Search
 
 

Display results as :
 


Rechercher Advanced Search

Keywords

GOAT  edberg  davis  

Latest topics
» This Is What A Feminist Looks Like
Yesterday at 11:18 pm by summerblues

» The doping program joke of the ITF!!!
Yesterday at 10:04 pm by noleisthebest

» I Have A Question
Fri Dec 15, 2017 10:24 pm by bogbrush

» The End od Internet Neutrality?
Fri Dec 15, 2017 10:20 pm by bogbrush

» Federer taps in BBC award
Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:22 pm by noleisthebest

» The Ultimate GOAT List
Wed Dec 13, 2017 12:17 pm by Tenez

» The Best Shot Of The Year!
Tue Dec 12, 2017 4:59 pm by noleisthebest

» Djoko takes Stepanek on
Tue Dec 12, 2017 4:53 pm by noleisthebest

» Nadal whines over surface match ups with Federer in 2017
Sun Dec 10, 2017 6:44 pm by noleisthebest

December 2017
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
    123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Calendar Calendar

Affiliates
free forum


The Ultimate GOAT List

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: The Ultimate GOAT List

Post by Tenez on Mon Oct 09, 2017 10:01 am

btw, I thought it was Kevin Curren who beat McEnroe in wimby 85....not slobo...just checking now.

Tenez

Posts : 17438
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ultimate GOAT List

Post by Tenez on Mon Oct 09, 2017 10:12 am

Tenez wrote:btw, I thought it was Kevin Curren who beat McEnroe in wimby 85....not slobo...just checking now.
oh I see you meant AO85...

Amazing how McEnroe went from great 84 to winning nothing thereafter.

Tenez

Posts : 17438
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ultimate GOAT List

Post by noleisthebest on Mon Oct 09, 2017 10:17 am

Tenez wrote:
noleisthebest wrote:How big were Edberg's and Ivanisevic's racquets?
Not that big but still easier to whack the ball with than the heavy wooden rackets with ridiculous small frames .

Edberg is only two years younger than Boba, so they must've played with the same technology.
When Boba was starting, there were no indoor courts in Belgrade, and zero wild cards or anything for him later in his career, so from that point of view, Mac was the doped one in that one on one comparison.

Yes of course, Mac looked like a little kid with his wooden racquet compared to serving giants of the next generation.

noleisthebest

Posts : 25152
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ultimate GOAT List

Post by noleisthebest on Mon Oct 09, 2017 10:42 am

In that interview he mentions a story with Lendl with who he was hanging around on tour in those days (East  Europe, cold war...not much has changed).

Mac and Lendl hated each others' guts and towards the end of one season Mac, Boba, Lendl and someone else were in the semis of a tournament.
Who ever won that tournament (Lendl or Mac) meant YE number one.

Boba joked with Lendl and said: 'what will you give me if I knock him out of your way?'
alluding to all the cash YE no Ones were scoring with sponsors at the end of season.

Lendl replied: "Anything you like!"

Boba said he would've minded the latest sports Mertz 190AMG.

So, Boba beat Mac and Lendl secured YE no1.

They saw each other a few months later and Boba asked him about the "deal".
Lendl was up for it seriously but Boba refused the car asking for one of Lend's alsatians pups (he was into dog breeding then, too).

It turned up the next day!

Boba jokingly added - that was one of my first "business deals"...


btw, in which post did you mention him?

noleisthebest

Posts : 25152
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ultimate GOAT List

Post by Tenez on Mon Oct 09, 2017 10:50 am

Nice story and nice to see Lendl sticking to his word.

Can't remember when and where I did. I know I did though.

Tenez

Posts : 17438
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ultimate GOAT List

Post by mcekovic on Thu Oct 19, 2017 7:26 pm

naxroy wrote:connors over borg ...
murray over rosewall 
rod laver down in 12th positiion
hewitt over newcombe
the list is a mess
When looking at some quantitative achievements tennis GOAT list based on some formula, it should not be judged about list like 'I feel the order is wrong', but 'what in the formula is wrong so that I feel the order is wrong'. If you suggest what in formula is wrong, and your suggestion is a good point, chances are good that the creator will change the formula!
>> Connors over Borg
Connors had much longer career then Borg, thus achieved more quantitatively. Connors 109 titles, Borg 64 titles (big difference), Connors 26 big titles (GS, TF, M1000, Olympics), Borg 28 big titles (small difference).
>> Murray over Rosewall 
>> Rod Laver down in 12th position
This is an Open Era list, quantifies players' achievements in Open Era only
>> Hewitt over Newcombe
Hewitt 80 weeks @ No1 vs Newcombe 8 weeks @ No1... OK Newcombe had to play with Laver, Rosewall and co., but still 80 >>> 8.


Last edited by mcekovic on Thu Oct 19, 2017 7:39 pm; edited 1 time in total

mcekovic

Posts : 20
Join date : 2017-10-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ultimate GOAT List

Post by mcekovic on Thu Oct 19, 2017 7:35 pm

Tenez wrote:I think Djoko and Nadal are that high cause they are both active. I expect them to go down the raking once we gain perspective from this lung busting era.
You cannot reduce or expire what Djokovic and Nadal achieved, it stays forever.
Sure, their winning pct will fail a bit, but number of titles, rankings, participation in greatest rivalries stays for ever.
And this 'lung busting Era' is actually the most competitive Era in tennis history, both if you take it from quantitative perspective, or by qualitative (what people think, how tennis as a sport is big right now, etc...). You would understand this very well in 5 years when Big 3 retire...

mcekovic

Posts : 20
Join date : 2017-10-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ultimate GOAT List

Post by mcekovic on Thu Oct 19, 2017 7:37 pm

Tenez wrote:I personally woudl not put do a mixed pre and open era list. It does not make sense to compare a circus of 10 tennis players with the pro-open era players.

It's in short like comparing a tennis club with ATP players. 2 different levels.  

Good point.
Option to exclude players that played in Open Era in their old tennis days is added to the GOAT List (uncheck 'Old Legends').
It will exclude players born before 1940.


Last edited by mcekovic on Thu Oct 19, 2017 9:47 pm; edited 1 time in total

mcekovic

Posts : 20
Join date : 2017-10-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ultimate GOAT List

Post by mcekovic on Thu Oct 19, 2017 7:45 pm

legendkillar wrote:What a shockingly bad list that is. Federer is the only rating I'd agree with.
Please take some time looking at the formula, and suggest what you would change to make a better list!

mcekovic

Posts : 20
Join date : 2017-10-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ultimate GOAT List

Post by naxroy on Thu Oct 19, 2017 10:46 pm

is it your formula?

naxroy

Posts : 187
Join date : 2017-07-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ultimate GOAT List

Post by Tenez on Thu Oct 19, 2017 11:45 pm

mcekovic wrote:[..... You would understand this very well in 5 years when Big 3 retire...

Actually you will realise in 5 years time how much better tennis players will be then and you will put in perspective the achievement of the lung busters. Like as great Connors'record is, tennis wise he was one of the weakest amongst the greats. He got a poor record v Borg, McEnroe, lendl, etc...and will never be remembered for his tennis. Same I am sure about Djoko, Murray and maybe Nadal though at least nadal had a peculiar style but just a modern version of Wilander.

Tenez

Posts : 17438
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ultimate GOAT List

Post by Tenez on Thu Oct 19, 2017 11:47 pm

Welcome on board McEkovic BTW.

Tenez

Posts : 17438
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ultimate GOAT List

Post by Daniel on Fri Oct 20, 2017 1:13 am

Tenez seems to think tennis players get better and better... even though they can't beat a 36 year old who is passed his best.
Also, Borg played far fewer years and ignored Aussie Open. Why is logic so hard to come by?

Daniel

Posts : 3138
Join date : 2013-11-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ultimate GOAT List

Post by legendkillar on Fri Oct 20, 2017 9:28 am

mcekovic wrote:
legendkillar wrote:What a shockingly bad list that is. Federer is the only rating I'd agree with.
Please take some time looking at the formula, and suggest what you would change to make a better list!


Why do I need to take time to look at formula that no-one asked for and isn't something that is universally accepted as to what defines a GOAT list?

I don't subscribe to formula's on this subject matter, rather I prefer criteria.

As for your comment about how this era is more competitive than past eras. On what grounds have you based that on? I can only assume you missed the 80's where by far that was one of the most competitive eras in the game!

legendkillar

Posts : 1945
Join date : 2012-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ultimate GOAT List

Post by noleisthebest on Fri Oct 20, 2017 11:12 am

The funny/interesting thing about this thread is that those who have declared themselves as believers in science on the other one seem not to like this table which looks very much like a scientific approach - it uses a combination of cold numbers and "facts" across several parametres which was what initially intrigued me and made me think how can this list be improved - or rather the oarameters asjusted maybe.

(The fact it came across with surprising listings just proves, whoever created the list was not personally biased.)

And at the same time, no one among our "scientists" have offered an alternative approach/list - just venting highly individual, subjective, emotional views/opinions.

All I can say is: hehe. Big Grin


Last edited by noleisthebest on Fri Oct 20, 2017 11:35 am; edited 1 time in total

noleisthebest

Posts : 25152
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ultimate GOAT List

Post by noleisthebest on Fri Oct 20, 2017 11:23 am

legendkillar wrote:
mcekovic wrote:
legendkillar wrote:What a shockingly bad list that is. Federer is the only rating I'd agree with.
Please take some time looking at the formula, and suggest what you would change to make a better list!


Why do I need to take time to look at formula that no-one asked for and isn't something that is universally accepted as to what defines a GOAT list?

I don't subscribe to formula's on this subject matter, rather I prefer criteria.

As for your comment about how this era is more competitive than past eras. On what grounds have you based that on? I can only assume you missed the 80's where by far that was one of the most competitive eras in the game!

Good question, but the same can be asked of you - why do you think the 80s were more competitive than the 00s?

Don't forget, this is a very complex and unique era compared to all previous ones in the sense that we have aged tour and no technology changes across three generations of players.




noleisthebest

Posts : 25152
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ultimate GOAT List

Post by noleisthebest on Fri Oct 20, 2017 11:25 am

mcekovic wrote:
legendkillar wrote:What a shockingly bad list that is. Federer is the only rating I'd agree with.
Please take some time looking at the formula, and suggest what you would change to make a better list!

Good suggestion...and good luck to all who try!

And hello&welcome "mcekovic"!.
Tell us a bit about yourself and your tennis taste!

noleisthebest

Posts : 25152
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ultimate GOAT List

Post by legendkillar on Fri Oct 20, 2017 1:02 pm

noleisthebest wrote:
legendkillar wrote:
mcekovic wrote:
legendkillar wrote:What a shockingly bad list that is. Federer is the only rating I'd agree with.
Please take some time looking at the formula, and suggest what you would change to make a better list!


Why do I need to take time to look at formula that no-one asked for and isn't something that is universally accepted as to what defines a GOAT list?

I don't subscribe to formula's on this subject matter, rather I prefer criteria.

As for your comment about how this era is more competitive than past eras. On what grounds have you based that on? I can only assume you missed the 80's where by far that was one of the most competitive eras in the game!

Good question, but the same can be asked of you - why do you think the 80s were more competitive than the 00s?

Don't forget, this is a very complex and unique era compared to all previous ones in the sense that we have aged tour and no technology changes across three generations of players.





You more or less answered your own question.

You have to understand the state of the game in the 80's. String technology advances alongside racquet advances. Old and new generation of players clashing. Surfaces still played differently and there was a wider range of factors that stimulated competition. You could argue that surface specialists were still in high numbers, but it was a decade dominated by many players. McEnroe, Borg, Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Connors and Wilander. Not one player could dominate for a real long sustained period of time.

Take now the 2010's. There has been 6 Slam winners which is half of what there was in the 80's. Now you've highlighted technology, but overlooking how homogenization had a big impact on the game. If anything you have factors that have now stifled competition.

So I'd ask you makes you think this era is competitive compared with previous eras?

legendkillar

Posts : 1945
Join date : 2012-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ultimate GOAT List

Post by noleisthebest on Fri Oct 20, 2017 1:17 pm

As I said this era is different from all others. You can compare Laver's to Borg's, Borg's to Sampras' but not any of them with current one.

You mention one element - homogenisation.

But really let's spell it out - conditions were slowed down. (on this occasion I'll skip the reasons and where it all led to).

Secondly, we have an aged tour wih stagnant techology and advanced medicine.
As a result, the pool of professional players is bigger than ever...I now even recognise some names on ITF circuit!

Challengers look like yesteryear's 250 tournaments etc these days..

So, it's harder now to break through simply because the competition is too dense.

We also have 3 players who have shared 90% of all slams in the last 10+ years and fomed/exceeded any previous rivalries in the sheer number of matches.

We are not talking marks for artistic merit here, just basic volume.

In the 80s conditions we would not have players win slams over 30.

Imagine current tour without Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Stan.

You are left with everyone else and they'd be fighting for slams in finals, making rivalries interesting to sponsors, being megastars etc etc...

So I think nowadays it's difficult more than ever before to reach the top...because of who and how is at the top, amd as a result the cake is now much smaller for everyone than in the 80s.

noleisthebest

Posts : 25152
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ultimate GOAT List

Post by naxroy on Fri Oct 20, 2017 1:29 pm

how are they on top? apart from being the best

naxroy

Posts : 187
Join date : 2017-07-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ultimate GOAT List

Post by legendkillar on Fri Oct 20, 2017 1:29 pm

Competition isn't dense. It's non-existent.

You have had generations stuck under long periods of dominations from other players. To the rest of the competition, mentally soul destroying. Homogenization has led to one style of tennis being more effective than others.

Tournament formats and increased number of seedings have also protected the bigger players from being exposed to better players in early rounds. More 3 set formats than 5. Crikey yourself and others moaned if only Federer met Nadal or Djokovic earlier in a Slam, so it's competitive.

So if anything, it's not competitive and created dynasties.

The 80's saw competition thrive. Wasn't anywhere near protection of players then that there is now. Hence why there was so many booms.

legendkillar

Posts : 1945
Join date : 2012-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ultimate GOAT List

Post by noleisthebest on Fri Oct 20, 2017 1:42 pm

legendkillar wrote:Competition isn't dense. It's non-existent.

You have had generations stuck under long periods of dominations from other players. To the rest of the competition, mentally soul destroying. Homogenization has led to one style of tennis being more effective than others.

Tournament formats and increased number of seedings have also protected the bigger players from being exposed to better players in early rounds. More 3 set formats than 5. Crikey yourself and others moaned if only Federer met Nadal or Djokovic earlier in a Slam, so it's competitive.

So if anything, it's not competitive and created dynasties.

The 80's saw competition thrive. Wasn't anywhere near protection of players then that there is now. Hence why there was so many booms.

I'd say it's very competitive.
Just look at H2H among Federer, Nadal and Djokovic.

Equally, H2H among say, Nisni, Cilic, Dimi and Raonic...

Now we are beginning to see new rivalries emerging - Zverev, Kyrgios, Shapovalov etc.

The question is why are those groups not intercrossing in the finals of slams?

For me, the simple answer is - the young generations have been robbed of new technologies to breakt through with, as was always the case in previous eras. (nod to Tenez, as this is his "discovery")

Also!
A big thing is that the latest technology everyone is playing with rewards fitness and safety of play - the bloody spin!
So the only variety is now "angles" and nit many are able to even play those.


That's why youngsters are stuck in the baseline, helpless against their more experienced older colleagues.

I once compared cirrent ATP situation to UK house market, so hard to even get on the ladder let alone climb it, isn't it?

ps

I agree on the overly protection of "stars"...another proof ATP is "only" a business.

noleisthebest

Posts : 25152
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ultimate GOAT List

Post by legendkillar on Fri Oct 20, 2017 2:02 pm

Technologies are one factor of several. I'd argue the seeding system and first round byes have done even more to ensure an elite of the elite approach. There is talk of draw rigging on this site, but the overlooking factor is the vast amount of seeds. It allows for in a lot of ways a bit of coasting in the early rounds of tournaments. Imagine if the seeding was abolished and first round byes for top 8 seeds in Masters? Playing that one less match for example allows for of vital rest time.

With the label of "lung busting" generation, whilst you'd expect decline to happen sooner given the demands of the game, there are other safeguards that has allowed longevity of this extent. Medicine, points distribution.

It says a lot that in 2017 that winning 44 matches allows you to hold the number 2 ranking in the world. I wouldn't have believed that be possible, ever!

legendkillar

Posts : 1945
Join date : 2012-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ultimate GOAT List

Post by noleisthebest on Fri Oct 20, 2017 4:21 pm

legendkillar wrote:Technologies are one factor of several. I'd argue the seeding system and first round byes have done even more to ensure an elite of the elite approach. There is talk of draw rigging on this site, but the overlooking factor is the vast amount of seeds. It allows for in a lot of ways a bit of coasting in the early rounds of tournaments. Imagine if the seeding was abolished and first round byes for top 8 seeds in Masters? Playing that one less match for example allows for of vital rest time.
I don't know why they doubled number of seeds in 2001.
I wonder who was behind that move.
It certainly was not great, but I think even if it was back to the original 16, current stagnancy at the top would still be the same.

I am not sure about bye in slams.
As far as I can remember, in theory, a title winner has to play seven matches.

In ATP tournaments they get byes (which is why slams have such towering prestige over them and rightly so) ...probably as TDs are desperate to secure ticket sales for their star players who they have to pay big $$$ just to entice them to even turn up (not to mention having to add extra layer of sand, paint, custom balls etc...).

Also, too many mandatory tournaments which are not scheduled well, eg back to back masters 1000 tournaments.

Money talks and dictates rules. Yes, even in sport!

legendkillar wrote:
With the label of "lung busting" generation, whilst you'd expect decline to happen sooner given the demands of the game, there are other safeguards that has allowed longevity of this extent. Medicine, points distribution.

Actually, I think it's tougher to play Federer's or Stan's game than Nadal's or Murray's.
Mentally, it's extremely exhausting to be playing attacking tennis vs superfit retrievers week in week out.
That's why most youngsters and the entire WTA perches on baseline and happily rallies ad nausem.

How hard can that be for someone who has trained to spin the ball since the age of 4...fitness decides the winner most of the time in that type of play.

legendkillar wrote:
It says a lot that in 2017 that winning 44 matches allows you to hold the number 2 ranking in the world. I wouldn't have believed that be possible, ever!

Technically speaking, you could win 28 matches in a year and still be number one.

noleisthebest

Posts : 25152
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ultimate GOAT List

Post by mcekovic on Sat Oct 21, 2017 5:06 pm

naxroy wrote:is it your formula?
Yes, it is 'my formula', but I do not take it as my personal formula, but rather something that tries to quantify tennis player's achievements.
It is influenced by 'other formulas', like TB all time list on TheTennisBase (from where I picked the fact that the list should value 'Big Wins' and H2H, though my formula for these 2 categories is different), or like Slasher's list from Man Tennis Forums (where I picked the fact that wins at single GS tournament (consecutive and total) are valued, though my formula is linear, while Slasher's is exponential - if Rafa wins 5 more RG he would have been the penultimate GOAT probably on this list as his points for total RG wins would go through the roof!) .
My 'older formula' from Google sheet GOAT List influenced the the lists mentioned above probably too (quantifying GS, TF, Masters wins and finals with simple point distribution), etc... So it is something more or less created by community.
I added Records points to UTS list based on the community feedback for example.

mcekovic

Posts : 20
Join date : 2017-10-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ultimate GOAT List

Post by mcekovic on Sat Oct 21, 2017 5:32 pm

legendkillar wrote:Why do I need to take time to look at formula that no-one asked for and isn't something that is universally accepted as to what defines a GOAT list?

I don't subscribe to formula's on this subject matter, rather I prefer criteria.

As for your comment about how this era is more competitive than past eras. On what grounds have you based that on? I can only assume you missed the 80's where by far that was one of the most competitive eras in the game!

Sure that UTS GOAT List is not official nor universally accepted. It is just an attempt to quantify tennis players' achievements.

Also, everybody can have opinion to think that player tennis achievements cannot be 'quantified', this is fine. I just tend to disagree, they can be quantified, more or less accurately, but it is not something to believe in blindly. It is more like: if we quantify the achievements this or that way, and some players come on top, there must be some qualities in these players that made them look better when we try to quantify it. All this can lead us to change our opinion about some players, or not.

The analysis with GOAT formula (not only mine, but any other I stumbled upon on the Internet, including the Tennis Base all time TB ranking and Slashers list) leads to the fact that some players are underestimated in general GOAT debate based on pure feeling and taste.
Underestimated examples: Connors, Lendl and even Nadal and Djokovic.
Overestimated examples: Sampras, Borg
Examples where quantification and 'general tennis community feeling and teste' are more or less the same: Federer, McEnroe, Agassi, Becker, Edberg
When you look at these 3 groups of great tennis players and when you add some psychology to the mix, you can explain why first group is underestimated and why seconds is overestimated .

Regarding competitiveness of the Era, you can take a look at UTS dominance timeline (as new user I cannot post links for 7 days, will edit the post later with the link, but you can easily find it) and see some experiment to try to quantify how Eras were strong. There are two completely different formulas there and both give more or less the same result.
First formula (Season Dominance Ratio) is based on 'GOAT points', the same as 'GOAT list'. This formula quantifies achievements and is proportional to both player season achievements and player career achievements.
Second formula is based on average Elo rating of Top N players. Elo does not quantify achievements, but just pure wins and pure current form.
Thus, completely 2 different formulas, but both give same answer:
Both criteria say current Era with Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray (2004+) is the most dominant one.
Both criteria say Connors/Borg/McEnroe/Lendl Era is the second strongest one (1974-1989) So you are right, 80's were one of the most competitive in Open Era history!
Both criteria say weakest seasons were 1997-2003.

mcekovic

Posts : 20
Join date : 2017-10-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ultimate GOAT List

Post by mcekovic on Sat Oct 21, 2017 6:19 pm

noleisthebest wrote:

And hello&welcome "mcekovic"!.
Tell us a bit about yourself and your tennis taste!
Thanks for welcome.
I am a big tennis fan, but my profession is IT.
First started to watch tennis around 1985, so watched some McEnroe and Lendl, then Wilander and then Edberg, Becker. Was shocked when Courier started to beat the the both in 1992!
Then came Sampras, Agassi, after which I lost the interest in tennis until Federer appeared. Then came Nadal, Djokovic, Murray...

Recently, when I saw a lot of GOAT debates around the net before 5-10 years, I wished there could be some way to tell who is the GOAT in more numbers-like way (you can call this scientific).
Yes, Federer has great forehand, but so does Rafa. Yes Sampras serve was extraordinary, but Becker's too.

I also wanted to see many other aspects, like who has most this or most that.
Commentators of tennis matches always presented peculiar records, but in order to find it, one must have to do a serious research and manual data analysis.
As from IT background, always wished there is a site you can search for something like that.
Also as from IT background, I knew how badly official ATP site su..s in the statistics category (recently gets little better, but still su..s Sad).

In November 2012, I created Google sheet GOAT list, it was somewhat popular, but not that much, maybe someone remembers.
It was hard to maintain, as new points needed to be entered manually and it could not have a complex formula.

However, when Jeff Sackmann in 2015 published his public tennis repositories with (almost) all Open Era matches, I said, that is it, now that data is publicly available, I have to create a web site to make this data more presentable. Jeff has created on his site Tennis Abstract a lot of great statistics pages, but I wanted more, like GOAT formula, Dominance ratios, Elo ratings (at the time Tennis Abstract did not have it), Records, ...

So I started to work on UTS in April 2015 in my spare time, and in November 2015 managed to publish it publicly on Red Hat OpenShift for free.
In about the same time TheTennisBase appeared. They have best data quality and they have pre-Open Era results. TheTennisBase data is insanely remarkable. But TheTennisBase is a paid site and their web site usability and tech can be better.

Since then, many more features are added to UTS, sometimes I picked the features from Tennis Abstract or TheTennisBase, sometimes community had great suggestions, sometimes simply I wished to see 'what numbers say' on this or that topic, so I added the feature so that other people can see it too.
Now UTS runs on Digital Ocean as OpenShift 2 free offering ended.

Regarding my tennis preference of today, I cannot say nor have it as my objectivity will be in question!
All can I say is that I admire all the Big 4, what they have done for tennis.
In tennis, 2 or 3 is not enough for this kind of dominance, you need 4 to reach SFs, due to knock-out tournament system, as having a great final between top 2 is nothing compared to having also 2 great SFs that prelude it!


Last edited by mcekovic on Sat Oct 21, 2017 7:18 pm; edited 1 time in total

mcekovic

Posts : 20
Join date : 2017-10-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ultimate GOAT List

Post by mcekovic on Sat Oct 21, 2017 6:46 pm

legendkillar wrote:Competition isn't dense. It's non-existent.

You have had generations stuck under long periods of dominations from other players. To the rest of the competition, mentally soul destroying. Homogenization has led to one style of tennis being more effective than others.

Tournament formats and increased number of seedings have also protected the bigger players from being exposed to better players in early rounds. More 3 set formats than 5. Crikey yourself and others moaned if only Federer met Nadal or Djokovic earlier in a Slam, so it's competitive.

So if anything, it's not competitive and created dynasties.

The 80's saw competition thrive. Wasn't anywhere near protection of players then that there is now. Hence why there was so many booms.
I would like to hear your opinion why competition/dominance that was so high in 80's dipped after Lendl ended his reign in 1989?
Could it be some phenomenon caused by rules or tech change, or simply Connors/Borg/McEnroe/Lendl were simply much better?
The decline started with Wilander, Edberg, Becker, then came Courier who started to wipe out the floor with both Edbegr's elegance and Becker's explosiveness.
Sampras made things look slightly better, but that was not enough. Agassi was not consistent enough, until the end of his career.
Others ranked from 2-8 in 1990 were nowhere near, good tennis players, but not great.
Then came the 'Week Era', how you can explain it?
Only when Federer came, followed by Nadal, tennis got interesting again. With Djokovic and Murray it became only even better.
So, I do not think it is the rules or tech, it is about uniqueness of the players. Some are simply better then others.
I can only 'predict' 'The Second Week Era' after Big 4 retire. But it will be a little bit stronger the then the first one!
ATP is not stupid, they know very well how much tennis popularity will decline after Big 4 and they are starting 'to limit the loses', organizing young player's Tour Finals, etc..
But this will not help much, you need the unique players, the champions in nature, with great qualities, physical, mental and personal, in order to have this kind of competitiveness.
I do not see this today.
Did not see it in Cilic, Dimitrov, Nishikori nor Raonic (all good players, but not great).
Do not see it either in Thiem, Kyrgios, Zverev (my favorite youngster, but still far away from true greatness).
Maybe Shapovalov, next two years will tell, but more likely not then yes.

mcekovic

Posts : 20
Join date : 2017-10-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ultimate GOAT List

Post by mcekovic on Sat Oct 21, 2017 8:27 pm

tenez wrote:Like as great Connors'record is, tennis wise he was one of the weakest amongst the greats. He got a poor record v Borg, McEnroe, lendl, etc...and will never be remembered for his tennis. 

Maybe you underestimate Connors a bit here. He has poor record vs Borg/McEnroe/Lendl (35-57), but similarly does Federer vs Nadal/Djokovic/Murray (51-57) and still we consider Federer the closest to the GOAT title.
Connors has great record against 5-8 and 9-16 field. He had excellent winning percentages and Elo ratings. He has 268 weeks at No1. He has the longest career of all great players, playing over 25 years on the tour!


Last edited by mcekovic on Sat Oct 21, 2017 11:03 pm; edited 1 time in total

mcekovic

Posts : 20
Join date : 2017-10-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ultimate GOAT List

Post by noleisthebest on Sat Oct 21, 2017 8:44 pm

Hello mcekovic,

well done for your work on the list, good effort and an ambitious task.

Yours is the first one I've ever seen.
I am not really interested in the search for GOAT, as to me, Federer is a clear one...so the rest kind of don't matter.

I was intrigued that someone actually tried to invent the GOAT formula, as it got a bit tedious to listen to Federer and Nadal fans over the years (more Nadal than Federer) bleat about H2H etc.

And I liked Nole was above Nadal in your list as I think he is a better player.

Your formula can be tweaked, maybe give more points for slams, and also maybe give extra points for the average number a player faces in those 7 matches.
Eg someone who wins a slam wit an easy draw would get less points than someone who has to beat several top 10 players.

Also, more points for wins over players with high slam winning index.

And it still wouldn't be perfect....

But it could at least be valid across one era at a time, I think...that's the fairest we could get at determining who's the most successful.

I think if grouped like that (era by era) we could then compare those dominances across eras.

The more parameters the list includes, the more accurate it gets.

You are right, some players are still obscure because of their lack of charisma or media love..starting with Lendl...and some are overdone and overhyped - eg Nadal.

Frankly, I am not bothered about ATP, they created this tour to be as it is with managers who only cared for their next paycheque and promotion.

But...that's their problem...

Right now I see a good generation of interesting young players coming through: Shapovalov, Felix, Tsitsipas, maybe Rublev, Chung...

Than the older youngsters - Kyrgios, Pouille...who for some reason appear as if their boat has already sailed, similar to how it was for Nishi/Dimi/Raonic when they were 23-24.

noleisthebest

Posts : 25152
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ultimate GOAT List

Post by noleisthebest on Sat Oct 21, 2017 8:47 pm

mcekovoc,

I recently saw a stat for Federer - he beat number one player ten times in his career.
It sounded a bit small, then I remembered how long he himself was at the top.

Do you know those numbers for Djokovic and Nadal?

How many times they each beat number one?

noleisthebest

Posts : 25152
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ultimate GOAT List

Post by mcekovic on Sat Oct 21, 2017 10:05 pm

noleisthebest wrote:Hello mcekovic,

well done for your work on the list, good effort and an ambitious task.

Yours is the first one I've ever seen.
I am not really interested in the search for GOAT, as to me, Federer is a clear one...so the rest kind of don't matter.

I was intrigued that someone actually tried to invent the GOAT formula, as it got a bit tedious to listen to Federer and Nadal fans over the years (more Nadal than Federer) bleat about H2H etc.
Thanks, hope you can enjoy the rest of UTS site too, there should be plenty for everyone likes, as I am tired about GOAT list also smiley
noleisthebest wrote:
And I liked Nole was above Nadal in your list as I think he is a better player.
May not be for long, unless Nole returns to his former self.
noleisthebest wrote:
Your formula can be tweaked, maybe give more points for slams,
Many people suggested this, but I think if ATP values slams:TF:M1000 in ratio 4:3:2, so should some tennis achievements list.
In UTS there are many other 'secondary' slam points, like for calendar year/career GS, all 4 GS holding, number of total/consecutive slams at same venue, slam records, winning pcts at slams, ... so slams are actually valued more then just plain points for winning slams suggest.
noleisthebest wrote: and also maybe give extra points for the average number a player faces in those 7 matches.
Eg someone who wins a slam wit an easy draw would get less points than someone who has to beat several top 10 players.
Also, more points for wins over players with high slam winning index.
This is a very good suggestion. Currently there are Big Win points (for all tournaments, but they weight the most for slams).
So a win in GS final over No1 is valued more then over No20.
However, there is a room for improvement here, to base Big Wins points more on Elo ratings then ATP rankings.

Until I find time and energy to implement this, you can check Records section, Highest Mean Opponent Rank/Elo Rating winning GS title, interesting stuff there!
The Both Records (Mean Opponent ATP Rank and Elo rating) go to Stan Wawrinka for AO 2014.
But in average, Djokovic had the hardest opposition at slams (and overall).

noleisthebest wrote:
And it still wouldn't be perfect....
Sure it will not smiley !


Last edited by mcekovic on Sat Oct 21, 2017 10:34 pm; edited 2 times in total

mcekovic

Posts : 20
Join date : 2017-10-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ultimate GOAT List

Post by mcekovic on Sat Oct 21, 2017 10:14 pm

noleisthebest wrote:mcekovoc,

I recently saw a stat for Federer - he beat number one player ten times in his career.
It sounded a bit small, then I remembered how long he himself was at the top.

Do you know those numbers for Djokovic and Nadal?

How many times they each beat number one?

Djokovic 12 times, Nadal 19 times
I cannot post links as joined to this forum couple of days before, but if you go to Ultimate Tennis Statistics site, then select Performance/Top Performers in the menu and choose performance category 'Vs No 1' and then sort by number of matches won, you will get the stat you want.

More interesting vs No1 stats:
- Richard Krajicek top vs No1 winning percentage list at 58.33% (7-5), with 5 out of 7 wins over No 1 being against Sampras
- Most matches won vs No1 is a tie between Becker and Nadal - 19 (Becker was good against top players, losing more often to lower ranked ones)
- Most matches played vs No1 is a honor for Mr Murray - 41! (this is one of the stats that truly shows the strength of the current Era)

These stats and records can be found on UTS site in section Records.

mcekovic

Posts : 20
Join date : 2017-10-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ultimate GOAT List

Post by mcekovic on Sat Oct 21, 2017 11:22 pm

noleisthebest wrote:
Right now I see a good generation of interesting young players coming through: Shapovalov, Felix, Tsitsipas, maybe Rublev, Chung...

Than the older youngsters - Kyrgios, Pouille...who for some reason appear as if their boat has already sailed, similar to how it was for Nishi/Dimi/Raonic when they were 23-24.
I am not so sure.
Nadal won his first GS and reached No 2 @ 19.
Djokovic won his first Masters @ 19, first GS, TF and reached No 3 @ 20
Murray won his first Masters and reached No 4 @ 20 (same as Zverev)
Federer won his first GS @ 21, Sampras @ 19, Agassi @ 22, Edberg @ 19, Becker @ 17, Willander @ 17, Lendl @ 24, McEnroe @ 20, Borg @ 17, Connors @ 21

Hewitt @ 20, Roddick @ 20, Kuerten @ 20, Courier @ 20...

From young players, only Zverev shows some potential (in the range of Murray), from others, I do not see it, unless they show it, but most under 20 years players are so far from ATP 250 titles, let alone GS wins, so 'Second Week Era' is in the comings.

mcekovic

Posts : 20
Join date : 2017-10-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ultimate GOAT List

Post by noleisthebest on Sun Oct 22, 2017 7:24 am

mcekovic wrote:
noleisthebest wrote:
Right now I see a good generation of interesting young players coming through: Shapovalov, Felix, Tsitsipas, maybe Rublev, Chung...
Then the older youngsters - Kyrgios, Pouille...who for some reason appear as if their boat has already sailed, similar to how it was for Nishi/Dimi/Raonic when they were 23-24.
I am not so sure.
Nadal won his first GS and reached No 2 @ 19.
Djokovic won his first Masters @ 19, first GS, TF and reached No 3 @ 20
Murray won his first Masters and reached No 4 @ 20 (same as Zverev)
Federer won his first GS @ 21, Sampras @ 19, Agassi @ 22, Edberg @ 19, Becker @ 17, Willander @ 17, Lendl @ 24, McEnroe @ 20, Borg @ 17, Connors @ 21
Hewitt @ 20, Roddick @ 20, Kuerten @ 20, Courier @ 20...
From young players, only Zverev shows some potential (in the range of Murray), from others, I do not see it, unless they show it, but most under 20 years players are so far from ATP 250 titles, let alone GS wins, so 'Second Week Era' is in the comings.

Shapovalov is only 19.
Imagine how well he will or could play when he is 36.

Also, don't forget that when all these players you mention were winning their early slams - there was no aged top heavy elite.

So, this is a unique era.

I don't consider Nadal or Murray great players despite what they achieved mainly as they would not have achieved any of it without the extra steroid muscles they put on and the outlasting tennis they played.

When you take the dope away from them they are not on any historic list.
That's also why this era is unique and unnatural.

I don't know if the same trend is going to continue with Zverev, we'll see.

But I think there is enough very talented young players that will carry the competition and interest in tennis when the big names retire in a few years.

The next gen wtf will probably be more interesting and competitive than the "normal" one. The only attraction of the "senior" wtf is actually Federer, and maybe Delpo if he somehow manages to qualify.

noleisthebest

Posts : 25152
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ultimate GOAT List

Post by luvsports! on Sun Oct 22, 2017 3:23 pm

Shap is 18!

luvsports!

Posts : 4090
Join date : 2012-09-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ultimate GOAT List

Post by noleisthebest on Sun Oct 22, 2017 3:32 pm

mcekovic wrote:
Djokovic 12 times, Nadal 19 times
I cannot post links as joined to this forum couple of days before, but if you go to Ultimate Tennis Statistics site, then select Performance/Top Performers in the menu and choose performance category 'Vs No 1' and then sort by number of matches won, you will get the stat you want.

More interesting vs No1 stats:
- Richard Krajicek top vs No1 winning percentage list at 58.33% (7-5), with 5 out of 7 wins over No 1 being against Sampras
- Most matches won vs No1 is a tie between Becker and Nadal - 19 (Becker was good against top players, losing more often to lower ranked ones)
- Most matches played vs No1 is a honor for Mr Murray - 41! (this is one of the stats that truly shows the strength of the current Era)
These stats and records can be found on UTS site in section Records.
I am not a stat person but had a look...didn't realise you had all those categories, I thought it was only for GOAT list.

It was interesting to see Ivanisevic lead DFs list, as he was also near the top with aces.

And how relatively poor Sampras' win/loss ratio was compared to other top players...he does not look as unbeatable as someone who was YE1 6 times.

Keep up the good work, lot of handy information in one place.  Thumbs Up

noleisthebest

Posts : 25152
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ultimate GOAT List

Post by mcekovic on Sun Oct 22, 2017 4:44 pm

noleisthebest wrote:
Shapovalov is only 19.
Imagine how well he will or could play when he is 36.
Shapovalov undoubtfully showed some gutsy play, but still no results, let alone big results.
Unless he shows some results (winning titles), he is only a great talent and not potential for a great player.
noleisthebest wrote:
Also, don't forget that when all these players you mention were winning their early slams - there was no aged top heavy elite.

So, this is a unique era.
But Wilander, Edberg and Becker had to fight aging Connors, McEnroe and Lendl and they managed to win slams despite of it.
noleisthebest wrote:
I don't consider Nadal or Murray great players despite what they achieved mainly as they would not have achieved any of it without the extra steroid muscles they put on and the outlasting tennis they played.
Win is a win... Great tennis players are the ones with a lot of wins...
I do not consider Nadal or Murray only 'muscle' players, Nadal has one of the best volleys on the tour (even more touchy then Federer's, only he is hiding it), while Murray has great point tactics (unfortunately not also for overall match tactics, where Djokovic is undisputed ruler when he actually prepares for the match).
noleisthebest wrote:
When you take the dope away from them they are not on any historic list.
That's also why this era is unique and unnatural.
Will pretend I did not read this.
noleisthebest wrote:
I don't know if the same trend is going to continue with Zverev, we'll see.
Here is why I praise only Zverev from young players:
He is the only one showing big results: 2 masters titles over Djokovic and Federer @ 20.
For Thiem, for example, this cannot be said, Thiem is one dimensional player, he can only play on clay.
If you estimate Zverev career achievements based on his current ones considering his age, he is in the range of Murray.
Sure he can also end up being new Berdych, we could only wait and see.
noleisthebest wrote:
But I think there is enough very talented young players that will carry the competition and interest in tennis when the big names retire in a few years.
Sure, but that will be nothing compared to all Big 4 in the semis, like 2008-2012
noleisthebest wrote:
The next gen wtf will probably be more interesting and competitive than the "normal" one. The only attraction of the "senior" wtf is actually Federer, and maybe Delpo if he somehow manages to qualify.
Federer, Nadal, Zverev, Thiem can guarantee some entertainment, still Djokovic and Murray will be very missed.
Delpo chances to qualify are very slim unfortunately.

mcekovic

Posts : 20
Join date : 2017-10-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ultimate GOAT List

Post by mcekovic on Sun Oct 22, 2017 7:53 pm

GOAT Formula is tweaked a bit (hopefully for better), based on the feedback:
- Big Win points has changed from fully based on ATP ranking to be half-based on ATP ranking, half on Elo ratings, which is probably fair enough. So if one wins 8 points for a GS title , one can earn approximately one more point by winning it over quality opponents, or can win near zero for an easy GS title win.
- Records, Performance and Statistics points weights tweaked to lower less important stats

But no big changes in the overall end result in the list.

mcekovic

Posts : 20
Join date : 2017-10-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ultimate GOAT List

Post by raiders_of_the_lost_ark on Mon Oct 23, 2017 11:06 am

Tennis is a lot more global now than it was in 80s and even 90s. Also tennis federations and even private academies in many countries providing to build professional tennis players. Tennis barely had any reach in asian counties but now we have players from those countries competing and even winning slams.

This very thing intensifies competition by many folds in the 00s. And it still is.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark

Posts : 2850
Join date : 2012-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ultimate GOAT List

Post by Tenez on Mon Oct 23, 2017 11:23 am

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Tennis is a lot more global now than it was in 80s and even 90s. Also tennis federations and even private academies in many countries providing to build professional tennis players. Tennis barely had any reach in asian counties but now we have players from those countries competing and even winning slams.

This very thing intensifies competition by many folds in the 00s. And it still is.

That's what I have been saying for years. It's getting harder and harder.

Tenez

Posts : 17438
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ultimate GOAT List

Post by legendkillar on Mon Oct 23, 2017 12:36 pm

mcekovic wrote:
legendkillar wrote:Competition isn't dense. It's non-existent.

You have had generations stuck under long periods of dominations from other players. To the rest of the competition, mentally soul destroying. Homogenization has led to one style of tennis being more effective than others.

Tournament formats and increased number of seedings have also protected the bigger players from being exposed to better players in early rounds. More 3 set formats than 5. Crikey yourself and others moaned if only Federer met Nadal or Djokovic earlier in a Slam, so it's competitive.

So if anything, it's not competitive and created dynasties.

The 80's saw competition thrive. Wasn't anywhere near protection of players then that there is now. Hence why there was so many booms.
I would like to hear your opinion why competition/dominance that was so high in 80's dipped after Lendl ended his reign in 1989?
Could it be some phenomenon caused by rules or tech change, or simply Connors/Borg/McEnroe/Lendl were simply much better?
The decline started with Wilander, Edberg, Becker, then came Courier who started to wipe out the floor with both Edbegr's elegance and Becker's explosiveness.
Sampras made things look slightly better, but that was not enough. Agassi was not consistent enough, until the end of his career.
Others ranked from 2-8 in 1990 were nowhere near, good tennis players, but not great.
Then came the 'Week Era', how you can explain it?
Only when Federer came, followed by Nadal, tennis got interesting again. With Djokovic and Murray it became only even better.
So, I do not think it is the rules or tech, it is about uniqueness of the players. Some are simply better then others.
I can only 'predict' 'The Second Week Era' after Big 4 retire. But it will be a little bit stronger the then the first one!
ATP is not stupid, they know very well how much tennis popularity will decline after Big 4 and they are starting 'to limit the loses', organizing young player's Tour Finals, etc..
But this will not help much, you need the unique players, the champions in nature, with great qualities, physical, mental and personal, in order to have this kind of competitiveness.
I do not see this today.
Did not see it in Cilic, Dimitrov, Nishikori nor Raonic (all good players, but not great).
Do not see it either in Thiem, Kyrgios, Zverev (my favorite youngster, but still far away from true greatness).
Maybe Shapovalov, next two years will tell, but more likely not then yes.

More or less stated my rationale further up. Not going to repeat any of it here.

Simply for me it was an era where I believe competition was at it's closest. I wouldn't say it was an era that dominated by say 1 individual. Plus it was a decade which I feel saw a lot of change that I don't think many saw coming:

- Borg retiring
- Introduction of graphite racquets which then were superseded by steel frames
- Ball changes. Believe Wimbledon finally introduced the yellow ball
- Shift to synthetic gut strings

I think McEnroe for example doesn't near enough praise for remaining competitive in his latter years when changing from a wooden racquet to a steel frame racquet in his latter years.

legendkillar

Posts : 1945
Join date : 2012-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ultimate GOAT List

Post by Tenez on Mon Oct 23, 2017 12:49 pm

You should call yourself LegendSaver!

Tenez

Posts : 17438
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ultimate GOAT List

Post by legendkillar on Mon Oct 23, 2017 1:43 pm

Well I haven't saved anyone Winking

Just time is all.

legendkillar

Posts : 1945
Join date : 2012-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ultimate GOAT List

Post by noleisthebest on Mon Oct 23, 2017 2:48 pm

mcekovic wrote:
Shapovalov undoubtfully showed some gutsy play, but still no results, let alone big results. Unless he shows some results (winning titles), he is only a great talent and not potential for a great player.
I am sure titles will come for him.
He playes a different, attractive game that will take a little longer to gain in consistency.
He is not a safe percentage player like Zverev.
mcekovic wrote:
noleisthebest wrote:
I don't consider Nadal or Murray great players despite what they achieved mainly as they would not have achieved any of it without the extra steroid muscles they put on and the outlasting tennis they played.
Win is a win... Great tennis players are the ones with a lot of wins...
I do not consider Nadal or Murray only 'muscle' players, Nadal has one of the best volleys on the tour  (even more touchy then Federer's, only he is hiding it), while Murray has great point tactics (unfortunately not also for overall match tactics, where Djokovic is undisputed ruler when he actually prepares for the match).
eeerm...I'l pretend I haven't read that
btw, why would Nadal be hiding his volleys?
Aren't volleys an ultimate tennis weapon?
Minimum energy, maximum effect.
mcekovic wrote:
noleisthebest wrote:
When you take the dope away from them they are not on any historic list.
That's also why this era is unique and unnatural.
Will pretend I did not read this.
Why?
You think there is no doping in tennis?
mcekovic wrote:
If you estimate Zverev career achievements based on his current ones considering his age, he is in the range of Murray.
Sure he can also end up being new Berdych, we could only wait and see.
Yes, he could end up being another Berdych...flat fast shots and not much else.
His achievements and particularly his safe game don't impress me. Especially not in slams.
Zverev is lucky he has a father ex pro as a coach and and older brother to travel/train with.
mcekovic wrote:
noleisthebest wrote:
But I think there is enough very talented young players that will carry the competition and interest in tennis when the big names retire in a few years.
Sure, but that will be nothing compared to all Big 4 in the semis, like 2008-2012
I disagree.
I already look forward to, say - Zverev-Kyrgios/Shapovalov/Rublev/Chung matches more than Nole-Murray, Murray-Nadal, Federer-Murray or even Nadal-Federer matches.

There was never much drama there.

The only good ones were Nole-Nadal and Nole-Federer.

noleisthebest

Posts : 25152
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ultimate GOAT List

Post by luvsports! on Tue Oct 24, 2017 4:01 pm

Remarkable stat between Fed and Rafa this year:
Federer has held in his last 31 service games against Nadal, going back to the fifth set of the Australian Open final."

luvsports!

Posts : 4090
Join date : 2012-09-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ultimate GOAT List

Post by mcekovic on Sun Dec 10, 2017 10:21 pm

Ultimate Tennis Statistics GOAT List is now configurable so you can adjust weights in the GOAT formula to emphasize what you think is more important and to exclude what you think is less important!
You can also save the list as a permalink and share it on the web!
Enjoy and share your GOAT Lists!

mcekovic

Posts : 20
Join date : 2017-10-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ultimate GOAT List

Post by Tenez on Sun Dec 10, 2017 11:04 pm

Smart system Mcekovic.

However for me, it's all about being number 1!....And the number 1 is Federer!

We can sort all the others as we wish from #2 to 100!

Tenez

Posts : 17438
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ultimate GOAT List

Post by mcekovic on Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:10 am

Tenez wrote:However for me, it's all about being number 1!....And the number 1 is Federer!
OK Tenez, here is one list just for you:

GOAT List - GS & Weeks @ No 1 only

It is a 'minimalistic' list, contains only Grand Slam tournament and achievement points and Weeks @ No.1 points.
(but you can add in whatever you like too!)

mcekovic

Posts : 20
Join date : 2017-10-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ultimate GOAT List

Post by Tenez on Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:43 am

That's a better list Mc. However there are factors that cannot be accounted for in a statistical way.

Djoko and Nadal should not be at the top. Like Froome and Lance should not be consisdered in the cycling GOAT list.

Tenez

Posts : 17438
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ultimate GOAT List

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum