Discussion about W/L ratio

First topic message reminder :

Discussion about W/L ratios, Nadal's spread of tournaments in terms of surface, music, and whether GOAT debates can be concluded objectively.


Edited extract from one of the posts about subjectivity in GOAT debates:

summerblues wrote:In principle, you cannot ever avoid this type of subjectivity - even falzy's square with four sides ultimately requires agreement on subjective definitions.  But that does not mean that the statement itself does not reflect objective reality.

Good you bring up a square has 4 sides.
For me the debate is not whether the square having 4 sides is similar to a player being the best at tennis. It's just obviously not true. I think the real question now is why is resolving the question as to who is best at tennis not comparable to how many sides a square has.


First let me start with this statement:
Even if Player A has slightly better statistics in every department to Player B, it does not mean necessarily he is better, although it is likely he is.
Now most reasonable people will agree with that, but in case some don't, I'll clarify further.
We can take any statistic, and show what the statement just said. I've talked at length about slams and the natural fluctuations in difficulty to win them in the past; this time let me choose another statistic... let's say finishing year end number 1.
Now let's say hypothetically in 2015: Federer retires in January, Djokovic takes a year break to look after his kids, Murray starts trying to rebuild Hadrian's wall, and Nadal, Cilic, Del Potro, Wawrinka all have injury problems. Ferrer turns out to be the guy heading to number 1 in the rankings. Now let's say you are called 'Player A'.
For Player A, it would be require you to be a better tennis player to be number 1 in 2007/2010 (where Federer and Nadal had stunning years respectively) than in this dystopian 2015 (let's keep ceteris paribus in terms of technology and say you simply have access to the best technology at the time).

For those now who think they have a valid counter point by saying 'Yes IMBL, but how do you prove that you have to have a better tennis level in 2007 to be year end number 1 than this dystopian 2015??'- I can assure you- you don't actually have a valid counter point. Think about it, my statement said it is 'not necessary' a player with better stats is a better player- so therefore the burden of proof is on you- I just have to show that what I'm saying is a possibility for that statement to be correct.

So when this statement is acknowledged, that is when the problem to get a definition really emerges:
Even if Player A has slightly better statistics in every department to Player B, it does not mean necessarily he is better.

If the statement is true (which is demonstrably is), then it can mean that any definition that just looks at statistics (can be all, can be some) simply cannot be reliably accurate.

So therefore any definition would have to include factors as well as the statistics, and this simply cannot be objective in reality.
So the definition of 'better player' will remain subjective- and this is why GOAT debates cannot be objectively resolved like 'the square has four sides'.

OK, back to some tennis discussion, I've come up with a theory that sounds a bit complicated, but I've looked over it a few times and I couldn't find anything which points to it being invalid:

-So I've shown overall tournament stats in Nadal's career, the tournaments Nadal has entered is more or less exactly matching the ATP tour as a whole.
-According to the figures posted by biugo, in the past few years Nadal has actually played slightly (not hugely) less as a percentage on hard courts than expected- probably due to the fact injuries affect him more on the HC season (not surprising as it takes a bigger toll on his body, and playing on there without being 100% may damage him further more than clay)
-So that must been, logically, that in the earlier part of Nadal's career (2009), Nadal's tournament mix was actually more weighted towards hard courts than the ATP tour in general (think about it, if he's perfectly weighted overall, been slightly weighted away from there since 2009, he must have been weighted towards it before 2009 for the stats to add up).
-Now also consider the fact Born Slippy showed, and we can also observe this, that Nadal's W/L on hard courts has actually improved as he's got older.
-So therefore Nadal's weight of matches, in terms of surface and time, work against him. So for example, it would have been better for him to have injuries (let's keep ceteris paribus and say on exactly the same surfaces as tournaments he's missed in the past few years) when he was younger on hard courts, and made up for those matches by playing of the tournaments he's missed in the past few years. He'd still have the perfect tournament/surface distribution matching the ATP tour, but if the average trend stays (note: ofc this is not necessary), then the overall W/L would actually increase.

So it's actually played out that the timing of his injuries has very possibly been a negative factor for his W/L.

In any case Ivan Lendls stats are astonishing too, he had an overall ratio of 82% and he was reaching ratios in the 90's for five separate years! He did play a lot more matches though , in 82 he won 15 titles and went 102-6, but hadnt won a slam yet of course. Still its Davydenko levels of stamina!

temporary21 wrote:In any case Ivan Lendls stats are astonishing too, he had an overall ratio of 82% and he was reaching ratios in the 90's for five separate years! He did play a lot more matches though , in 82 he won 15 titles and went 102-6, but hadnt won a slam yet of course. Still its Davydenko levels of stamina!

Interesting. I will do a longer post showing the W/L of quite a ex-players later today; after the current debate concludes.

I assumed no 'nasty' intention. I never thought of it as in any way 'nasty'. IMBL and I having a perfectly civil discussion about the nature of the current debate. I hope IMBL sees it the same way - certainly seems so from the polite nature of the posts so far.

Good Julius, lets keep it as such then? No PM's etc?

JuliusHMarx wrote:I hope IMBL sees it the same way - certainly seems so from the polite nature of the posts so far.

Yes, it's fine; I thought you were being snide but you were actually testing out a theory of yours, fair enough.

OK yeah so, Connors has an 81% reord of 1242-277 having played double the number of matches of pretty much anyone but Lendl... thats beyond ridiculous, no wonder hes more machine than man now.

temporary21 wrote:OK yeah so, Connors has an 81% reord of 1242-277 having played double the number of matches of pretty much anyone but Lendl... thats beyond ridiculous, no wonder hes more machine than man now.

That's unbelievable, surely he must be longevitivy personified

IMBL - it boils down to wishing to bring in an alternate reality.

Saying you can't say player x is better than player y because of variables that are subjective to an individual such as quality of opposition is all well and good (and stating the obvious).

But it's what we've got. So we use it.

We have absolute no way of knowing how player y would have got on in player x's situation in any given tournament, match and point. Might have been worse, might have been better. But..it cannot be used to discredit player x's success (by what ever metric of success you wish to use).

I do believe you can have a debate about who is the best (over any given period). I beleive you do that through looking at how successfull someone is. I don't beleive you can use one metric. I do believe you need to look at many. I absolutely don't believe the w/l ratio means anything. I absolutely do not take into consideration alternate reality. That means using subjective variables to elevate one player over another. Why? Because it hasn't happened.

You have through all of this failed to tell any of us by which measure of success you judge tennis players on?

You are indeed the person I thought you were i.e. Amritia/Red. If you mentioned this elsewhere I must have missed it but that's fair enough. No problem with that.

You are a civil poster. Albeit one that ties themselves up in knots a lot. The issue I have is that I do not believe you are here to discuss sport (rightly or wrongly on my behalf). Partly because I don't think you have the mind set of a sports person from your posts. Possibly because you have never played - I don't know. Nor does it matter. But that is the opinion I have formulated for myself. I believe you are here to pump the tyres of Nadal. Which need no further pumping in relation to any player.

I have posted this only to give you an explanation why I didn't want to continue. To be civil.

Johnyjeep wrote:IMBL - it boils down to wishing to bring in an alternate reality.

Saying you can't say player x is better than player y because of variables that are subjective to an individual such as quality of opposition is all well and good (and stating the obvious).

But it's what we've got. So we use it.

We have absolute no way of knowing how player y would have got on in player x's situation in any given tournament, match and point. Might have been worse, might have been better. But..it cannot be used to discredit player x's success (by what ever metric of success you wish to use).

I do believe you can have a debate about who is the best (over any given period). I beleive you do that through looking at how successfull someone is. I don't beleive you can use one metric. I do believe you need to look at many. I absolutely don't believe the w/l ratio means anything. I absolutely do not take into consideration alternate reality. That means using subjective variables to elevate one player over another. Why? Because it hasn't happened.

You have through all of this failed to tell any of us by which measure of success you judge tennis players on?  

You are indeed the person I thought you were i.e. Amritia/Red. If you mentioned this elsewhere I must have missed it but that's fair enough. No problem with that.

You are a civil poster. Albeit one that ties themselves up in knots a lot. The issue I have is that I do not believe you are here to discuss sport (rightly or wrongly on my behalf). Partly because I don't think you have the mind set of a sports person from your posts. Possibly because you have never played - I don't know. Nor does it matter. But that is the opinion I have formulated for myself. I believe you are here to pump the tyres of Nadal. Which need no further pumping in relation to any player.

I have posted this only to give you an explanation why I didn't want to continue. To be civil.

Fair, but discussion of Nadal is OK, and weve been discussing the W/L ratio of many others. Nadals one of, if not the top of said list, soo its understandable that it gets a lot of attention. I do think Jimmys ratio is telling of how dedicated he was though, that said Nadal, who started life as bascially a clay rat, has done remarkably to win basically 4/5 of matches, given he usually plays all the big tournies on all surfaces.

Johnyjeep wrote:Saying you can't say player x is better than player y because of variables that are subjective to an individual such as quality of opposition is all well and good (and stating the obvious).

I've never said you're not allowed to say player x is better than player y.
I'm saying if there are two players who can be closely compared (eg Laver and Borg), and you say one of them is better, don't then pretend you are not being subjective, because you are.

JJ wrote:I do believe you can have a debate about who is the best (over any given period). I beleive you do that through looking at how successfull someone is. I don't beleive you can use one metric. I do believe you need to look at many.

Of course you can have a debate about it, if I claimed you can't debate this issue I'd be a huge hypocrite.
In terms of metrics, I came up with this (but of course everyone can have their own): I judge on how difficult it is to achieve what a player has achieved given a player's circumstances. This, as you can see, gives a clear advantage to players who have achieved more (as it is harder to achieve more), but it's not necessary a player who has achieved more is better.

JJ wrote:You are a civil poster. Albeit one that ties themselves up in knots a lot. The issue I have is that I do not believe you are here to discuss sport (rightly or wrongly on my behalf). Partly because I don't think you have the mind set of a sports person from your posts. Possibly because you have never played - I don't know.

You know what's not very civil ? The rest of this quote after the first sentence.
Not only uncivil, also inaccurate assumptions are suggested, I play tennis weekly at my club; although my best sport is still squash.

It Must Be Love wrote: I judge on how difficult it is to achieve what a player has achieved given a player's circumstances. This, as you can see, gives a clear advantage to players who have achieved more (as it is harder to achieve more), but it's not necessary a player who has achieved more is better.

Are you aware you are just saying the same thing differently and still haven't answered the question?

What acheivements do you give priority to? There is generally speaking an accepted hierarchy here but I would like to hear yours.

Difficulty? So your subjective variables again that rely on an alternate universe with no accepted outcome. Why? because difficulty is a term that relates to gradation. It is not absoulte. To say something is more difficult means you have to be comparing it to something. If you are comparing it to something you are making what I suspect is a subjective call on a variable that is not constant. So your alternate reality again because you cannot know how the outcome of any situation in sport that has happened if you change the variable.  

A players circumstances? That's being completely subjective - so thats even more variables. A players circumstances? I have no idea what that means. Physical? Mental? Social?

Go back to your plant growing experiment analogy again (and think why it was hopeless). It was due to all the different variables you introduced. You know this.

And yet here you are making a statement about how you rate tennis players that includes at least two subjective variables that leaves it entirely up to the individual to decide upon.  

Can you see your argument/reasoning gains absolutely no traction.

JohnyJeep wrote:And yet here you are making a statement about how you rate tennis players that includes at least two subjective variables

Yes, that's correct; I would not pretend that my opinion and arguments are not subjective; they clearly are.
This is a free society- people are free to see what I'm arguing, and judge for themselves whether my opinion is backed up by evidence and is logical, or whether I've taken into account relevant factors.
However what I take an issue to is people pretending that their argument is not subjective, when it is (Julius phrased it better than me when talking about shades of subjectivity).

Does that make sense ?

It Must Be Love wrote:
-So that must been, logically, that in the earlier part of Nadal's career (2009), Nadal's tournament mix was actually more weighted towards hard courts than the ATP tour in general (think about it, if he's perfectly weighted overall, been slightly weighted away from there since 2009, he must have been weighted towards it before 2009 for the stats to add up).

Actually, as surpsrising as it may be, Nadal as almost the exact same surface variety since 2009 as in his whole career (I looked up only Rafa and Roger, it's too boring to do - I kept carpet away too).
Nadal surface spread (Career / since 2009)
HC: 53,9% / 53,9%
CC: 37,3% / 37,1%
Grass: 8,8% / 9%

3 points to add though:
- Let's keep in mind that just 1 tournament out of 20 in a year is 5%. Hence, playing a CC instead of a HC means +5% here and -5% there. In other terms, let's say they play 20 tournaments and together in 18 (11 HC, 5 CC, 2G). The remaining 2 are just played on Clay by Nadal and on Hard by Federer. Typically it's 1x500 and 1x250 where they seek their best surface and don't meet (Barcelona, Basel, Estoril, Doha...). Not so much difference in the different spreads (that's why my "normal" brackets appeared so wide)

- It is undeniable that Rafa progressed on HC since his early years. I couldn't like him when he was only the clay wonder, and as he changed his game to succeed on HC, I began to find him more interesting and more worthy of eternal praise

However, this leads us to our last point:
- speculation: it's pointless, although it's entertaining. It annoys me that in the end we always drop some "what ifs" in the debate, as if the achievements of our greats are not amazing enough already. We can do all the mathematics and statistics and prognosis we want, it will only remain speculation.
The logic you use IMBL is not wrong, but your last point is a supposition. I could argue that if he were not injured, he would have had general exhaustion, which would have hurt his stats. It's supposition too, so not less valid. It's annoying yes, but can't be avoided. (for example, away from the burning Fedal view: I for one love to imagine that Connors would have won RG in '74 if he played it, he was on fire that year, and Borg losing the first 2 sets in the final suggests he was beatable, maybe more prone to choke than Connors... etc. etc. but it's just speculation, we all love to do it but it's got no real vallue).

And that's where the trouble is. Imho, it's never a good idea for any fan (and especially Rafa fan, because it's been done to death) to debate about what he could have done without injuries, with that type of racket, with that type of court, etc.. We can only count chickens when a player retires.

###

Back to W/L topic and your demonstration: the timing of his injuries has very possibly been a positive/negative/neutral factor (all mentions correct) on his W/L ratio Nadal HAS now the best W/L ratio overall - we can surely be happy enough about it to not waste the argument by adding "but he should have more". What is the more powerful argument: "Federer has 17 slams" or "Federer has 17 slams but he should have more"?

And to topic again, but with a more general question:
What are the factors to consider to look at W/L ratios in a fair way? (better think about non Big 4 players to minimise the bias)
It seems to me it's very hard indeed to set up a fair way to do so. Career W/L, sure, but what does it say when we compare a ratio created with 750 matches over 9 years, with a ratio created with 1500 matches over 22 years? with the former just less than 1% above the latter.

I love it in tennis that depsite all statistics and measures, tennis still has an intangible part to it. And that's why a GOAT debate is worthless. GOAT is always an opinion as it it not only based on facts, but on weighted facts (quantity), weighted impressions (quality) and assumptions (everybody pick their own weights).
For me the GOAT is Mansour Bahrami. It's irrefutable , he's got the craziest shots and the best moustache
Not an opinion is:
Nadal is the most successful player of all time at RG,
Federer is currently the most successful player of all time in terms of prize money earned (he will not keep that title I'm certain),
Granollers is the Granollest player of all time!

Without an inarguable objective measure, even objective measures like statistics cannot give you an objective answer. Its like a Mitchell and Webb sketch, "what is objectively the best flavour of crisp?". You could inject any objective stat you like, but the answer is a subjective argument. Doesnt make the argument less relevant or compelling, but it means that any line of attack will always stumble at this point. Best you can do here is say theyre both really good objectively, but decide for yourself which one you prefer to be the best.

For another example, if you ask "Who has the higher W/L ratio stat", thats completely measurable and objective, its Nadal by a shade. However, if you ask "Who has the Most impressive W/L ratio" thats full of objective points, but its a subjective question, because you can rightly argue many lines of attack on that, age, number of matches etc.

It Must Be Love wrote:

JohnyJeep wrote:And yet here you are making a statement about how you rate tennis players that includes at least two subjective variables

Yes, that's correct; I would not pretend that my opinion and arguments are not subjective; they clearly are.
This is a free society- people are free to see what I'm arguing, and judge for themselves whether my opinion is backed up by evidence and is logical, or whether I've taken into account relevant factors.
However what I take an issue to is people pretending that their argument is not subjective, when it is (Julius phrased it better than me when talking about shades of subjectivity).

Does that make sense ?

To some people the weight of evidence is sufficient to conclude that Federer is clearly better than Player A. So much so as to make it more or less certain, regardless of subjectivity.
To others the weight of evidence is sufficient to conclude that Federer is clearly better than Player B. So much so as to make it more or less certain, regardless of subjectivity.
It is fascinating to see how often subjective judgement favours the player we just happen to be a fan of. That brings even the subjectivity into question, in that the inherent bias doesn't even allow the evidence to be weighed from an impartial viewpoint. Subjectivity and impartiality are not to be confused.

biugo wrote:And that's why a GOAT debate is worthless.

Indeed!
And attempting to change anyone's mind in the GOAT debate is pointless. Because even if you succeeded in doing so, that would also be worthless!

Another good post biugo, glad we can have this civil debate:

biugo wrote:Let's keep in mind that just 1 tournament out of 20 in a year is 5%. Hence, playing a CC instead of a HC means +5% here and -5% there....Typically it's 1x500 and 1x250 where they seek their best surface and don't meet (Barcelona, Basel, Estoril, Doha...). Not so much difference in the different spreads (that's why my "normal" brackets appeared so wide)

I think this illustrates my point earlier that no top player is really making an effort to avoid any surface (look at how close the percentages are)- and anyway due to mandatories it's impossible to make a sustained effort at avoiding a surface if you're a top player.

JJ wrote:- It is undeniable that Rafa progressed on HC since his early years. I couldn't like him when he was only the clay wonder, and as he changed his game to succeed on HC, I began to find him more interesting and more worthy of eternal praise

He trains hard, works hard; and continues to heap the reward.

biugo wrote:The logic you use IMBL is not wrong, but your last point is a supposition. I could argue that if he were not injured, he would have had general exhaustion, which would have hurt his stats.

Oh absolutely, and if you look carefully at my post on the top of the page I try to say that with my 'note: of course this (ie the trend continuing) is not necessary' in brackets.
I would like to raise some sort of defence here; in that I was countering a claim by other posters that the injuries positively affected his W/L. I was countering that by showing it was not cut and dry at all, and it's even difficult to say whether it was likely, given it would have to go against the trend. If that point was not raised, it's unlikely I would bring it up 'oh I think Nadal's W/L ratio could have been better if not for the bad timing of injuries'- I only raised it as a counter-point to the opposite claim.

biugo wrote:I love it in tennis that depsite all statistics and measures, tennis still has an intangible part to it. And that's why a GOAT debate is worthless. GOAT is always an opinion as it it not only based on facts, but on weighted facts (quantity), weighted impressions (quality) and assumptions (everybody pick their own weights).
For me the GOAT is Mansour Bahrami. It's irrefutable , he's got the craziest shots and the best moustache

That's is exactly what I've been arguing to JJ, Except I don't see why not being able to 'prove' your case renders a debate worthless- I think 99% of debates in the world probably can't be proven.
Oh and also the last bit. I'm afraid his moustache is not good enough to qualify him as GOAT, maybe the GMOAT.

There is such a thing as weight of evidence. You could with near certain objectivity say Federer is a better player than say Granollers, because there is such a discrepancy in objective measures between them such that is it is significant enough to be near 100% proof. The people we measure up in GOAT debates dont really have significant enough differences between them in objective measures as to be significant enough to use weight of evidence as an argument.

It Must Be Love wrote:

JohnyJeep wrote:And yet here you are making a statement about how you rate tennis players that includes at least two subjective variables

Yes, that's correct; I would not pretend that my opinion and arguments are not subjective; they clearly are.
This is a free society- people are free to see what I'm arguing, and judge for themselves whether my opinion is backed up by evidence and is logical, or whether I've taken into account relevant factors.
However what I take an issue to is people pretending that their argument is not subjective, when it is (Julius phrased it better than me when talking about shades of subjectivity).

Does that make sense ?

Makes perfect sense. Your opinion comes before the evidence (which is not logical and what I always suspected). And your relevant factors are whatever you want them to be.

But as yet - you have still failed to detail what these factors are (to determine what makes a player successful) so perhaps we can apply them to other players (whether they be subjective or not).

And that is what you must do in any experiment or statement. Show your working out. A series of vague statements is not an explanation. To arrive at 4 you don't say "i've strung together a series of numbers selected at random by plucking balls out of a bag and used a variety of different arothmetic operations". How can anyone verfiy it? How can anyone agree with you?

I do not care what the conclusion is. If you haven't worked it out yet - which I don't think you have, it is that the methodology (or at least your lack of an explanation) that is so very very very very poor.

No one can agree or disagree with you because you haven't outlined clearly what your factors are in determing what makes a player "better".

At least Biugo (rather humouressly) states that hi/ers criteria is moustaches and craziness of shots!!! You haven't even done that.

It Must Be Love wrote:Except I don't see why not being able to 'prove' your case renders a debate worthless- I think 99% of debates in the world probably can't be proven.

But what is the worth in the GOAT debate? Even if one could win it, what value would that bring?

It Must Be Love wrote:
I think this illustrates my point earlier that no top player is really making an effort to avoid any surface (look at how close the percentages are)- and anyway due to mandatories it's impossible to make a sustained effort at avoiding a surface if you're a top player.

Absolutely!

IMBL wrote:
I would like to raise some sort of defence here; in that I was countering a claim by other posters that the injuries positively affected his W/L. I was countering that by showing it was not cut and dry at all, and it's even difficult to say whether it was likely, given it would have to go against the trend. If that point was not raised, it's unlikely I would bring it up 'oh I think Nadal's W/L ratio could have been better if not for the bad timing of injuries'- I only raised it as a counter-point to the opposite claim.

Indeed, this thread has been growing quickly, I missed some parts

IMBL wrote: Except I don't see why not being able to 'prove' your case renders a debate worthless- I think 99% of debates in the world probably can't be proven.
Oh and also the last bit. I'm afraid his moustache is not good enough to qualify him as GOAT, maybe the GMOAT.

Oh, totally, even more so than 99% I merely didn't address this point. For me, arguments in a debate should be presented as what they are (facts, assumptions, etc) and that's enough to make it civil. And I love and enjoy interesting debates as well as meaningless ones (show me any better moustache on the circuit! ) My point about "proven" was probably not well written, it's just that I don't like rethoric. I like when parties of a debate provide measured arguments and make the overall reflexion progress - and I used worthless because GOAT is a tense subject here and most us of are trying to say "I win the debate with this argument". Instead of worthless, I should have said "unwinnable" maybe - unless we open contest like there was for the GOAT of sports - the presentation pieces were remarkable. (and I personally don't care so much about winning a debate - I love the process of it )

Temp21 wrote:
There is such a thing as weight of evidence. You could with near certain objectivity say Federer is a better player than say Granollers, because there is such a discrepancy in objective measures between them such that is it is significant enough to be near 100% proof. The people we measure up in GOAT debates dont really have significant enough differences between them in objective measures as to be significant enough to use weight of evidence as an argument.

Yes very good point.

And I should stop writing pages off topic

JohnyJeep wrote:No one can agree or disagree with you because you haven't outlined clearly what your factors are in determing what makes a player "better".

If I went into specifics. this would lead to a full on GOAT debate, which I am trying to avoid. And more importantly, I don't have to go into specifics to make the point I'm making (that these debates will be subjective rather than objective).

At least Biugo (rather humouressly) states that hi/ers criteria is moustaches and craziness of shots!!! You haven't even done that.

No what biugo was saying is that debates like these will always be subjective, and the post about moustaches were light-hearted.

JJ wrote:But as yet - you have still failed to detail what these factors are (to determine what makes a player successful) so perhaps we can apply them to other players (whether they be subjective or not).

It seems after all this time you still can't understand what I'm trying to say.
I highlight two approaches you can follow (let's take the example of Sampras and Borg):
a) Sampras, according to the statistics I have decided is relevant, is statistically superior to Borg. Therefore Sampras is a superior player to Borg.
Those who disagree with me are just outright wrong, like the statement '2+2=5' is wrong- because I've objectively concluded Sampras is better than Borg.

b) I believe Sampras is better than Borg. I have considered the stats as well as relevant subjective factors, and have made a subjective judgement that Sampras is a superior player.
Those who disagree with me are free to do so, and although they are not outright wrong, their subjective opinion does not match mine.

Your approach is type a), while my approach is type b). What you've missed out of course is that your decision to not only choose the relevant statistics but then to claim that because Sampras>Borg in these statistics means he is a better player, is infact subjective.
I do not actually need to go onto specific detail on how I subjectively form my opinion in order to make the case that both our opinions are subjective, and your pretence to objectivity is false.

Is my position clearer now ?

It Must Be Love wrote:

JohnyJeep wrote:No one can agree or disagree with you because you haven't outlined clearly what your factors are in determing what makes a player "better".

If I went into specifics. this would lead to a full on GOAT debate, which I am trying to avoid. And more importantly, I don't have to go into specifics to make the point I'm making (that these debates will be subjective rather than objective).

At least Biugo (rather humouressly) states that hi/ers criteria is moustaches and craziness of shots!!! You haven't even done that.

No what biugo was saying is that debates like these will always be subjective, and the post about moustaches were light-hearted.

JJ wrote:But as yet - you have still failed to detail what these factors are (to determine what makes a player successful) so perhaps we can apply them to other players (whether they be subjective or not).

It seems after all this time you still can't understand what I'm trying to say.
I highlight two approaches you can follow (let's take the example of Sampras and Borg):
a) Sampras, according to the statistics I have decided is relevant, is statistically superior to Borg. Therefore Sampras is a superior player to Borg.
Those who disagree with me are just outright wrong, like the statement '2+2=5' is wrong- because I've objectively concluded Sampras is better than Borg.

b) I believe Sampras is better than Borg. I have considered the stats as well as relevant subjective factors, and have made a subjective judgement that Sampras is a superior player.
Those who disagree with me are free to do so, and although they are not outright wrong, their subjective opinion does not match mine.


Your approach is type a), while my approach is type b). What you've missed out of course is that your decision to not only choose the relevant statistics but then to claim that because Sampras>Borg in these statistics means he is a better player, is infact subjective.
I do not actually need to go onto specific detail on how I subjectively form my opinion in order to make the case that both our opinions are subjective, and your pretence to objectivity is false.

Is my position clearer now ?

Your position is clear to me yes. The weight of evidence is such you could make a case either way with some confidence, and your subjective impression is perfectly fine.

Somebody likes using the word 'Subjective' alot.

Are we closer to reaching a W/L conclusion and what it means in the grand scheme of things?

biugo wrote:For me, arguments in a debate should be presented as what they are (facts, assumptions, etc) and that's enough to make it civil.

Absolutely

temporary wrote:Your position is clear to me yes. The weight of evidence is such you could make a case either way with some confidence, and your subjective impression is perfectly fine.

Thankyou, I was becoming worried that perhaps I had not used as much clarity as I could have when presenting my argument.

Perhaps people think my questions are rhetorical (they aren't), since they seem to go unanswered

The GOAT debate question? Why do people support teams theyre not from? Why do people even compete? Its an old instinctual thing to be "one up" on someone I guess.

Though thats not all I suppose. Its a bit like a massive puzzle, people like the idea of solving a seemingly unsolvable challenge, soo long as people dont take their version of putting the bits together and start beating each other over the head with it, its quite interesting to see the combinations people come up with.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:Except I don't see why not being able to 'prove' your case renders a debate worthless- I think 99% of debates in the world probably can't be proven.

But what is the worth in the GOAT debate? Even if one could win it, what value would that bring?

What is the worth in any debate on a tennis forum? If I started a debate that Wawrinka had the best backhand of all time there is no way I can prove it. Unless we want all threads to purely be factual tournament threads or match reports, we have to accept most threads aren't going to have right and wrong answers.

Born Slippy wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:Except I don't see why not being able to 'prove' your case renders a debate worthless- I think 99% of debates in the world probably can't be proven.

But what is the worth in the GOAT debate? Even if one could win it, what value would that bring?

What is the worth in any debate on a tennis forum? If I started a debate that Wawrinka had the best backhand of all time there is no way I can prove it. Unless we want all threads to purely be factual tournament threads or match reports, we have to accept most threads aren't going to have right and wrong answers.

In agreement, people like to test their mettle against one another I guess,

Nadal has one w/l record that very few can argue with - His record at Roland Garros:

66 wins to 1 loss, for a 98.5% winning percentage.

Actually, his 88% winning record in slams is astronmonical, and even out-does Federer's 86% record, although achieved without the same period of consistent dominance as Fed showed between Wimbledon 2003 to AO 2010 (22 of 27 slam finals).

Of course, choosing to use career W/L ratio as your metric of choice in evaluating a career means that you are placing greater weight on consistency outside the peak years of a player's career rather than focussing on their prime performance. I think there is some merit in it, but obviously if a player takes a long time to develop or plays on well past their prime (Rosewall...), it will tend to under-estimate how good they were at their best.

I'd be interested to see the winning % of the GOAT candidates over say a 5 year period of their prime. Would probably reflect Sampras's standing high in the game better than considering his entire career, and would also slightly down-grade Borg by negating that he retired prematurely (so didn't have the inevitable tailing off with age). Doubt anyone would quite match Federer's 2003 to 2007 record, where he won 90.5% of his matches.

It Must Be Love wrote:

JohnyJeep wrote:No one can agree or disagree with you because you haven't outlined clearly what your factors are in determing what makes a player "better".

If I went into specifics. this would lead to a full on GOAT debate, which I am trying to avoid. And more importantly, I don't have to go into specifics to make the point I'm making (that these debates will be subjective rather than objective).

At least Biugo (rather humouressly) states that hi/ers criteria is moustaches and craziness of shots!!! You haven't even done that.

No what biugo was saying is that debates like these will always be subjective, and the post about moustaches were light-hearted.

JJ wrote:But as yet - you have still failed to detail what these factors are (to determine what makes a player successful) so perhaps we can apply them to other players (whether they be subjective or not).

It seems after all this time you still can't understand what I'm trying to say.
I highlight two approaches you can follow (let's take the example of Sampras and Borg):
a) Sampras, according to the statistics I have decided is relevant, is statistically superior to Borg. Therefore Sampras is a superior player to Borg.
Those who disagree with me are just outright wrong, like the statement '2+2=5' is wrong- because I've objectively concluded Sampras is better than Borg.

b) I believe Sampras is better than Borg. I have considered the stats as well as relevant subjective factors, and have made a subjective judgement that Sampras is a superior player.
Those who disagree with me are free to do so, and although they are not outright wrong, their subjective opinion does not match mine.

Your approach is type a), while my approach is type b). What you've missed out of course is that your decision to not only choose the relevant statistics but then to claim that because Sampras>Borg in these statistics means he is a better player, is infact subjective.
I do not actually need to go onto specific detail on how I subjectively form my opinion in order to make the case that both our opinions are subjective, and your pretence to objectivity is false.

Is my position clearer now ?

What biugo did was outline the criteria he used even though it was subjective. You just want to use subjective crtieria that is unknown to us all.

What I will add is that I have not said anywhere that anyone who disagrees with my approach is wrong. I don't believe I have outlined my approach in any detail anywhere not least offered a conclusion based on that. Which means I could not have said anyone is wrong. Please don't say I have said something which I haven't.


You say "my" pretence to objectivity is false. Objectivity can be defined. It is up to an individual to define objectivity. Which may or may not be subjective. These are the terms of engagement. The more defined parameters you need for objectivity - the more open to challenge your objectivity (and therefore results) becomes. When doing research you don't categorically state what is right or wrong. You just confirm whether or not your experiment has delivered results that prove or disprove your hypothesis. I would never follow approach a or b that you have outlined above.

You said twice in your post that you do not wish to go into detail about how you form your opinion on how to judge who is a better player.

That is fine and would appear a suitable place to draw the conversation to an end.

But to bring it back on topic. I wouldn't use the w/l ratio in any way shape or form, in isolation or in conjuction with anything else. And as it appears we no longer have to go into detail about how we form our opinions - I can't be bothered to go into why.

Fair enough JJ, you disagree, I dont get the impression anyone here is intending to make assertions about you on a W/L ratio, as you say I think thats as far as we can milk this particular vien of thought

JohnyJeep wrote:You just want to use subjective criteria that is unknown to us all.

Because it is not relevant. I am arguing that whatever criteria I'd use, my judgement would be subjective; the specifics of what subjective criteria I use does not come into the picture.

What I will add is that I have not said anywhere that anyone who disagrees with my approach is wrong.

OK, perhaps I could have made myself clearer here, I am saying what would happen if you did choose to use that approach.

This was from your first post on this issue on page 1:

I have to say I disagree with this premise. Certainly the first point - level of success does not prove who is the best?...
What exactly is your definition of "best"? For me - it is winning. Winning tournaments....Tennis is as cut and dried as that. It's not there for entertainment purposes. That's just a by-product. It's a game which is entirely based on line calls. It is either in or out. It is not subjective.

Except... it is subjective.
It is subjective to highlight which statistics are the important ones (even if many agree with you), and it is subjective to say that because a player is ahead in these statistics, he is the better player.

JohnyJeep wrote:You say "my" pretence to objectivity is false. Objectivity can be defined.

I'm not sure what definition you are using; but I can assure you the claim 'Sampras is better than Borg' or anything similar is not objective, however much you claim it is.

It is perhaps important to distinguish between impartiality and subjectivity.

For example I can weigh up the relative statistics of Wilander and Edberg impartially, as I have a equal like/dislike of both of them. However, my conclusion will still be subjective.

If I was a big fan of Edberg, it would be far more likely to affect my evaluation and my subjective conclusion would be far more likely for favour Edberg.

It is for that reason that fans of a given player are more likely to make errors in their subjective judgment and why I place far less 'trust' in their subjective opinions of that player/that player's rivals.

Does that seem reasonable to everyone?

Seems reasonable JHM, even a completely unbiased source would probably still struggle since you have to be able to define precisely what "better" is in terms of the numbers youve got, and be confident noone will disagree

dummy_half wrote:Nadal has one w/l record that very few can argue with - His record at Roland Garros:

66 wins to 1 loss, for a 98.5% winning percentage.

Actually, his 88% winning record in slams is astronmonical, and even out-does Federer's 86% record, although achieved without the same period of consistent dominance as Fed showed between Wimbledon 2003 to AO 2010 (22 of 27 slam finals).

Of course, choosing to use career W/L ratio as your metric of choice in evaluating a career means that you are placing greater weight on consistency outside the peak years of a player's career rather than focussing on their prime performance. I think there is some merit in it, but obviously if a player takes a long time to develop or plays on well past their prime (Rosewall...), it will tend to under-estimate how good they were at their best.

I'd be interested to see the winning % of the GOAT candidates over say a 5 year period of their prime. Would probably reflect Sampras's standing high in the game better than considering his entire career, and would also slightly down-grade Borg by negating that he retired prematurely (so didn't have the inevitable tailing off with age). Doubt anyone would quite match Federer's 2003 to 2007 record, where he won 90.5% of his matches.

Very nice, clear and balanced post Dummy This would interestingly bring up some players yes - sometimes we new some old time fresh air to breath away from the Fedal debate. And to put light on a wider panel, we could check at the best 3 (arbitrary) W/L records for each year since year XXXX. (although it's a bit similar than looking at YE rankings). Looking not only at #1 should allow to relativise the results too. (I'm sure Fed 2003-07 is up there, but over the years Nadal might have more consistency)

By the way, a by-product of Rafa's consistency/longevity despite injuries: Federer has more #1 weeks, but sooner or later Nadal will have more weeks in the Top 2, and for Top 3, Federer might stay in front... A bizarre stat somehow, which conclusions can be very varied!

JuliusHMarx wrote:It is perhaps important to distinguish between impartiality and subjectivity.

For example I can weigh up the relative statistics of Wilander and Edberg impartially, as I have a equal like/dislike of both of them. However, my conclusion will still be subjective.

If I was a big fan of Edberg, it would be far more likely to affect my evaluation and my subjective conclusion would be far more likely for favour Edberg.

It is for that reason that fans of a given player are more likely to make errors in their subjective judgment and why I place far less 'trust' in their subjective opinions of that player/that player's rivals.

Does that seem reasonable to everyone?

Yes, that's almost certainly correct.

Edit: Thought I must add, if we are to go down the line of 'who likely is a poster to be correct before reading the arguments itself' there are other factors we would have to judge: ability to make logical deductions, intelligence, knowledge base, ability to isolate what he/she wants to believe to any conclusion yet to be reached (I do not think Nadal is the GOAT, despite being a Nadal fan) etc.
Of course alternatively we could judge each argument for what it is and ignore who wrote it and see whether it's rational and logical.

@IMBL... if you want a debate, do this for Nadal and Federer. I have chosen Ferrer as an example. Subjectivity and impartiality is all up for interpretation as JHM points out.

temporary21 wrote:Seems reasonable JHM, even a completely unbiased source would probably still struggle since you have to be able to define precisely what "better" is in terms of the numbers youve got, and be confident noone will disagree

There is no statistical yardstick for better, you can debate cardinality and ordinality in statistics all day long. Numbers can be larger or smaller or equal and there is also NaN. Are Apples better than Oranges?

It Must Be Love wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:It is perhaps important to distinguish between impartiality and subjectivity.

For example I can weigh up the relative statistics of Wilander and Edberg impartially, as I have a equal like/dislike of both of them. However, my conclusion will still be subjective.

If I was a big fan of Edberg, it would be far more likely to affect my evaluation and my subjective conclusion would be far more likely for favour Edberg.

It is for that reason that fans of a given player are more likely to make errors in their subjective judgment and why I place far less 'trust' in their subjective opinions of that player/that player's rivals.

Does that seem reasonable to everyone?

Yes, that's almost certainly correct.

Edit: Thought I must add, if we are to go down the line of 'who likely is a poster to be correct before reading the arguments itself' there are other factors we would have to judge: ability to make logical deductions, intelligence, knowledge base, ability to isolate what he/she wants to believe to any conclusion yet to be reached (I do not think Nadal is the GOAT, despite being a Nadal fan) etc.
Of course alternatively we could judge each argument for what it is and ignore who wrote it and see whether it's rational and logical.

But opinions of what is rational and logical appear to differ even among intelligent people - perhaps they too are subjective?
In fact when some posters agree with me, I start to think I must be wrong!

laverfan wrote:

Numbers can be larger or smaller

Like when I click 'Enlarge this image' and they get bigger.

laverfan wrote:

@IMBL... if you want a debate, do this for Nadal and Federer. I have chosen Ferrer as an example. Subjectivity and impartiality is all up for interpretation as JHM points out.

temporary21 wrote:Seems reasonable JHM, even a completely unbiased source would probably still struggle since you have to be able to define precisely what "better" is in terms of the numbers youve got, and be confident noone will disagree

There is no statistical yardstick for better, you can debate cardinality and ordinality in statistics all day long. Numbers can be larger or smaller or equal and there is also NaN. Are Apples better than Oranges?

That is exactly the problem, hence why as a statistician id never be comfortable saying more than "these two are close"  decide for yourself which one you prefer.

Numbers, of course are meaningless alone, they are by definition a way of putting logical argument onto paper and using them. Its what they represent thats important, thats why you have to compare them to other stats in similar situations to make sense of them. Ultimately they represent a score, if what yore asking to find out can with no doubt be boiled down using logic into a score, then youre golden, the term "better" cant be done like that", you can give only evidence using numbers for that. Thats partly the concept of a hypotheses test.

temporary21 wrote:

laverfan wrote:

@IMBL... if you want a debate, do this for Nadal and Federer. I have chosen Ferrer as an example. Subjectivity and impartiality is all up for interpretation as JHM points out.

temporary21 wrote:Seems reasonable JHM, even a completely unbiased source would probably still struggle since you have to be able to define precisely what "better" is in terms of the numbers youve got, and be confident noone will disagree

There is no statistical yardstick for better, you can debate cardinality and ordinality in statistics all day long. Numbers can be larger or smaller or equal and there is also NaN. Are Apples better than Oranges?

That is exactly the problem, hence why as a statistician id never be comfortable saying more than "these two are close"  decide for yourself which one you prefer

But as a fan would you be tempted to say "these two are close, but here's why I think my player is better, please decide like me"?

I have many friends, but im pretty asocial, Im a statistician first and a fan second nowadays. I wouldnt use logical argument as a way to get people to like me, that tends to have the opposite effect. As a fan id be tempted by the first bit, but not the second, its true you can make friends by liking the same things but not by arguing why you do.

Your second part is something people do more when theyre younger, as ive gotten older, ive cared less and less, I just wish theyd stop missing eachother and give us a final battle at Wimby already,

It Must Be Love wrote:

JohnyJeep wrote:You just want to use subjective criteria that is unknown to us all.

Because it is not relevant. I am arguing that whatever criteria I'd use, my judgement would be subjective; the specifics of what subjective criteria I use does not come into the picture.

What I will add is that I have not said anywhere that anyone who disagrees with my approach is wrong.

OK, perhaps I could have made myself clearer here, I am saying what would happen if you did choose to use that approach.

This was from your first post on this issue on page 1:

I have to say I disagree with this premise. Certainly the first point - level of success does not prove who is the best?...
What exactly is your definition of "best"? For me - it is winning. Winning tournaments....Tennis is as cut and dried as that. It's not there for entertainment purposes. That's just a by-product. It's a game which is entirely based on line calls. It is either in or out. It is not subjective.

Except... it is subjective.
It is subjective to highlight which statistics are the important ones (even if many agree with you), and it is subjective to say that because a player is ahead in these statistics, he is the better player.

JohnyJeep wrote:You say "my" pretence to objectivity is false. Objectivity can be defined.

I'm not sure what definition you are using; but I can assure you the claim 'Sampras is better than Borg' or anything similar is not objective, however much you claim it is.

Objectivity is observed phenomena. You can throw in without prejudice or bias as well.

I can say player x is better than player y based on x, y and z (which can be subjective or not subjective). For the purposes of that study - I am being objective if solely by using x, y and z, I determine player x is better than player y. X, y and z are my observed phenomena.

I would not be being objective if I decide player x is better than player y because of a, b and c. Where did a, b and c come from? What are they to do with it? Why do I suddenly need them?

As unfortunately we do not know what your x, y and z are we have no way of knowing if you are being objective. It doesn't mean you are not either. But I can see with absolute certainty that as I know the terms of engagement by stating what x, y and z are, we know I am being objective and we have no proof you are.

You are just saying you are...ah ok. I can't disagree or agree. Because I don't know how you have come to the decision. So I cannot say anyone is better than anyone else. We just have to take your word for it. And there is to be no debate.

Are the ways in which to choose x, y and z  (your observed phenomena) subjective? Yes. You can't have too few as the results hold no weight. You can't have them all because that is never practical. So you are being objective as long you stick to your terms of reference.

But the criteria for determining the better player has long been widely accepted. It comes from winning tournaments. So if I use statistics linked to tournament wins (I would use others but that would be my main one), I believe I am on pretty solid ground (like I am with my definition of objectivity despite your "assurances" otherwise). For reasons I have outlined previously in this thread.  

Where as you want to bring in a whole host of variables that we don't know which are impossible to apply equally across all players. Variables linked to difficulty and player circumstances and no doubt alternate reality scenerios. I am forced into speculating unfortunately because you will not explain how.

This is where we have gone full circle. I voluntary (for the third time) fall on my sword.

JJ, you give one way of determining a better player, but its not an objective measure that's inarguable, if someones on 30 tourny wins, but anothers on 29 but he has 4 more slams say (a complete example), whos "better". Could you really say witout any doubt to anybody elses mind that one is better than another? If you cant do that you cant fully assess it objectively, I can onyl refer back to the weight of evidence argument

JohnyJeep wrote:I can say player x is better than player y based on x, y and z (which can be subjective or not subjective). For the purposes of that study - I am being objective if solely by using x, y and z, I determine player x is better than player y. X, y and z are my observed phenomena.

No, but the issue is that it is the step of choosing x, y, and z as methods of deducing the better player is subjective. That is why I'm right when I say that these GOAT debates between the ATGs are always subjective.
Obviously once you've subjectively chosen your criteria; you can then make yourself look objective by saying 'oh look 14 is bigger than 11, that's not an opinion, that's a fact'- this is what I mean by false pretence of objectivity.

JJ wrote:But the criteria for determining the better player has long been widely accepted.

Don't fall for the fallacy that believing something that you perceive to be 'widely accepted' is equivalent to being objective.

JJ wrote:Variables linked to difficulty and player circumstances and no doubt alternate reality scenerios. I am forced into speculating unfortunately because you will not explain how.

Well it's pretty clear I haven't explained my full criteria here; firstly because it is not actually relevant, my point is that my criteria would be subjective (irrelevant of what it is). Secondly the response to this question would be quite long, and if I was to write one it would almost certainly be as an article rather than a comment on that thread- moreover it would almost certainly lead to a pretty strong debate so I'd have to get permission from Julius and LF as well beforehand.

I have just noticed that objectivity might be misconstrued, in my case Im referring to the mathematical definition, of something real, absolute and measurable, objectivity can also mean neutral, which isnt the definition im referring to. Objectivity is something mind independent, youre own personal thought and feeling have no bearing on it, "a square has four sides" for example

temporary21 wrote:I have just noticed that objectivity might be misconstrued, in my case Im referring to the mathematical definition, of something real, absolute and measurable, objectivity can also mean neutral, which isnt the definition im referring to. Objectivity is something mind independent, youre own personal thought and feeling have no bearing on it, "a square has four sides" for example

Of course, this is the dictionary definition from Google:
Objective- (of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts