The Analog Thread

[N2D2L]

Question for Summerblues, but of course if anyone else has an opinion they can contribute to the discussion.

Warning: I strictly do want this debate to stay technical, and not veer off to the GOAT debate (for which there is a thread created by NITB).

Summerblues, I will quote two of your posts, except edit any names to Player A and Player B:

To me, the lopsided H2H is an argument against Player A (who is above in H2H) and not against Player B (who is losing in H2H) - and the more lopsided the more so.

The way I see it, Player A has a match-up advantage.  If two players are about equally good but one has a match-up advantage, then that player would be expected to win more slams than the other one.

Or, in other words, the problem with the argument "Player B has more slams but Player A has better H2H" is that Player A's better H2H is already built into his slam record - and in fact the match-up advantage is also built into it, and to that extent their slam counts are already biased in Player A's favor.

Now, I understand that this is not the kind of argument that everyone finds appealing and if you were a normal person rather than someone with stats background I don't think I would bother bringing it up.  I think for most people it is mostly the straight-up records that count, and favorable H2Hs are desirable, and that is fair enough.

I remember reading this at the time and thinking it's actually a very fair point. You actually made this point to me a few years ago by PM, but put it in such a way I couldn't understand what you were getting at.
What I would like to briefly add, is that although this point in isolation is reasonable, I think are other factors you need to consider too (for example: Player A's match up advantage could be because he has a strength where Player B has a weakness- and this in itself could have a big impact on the debate as to who is better... Player A may not have such a big weakness, also you said 'the more lopsided the H2H more so'... but the more lopsided the bigger the apparent weakness for Player B compared to the specific strength taking advantage of it in Player A etc.)

Anyway for the sake of argument, let's ignore the other factors I just listed which make the analysis a bit more complex,
The bottom line is what you're saying could be interpreted as this:
If Player A and Player B are equally good as each other (let's say both the only ATGs in a decade and their peaks coincide), but Player A has a big match-up advantage, then you'd expect Player A to have more Slams despite them being equally good as each other.
Therefore logically you could also say that if Player A and Player B are of similar level, and Player A has a huge match-up advantage, but only wins equal slams as Player B... then Player B is arguably a better player overall.

OK, let's take that.

Now another few quotes from you on the nature of the GOAT debate:

Even though the validity of the theorem is "subjective" in the sense that it is only true under our subjectively picked definition of a prime number, it nevertheless expresses an objective fact.  The same objective fact would be true if we defined "prime number" differently, except that with that different language we would then have to express that fact differently.

It is similar with "better player" in tennis.  Just because the term itself is subjective, it does not mean we cannot have objective discussions about it - as long as most people use materially similar definition of the term.

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.

I don't think the GOAT debate is equivalent to either prime numbers of sides in a shape.
Let's say you concluded the definition of a prime number, or how to count the numbers of sides in any shape. You could then move on, with that in hand, to make an objective judgement on what is a prime number, and how many sides a square has.
But even if everyone agreed to a statistical figure that measures a player's career (could just be slams, or a combination of slams, titles, rankings, W/L etc.), then that still may prove inaccurate. Why ? Well have a read of the conclusion you yourself reached talking about match-ups. Two players of equal quality could have a difference in Slams/Titles.

So surely you agree, that in this case, even if a definition is agreed upon by many, it is impossible to argue that if anyone wants to get as accurate and precise as possible the debate will not be subjective.

[Tenez]

Warning: I strictly do want this debate to stay technical, and not veer off to the GOAT debate (for which there is a thread created by NITB).

What a shame, I fancied a nice veering off the GOAT debate for a change.

[N2D2L]

You can post on the GOAT thread if you wish Tenez, it's your forum.

[Tenez]

You can post on the GOAT thread if you wish Tenez, it's your forum.

Not mine....Ours as it says on the tin.

[Tenez]

I see SB points but I like to analyse analog data as opposed to digital ones. That's the problems nowadays....People cannot analyse the "analog" data. Thhey don;t see the game “as is”, they need a digital camera or an HE to draw stats to tell them what others can see without.

The analog data tells me that Nadal has a "better" (digital term)  game than Federer.  Not as sharp and as good on the day but over all less risky, more robust, less dependent on the form of the day and simply lasts longer on those slower conds. Analog data told me that Nadal needed to have long breathing period between point to sustain this high energy consumption....digital analysts thought it was OCDs for instance.

I could see that Federer was simply not prepared to play that kind of powerful game week in week out. He was not playing Fish, Denton, Ljubicic, Gaudio or Ginepri anymore he has to play guys like Ferrer, Murray, Djoko and Nadal …..”better” (in digital term) than the old guard though not as talented (analog term).

I could see Federer was working very hard to adapt to the new world but it was never going to be easy for him, either you have the energy or your don’t. Those who have are simply ranked at the top,  those who don’t are lower ranked. Not much  to do with tactics, SHBH v DHBH or talent. Its about pure brawn since Nadal’s arrival.

Federer only addition of power was changing his racquet bigger frame AND longer racquet. Still equipped with talent, more power and more consistency, he may have now a chance to repair some of his H2H v Nadal. Not a guarantee as physically Federer is certainly feeling it in the later stages of tournaments where he is due to meet Nadal but I certainly feel he is much better equipped now than he was in 2007. A proper digital analysis would tell you that too but there is none available out there yet.

Analog and digital should get you to the same conclusions, unfortunately most fans have their sensors blurred by their emotions.

Life is so much better in analog.

[N2D2L]

I think my approach (analog as you call it) is similar to the one you have Tenez... except obviously we reach different conclusions.

The debate I was having with SB and others is whether you can any conclude a debate about who is a better player objectively. For me just looking at stats only gets you so far, but can never provide a precise picture in reality due to the changing factors and variables.
Once you've taken into account the changing factors etc., the debate is subjective.

[Tenez]

As I said both analog and digital should take you to teh same conclusions. The problem is fans emotions don't allow them to "sense" correctly. You have that problem I must say!

[N2D2L]

The question here is what you mean by 'digital'.
Is digital simply looking at the statistics ?

[Tenez]

The question here is what you mean by 'digital'.
Is digital simply looking at the statistics ?

Yes...stats, HE, pace of rallies, etc....using basic measuring tools.

Analog is based on our senses, what we see....so much more subject to subjectivity...as it is essentially down to sensors quality and emotions interfering with sensors as well.

[noleisthebest]

I like the analog analogy.

It's seeing the game profoundly taking all elements into account.

Digital way is like lawyers using their jargon to bend the truth.

For me, the beauty is in analysing the game and players, not "winning" arguments.
The more you understand it, the more you enjoy it.
There are still great players I love watching even while they are losing, last example was Simon vs Nadal.
In fact winning or losing is quite irrelevant.

[noleisthebest]

Btw, what IS your question for SB?

[N2D2L]

Btw, what IS your question for SB?

Prime numbers and square sides

[N2D2L]

The question here is what you mean by 'digital'.
Is digital simply looking at the statistics ?

Yes...stats, HE, pace of rallies, etc....using basic measuring tools.

Analog is based on our senses, what we see....so much more subject to subjectivity...as it is essentially down to sensors quality and emotions interfering with sensors as well.

Ah ok, I see what you mean by digital.
I think what myself and SB were referring to by stats was simply the record of players (i.e. slams, time at number 1 etc.)

Obviously if we could have access to precise stats that you're referring to; i.e. pace of ball, how hard the ball is it, the placement of the ball on the court, winners/UE ratio etc. for all players- we could get an even closer idea over who is better... however it's impossible to obtain such precise stats over a long period of time.

[summerblues]

Analog is based on our senses, what we see....so much more subject to subjectivity...as it is essentially down to sensors quality and emotions interfering with sensors as well.

Yes, that is one of the difficulties.  Our subjectivity can influence both what you call "digital" and "analog" approaches, but our senses and subjectivity are imbedded more deeply into the analog approach.

My background is in math.  Contrary to common popular perception, much of the thinking process in math is performed in the "analog space", but it is then presented in the "digital space".  Perhaps because of my professional bias, I quite like that set up.  "Analog" space is better for the thought process but it is also very prone to our own bias which is very difficult to weed out in that space.

[summerblues]

In fact winning or losing is quite irrelevant.

...and this line, nitb, even if I knew nothing else of you, would be sufficient to know that you are a girl

[Tenez]

Analog is based on our senses, what we see....so much more subject to subjectivity...as it is essentially down to sensors quality and emotions interfering with sensors as well.

Yes, that is one of the difficulties.  Our subjectivity can influence both what you call "digital" and "analog" approaches, but our senses and subjectivity are imbedded more deeply into the analog approach.

My background is in math.  Contrary to common popular perception, much of the thinking process in math is performed in the "analog space", but it is then presented in the "digital space".  Perhaps because of my professional bias, I quite like that set up.  "Analog" space is better for the thought process but it is also very prone to our own bias which is very difficult to weed out in that space.

True. Observing an apple dropping from the tree...could have led Newton's laws of motion and universal gravitation.

And believe it or not, this is exactly how I proceed with tennis.

[noleisthebest]

Analog says Federer is playing best tennis of his life.
What does digital say?

[N2D2L]

What do you think then SB ?

[summerblues]

Analog says Federer is playing best tennis of his life.

As I said:

"Analog" space is ... very prone to our own bias which is very difficult to weed out in that space

[summerblues]

What do you think then SB ?

Obviously Fed is not playing the best tennis of his life, but we have been through it last year and in the absence of anything new presented on the topic, I am not planning to go through the same old discussion again.

I will try to respond to your question from the OP, but later.

[N2D2L]

What do you think then SB ?

Obviously Fed is not playing the best tennis of his life, but we have been through it last year and in the absence of anything new presented on the topic, I am not planning to go through the same old discussion again.

I will try to respond to your question from the OP, but later.

I was referring to my question in the OP, not Federer's form (you know I agree with you about that anyway).

[Tenez]

What do you think then SB ?

Obviously Fed is not playing the best tennis of his life, but we have been through it last year and in the absence of anything new presented on the topic, I am not planning to go through the same old discussion again.

I will try to respond to your question from the OP, but later.

Just the use of "obvious" in your sentence tends to show your strong subjectivity. In the light of Fed, Djoko and many other "pundits" say that he is, or at least "as good" as, makes you look pretty subjective...or simply lacking sharp "sensors".

[noleisthebest]

What do you think then SB ?

Obviously Fed is not playing the best tennis of his life, but we have been through it last year and in the absence of anything new presented on the topic, I am not planning to go through the same old discussion again.

I will try to respond to your question from the OP, but later.

What is so obvious?
I don't know what's better these days: his serve FH, BH, volleys, footwork, everything is immaculate.
Did you see how he demolished Berdych yesterday?
He was impenetrable on the baseline.

No back trouble on the day, and he is still the man to beat unless conditions are superslow.

[summerblues]

Observing an apple dropping from the tree...could have led Newton's laws of motion and universal gravitation.

I like this comparison, I think it fits well.

[N2D2L]

One thing I do recognise, is that admitting this debate cannot be objective (as I believe and have explained at length), also means that this debate will be prone to biases.
I don't think just looking at the stats is unbiased either (as you may choose to do so because you know a player you like has better stats than the player you don't like).
However if you can do further analysis as well as looking at stats, that gives more room for bias. But this is not the equivalent of saying stats itself gives an accurate objective answer as it doesn't.

[summerblues]

Your post touches on a number of items we discussed over time, I will try to address some of them in a few posts.  This first post will be mostly about terminology.

I don't think the GOAT debate is equivalent to either prime numbers of sides in a shape.

I do not remember exactly in what context we talked about it but I do not think I meant to say that this was exactly like tennis (and if I did, then I was wrong ).  I think I was mainly pointing out the distinction between – on one hand - the definition aspects and – on the other hand – the substantive aspects of terms like "GOAT".  The definition portion is always subjective; the substantive portion may or may not be subjective (depending on the definition used).  In practice, GOAT debates are simultaneous discussions about both components – the definition as well as the substance.

But even if everyone agreed to a statistical figure that measures a player's career (could just be slams, or a combination of slams, titles, rankings, W/L etc.), then that still may prove inaccurate. Why ? Well have a read of the conclusion you yourself reached talking about match-ups. Two players of equal quality could have a difference in Slams/Titles.

Here I think you are failing to distinguish the two components (definition vs substance) that I was talking about.  If one defines "better" to mean winning more slams, then that is it - player with more slams is "better", there is no more room for ambiguity.

I get the feeling that you – deep down at least – think that there is some "true" meaning of the word "better player" and that subjectivity comes from the difficulty in correctly measuring it.

[summerblues]

This second post will be more about substance.

Even though I said above that the term better is ultimately subjective, I actually think that for practical purposes, most people do have somewhat similar concept of what it should mean (for example, not many would literally define "better" to mean "having won more slams").

For a moment, let’s assume that everyone actually agrees on the definition and that the definition roughly means something like "better = the one who is more likely to win" (I will not attempt to go into details as that is where it becomes tricky).  I think this is roughly how most people think about it too.

What I think you are saying is that, even if we all agree on this type of definition, there is still room for ambiguity.  I agree with that.  I think this ambiguity comes from a few sources.  First, the game is multi-faceted with many components combining to player’s "quality" – it is not as simple as 100m sprint where the performance is readily measurable.  Second, the game is played against variety of opponents, so the results are not directly comparable.  And third, we only observe outcomes, not a priory probabilities – for example one player can have a 60% chance of making a shot while another can have 55% chance, but we do not get to see the percentages directly, we only see the outcome, and that outcome may not match a priori percentages simply due to luck.

So yes, I agree with you that it is not as simple as saying "Player A is more successful, hence he is better".  And, presumably closer to the heart of what you are after, it could in principle be that even though Fed has had more success than Rafa, Rafa might in reality be the better player.

[summerblues]

However if you can do further analysis as well as looking at stats, that gives more room for bias. But this is not the equivalent of saying stats itself gives an accurate objective answer as it doesn't.

I think I agree with all this.  I would even say this pretty much sums up all I was saying.

I am certainly not saying that stats give us certainty in determining who is really "better".  They provide us with a measure that estimates the "true quality" (under some reasonable definition of the term) but there is always the possibility that they misestimate the true quality.  In statistical lingo I could say they provide us with an estimator with some standard error around it.

However, I also think that in some sense it is the best we may be able to do.  Adding more variables can in theory provide us with a more accurate estimator (i.e., with an estimator with a smaller error) but I think human nature is such that we are likely to create a biased estimator.

[Tenez]

So yes, I agree with you that it is not as simple as saying "Player A is more successful, hence he is better".  And, presumably closer to the heart of what you are after, it could in principle be that even though Fed has had more success than Rafa, Rafa might in reality be the better player.

I think we have enough data to draw the conclusions:

1 - on average Rafa is better than Federer on those slow conditions but the story could have been very different on carpet/fast cement of the 90s (that is important to bear in mind).

2 - Federer is better versus everybody else than Rafa is. Stats prove that as I showed in the thread comparing their best years.

3 - It does not say whether Federer's A game is better than Nadal's A game.. But to me it clearly is (obvious).

There are way too many parameters to consider but has brought a very different game on tour, with energy that could break, in theory, all the other games and therefore it was easier for him to win than Federer whose game was more fragile based on much thinner margins, yet he won less slam. That to me clearly shows less class.

[noleisthebest]

“Grown-ups love figures. When you tell them that you have made a new friend, they never ask you any questions about essentail matters. They never say to you, “What does his voice sound like? What games does he love best? Does he collect butterflies?” Instead, they demand: “How old is he? How many brothers has he? How much does he weigh? How much money does his father make?” Only from these figures do they think they have learned anything about him.

If you were to say to the grown-ups: “I saw a beautiful house made of rosy brick, with geraniums in the windows and doves on the roof,” they would not be able to get an idea of that house at all. You have have to say to them: “I saw a house that cost $20,000.” Then they would exclaim: “Oh, what a pretty house that is!”

― Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

(From The Little Prince, one of the nicest books I've ever read.
http://www.arvindguptatoys.com/arvindgupta/littleprince.pdf)

[N2D2L]

SB, I always suspected that we may actually agree with each other on this more or less, certainly more than we both initially implied.

I've also realised the exact issue I had with your prime numbers analogy, in terms of definition and then substance.

A definition could either lead to one of two things:

-it could lead to the rest of the substance to be totally objective. This is where the prime number analogy works perfectly. For the GOAT debate, this would be a definition such as: person with more slams, or person with more slams/titles/W-L/rankings etc. Basically can be numerically done

-Or it could be a definition which leads the substantive judgement itself to be subjective. My definition of who is the better player is:
Which player achieved what was hardest to achieve, given their circumstances and external factors ?
This cannot be done objectively, but anyone reasonable can see that winning more (rather than less) is harder to achieve in isolation. However it is also right to take into account external factors and circumstances; this is why I picked your example of the match-up issue vs rival- it perfectly demonstrated (infact you said word for word) how two equal players can have different level of success due to a particular factor.

If you had an omnipotent, totally logical, objective, knowledgeable being- and the aim was to try and work out who was the better player- he/she would obviously be better suited to use the second subjective definition, as it's more likely to mean an accurate and precise conclusion.
(There is an issue though, with human error, which I will go into in my next post).

[N2D2L]

The issue with human error:
I'll address errors in both the definition which leads to a subjective judgement, and that which leads to an objective calculation.

First the subjective approach-
It is pretty obvious that with the approach, if anyone wanted, they could say things which are pretty unreasonable. Someone could claim Fognini was the GOAT, and only the weather stopped him from winning 25 Grand Slams.
If someone is biased, i.e. towards a specific player, then that makes it more likely that he will say something unreasonable. However being biased does not mean that anything that person says is unreasonable.
To take an example, let's say NITB gave Tenez a postcard, and Tenez was given the job of showing that Federer was a greater player than Murray. Tenez listens to NITB and argues the case, and would probably be reasonable as well as convincing.
The reason for this is not Tenez's skilled pre-judgement, but simply chance that the player he chose to defend was indeed better than Murray.

Ultimately you have to judge whether what someone is saying is reasonable and taking into account the whole picture. It does not actually matter if the reasonable point was reached by skilled pre-judging, or chance.
Of course whether someone is reasonable is a matter of your opinion.

Moving on to the apparently 'objective' approach-
This approach, despite having a definition which leads to an objective calculation, is actually neither objective nor accurate when calculating who is the better player/GOAT.
I talked about bias above, let me also address it here. Now obviously there's the bias of choosing to look at statistics, if you know your player has better statistics (Fedal fans may not be so happy to look at slam count so closely if Djokovic gets to 20 slams...).
But there's also another sort of bias, an inherent hidden bias in the statistics itself. This is something which not many people seem to understand when I explain it.
I think your example again is perfect to show this. The match-up could be an external factor, due to luck, which means the statistics are inherently biased towards the player with the match up advantage. Same towards the player who has to face harder competition, or in an extreme case- has an injury in a car crash.
If you apply my subjective definition, and actually use it in a reasonable fashion, you could reverse the inherent biases in the statistics and find an accurate conclusion.

[Tenez]

“Grown-ups love figures. When you tell them that you have made a new friend, they never ask you any questions about essentail matters. They never say to you, “What does his voice sound like? What games does he love best? Does he collect butterflies?” Instead, they demand: “How old is he? How many brothers has he? How much does he weigh? How much money does his father make?” Only from these figures do they think they have learned anything about him.

If you were to say to the grown-ups: “I saw a beautiful house made of rosy brick, with geraniums in the windows and doves on the roof,” they would not be able to get an idea of that house at all. You have have to say to them: “I saw a house that cost $20,000.” Then they would exclaim: “Oh, what a pretty house that is!”

― Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

(From The Little Prince, one of the nicest books I've ever read.
http://www.arvindguptatoys.com/arvindgupta/littleprince.pdf)

Ahh...St Exupery.....a great soul!

[Tenez]

SB, I always suspected that we may actually agree with each other on this more or less, certainly more than we both initially implied.

I've also realised the exact issue I had with your prime numbers analogy, in terms of definition and then substance.

A definition could either lead to one of two things:

-it could lead to the rest of the substance to be totally objective. This is where the prime number analogy works perfectly. For the GOAT debate, this would be a definition such as: person with more slams, or person with more slams/titles/W-L/rankings etc. Basically can be numerically done

-Or it could be a definition which leads the substantive judgement itself to be subjective. My definition of who is the better player is:
Which player achieved what was hardest to achieve, given their circumstances and external factors ?
This cannot be done objectively, but anyone reasonable can see that winning more (rather than less) is harder to achieve in isolation. However it is also right to take into account external factors and circumstances; this is why I picked your example of the match-up issue vs rival- it perfectly demonstrated (infact you said word for word) how two equal players can have different level of success due to a particular factor.

If you had an omnipotent, totally logical, objective, knowledgeable being- and the aim was to try and work out who was the better player- he/she would obviously be better suited to use the second subjective definition, as it's more likely to mean an accurate and precise conclusion.
(There is an issue though, with human error, which I will go into in my next post).

Brain masturbation......until the Nadal-is-better-than-Federer orgasm!
Keep shaking your brain cells Kim....you are "coming". .

[noleisthebest]

Ahh...St Exupery.....a great soul!

Yes...pure gem!

[noleisthebest]

SB, I always suspected that we may actually agree with each other on this more or less, certainly more than we both initially implied.

I've also realised the exact issue I had with your prime numbers analogy, in terms of definition and then substance.

A definition could either lead to one of two things:

-it could lead to the rest of the substance to be totally objective. This is where the prime number analogy works perfectly. For the GOAT debate, this would be a definition such as: person with more slams, or person with more slams/titles/W-L/rankings etc. Basically can be numerically done

-Or it could be a definition which leads the substantive judgement itself to be subjective. My definition of who is the better player is:
Which player achieved what was hardest to achieve, given their circumstances and external factors ?
This cannot be done objectively, but anyone reasonable can see that winning more (rather than less) is harder to achieve in isolation. However it is also right to take into account external factors and circumstances; this is why I picked your example of the match-up issue vs rival- it perfectly demonstrated (infact you said word for word) how two equal players can have different level of success due to a particular factor.

If you had an omnipotent, totally logical, objective, knowledgeable being- and the aim was to try and work out who was the better player- he/she would obviously be better suited to use the second subjective definition, as it's more likely to mean an accurate and precise conclusion.
(There is an issue though, with human error, which I will go into in my next post).

Brain masturbation......until the Nadal-is-better-than-Federer orgasm!
Keep shaking your brain cells Kim....you are "coming". .

To take an example, let's say NITB gave Tenez a postcard, and Tenez was given the job of showing that Federer was a greater player than Murray. Tenez listens to NITB and argues the case, and would probably be reasonable as well as convincing.  
The reason for this is not Tenez's skilled pre-judgement, but simply chance that the player he chose to defend was indeed better than Murray.

The only remaining mystery now is what is written on the postcard!

[summerblues]

The Little Prince, one of the nicest books I've ever read.

Indeed.  One of my all time favorite books.  Read it many many times. When I was a kid, I learnt a lot about love from there.

You are still wrong on Federer though

[summerblues]

SB, I always suspected that we may actually agree with each other on this more or less, certainly more than we both initially implied.

I do not think this is much of a surprise. I think a solid majority of people explicitly or implicitly agree on this; you just have roundabout ways of realizing it.

[summerblues]

Which player achieved what was hardest to achieve, given their circumstances and external factors ?

Yes, this is one plausible definition.  I suspect though that it is somewhat different from a "consensus" definition.  I think it perhaps also  shows that you - in a way - care more about the player (or, let's be honest, about Nadal) than about tennis.

But yes, this is a plausible definition that you can then work with.

[N2D2L]

Not sure why mentions of Player A are relevant to this thread

I suspect though that it is somewhat different from a "consensus" definition.

Yes I know, but I did explain why it's a better definition to use.

[summerblues]

Not sure why mentions of Player A are relevant to this thread

I suspect though that it is somewhat different from a "consensus" definition.

Yes I know, but I did explain why it's a better definition to use.

"Better"?  I thought we agreed that definitions were subjective and there was no "better" or "worse"?

Your definition focuses more on the player than on tennis.  In that I suspect it is rather unusual and I suspect that when it really comes down to it, you do not really mean it either, but if you do, that is fine.  There is nothing "good" or "bad" about a definition.

[N2D2L]

I don't mean what ?

And what would be the definition you use ?

I do not think this is much of a surprise.  I think a solid majority of people explicitly or implicitly agree on this; you just have roundabout ways of realizing it.

Wait, can you make clear what it is you think people agree with me on, I'm not quite sure which specific argument you're referring to ?

Do most people agree with me that:
a) Following the stats may be inaccurate as there are inherent biases in the stats itself (as the example about match-ups in the OP showed), so the stats are only objective for the definition and not for the question of GOAT/better player itself
b) My definition, that means people take into account both stats and the circumstances it was achieved in, and reach a subjective judgement

[Tenez]

Djoko is another player "better" than Federer despite having a negative H2H. Sure conds helped Djoko but even on faster conds, it would still be a struggle for Federer. It is clear that with mouvement being so good, having a DHBH is a huge advantage.

Conds woudl have to be pretty fast to give Federer the advantage again. I mean faster than Dubai.

Federer, serves better (usually), volleys better, has a better FH, but all that is useless if Djoko can simply bombard his BH. until an UE comes along.

Nadal is pretty far behind Djoko now on slow hard....and I am pretty sure it's not going to be any closer on clay.Thta's why H2H only tell one side of the story...well they tell a good side, but it can hide a lot too. Same with the slam count.

What I like about the slam count however is that it shows, to some extend, how much you were able to differentiate yourselves from your peers.

Federer says it cleary, he calls his generation, the Nalby, Hewit, Roddick, Safin.....not the Nadal, Murray, Djoko.

[noleisthebest]

I didn't notice Nole bombards Fed's BH, in fact he often goes for his FH - the reason their matches are so much more interesting than Fedal.
Nadal's tactics are blunt and shameless, but he doesn't have any other options which is why I don't watch their matches.
Toni even turned him into a lefty just to squeeze out the last drop out of stone.

I agree that conditions mask and cover up a lot of talent  and flair which is a great shame.

The tour has been suffocating with eliminating conditions that would favour shotmakers.

ARP needs to act fast and it was very encouraging to hear Koening talk about it yesterday.

Federer is not going to be around forever, and TDs need to be mindful of that.

Who is going to draw crowds around the world when he's gone?

[Tenez]

I didn't notice Nole bombards Fed's BH, in fact he often goes for his FH - the reason their matches are so much more interesting than Fedal.

What? He certainly did, especially on important points. Not that it's wrong but it clearly was his preferred option.

Nadal's tactics are blunt and shameless, but he doesn't have any other options which is why I don't watch their matches.
Toni even turned him into a lefty just to squeeze out the last drop out of stone.

But it's not like Djoko has many options either. He is not going to outsmart federer. Have wee seen DTL FH or BH from Djoko? So few. I remember one DTL BH...don;t remember a FH DTL. Constanly cross court and forcing running.

[noleisthebest]

I didn't notice Nole bombards Fed's BH, in fact he often goes for his FH - the reason their matches are so much more interesting than Fedal.

What? He certainly did, especially on important points. Not that it's wrong but it clearly was his preferred option.

Nadal's tactics are blunt and shameless, but he doesn't have any other options which is why I don't watch their matches.
Toni even turned him into a lefty just to squeeze out the last drop out of stone.

But it's not like Djoko has many options either. He is not going to outsmart federer. Have wee seen DTL FH or BH from Djoko? So few. I remember one DTL BH...don;t remember a FH DTL. Constanly cross court and forcing running.

Nole has more variety than Nadal.
Unlike Nadal who almost exclusively bombards Fed's BH as a lefty, Nole is often in centre baseline spreading the court with corner to corner FHs.
Nothing wrong making your opponent run

He is not a shot-maker but the very position he plays from in the court put him miles ahead of Nadal.

Nole has improved a lot in the last year, and of course nobody competes with Federer when it comes to talent.

Had Federer's serve been better yesterday, he could have won.
The match almost reminded me of Wimbledon final, except that then, Fed's FH wasn't ready with the new racquet yet.

A healthy Federer is my favourite for Wimbledon.

[Tenez]

Yes it looked much like the Wimby final though Fed returned better yesterday.

Pace is so important. Djoko brought back so many points yesterday....in particalr that first set BP. It was ridiculously unfair for Fed to be attacking so well and yet ended up being passed with that CC. Djoko woudl not have been able to put his racquet on it on a different surface, let along being able to control the ball so well.

It reminded me so much when they repainted our courts in our club and I simply lost to players I usually beat with some margins.

[summerblues]

Wait, can you make clear what it is you think people agree with me on, I'm not quite sure which specific argument you're referring to ?

What I meant was that most people would agree that (a) the definition of what it means to be "better" will vary from person to person, and that (b) there are a lot of factors, in addition to a few raw statistics, that can come into consideration.

I don't mean what ?

I do not think you quite mean this as your definition:

Which player achieved what was hardest to achieve, given their circumstances and external factors ?

This is more about players as people rather than about their tennis.  As it is written, you should start making allowances for things like deprived childhood, height, perhaps even talent.  Maybe a player who was born to poor parents in a third world country and stood 5'0'' would - by this definition - achieve more by making top 100 than Federer by winning 17 slams.  But that is not what most people talk about when they talk about "better" players.

And what would be the definition you use ?

I do not have a firm definition.  I have somewhat vague idea of what matters to me when I am deciding for myself who I consider "better", but I do not have an absolutely firm set of rules, nor do I plan to attempt to create one (it would be silly to do so anyway).  To me (and I suspect to most), the point of GOAT discussions is not to determine the GOAT but rather learn about how other posters are thinking about what qualities in a player matter to them, and what they think of various players.

[N2D2L]

Wait, can you make clear what it is you think people agree with me on, I'm not quite sure which specific argument you're referring to ?

What I meant was that most people would agree that (a) the definition of what it means to be "better" will vary from person to person, and that (b) there are a lot of factors, in addition to a few raw statistics, that can come into consideration.

That is exactly what I'm saying, and what my definition was trying to mean.

I do not think you quite mean this as your definition:

Which player achieved what was hardest to achieve, given their circumstances and external factors ?

This is more about players as people rather than about their tennis.  As it is written, you should start making allowances for things like deprived childhood, height, perhaps even talent.  Maybe a player who was born to poor parents in a third world country and stood 5'0'' would - by this definition - achieve more by making top 100 than Federer by winning 17 slams.  But that is not what most people talk about when they talk about "better" players.

All my definition was trying to do was say what you just said earlier (i.e. take into account stats and factors), I never intended to take factors like talent into account (because talent, genetics are part of what makes you better). Either you've misinterpreted, or my definition is clumsily worded.

[summerblues]

What I meant was that most people would agree that (a) the definition of what it means to be "better" will vary from person to person, and that (b) there are a lot of factors, in addition to a few raw statistics, that can come into consideration.

That is exactly what I'm saying, and what my definition was trying to mean.

All my definition was trying to do was say what you just said earlier (i.e. take into account stats and factors), I never intended to take factors like talent into account (because talent, genetics are part of what makes you better).

I still suspect that you think that there is a "correct" definition and that that definition will pick up exactly the right factors and take those into account.

It is not the point of the definition to take the right factors into account.  It is only after a definition is chosen that one may need to figure out which factors are relevant for that particular definition.  Whether a particular factor does or does not matter can only be judged relative to a definition, not on an absolute basis.

Maybe the point will be clearer when you think of it this way:  Suppose there is a universe of all possible factors that one might be able to consider.  Suppose someone chooses to define a "better" player to mean the player that wins more slams.  Instead of thinking of this definition as "ignoring other factors" you can think of it as a definition that gives zero weight to all factors other than the slam count.  So no factors are "missed", it is just that whoever adopts this definition does not value those other factors.

[Sponsored content]