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'.

It Must Be Love wrote: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.

Hmmm, really?
Do you mean a GOAT debate? Between Federer and Rafa?
Would you like such a debate? If so, why and what would a) the forum gain from it and b) you hope gain from it?
I'm fairly sure it's been done before, so to me it's seems odd that posters wish to repeat ground that has already been discussed to death. Which is why I ask what there is to gain?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote: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.

Hmmm, really?
Do you mean a GOAT debate? Between Federer and Rafa?

No, no; I was referring to answering JJ's question- he was not asking for a Fedal debate was he ?
He was talking about my criteria for the GOAT debate, and how I would defend the critera.

Frankly I don't see how such a debate could constructively go forward on a public thread.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote: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.

Hmmm, really?
Do you mean a GOAT debate? Between Federer and Rafa?
Would you like such a debate? If so, why and what would a) the forum gain from it and b) you hope gain from it?
I'm fairly sure it's been done before, so to me it's seems odd that posters wish to repeat ground that has already been discussed to death. Which is why I ask what there is to gain?

Nothing I suppose from what you say, but then it is a forum about tennis I suppose. Its always possible to dump all threads about that into on emassive sticky, that way it doesnt clutter other topics I guess

The main problem with the whole idea is what makes a better player is partly up to to personal preference of style and whats important, that makes it instantly a non objective point of debate, which means you cant come to any solid conclusions, not when the weight of evidence isnt close to decisive. People still wanna give their two cents though, its why they come, long as nothing bads happening.

temporary21 wrote:The main problem with the whole idea is what makes a better player is partly up to to personal preference of style and whats important, that makes it instantly a non objective point of debate, which means you cant come to any solid conclusions, not when the weight of evidence isnt close to decisive. People still wanna give their two cents though, its why they come, long as nothing bads happening.

Actually I think the main problem is that people want to attach themselves to successful players - perhaps too much so, so that the success of that player (either on court, or in a debate) takes on unhealthy proportions. That's why such debates get too heated - a player's loss feels too much like their own loss.

I get you , that used to be me a few years ago. It goes away eventually though, usually as you get old enough for things to kick you into perspective I guess. Still should be allowed, people have to just keep calm, or take a break if it feels bad.

I know what you mean. It's like back in the day when you used to want your favourite band to be No. 1 in the charts. Then you get older and it just gets almost irrelevant.

It Must Be Love wrote:

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.

Again, you are not right. For goodness sake. What is your background for conducting research? At what level do you do it? Because I hope you don't do for it a living. You are throwing around words and statements that, quite frankly, I think are beyond your understanding.

When a paper in any journal is published the research will have a hypothesis. The researcher will then try and prove or disprove that hypothesis. The paper will contain objectives. These objectives are your objectivity. They are of course chosen "subjectively" but done so based on current understanding and in discussion with many people. They are your observed phenomena. THAT IS YOUR OBJECTIVITY FOR YOUR RESEARCH.

It doesn't matter one jot that they are chosen subjectively. Subjectivity and objectivity are two separate entities. They can exist either in tandem or on their own. But, and this is very important - your research will be objective as long as you stick to the objectives. Your terms of reference. Again, it completely doesn't matter that the objectives are chosen subjectively. They have to be chosen subjectively. As there are many different ways and experiments to prove anything. As we know.

For your research to be objective - you must stick to the objectives. If you do that - your research has far more chance of being successfully peer reviewed (the results obviously help). If you do not - no one takes you seriously. Because you are moving the goal posts. You are changing your objectives. Done that recently in a piece of research have you? Where your results are not based on your stated objectives?

Don't fall for the fallacy blah blah.... Are you kidding? This is so patronising. You are now telling me how to be objective. I know how to be objective. That is not the same as selecting what I believe to be appropriate criteria for determining who the better player is which is subjective and can contain either quantitative or qualitative indicators. I haven't fallen for anything. I'm sorry if not agreeing with you is "falling for a fallacy". I haven't fallen for anything. Apart from your inability to grasp what objectivity is and its difference to subjectivity.

And then you finish with you don't believe your criteria is relevant. You just want to say and for people to follow huh? Who are we to ask for justification of thinking to IMBL. Even if you could you wouldn't right. Because that was the first reason you gave. It wasn't because the mods won't let you - and I wonder why that is?

But it is OK. Because IMBL says it's OK to disagree with her. That's makes it civil. But if anyone else comes to a different conclusion than her, they are wrong.

Its not youre wrong, its that you both disagree because its a subjective argument. In an objective environment you cant have two opposing views in which neither are incorrect, and thats what we have, neither of you are wrong. Remember being subjective is not an insult or weakness whatsoever, its what makes people human

But t21 you can be wrong about how to be objective. Scientists pick up on that rather quick I promise.

However this is not a scientific endeavour, its just a chat about W/L ratios and tennis. Personal preference is a big part of everything

JohnyJeep wrote:But, and this is very important - your research will be objective as long as you stick to the objectives. Your terms of reference. Again, it completely doesn't matter that the objectives are chosen subjectively.

OK, let me clarify myself once again-
Let's say:
-I subjectively choose some criteria to say which player out of 2 is the best, let's say Grand Slams / Win ratio etc.
-I then apply this criteria objectively, for example which player has more Grand Slams, so I accurately find out which out (objectively) which one does have more Slams (or any other mathematical stat).
-I cannot then claim that my findings as to who is better is objective; as it isn't. Of course the statistics themselves are 'objective/accurate'; this isn't even in the question.

JohnyJeep wrote:THAT IS YOUR OBJECTIVITY FOR YOUR RESEARCH.

This line made me smile
What is it you think I'm arguing- that someone typing into Wikipedia and finding out Sampras has 14 slams while Borg has 11 is subjective ? Of course not. However then claiming that it is the reason (or one of many subjective factors) that you think Sampras is better than Borg is subjective.

JohnyJeep wrote:Don't fall for the fallacy blah blah

The fallacy I was pointing out was the idea because you perceive there to be a consensus on a certain criteria, using them is 'objective'. Even if there was an exact consensus, which there may not be, it is still subjective to decide any criteria.

If you remember the debate started when you quoted a discussion between myself and HM, and disagreed with this premise:

- level of success does not prove who is the best.

Now surely if you admit that your criteria itself is subjective, and the idea that your criteria shows not only someone is more successful but also better is also subjective; then you could not have 'proved' who is better- irrelevant of whether you were 'objective' in conducting the research after your subjective criteria was set.
So that premise which both HM and I expressed, is absolutely correct; the bottom line is GOAT issues will always be subjective.

Hehe why does people keep thinking imbl is a girl?

Yes, that is my input on this thread.

The bottom line is this, I am now convinced more than ever that you haven't got a clue what subjectivity and/or objectivity relate to. The format that the result presents itself in (whether it be text, number, an alien) is completely irrelevant to its objectivity.

The fallacy I was pointing out was the idea because you perceive there to be a consensus on a certain criteria, using them is 'objective'. Even if there was an exact consensus, which there may not be, it is still subjective to decide any criteria - this is your quote.

You have misused 'objective' here as well. The criteria you select doesn't make anything objective. It's the process you follow in determining the result that makes you objective or not.

I think using tournament wins is a good indicator as to who is best because a tournament win shows that a player to be the best at that tournament (something you agreed with). Now being the best the most times, I think is a good place to start. If I said I wanted to use tournaments wins and then I said player x is better than player y because he has a faster serve. I would not be being objective. If I said player x was better than player y because he has more tournament wins. There I am being objective. I have used my stated objectives to get a result and reach a conclusion. I have not been biased. If I had wanted to bring serve speed into the occasion, I would have been adding bias to the results. That is not objective.

I haven't perceived this. If it isn't - why keep count at all huh? What's the point in playing if we can't talk about what we've won. I have played multiple sports for over 20 years. I am very well versed in sport having gained my own empirical evidence talking to individuals who have played professional football, played with and against international cricketers (both test match and ODI) and numerous other sports folk who have played other sports to a very high level. I haven't perceived anything. Winning trophies matter and what are talked about. If there is no trophy at the end of it - then what are you playing for? What do you win with having the career best w/l ratio? Nothing.

Just because I don't want to bring in players 'circumstances' or any other criteria you wish to use does not mean I am not being objective. I have multiple degrees and research papers which tell me I know how to be objective.

JohnyJeep wrote:The criteria you select doesn't make anything objective. It's the process you follow in determining the result that makes you objective or not.

No one is claiming that the process itself (i.e. researching the stats) is not objective.
Look at my example in my last point. If we compare Borg and Sampras, and you subjectively decide criteria that the player with the most slams and trophies is the better player; then undergo the 'objective' process of researching the stats (showing Sampras has more Slams and trophies), but then the conclusion of 'Sampras is better than Borg' is not objective.
The dictionary definition of objectivity: is a 'person or their judgement not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.'
So I can say a conclusion is objective or not objective; not just the process of researching the statistics.
My point is any conclusion you reach is subjective.

To be honest, youre both running circles around eachothers point, which you wont get anywhere other than flustered

W/L Ratio:

BORG 0.826
CONNERS 0.818
LENDL 0.818
MCENROE 0.817
LAVER 0.798
SAMPRAS 0.774
BECKER 0.769
VILAS 0.765
AGASSI 0.761
NEWCOMB 0.759
ASHE 0.758
EDBERG 0.749
ROSEWALL 0.747
NASTASE 0.726
ORANTES 0.724
WILANDER 0.72
SMITH, STAN 0.708
CLERC 0.716
GERULAITUS 0.699
MUSTER 0.697
NOAH 0.694
STICH 0.686
MECIR 0.682
COURIER 0.681
CHANG 0.679
GONZALES 0.676
TANNER 0.674
RIOS 0.671
CORIA 0.668
KAFELNIKOV 0.666
GOMEZ 0.662
GIMENO 0.654
MOYA 0.653
RAFTER 0.652
KRAJICEK 0.652
KEURTON 0.649
IVANESOVEC 0.643
SANTANA 0.639
EMERSON 0.637
KODES 0.633
KRIEK 0.629
MARTIN 0.649
NASTASE 0.639
CORRETJA 0.638
PHILIPPOUSSIS 0.627
BRUGERA 0.623
KORDA 0.623
PANATTA 0.62
CASH 0.618
RUSEDSKI 0.614
PECCI 0.592
TEACHER 0.587
GAUDI0 0.586
COSTA* 0.585
LECONTE 0.581
WASHINGTON 0.579
PILIC 0.556
PERNFORS 0.551
PIOLINE 0.55
EDMONDSON 0.513

temporary21 wrote:To be honest, youre both running circles around eachothers point,

No, I'm not running around his point- he's trying to say the process itself (i.e. applying his criteria) is objective; which it obviously is. No one is denying that.

To make it really really simple:
- The player who has won more slams and tournaments out of Borg and Sampras is better- subjective
-Process of finding out which player has won more tournaments and Slams: Sampras>Borg in this respect- objective
-Conclusion- therefore Sampras is better than Borg- subjective

Can it be made any clearer ?

It Must Be Love wrote:W/L Ratio:

BORG 0.826
CONNERS 0.818
LENDL 0.818
MCENROE 0.817
LAVER 0.798
SAMPRAS 0.774
BECKER 0.769
VILAS 0.765
AGASSI 0.761
NEWCOMB 0.759
ASHE 0.758
EDBERG 0.749
ROSEWALL 0.747
NASTASE 0.726
ORANTES 0.724
WILANDER 0.72
SMITH, STAN 0.708
CLERC 0.716
GERULAITUS 0.699
MUSTER 0.697
NOAH 0.694
STICH 0.686
MECIR 0.682
COURIER 0.681
CHANG 0.679
GONZALES 0.676
TANNER 0.674
RIOS 0.671
CORIA 0.668
KAFELNIKOV 0.666
GOMEZ 0.662
GIMENO 0.654
MOYA 0.653
RAFTER 0.652
KRAJICEK 0.652
KEURTON 0.649
IVANESOVEC 0.643
SANTANA 0.639
EMERSON 0.637
KODES 0.633
KRIEK 0.629
MARTIN 0.649
NASTASE 0.639
CORRETJA 0.638
PHILIPPOUSSIS 0.627
BRUGERA 0.623
KORDA 0.623
PANATTA 0.62
CASH 0.618
RUSEDSKI 0.614
PECCI 0.592
TEACHER 0.587
GAUDI0 0.586
COSTA* 0.585
LECONTE 0.581
WASHINGTON 0.579
PILIC 0.556
PERNFORS 0.551
PIOLINE 0.55
EDMONDSON 0.513

Having a look at that- I can see why temporary21 (I think it was him/her) was saying Connors was the best.
If you think about it, W/L is impressive, but surely the longer you sustain it the more impressive it is ?
In my opinion I'm impressed both by Connors stat than Nadal and Borg, given he played so many more matches.

However there is one point I'd like to raise before that:
-Was the tournaments Connors was playing when he was older the same proportion of high-level tournaments compared to his prime. I know you followed him closely Julius, did he just play many low level tournaments when he was older (along with the high level tournaments).

It Must Be Love wrote:

temporary21 wrote:To be honest, youre both running circles around eachothers point,

No, I'm not running around his point- he's trying to say the process itself (i.e. applying his criteria) is objective; which it obviously is. No one is denying that.

To make it really really simple:
- The player who has won more slams and tournaments out of Borg and Sampras is better- subjective
-Process of finding out which player has won more tournaments and Slams: Sampras>Borg in this respect- objective
-Conclusion- therefore Sampras is better than Borg- subjective

Can it be made any clearer ?

I get you on that point, but JJ doesnt seem to be getting that from you

http://es.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Co/J/Jimmy-Connors.aspx?t=tf
His titles and finals in the latter stage of his career certainly weren't from the biggest tournaments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Connors_career_statistics

In his last 2 big years when he was 40 (91-92) he played 14 and 16 tournaments repectively, incluign 3 of the 4 slams, his w/l ratio was still positive. The bloke was just a machine as far as I can tell

Connors last ATP match was in 1996 at the age of 43.
In his later years he played mainly lower ranked events, and mainly lost
1996 0-1
1995 2-2
1994 1-3
1993 3-5
1992 17-15 (including final GS match)
1991 19-14
1990 0-3

Career 1253-278 = 81.84%

Excluding the years above ('cos I feel like it)
1209-235 = 83.73%

So if he'd retired at the end of 1989, at the age of 37, he'd be ahead of Borg.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Connors last ATP match was in 1996 at the age of 43.
In his later years he played mainly lower ranked events, and mainly lost
1996 0-1
1995 2-2
1994 1-3
1993 3-5
1992 17-15 (including final GS match)
1991 19-14
1990 0-3

Career 1253-278 =  81.84%

Excluding the years above ('cos I feel like it)
1209-235 = 83.73%

So if he'd retired at the end of 1989, at the age of 37, he'd be ahead of Borg.

What was his W/L in Slams ?

If anyone finds stats on W/L Slams in general please post it here, or post the link; I'm trying to find in vain.

233 - 49 = 82.6%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Connors_career_statistics
82.62% he was 85% in the us open and 91 in the aussie, but he only played that twice

JuliusHMarx wrote:233 - 49 = 82.6%

Here is a complex network analysis which proves that Jimbo is the GOAT - http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0017249

@IMBL... please repeat this model and include data till 2013, and prove your hypotheses.

The entire subjectivity/objectivity sidebar has walked out of the microcosm of Tennis and into the larger macrocosm of the Universe.

Nadal win ratio is high because:

1 Became a top 2/3 player very quickly at age about 18, other players don't peak until 20 or 22 so have much more losses in earlier years due to peaking later.

2 Most other players in history suffer many losses in later years, and Nadal has not had his later years. Borg preserved his W/L ratio while retiring in his 20s, while the likes of Connors and Ken Rosewall no doubt saw theirs suffer as a result of playing late. Nadal's W/L record is not really comparable to others until he retires or reaches at least 31/32. Arguably a better stat career W/L would be something like
W/L during 20s - from 20th birthday to 30th birthday or year turned 20 to year turned 30
W/L during best 5/7/10 years
W/L during best 1 season
W/L until certain age, e.g. 30

It Must Be Love wrote:Nadal is bang on with the ATP tour on the whole, he's still very close to the mandatory spread as well.

"very close" is subjective so I am not going argue with that but you were kind of implying that Rafa's spread was more balanced than Roger's, and for that arguably the more appropriate measure is to start not with average ATP tournament numbers but with a typical tournament composition that a top player would expect to have - I suspect with that Fed would likely come out as the more balanced one.

It Must Be Love wrote:If there was a huge difference between the ATP tour on the whole and mandatory tournaments (which there isn't), I would then argue the mandatories should better match the ATP tour.

I know you would, but that is a different matter entirely.

Sure, ultimately the definition of "better" is subjective and, depending on what definition we use, "better" will often not be directly measurable.

Yet, my feeling is that - some exceptions notwithstanding - most people tend to gravitate towards a fairly similar definition of "better", and would even - in vacuum - agree a set of criteria that would provide something close to an unbiased estimator of the quality of various players.

I suspect the biggest stumbling block in discussions trying to compare players is - as JHM also suggested - that in reality these conversations do not happen in vacuum and that people have a very strong tendency to try to skew reality their way.

Born Slippy wrote:Just had a little look at Rafa's stats on WL. I've broken them down by surface and age as follows. I have merged indoor/grass for these purposes which, whilst not ideal, I think probably works better due to the otherwise very small sample sizes.

Age 18-20

Clay - 114-6 (95%)
Outdoor Hard - 58-19 (75%)
Indoor/Grass- 31-14 (69%)

Age 21-24

Clay - 99-6 (94%)
Outdoor Hard - 131-28 (82%)
Indoor/Grass - 56-16 (78%)

Age 25-present

Clay - 91-6 (94%)
Outdoor Hard - 75-13 (85%)
Indoor/grass - 13-9 (59%)

Will have a look at Fed's later and see how he compares at the same age bands.

I've now had a look at Fed and his figures are as follows:

Age 18-20

Clay - 20-16 (55%)
Outdoor Hard - 39-23 (63%)
Indoor/Grass- 71-34 (68%)

Age 21-24

Clay - 63-11 (85%)
Outdoor Hard - 137-15 (90%)
Indoor/Grass - 124-11 (92%)

Age 25-28

Clay - 60-12 (83%)
Outdoor Hard - 109-20 (84%)
Indoor/grass - 83-13 (86%)

Connors does have the most impressive stat that up till age 37 he had a nearly 84 percent winning percentage. I do think Connors doesn't get the recognition he deserves to some respect in that he had a great shot at the grandslam in 1974 but the parisians screwed him out of. Always a big jimbo fan.

As probably expected, Rafa dramatically out-performed Fed in the 18-20 bracket, even narrowly having a better % on indoor/grass.

Perhaps the main surprise thereafter is that Rafa edges the outdoor hard % from 25-28. Overall, Fed has the better % from 21-24 with Rafa re-taking the lead in the 25-28 bracket.

I just feel this Thread is more of a philosophical debate for statisticians. Like "To be or not to be", with variances and median data. I just feel like we've lost the tennis in all of this. You feel me?

kingraf wrote:I just feel this Thread is more of a philosophical debate for statisticians. Like "To be or not to be", with variances and median data.  I just feel like we've lost the tennis in all of this. You feel me?

Calls for a separate thread along the lines of "Off Topic/Maths/Subjectivity/Blah for the sake of blah/Preaching"

Malaysia/China can't come quick enough!

kingraf wrote:

........................

...................I just feel like we've lost the tennis in all of this...........

Well .....I'm inclined to agree.

But then that judgement could apply (correctly IMHO) to countless other threads on the forum. This one does at least include discussion of players other than Federer and Nadal, so perhaps has a degree of merit & usefulness on that basis alone.

Federer and Nadal have undoubtedly been the two giants of the game in recent years, and when they leave the scene they will be badly missed, and not easily replaced (if at all). I have frequently posted about them myself, and it would be difficult (and indeed wholly unrealistic) not to if you're writing anything about top level tennis over a sustained period.

However, what I personally find so utterly tiresome is the sheer volume of new threads these two players generate ; or, more specifically, the fact that many/most of such threads seem destined - whether intentionally or not - to attempt to prove the same thing over & over & over again, albeit in a bewildering variety of (invariably unconvincing and wholly subjective ) ways. Whatever the actual titles of the threads and their alleged purpose, they so often descend into either a love-in with one or other of the two players, or of course yet another thinly-veiled GOAT debate, where the repetition of content is matched only by the predictability of outcome  - ie wholly inconclusive.

Obviously the forum does offer other material, and with many outstanding contributions. And I'm also conscious that for some posters the Fedal-related debates are the lifeblood of the forum. One poster's meat is another poster's poison.

I periodically take a break from the forum not because I want a break from tennis, but because I welcome a break from the fan club atmosphere. Fan clubs in themselves can be pretty harmless, but of course the Federer and/or Nadal stuff becomes so polarised that at its worst can end up creating the sort of opprobrium and bile that we saw in recent weeks, causing threads to be deleted or locked.

I had a wry smile when someone posted recently that if you type the two words 'Federer' and 'Nadal' into google, then it will bring up countless results revolving around the greatest-ever theme. Or maybe you begin by typing tennis 'Goat' and Federer and Nadal will always come up, can't recall exactly which way round it was. The point being that this was proof (surely ....??!!)  that people really do like all the Goat waffle. Well ... maybe, but maybe not. I'm pretty sure that if you key in 'The Beatles' it will bring up more entries than any other band in music history. Maybe deservedly so. But do I want to read about them all day, every day ......??

I'd always enjoy reading about The Beatles. They were a remarkable band.

People endlessly trying to prove that they are better than other bands would be tedious though.

I am a bit bemused by the idea that the forum is constantly focussed on GOAT debates. It just seems to be that whenever someone does raise it as a topic (maybe every 6 months or so) the same group of people feel compelled to say how boring it is and how the forum is dominated by the topic.

This thread is a good example. This isn't a GOAT debate. IMBL has not said the WL % proves Rafa is the GOAT. It should be possible to discuss Rafa's record as compared to other greats like Federer and try and establish why it is better. There have been a number of different points on the thread which I have found interesting.

HM Murdoch wrote:I'd always enjoy reading about The Beatles. They were a remarkable band.

People endlessly trying to prove that they are better than other bands would be tedious though.

+ 1

And, FWIW, I'm very sure in my own view that The Beatles were/are better than their contemporaries.

But then I know what I like. And I have no interest in spending my days endlessly (and no doubt fruitlessly) seeking all manner of supposedly new ways to convince others.

Well its been civil. and those contributing have been interesting. It got preachy because there was a disagreement on the point which lasted a while. If the threads not for you, no need to come on and complain, just go to another thread. My respect for Jimbo has gone up quite a bit

Nothing and no one in the sixties touches The Hendrix Experience, although one could argue the Beatles best years behind them by the time Jimi made the guitar moan at his best. Mind you BB King was peerless throughout the early sixties, and maybe history. The geezer is still performing

kingraf wrote:Nothing and no one in the sixties touches The Hendrix Experience, although one could argue the Beatles best years behind them by the time Jimi made the guitar moan at his best. Mind you BB King was peerless throughout the early sixties, and maybe history. The geezer is still performing

BB King is the Jimmy Connors of the blues.
Or Connors was the BB King of tennis.

Born Slippy wrote:This thread is a good example. This isn't a GOAT debate. IMBL has not said the WL % proves Rafa is the GOAT. It should be possible to discuss Rafa's record as compared to other greats like Federer and try and establish why it is better. There have been a number of different points on the thread which I have found interesting.

This is not a debate on who is the GOAT; if I wanted to say why I thought Sampras>Fed, Nadal>Sampras, Fed=GOAT etc. I could have easily done so; it's not like I don't know about the topic.
We've done some analysis of the W/L ratio, the only conclusion I've reached from is that Connors stat for me is the most impressive, despite being numerically lower than Nadal and Borg.

kingraf wrote:I just feel this Thread is more of a philosophical debate for statisticians. Like "To be or not to be", with variances and median data.

I'm not sure exactly which debate in this thread you're talking about; but if it's the one with me and JJ- it's really not so complicated
I think the idea that these GOAT debates are ultimately subjective (as I was arguing) is correct, and I showed that during the debate (to the point where his counter-points were bordering on ludicrous).

summerblues wrote:Sure, ultimately the definition of "better" is subjective and, depending on what definition we use, "better" will often not be directly measurable.

Yep

summerblues wrote:most people tend to gravitate towards a fairly similar definition of "better", and would even - in vacuum - agree a set of criteria that would provide something close to an unbiased estimator of the quality of various players.

Even if the whole population of the earth all held hands, signed documents, and pinky swore that they all agreed on a certain criteria; it is still subjective.
The point is that a player may be statistically superior in all regards to another one; but that doesn't necessarily mean he's a better player (although I would argue it's highly likely he is).

kingraf wrote:Nothing and no one in the sixties touches The Hendrix Experience, although one could argue the Beatles best years behind them by the time Jimi made the guitar moan at his best. Mind you BB King was peerless throughout the early sixties, and maybe history. The geezer is still performing

Darn it! I'd love to explain to you how wrong you are but that would contradict my last comment.

lags72 wrote:Whatever the actual titles of the threads and their alleged purpose, they so often descend into either a love-in with one or other of the two players, or of course yet another thinly-veiled GOAT debate

Except it hasn't been a love-in for any player in particular (maybe apart from Connors), and it hasn't been a GOAT debate.
Anyway, now we're done with this perhaps we can all start practicing what we're going to comment when Hawkeye's new article appears:

-----------------------------------------------------------
Oh My God. I can't believe it Hawkeye. Another totally useless thread you've started which no one wants to comment on. Why on earth would you even think we'd want to comment on the topic you've come up with. This is really spoiling my forum experience, all the time I find myself commenting on threads with everyone else on this forum on why no one wants to comment on your thread; it's really grinding my gears.

I mean first things first, why have you linked a PPV article ? No one has subscribed to the Times, there's no way I'm going to give even a penny to Rupert Murdoch and his crew. Stop being a Rupert Murdoch hack.
Oh and I see Neil Harman is back. How excited do you get when you see his articles Hawkeye ? So excited that you share it with us even though we can't actually read the article. And look, if we wanted to read Neil Harman, we'd just find out where he plagiarised from this time and read it from there.

TITLE: Neil Harman on why Nadal's injuries have contributed to all his losses, why he has the slight edge over Federer in the GOAT debate, and how Andy Murray not only wants Scottish independence but wants Scotland to physically separate from England and drift off into the sea closer to the Scandinavian countries.

Hawkeye, why have you posted the title of the article and then a smiley face. What exactly is the smiley face meant to represent, huh ? Are you saying you agree with Neil Harman on his ridiculous points ? That's pathetic on every level possible.
Wait holy cr*p, I just realised something. I think I know where Neil Harman is now plagiarising from now. He's plagiarising from Hawkeye.
Hawkeye how dare you get plagiarised from Neil Harman ? Tell him to log onto v2 and then quickly add him on your foe list so he can't see your posts.

I'm livid, I'm fuming. Infact that's it. I'm off this forum. Hawkeye has driven me off. I'm not coming back until Hawkeye writes another article no one wants to comment on which I'll have to comment on.

Yeah, that does kind of sum it up!

As a matter of curiosity, is Fed's overall WL % going up or down since he turned 30? Given his relatively poor WL in his early career, I would guess it may still be slightly rising?

Born Slippy wrote:

As a matter of curiosity, is Fed's overall WL % going up or down since he turned 30? Given his relatively poor WL in his early career, I would guess it may still be slightly rising?

It went down in 2013 for sure, let me check 2014 now.

HM Murdoch wrote:

kingraf wrote:Nothing and no one in the sixties touches The Hendrix Experience, although one could argue the Beatles best years behind them by the time Jimi made the guitar moan at his best. Mind you BB King was peerless throughout the early sixties, and maybe history. The geezer is still performing

Darn it! I'd love to explain to you how wrong you are but that would contradict my last comment.

You're quite obviously not Experienced

kingraf wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:

kingraf wrote:Nothing and no one in the sixties touches The Hendrix Experience, although one could argue the Beatles best years behind them by the time Jimi made the guitar moan at his best. Mind you BB King was peerless throughout the early sixties, and maybe history. The geezer is still performing

Darn it! I'd love to explain to you how wrong you are but that would contradict my last comment.

You're quite obviously not Experienced

Oh, but I am. In fact, by uncanny coincidence, I was listening to Axis: Bold As Love just this morning.

I like Hendrix a lot but I don't agree with the "best guitarist ever" title he seems to have been eternally bestowed. It's a bit like the way Pele always comes top in footballer polls. He's there for being the first to do something rather than being the best.

But then, as a white guy, maybe I can't 'hear' Jimi.*

*bonus point for anyone who knows what film I'm referencing.

White Men Can't Jump!!