Do things necessarily need to be competitive at the top?

First topic message reminder :

Djokovic is number 1 in the world right now and by some distance. From reading posts this year so far I get the feeling that people here aren't satisfied with this state of affairs or that it's somehow worse now than it has been before. I'm not saying this is shaping up to be the most exciting year in tennis ever but is it really so bad, relative to the last 5 years, that the others need to step their game up to save us from some kind of viewing catastrophe? Yes they need to step their game up if they want to beat him and I'm sure they are doing all they can but the feeling I'm getting from here is that it is all too imperative that they succeed in order to avert a crisis.

I'll admit that I didn't watch much of Miami apart from highlights but across these last two tournaments he's been challenged a few times but in the end proved too good. The game moves on every year and if he's done the best with keeping up with that and improving then more credit to him. He's not my favourite player but if he should win the majority of everything significant this year then so be it. It seems that on here there is a strong desire not to have a single player dominate and that if that is the case then competition is weak; maybe no one wants to see domination of a "weak era" like 2004-2007 again and anything resembling that can't be good for the game. I, on the other hand, believe it's possible to just gave a player who is much better than everyone else at a given time. The competition is ok this year and we're not at a point where the matches are foregone conclusions , at least no more or less significantly so than previous years.

Of course, Djokovic's dominance of hard court is clear, but he doesn't have a boring level of dominance of the whole tour.

In the years when he only won the AO, there were question marks against him.

I think Djokovic has to win either one of the FO or Wimbledon this year in order to be able to re-confirm that he is clearly the current top player, rather than just far and away the best hard court player.

If he fails to do so, and reverts to a position of only holding one slam the AO, and failing to win the last two, then this whole discussion will be moot.

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Sorry, what's weak about 2015?

Nadal is fully fit. Murray also - the back operation was ages ago. Federer is fit too. If any of these guys claim impairment they should retire (which to be fair, Federer will do fairly soon).

It's not just about being fully fit, it's about the level you're playing. Again I don't know for certain what will happen for the rest of the year, it could well be Nadal or Murray re-find their spark, or a young gun emerges, or Federer remembers how to peak for Grand Slams again; let's see.  
But BB, you have not answered my question from 11:41.

Because the only way players achieve their status is by winning things, it's not possible to call anyone an ATG unless they win a lot. In turn that means others don't win a lot. It's a zero sum game - 4 Slams are handed out each year, every year. Therefore the aggregate greatness generated each year is the same, whether it's concentrated (ATG or weak field?) or shared out (no great or tremendous depth?).

Therefore your question has no meaning as no era differences can every be discerned, except totally subjectively, which is pointless for discussion.

On the other point, who says Nadal lacks a spark? I keep hearing from Rafalitos that W '08 was a super-great match between Fed / Nadal at their peaks, but that was the year Federer did exactly what Nadal is doing this year - suddenly lose to all sorts of surprising people. So how come you say Nadal has lost his spark? Are you saying Federer '08 was sub-par?

bogbrush wrote:

Therefore your question has no meaning as no era differences can every be discerned, except totally subjectively, which is pointless for discussion.

Well it's a subjective discussion which I've always argued (I mean there was literally a whole boring debate on the technicalities of whether this debate is subjective, and I thought it was). What I would disagree with you is the idea that subjective debates aren't of value, if you think about it most debates are subjective.
You've said before how highly you rate Federer, that is partly subjective, if you said Federer's forehand was one of the greatest in history, that is subjective... I can go on.

But once again Bogbrush, you did not answer my question. I'll give you another chance.

If you believe that:
a) competition can fluctuate from year to year
b) tennis is not regular in the way it produces All Time Greats, or players of any kind (i.e. we could possibly get two All Time Greats who are born on the same day, and then not another one for 5 years, it's based on chance)

Then how can you not believe that competition will fluctuate if you take one time period of a few years and compare to another period of a few years ??

I've told you twice that small fluctuations can occur but that they don't impact the overall strength of a sustained period.

Now I've told you that your question is fundamentally meaningless because the currency you use to measure the total amount of greatness in a period always adds up to the same number. Therefore, every year "proves" exactly the same amount of competence.

I have no doubt you'll follow this up with telling me I've not answered your question. Perhaps someone else could advise which one of us is missing something?

bogbrush wrote:I've told you twice that small fluctuations can occur but that they don't impact the overall strength of a sustained period.

Why not ?
If you recognise that small fluctuations can occur year to year, and presumably you recognise that the emergence of All-Time-Greats is something irregular, how on earth can you conclude that they don't impact the overall strength of a sustained period ?
It's just simple logic, if something can fluctuate annually (as you argue), and it's something irregular; then by definition there must also be fluctuations over a greater period of time than one year.

Edit: Also why do fluctuations have to be small ? What happens if the top 3 all get injured ? What happens if the number 1 player rapidly declines ? Normally fluctuations from year to year will be small, but there could be some years where there is a greater fluctuation. And over a period of three years, the aggregate of those fluctuations (even if small) could mean a greater change in difficulty of competition. If the competition gradually increases for three consecutive years, the gap between the three years would be greater than any annual fluctuation, it's just maths.

Once you address this, I will explain why your 'zero-sum game' rebuttal is nonsensical.

IMBL, on a more serious note, do you have insider analysis as to why Andy has not invited any of his ATP rivals to his wedding, apart from Henman, Ward etc.

http://www.eurosport.com/tennis/andy-murray-hasn-t-invited-rivals-celebrities-for-wedding-to-kim-sears_sto4669517/story.shtml

Thanks.

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:I've told you twice that small fluctuations can occur but that they don't impact the overall strength of a sustained period.

Why not ?
If you recognise that small fluctuations can occur year to year, and presumably you recognise that the emergence of All-Time-Greats is something irregular, how on earth can you conclude that they don't impact the overall strength of a sustained period ?
It's just simple logic, if something can fluctuate annually (as you argue), and it's something irregular; then by definition there must also be fluctuations over a greater period of time than one year.

Edit: Also why do fluctuations have to be small ? What happens if the top 3 all get injured ? What happens if the number 1 player rapidly declines ? Normally fluctuations from year to year will be small, but there could be some years where there is a greater fluctuation. And over a period of three years, the aggregate of those fluctuations (even if small) could mean a greater change in difficulty of competition. If the competition gradually increases for three consecutive years, the gap between the three years would be greater than any annual fluctuation, it's just maths.

Once you address this, I will explain why your 'zero-sum game' rebuttal is nonsensical.

Fluctuations are small and by nature largely cancel out over shortish term, certainly over the long. The rest is hypothetical and not worth considering.

Please do rebut the zero-sum point. I look forward to it.

Jahu wrote:IMBL, on a more serious note, do you have insider analysis as to why Andy has not invited any of his ATP rivals to his wedding, apart from Henman, Ward etc.

http://www.eurosport.com/tennis/andy-murray-hasn-t-invited-rivals-celebrities-for-wedding-to-kim-sears_sto4669517/story.shtml

Thanks.

Well roger can't come obviously, you can't have someone with more gold hemmed clothing than the bridesmaids, plus he may think the best man speech is for him. Rafa can't attend post service party without arranging the whole buffet the correct way. Novak can't go since Andy had agreed to a no pastry diet on the day. Berdych can't be thre because his gf's too hot. And so on...

I see the point. Dominant players will always go hand in hand with the weekerra argument since obviouslt is one guy is winning everything, then everyone else isn't winning anything and they look worse. You want to get into that you need to look at the standard of play and how competitive the rest are

Jahu wrote:IMBL, on a more serious note, do you have insider analysis as to why Andy has not invited any of his ATP rivals to his wedding, apart from Henman, Ward etc.

http://www.eurosport.com/tennis/andy-murray-hasn-t-invited-rivals-celebrities-for-wedding-to-kim-sears_sto4669517/story.shtml

Thanks.

What an odd article. Why would he?

IMBL, nice explanation

BB, I would call them, show a little human friendly side and not just ball bashing.

I think there are 5434 HawkEye articles which have Muzza stating that he's been best friends with (insert name) since they met in a tournament at the age of (insert fairly young age). For him to not invite (insert ATP member who doubles up as his bestie) to his wedding is tantamount to tennis treason.

Jahu wrote:IMBL, nice explanation

BB, I would call them, show a little human friendly side and not just ball bashing.

But what if they're not your friends? Why would you invite people you're not personally close to?

Jahu wrote:IMBL, on a more serious note, do you have insider analysis as to why Andy has not invited any of his ATP rivals to his wedding, apart from Henman, Ward etc.

http://www.eurosport.com/tennis/andy-murray-hasn-t-invited-rivals-celebrities-for-wedding-to-kim-sears_sto4669517/story.shtml

Thanks.

Nadal is his friend, but not his close friend. Murray only invited his very close friends as far as I'm aware.

bogbrush wrote:

Fluctuations are small and by nature largely cancel out over shortish term, certainly over the long.

Your position makes absolutely no logical sense. There is no regularity with which players of a certain level are born. There is absolutely no reason why fluctuations must always be small. Let's say Djokovic now gets a foot injury, and the rest of the top players continue on their current form.
Do you really think the difference in competition to win slams in 2015 would be as hard overall as 2011 ?

And how on earth can you guarantee any fluctuations cancel out ?? They're just as likely to cancel out (i.e. let's say competition gets harder from 2015 to 2016 and then easier again to 2017) as they are to aggregate in the same direction and make the fluctuation even more accentuated (for example competition gets harder from 2015 to 2016, and then gets harder again from 2016 to 2017. Maybe because some young players start to step it up in this time etc.).

I will now address the zero sum game point you made, but please, atleast try and address your own total lack of logic on this position, it's mind boggling.

bogbrush wrote:
Please do rebut the zero-sum point. I look forward to it.

"It's a zero sum game - 4 Slams are handed out each year, every year. Therefore the aggregate greatness generated each year is the same, whether it's concentrated (ATG or weak field?) or shared out (no great or tremendous depth?).
Therefore your question has no meaning as no era differences can every be discerned, except totally subjectively, which is pointless for discussion."

The point with the 'zero-sum-game' is that you have to make a subjective judgement, or any conclusion is invalid.
Let's say a player wins 24 Grand Slams in 6 years. It could be because:
a) The player is just that great, the competition is =/> normal
b) The player isn't as great as his stats suggest, as the competition he faces is below average
c) A combination of points a) and b), the player is amazing but the competition is a bit weaker too

So what conclusion could you reach ? You could just as well assume point a) as you could point b).
Let's say you do assume that players who are better have better stats. So therefore that player who won 25 Grand Slams must be amazing. But wait a second... if you assume that, then surely you also have to assume his competition who in that time period have poor stats in terms of Grand Slams won. So his competition must have been weak. But wait, if his competition is weak then how can we be sure that he was as amazing as we first assumed ? It's a circular paradox which gets you nowhere.

My approach is simple, you have to make a subjective judgement on how could a player is, and how could the competition is. You can't assume a player is great if he has good stats, or assume the competition is bad if they collectively have poor stats.
My argument that there were no ATGs Federer's age is not based on just the stat none of them won huge amounts of Slams, but by the fact the new generation, even when they were much younger than Federer and Federer's peers prime, were actually already Federer's main challengers. My argument about 2015 is not just based on the fact Djokovic could clean up, but by the observation that Nadal is declining, Murray doesn't seem to be finding his pre-surgery form, Federer is ageing and can't cope physically in BO5 when pushed, and no new young players are lighting up the tour just yet.
Making assumptions either way leads to a circular paradox, that is the zero-sum game, making a subjective judgement is categorically not.

I liked it better when we were talking about the Murray wedding seating arrangements

kingraf wrote:I liked it better when we were talking about the Murray wedding seating arrangements

I sent you a PM last week, unread and unseen, that's the true travesty- forget Nadal not being invited to a wedding.

bogbrush wrote:

Jahu wrote:IMBL, nice explanation

BB, I would call them, show a little human friendly side and not just ball bashing.

But what if they're not your friends? Why would you invite people you're not personally close to?

You invite them to look good and sexy, they refuse and they look bad then.

Since Andy ain't beating anyone, I thought maybe this would be a good way to make the other Top 3 guys look bad

It Must Be Love wrote:

kingraf wrote:I liked it better when we were talking about the Murray wedding seating arrangements

I sent you a PM last week, unread and unseen, that's the true travesty- forget Nadal not being invited to a wedding.

I think people are scared of your PM interchange now

Don't blame them.

kingraf wrote:I liked it better when we were talking about the Murray wedding seating arrangements

I was more thinking of bridesmaids, the room they do the make up, lingerie etc. but seating is good too, after that.

Jahu wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

kingraf wrote:I liked it better when we were talking about the Murray wedding seating arrangements

I sent you a PM last week, unread and unseen, that's the true travesty- forget Nadal not being invited to a wedding.

I think people are scared of your PM interchange now

Don't blame them.

Clearly

To be fair, if there's one thing Raf doesn't do... It's check the inbox

Djoko has invited Andy and Sharapova to his wedding, I think none of them went, at least got an invitation.

This Scott boy is being tight ass on his own Hotel.

P.S: Sorry to hijack the thread, but 2 pages on the OP, is enough on any topic

Probability ensures large volumes of small fluctuations cancel out, to overwhelming likelihood. That's why despite sub-atomic particles having no certain unobserved position (merely a probability distribution of position), at the large scale objects do have certain positions.

The events you hyothesise either don't happen, or happen for onky brief periods.

As for the zero sum argument, you've just agreed with it. I thought you were going to disprove it.

Wish I was as knowledgeable as bogbrush, maybe when I grow up

bogbrush wrote:Probability ensures large volumes of small fluctuations cancel out, to overwhelming likelihood. That's why despite sub-atomic particles having certain in observed position (merely a probability distribution of position), at the large scale objects do have certain positions.

Yes, that's right... And do you genuinely believe this applies to tennis ?
In the example you gave, there is regularity. However tennis could not be further from meeting that regularity.
There is no regularity in how often players of a certain level are born. It's as simple as that. Your point doesn't even stand up to one line of scrutiny.

It's why there's no reason 2014-2018 will be necessarily as strong as 2008-2012. It could be equal, but it could also be stronger, or weaker. It's why there's no reason 2015 will be as strong as 2011. Tennis competition is always fluctuating, and because the emergence of players of a certain level tends to be irregular and based on chance, there is absolutely no way it can be compared to the movement of sub-atomic particles.

bogbrush wrote:
As for the zero sum argument, you've just agreed with it. I thought you were going to disprove it.

If you agreed with my position, why did you bring it up in the first place ? I've never argued differently to what I just said.

All the zero sum argument proves is that there's no point discussing this.

The quantum physics point is a bit of fun that enabled me to make a point and have a laugh at a couple of players.

No, the zero sum game argument shows that making assumptions either way (i.e. assuming a player is great because he has great stats, or assuming the competition is weak because they have done badly as a whole) is invalid. It also shows that for a sensible debate you have to admit that this debate is in part subjective, as well as looking at data.
Bogbrush, I guarantee most debates you've taken part in on this forum that is atleast in part subjective.

But once again, you did actually avoid my point. Your quantum physics point here was simply inaccurate if you are saying it is a parallel to tennis. It is obvious there is no clear regularity to when players of a certain level are born, so there is no guarantee that any period of time will be equal to another.
I'm arguing that there are fluctuations, within months, annually, and a greater time period than one year in tennis. This can mean competition gets easier, harder, or stays the same.
It's obviously correct, and the reasonable logical position to take.
Your slightly crazy theory is that somehow there is a magical regularity which means tennis competition always balances out in any time period greater than one year.
And then when pressed, you cop-out and start talking about the separate issue of how you can identify the fluctuations in competition, and we both agree it is subjective. That's a whole other debate anyway.

So perhaps next time Bogbrush, don't refer to my views as 'Weak Era Golden Era rubbish', when in reality my position on this is reasonable and well thought out. Unfortunately its your radical 'equal era' theory which doesn't make any sense, is illogical, and indefensible.

Jahu wrote:Wish I was as knowledgeable as bogbrush, maybe when I grow up

Could be a while yet then

Yes, that's why I hang here, around smart people, this is kind of a free Masters degree here

IMBL does have a point... to those interested.
Hes saying that strength in depth and overall "quality of the game" doesnt even itself out over time.
Of course if you measure how good it is based on trophy spread then theres an obvious symmetry but we dont do we? The whole years old argument is that Roddick and co arent as good as the current crop.

If you could measure "quality of tennis periods" you might get some sort of large sample distribution on it, but you cant measure it soo its stuck dead in the water.

Tennis does have some VERY vague regularity to it, where a dominant guy comes up,and then theres a letdown when they retire. That tells you nothing about strength in depth though

It Must Be Love wrote:My argument about 2015 is not just based on the fact Djokovic could clean up, but by the observation that Nadal is declining, Murray doesn't seem to be finding his pre-surgery form, Federer is ageing and can't cope physically in BO5 when pushed, and no new young players are lighting up the tour just yet.

Which aspect of this is a new development?

Federer has been ageing for years. In the last 5 years, he has won 1 slam (2 if we go back to AO10).

Murray's top level lasted for just over a year. He has spent longer looking for his pre-surgery form than he spent actually at his pre-surgery form.

Nadal missed big chunks of 2012 and 2014. He hasn't got past the 4th round at Wimbledon since 2011.

Young players breaking through have been absent for a long time. In fact, it's arguably better now than it has been for a long time.

Well let's wait, we're not even 4 months through 2015, so I may be proved wrong.

For me 2015 may be quite similar in terms of competition to 2014.
Federer is playing well, but seems not to peak for Slams apart from Wimby, perhaps due to the Best Of 5 aspect.
Nadal has been injured a lot, but now I think he's declining even when fully fit. He may stay healthy this year though, which he hasn't for half of 2012 and 2014, let's hope so.
For me Murray isn't yet up to the level he was pre-surgery and pre-Lendl. Even before Lendl he had beaten Nadal twice in Slams, and did very well against Federer in Best-Of-3. For me he's not playing as well as he was then.
Edit: Also to clarify HM, if you remember when you posted the top 10 list of 2015 and 2006, I still went for 2015 on the whole as stronger. I just think Djokovic's average level of competition in latter stages of slams in the next few years will likely be easier than he's had to deal with for most of his slams so far.

Is this worry about Nole dominating everything not a bit premature? After his purple patch in 2011 (i.e., post AO 2012), he has won 3 out of 12 slams. Let's wait for him to do a little bit better before we worry too much.

Also, he is not getting any younger. Those who expect him to maybe take up to 8 slams over the next 2-3 years will likely be surprised.

It Must Be Love wrote:They're just as likely to cancel out (i.e. let's say competition gets harder from 2015 to 2016 and then easier again to 2017) as they are to aggregate in the same direction and make the fluctuation even more accentuated

This is likely incorrect, no?

IMBL, I will echo HMMs sentiments and ask what is it you are trying to achieve with this line of arguments? It seems like the best one can hope for is an agreement that raw numbers do not tell the whole story - which is something that most either explicitly or implicitly agree on anyway.

The line of reasoning you adopt leads to rather nerdy theoretical arguments in which tennis itself does not figure much at all.

So it seems to me like you spend literally years on a discussion that is neither about tennis in substance nor has any hope of delivering much in terms of conclusion.

Now, being a nerd myself, I do have some appreciation for your efforts, but I am nevertheless finding myself wondering what is it that you are hoping to get out of it?

To me, I say Roddick and Co of 2004-2007 were not worse than Berdych and Co now, they might be even better. It's just that now we have two instead of one multiple slam winners playing in their prime.

Well unless Murray, Delpo and Cilic step it up, or the next and next next generations do so, after Fedal retire, we may be back to days when we are having only one multiple slam winner. Fed did win five slams from 2009-2012, playing in an era where there're another two multiple slam winners looming around, so to me that proves his greatness. Rafa too, winning most of his slams playing against two multiple slam winners or ATGs. If Novak wins a few more before Fedal retires,, that will put him in the same league as Fedal. I think Fedal have proven their Legendary statue by winning amidst tough competition, Novak is on his way there and I feel what Novak wins with Fedal around would define his career. More so than whatever he wins when Fedal are gone.

Legendary status, not statue.

Comparing Fed's 2008 to Rafa's 2015 so far? Fed didn't miss a chunk of the season the year before in 2007, he's not coming back from long break. Rafa OTOH was coming back after a long break and not playing for a while, not even had enough time for training after his surgery in late Nov last year. I believe Rafa should be back to his normal level during the coming clay season.

HM Murdoch wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:My argument about 2015 is not just based on the fact Djokovic could clean up, but by the observation that Nadal is declining, Murray doesn't seem to be finding his pre-surgery form, Federer is ageing and can't cope physically in BO5 when pushed, and no new young players are lighting up the tour just yet.

Which aspect of this is a new development?

Federer has been ageing for years. In the last 5 years, he has won 1 slam (2 if we go back to AO10).

Murray's top level lasted for just over a year. He has spent longer looking for his pre-surgery form than he spent actually at his pre-surgery form.

Nadal missed big chunks of 2012 and 2014. He hasn't got past the 4th round at Wimbledon since 2011.

Young players breaking through have been absent for a long time. In fact, it's arguably better now than it has been for a long time.

Exactly. If we believe all this era guff there's a case for saying 2015 looks like the strongest for a number of years.

Of course, the proof of that will be whether more Slams and Masters are won this year by more people; that would provide hard evidence of how brilliant everyone is and how great the guy at the top will be. I have a feeling though that we'll have a flat year with about 4 Slams being won and a dozen or so Masters. Just a hunch.

I have no problem not recognizing weak era/strong era theories to be honest but with that mindset we then have to take the other step and say there can't really be anyway of determining or labelling a player the greatest of all-time. That is why now I see consistency the key thing. For now Roger Federer is the most consistent player of all-time and at present Novak is the most consistent player in the here and now.

Consistency is important for sure, otherwise we hark back to the GOAT being a guy who had a truly incredible two weeks or so. No argument there.

For me it's the mix; the consistency, the results, BUT AS A PRE-REQUISITE, the virtuosity. I'm simply uninterested in the "talent" of running a lot, or training the hardest. It doesn't excite me, it doesn't persuade me to give the hours over to a match that I could otherwise spend doing something else. Yes, it's admirable and even impressive, but it's not interesting to me.

I need players to surprise me, to have me uncertain what play they're going to make, or shots they're going to play, or impress me with the sheer outrageousness of what they do. I expect the Worlds best to play shots that I can't imagine doing.
They all do some of this to an extent, some much more than others. The ones who do it to the most extreme levels are the players who earn my long term loyalty to their cause. I still have great affection for some other players, it's not all black and white. Taking a short list of top players (mostly from the past to avoid rows, and forgetting countless others) that turns into;

My "Players I would move Heaven & Earth to watch": Federer, McEnroe

My "Affectionately remembered": Borg, Lendl, Edberg, Sampras.

My "Indifferent" category: Agassi, Hewitt

My "Players I'd cross the road to avoid": Vilas, Wilander, Muster, Becker, Stich

summerblues wrote:IMBL, ]

I am exposing my good friend Bogbrush's lack of logic on this topic.

bogbrush wrote:
Exactly. If we believe all this era guff there's a case for saying

I'm sorry, what ?
Again Bogbrush, you are the only person on this thread who can't grasp the concept that Djokovic's competition for the rest of his career may be easier than what he's had to face so far.
But you do believe in fluctuations in competition? Yes, but only 'small', whatever that means. I guess if Djokovic now got injured that would just be a 'small' fluctuation ?
And you do believe it happens over a period of time ? Yes, but you say only annually ? So what happens after 13 months, players all have a look at their stopwatches and reset themselves to where they were 13 months earlier ? What happens if it fluctuates in the same direction (i.e. get harder/easier) three years in a row ? If you acknowledge that there is no consistent regularity with which players of a certain level are born, then how could it all balance out over a certain period of time (you say anything more than 12 months?). You have no answers to these questions, because you know your position can't get more illogical.

bogbrush wrote:
Of course, the proof of that will be whether more Slams and Masters are won this year by more people; that would provide hard evidence of how brilliant everyone is and how great the guy at the top will be. I have a feeling though that we'll have a flat year with about 4 Slams being won and a dozen or so Masters. Just a hunch.

This is both a cop-out and a cheap shot.
It's a cop-out because the debate as to whether we can judge the competition, is different to the one as to whether competition itself fluctuates.
And it's a cheap shot because I've addressed this point, and made it very clear that I don't just assume the competition is weak because one player dominates. (Djokovic dominated 2011, I didn't say the competition was weak that year; however it is likely to be weaker this year compared to 2011, even if Djokovic doesn't dominate). I also said that we have to admit that this debate is part subjective, as well as looking at data. If you are snide about that, I bet most of your posts contain arguments that are in part subjective. For starters saying that Federer is the greatest or even one of the greatest is in part subjective.

I can "mostly" see the point of both of you, but neither of you see the other ones point, and are just arguing semantics at this stage. This has also become a weak era/ GOAT discussion, and as such I think its best to move this one to the sticky

This hasn't become a GOAT debate has it?
I thought it was supposed to be about whether we enjoy watching tennis more/less when one person is dominating.

Edit - temp beat me to it

temporary21 wrote:I can "mostly" see the point of both of you, but neither of you see the other ones point, and are just arguing semantics at this stage. This has also become a weak era/ GOAT discussion, and as such I think its best to move this one to the sticky

This is not a GOAT debate.
What exactly is the point of Bogbrush that I can't apparently see ? Can you expand on that please ?

bogbrush wrote:For me it's the mix; the consistency, the results, BUT AS A PRE-REQUISITE, the virtuosity.

For a judgement of the best (as opposed to personal favouritism), these are good criteria but I'd also add diversity.

What impresses me most about Federer is not the size of the haul (impressive as it is) but the spread of the titles.

17 slams, with no single event accounting for even half the total. At least 4 wins at three of the slams. RG is of course the outlier with only one title, but there is a good reason for that.

It's kind of an extension of 'consistency' but an important consideration to me.

Edit: hmmm, this does appear to me morphing into a GOAT debate. Feel free to ignore!

It Must Be Love wrote:

temporary21 wrote:I can "mostly" see the point of both of you, but neither of you see the other ones point, and are just arguing semantics at this stage. This has also become a weak era/ GOAT discussion, and as such I think its best to move this one to the sticky

This is not a GOAT debate.
What exactly is the point of Bogbrush that I can't apparently see ? Can you expand on that please ?

Both me and Julius are seeing this venture into sticky territory. If you do see BB's point then you would see that youre both skirting around each other here, to be honest its getting harder to follow either of you, might be better for both of you to call time on this, its not getting anywhere, not an order of course, just a suggestion.

temporary21 wrote:If you do see BB's point then you would see that youre both skirting around each other here,

Well my debate with BB is not the GOAT debate, and I am absolutely not skirting around his point. I've addressed all his points as directly as possible, if you see anywhere where this is not the case, please be my guest and point it out.