the start of the clay season in 2008 until Aussie Open 2009 (with a few month interruption (that coincided with the US Open when he had a strained/torn abdomen).


This is of course the guy that beat Federer in the classic Wimby final and then a great aussie open final in '09. But watch him in the French Open final against Fed. The one where he beats him like 6-1, 6-3, 6-0. How do you beat that player? He was so fast. Soooo fast. How do you even get a single ball past that guy? And so strong, and so tenacious and determined to boot., And a magnificent shotmaker.

And it wasn't just Fed he worked over in that French. Look at the scorelines. It's amazing. Hell look at the scorelines for that entire clay court season. Nadal wasn't just unbeatable, he was bludgeoning everyone.

And then of course he won Wimbledon.
And then of course he won Olympic Gold.

I don't know how you beat that guy on any surface.


Nadal v. Federer French Open 2008 Final highlights
Posted by kidbourbon
Member since Jul 2009
1306 posts
Posted on 7/7/14 at 1:52 am to
quote:

And then Federer shite talked Djokovic for basically being a pussy.


That was when I truly started to dislike Federer. Here is this guy held up as this focking Beacon of humility and class and after Djokovic beats him in the 2011 USO semi with two of the ballsiest, most amazing returns of serve I've ever seen, Fed says this in the press conference:

quote:

Q. When a guy hits a shot like that forehand on match point, is that a function of luck, of risk, or is it a function of confidence that someone would make kind of…

ROGER FEDERER: Confidence? Are you kidding me? I mean, please. Look, some players grow up and play like that. I remember losing junior matches. Just being down 5 2 in the third, and they all just start slapping shots. It all goes in for some reason, because that’s the kind of way they grew up playing when they were down. I never played that way. I believe in hard work’s gonna pay off kinda thing, because early on maybe I didn’t always work at my hardest. So for me, this is very hard to understand how can you play a shot like that on match point. But, look, maybe he’s been doing it for 20 years, so for him it was very normal. You’ve got to ask him.


Stay classy, Rog.


ETA: though I was never a Fed fan, and always rooted for Nadal simply because I loved the way Nadal played.
This post was edited on 7/7/14 at 1:53 am
Posted by Matisyeezy
End of the bar, Drunk
Member since Feb 2012
16624 posts
Posted on 7/7/14 at 2:22 am to
quote:

1. Who played the game at the very highest level that it's ever been played? Or,

2. Who had the most accomplished career?

Most of the GOAT talks around here center on point #2, and the result of that is posts that resemble the following:

"Let's just wait until it's all said and done and then we can talk about who the GOAT"

Yeah, great idea, dipshit. You know what else is a great idea? You never reproducing. You want an even better idea? Take the easy way out. There's no shame in it.



So what you're saying is that we should base our determination of GOAT off of something as subjective as our perception of how they played? As opposed to more tangible, concrete evidence such as their legacy?

From what I gather from your posts you're postulating that because Djokovic might have the highest peak we've ever seen before he should be crowned the GOAT, as opposed to a sustained level of excellence. So even if his legacy falls short of others in the GOAT conversation he should still get the nod.

Just out of curiosity, please entertain my hypothetical scenario, but if a player had 2-3 mindblowing years at their peak surrounded by mediocrity on the way up and down, would you still crown them the GOAT?

I guess it's ultimately a question of what you value -- do you prefer talent or results? Or some hybrid of the two? Is that a universal standard? Should we crown Oscar Robertson the GOAT basketball player because of the ridiculous statlines he put up, or someone else? I don't expect you to answer that last part. Just raising it as something to ruminate upon.
Posted by kidbourbon
Member since Jul 2009
1306 posts
Posted on 7/7/14 at 2:55 am to
quote:

So what you're saying is that we should base our determination of GOAT off of something as subjective as our perception of how they played? As opposed to more tangible, concrete evidence such as their legacy?


Why would it be subjective? Why an eyeball test?

quote:

From what I gather from your posts you're postulating that because Djokovic might have the highest peak we've ever seen before he should be crowned the GOAT, as opposed to a sustained level of excellence. So even if his legacy falls short of others in the GOAT conversation he should still get the nod.


He should be in the conversation for the nod if he question we're asking is who played the game at the highest level.

Did you skip the part where I noted that the term "GOAT", without specifying what question you're actually asking, is nonsensically ambiguous, and if not completely meaningless, conversationally useless?


quote:

Just out of curiosity, please entertain my hypothetical scenario, but if a player had 2-3 mindblowing years at their peak surrounded by mediocrity on the way up and down, would you still crown them the GOAT?


If we're defining the GOAT by highest level achieved, then absolutely.

Just out of curiosity, please entertain my hypoethical scenario: Usain Bolt retires the day after running a 9.58. he wins one gold medal. Justin Gatlin (or a younger version thereof) wins gold in the next three olympics, posting times of 9.81, 9.74, and 9.76.

Who is the greatest sprinter of all time. The guy who was actually the best at what he did? Or the guy who stuck around the longest?


quote:

I guess it's ultimately a question of what you value -- do you prefer talent or results? Or some hybrid of the two? Is that a universal standard? Should we crown Oscar Robertson the GOAT basketball player because of the ridiculous statlines he put up, or someone else? I don't expect you to answer that last part. Just raising it as something to ruminate upon.


No, it's ultimately a question of what question is being asked. I actually think question #1 is the more important consideration. Maybe you think longevity is more important. That's fine -- you have the right to that opinion, and so you can ask question #2.

Hell, you can define GOAT as the player with the greatest G = 0.4*question1 + 0.6*question2. I might go with G = 0.7*question1 + 0.3*question2. That's fine. At least that way, we know what we're arguing about. GOAT is a meaningless term without specifying which two of the questions you're attempting to ask.

In this thread, I'm attempting to discuss question 1.

This post was edited on 7/7/14 at 2:58 am
Posted by Matisyeezy
End of the bar, Drunk
Member since Feb 2012
16624 posts
Posted on 7/7/14 at 3:09 am to
quote:

Why would it be subjective? Who said this had to be a fricking eyeball test? Keep up.



Then how the frick else do you measure that? It's inherently subjective. Like it or not, it's virtually impossible to compare players across eras. Competition is different, technology is different, training is different, and so on and so forth. Ultimately it boils down to saying, okay, I think Djokivic is better than Connors because X, Y, and Z, but how do you absolutely quantify that without it being, you know, the fricking eye test? Provide a basis for your claims before acting like an arse.

quote:

Did you skip the part where I noted that the term "GOAT", without specifying what question you're actually asking, is nonsensically ambiguous? Keep up.



Saw it. Thought it was stupid. You're saying it's all about the eyeball test and whoever else can corroborate what you see with your eyes. Agree to disagree. Keep up.

quote:

Just out of curiosity, please entertain my hypoethical scenario: Usain Bolt retires the day after running a 9.58. he wins one gold medal. Justin Gatlin (or a younger version thereof) wins gold in the next three olympics, posting times of 9.81, 9.74, and 9.76.



I'd say that's apples and oranges, honestly, and I'm not trying to be disingenuous. You're talking about a sport where a legacy can be determined by literally one race. Tennis is not sprinting. If Djokovic played the (subjectively) greatest game (yes, game, not a set or a match) you've ever witnessed, do you crown him the GOAT? Because for one game he was flawless? That's pretty fricking stupid. You'd have a hard time convincing anyone he was the GOAT based upon such a limited sample size. It's got to be some combination of both, I think, for your argument to really ring true.

quote:

In this thread, I'm attempting to discuss question 1.



Okay, but...eyeball test. Okay, you can find someone else that says he's great to back you up, and I'll fully grant you that Sampras' endorsement carries more weight than Joe the Plumber, but at the end of the day there's not some ultimate, concrete metric like you're postulating.

ETA: I appreciate your edits, you sound like less of a douche. I'm on my way to bed though. Apologies if anything strikes you as antagonistic.
This post was edited on 7/7/14 at 3:12 am
Posted by kidbourbon
Member since Jul 2009
1306 posts
Posted on 7/7/14 at 3:52 am to
quote:


(1)
Then how the frick else do you measure that? It's inherently subjective.

(2)
Like it or not, it's virtually impossible to compare players across eras. Competition is different, technology is different, training is different, and so on and so forth. Ultimately it boils down to saying, okay, I think Djokivic is better than Connors because X, Y, and Z, but how do you absolutely quantify that without it being, you know, the fricking eye test?

(3)
Provide a basis for your claims before acting like an arse.



(1)
For greatness? Results, Mcfly! The same way you'd do it over longer time period. Jesus Christ. Was this actually the best you had? There's no evidence of his greatness? Huh? There's no evidence that you didn't recently have a lobotomy.

(2)
Try to stay on topic.

(3)
I tend to act like an arse when I'm forced to respond to morons who suggest there's no way of evaluating greatness in sports. You have no idea what subjective means. Oh, and you don't know what inherently means either. I'll just note that it follows that you don't know what inherently subjective means either. Also, you're an idiot.

41 match winning streak.
Broke the record for single season prize money in 2011.
Banged your mother
And you can read the rest in the wikipedia article to devoted to his 2011 season. Because I'm not doing leg work for your dumb arse.
LINK
Curious: Did you read the interview with Sampras and Wilander? Did you bother watching the video? You could have saved yourself a focking permanent scarlet M on your breast pocket by having read that first. Because they mentioned this stuff. You know, facts and stuff. Super subjective. I mean...oh wait. What does that word mean?


quote:

Thought it was stupid. You're saying it's all about the eyeball test and whoever else can corroborate what you see with your eyes. Agree to disagree. Keep up.


No, you're saying that because you're dumber than a goddamn bag of dicks.


quote:

I'd say that's apples and oranges,


Brilliant!

quote:

Okay, but...eyeball test.


Look, he said ti again. Maybe this time it will make sense.

quote:

ETA: I appreciate your edits, you sound like less of a douche. I'm on my way to bed though. Apologies if anything strikes you as antagonistic.


Yeah, I figured I would maybe tone it down initially. But you've passed the moron threshold at this point, and so I'll be unapologetically antagonistic only because I don't have a choice in the matter.

Subjective. Wow.












This post was edited on 7/7/14 at 3:59 am
Posted by MusicMaster
Baton Rouge
Member since Jun 2012
1362 posts
Posted on 7/7/14 at 5:12 am to
quote:

No, you're saying that because you're dumber than a goddamn bag of dicks.


Oh well looks like another poster disagrees with what Kid has to say.
Posted by Bunk Moreland
Member since Dec 2010
53294 posts
Posted on 7/7/14 at 7:31 am to
This is coming from a guy that loves Fed and didn't really like Pete, but I truly believe that in terms of A+ game for one match, Pete had the highest level. Agassi was amazing in '99 and from what I remember very solid once the ball got into play in that Wimbledon final. Problem was, the ball rarely got into play. Fed obviously has had the better career and is just a better all around player.

For one year, I think McEnroe '84 is tops, just barely ahead of Djokovic '11, even though Djokovic won three majors. The Aussie didn't mean much in 1984. Wilander had a great 1988 with three majors and flamed out after he put everything into that.

In terms of careers, Nole is about to edge out that Agassi, McEnroe, Edberg, Becker, Lendl, Wilander, Connors tier if he adds a couple more majors. Especially if he wins a French Open.

This post was edited on 7/7/14 at 7:44 am
Posted by quail man
New York, NY
Member since May 2010
40926 posts
Posted on 7/7/14 at 7:46 am to
Q: What's the opposite of GOAT?

A: BobbyRay
Posted by deathvalleyjunkie
Baton Rouge
Member since Aug 2009
2016 posts
Posted on 7/7/14 at 8:06 am to
#FREEBOBBYRAY
Posted by Colonel Flagg
Baton Rouge
Member since Apr 2010
22796 posts
Posted on 7/7/14 at 8:09 am to
So Fed went to ten straight GS finals with eight wins and that's not the best? What are we comparing again?
Posted by gizmoflak
Member since May 2007
11660 posts
Posted on 7/7/14 at 8:11 am to
quote:

In other words, what in the hell does GOAT even mean?


GOAT = max(level of play * length of play)

Put level on the y-axis and time on the x-axis, and then plot a player's graph and integrate to find the area. Largest area = GOAT

frick your eyeball test
Posted by castorinho
13623 posts
Member since Nov 2010
82024 posts
Posted on 7/7/14 at 8:11 am to
quote:

Djokovic in 2011 was the greatest tennis player in the history of the sport for a 9-month period.

It was impossible how good he was.



This. That was UNREAL. If "series" were played in tennis (5 or 7 games) he'd win that series against (almost?) any player in history in their prime
Posted by castorinho
13623 posts
Member since Nov 2010
82024 posts
Posted on 7/7/14 at 8:13 am to
quote:

GOAT = max(level of play * length of play)

Put level on the y-axis and time on the x-axis, and then plot a player's graph and integrate to find the area. Largest area = GOAT



This is the BEST thing I've ever seen posted on this board. WOW.

Bravo!
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 5Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram