The Greatest Ever Or Second Best?

by hawkeye Thu 11 Sep 2014, 2:20 pm

First topic message reminder :

This article in today's Guardian was an interesting read. The title is "Is Roger Federer the greatest ever or the second best in his generation?" and it's written by Paul Gibson.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/the-balls-of-wrath/2014/sep/11/roger-federer-greatest-tennis-player-rafael-nadal?commentpage=1

Warning don't click the link if you don't like GOAT talk. That means you laverfan warning

by temporary21 Mon 15 Sep 2014, 4:14 pm

HM Murdoch wrote:Am I alone in thinking that the definition of "friend" is being rather stretched if it includes people for whom the only way you can contact them is via a PM on an internet forum that they may or may not even see?

Might I also tactfully suggest that if someone can become very unwell as a result of what they read on a tennis forum, it might be wise to avoid reading tennis forums?

Not that I don't love your contributions so far.

In agreement there, a friend in this case is I suppose someone who was friendly throughout my time here, perhaps its more a case of the right thing to do, either way the thing moved me enough to respond. It wasnt one thing that caused it, it was the years of the bickering and WUmming from a few people that did me in the end. Either case, Its probably best to try and stick to topic now, I think all that could be reasonably said, has been.

by Born Slippy Mon 15 Sep 2014, 5:37 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:
Born Slippy wrote:Interesting point about the w-l record. It is a way of judging which isn't affected by Rafa's injury problems. I suppose one argument is that Rafa has been fortunate that he has largely been injury-free on clay and has often missed chunks of a weaker part of his season, so the w-l record is inflated?
Thanks, I think the W/L record is an interesting stat.

Also your counter point you raise is very fair, and I will look into it; Nadal has had injury problems mainly on hard court part of season (not the world's most surprising thing if you consider the surface is much worse for his body... especially considering his game). I will look into what you said to evaluate whether the periods he missed could have inflated or deflated the ratio.

I do think it's very important though to raise this point first, as it is quite easy to get misled in this particular analysis:
What I would be judging, let's say for example the injury of the US hard court season of 2014 is not whether it is a better win ratio than his average clay season but whether it is better than his current Win ratio overall.
To go into more detail, his W/L ratio now is higher in the past few years than when he was younger; as on average now the Win ratio is better- hence sending his overall average up. Now considering he's had a lot of injuries when he's older, it may be that even his Win ratio on his weaker surface is better than his overall Win ratio (so it doesn't have to be as good as his 2012 clay season or something for example); and thus would send his overall Win ratio up.
So therefore, it is actually very possible that more tennis for him now on hard courts would send his Win ratio up, even though it would appear unlikely at first.
OK Born Slippy, I think you may have missed this post as there were 10000 posts immediately after it about something else.
Anyway these are the significant periods he's missed due to injury (as far as I can recall... please point out if I've missed any out), now of course you can be the judge to whether his Win ratio would be above 84%:
-2004 clay season, 2009 grass court season, 2012 hard court season (+AO 2013), 2014 US hard court season; keep in mind also that if you really want to make an accurate analysis of how injuries affect W/L- take into consideration matches where he has played despite being injured, that of course has a negative impact on W/L.

I had seen it. Will need to properly consider his historical W/L though before I can really comment.

by It Must Be Love Mon 15 Sep 2014, 6:35 pm

Born Slippy wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:
Born Slippy wrote:Interesting point about the w-l record. It is a way of judging which isn't affected by Rafa's injury problems. I suppose one argument is that Rafa has been fortunate that he has largely been injury-free on clay and has often missed chunks of a weaker part of his season, so the w-l record is inflated?
Thanks, I think the W/L record is an interesting stat.

Also your counter point you raise is very fair, and I will look into it; Nadal has had injury problems mainly on hard court part of season (not the world's most surprising thing if you consider the surface is much worse for his body... especially considering his game). I will look into what you said to evaluate whether the periods he missed could have inflated or deflated the ratio.

I do think it's very important though to raise this point first, as it is quite easy to get misled in this particular analysis:
What I would be judging, let's say for example the injury of the US hard court season of 2014 is not whether it is a better win ratio than his average clay season but whether it is better than his current Win ratio overall.
To go into more detail, his W/L ratio now is higher in the past few years than when he was younger; as on average now the Win ratio is better- hence sending his overall average up. Now considering he's had a lot of injuries when he's older, it may be that even his Win ratio on his weaker surface is better than his overall Win ratio (so it doesn't have to be as good as his 2012 clay season or something for example); and thus would send his overall Win ratio up.
So therefore, it is actually very possible that more tennis for him now on hard courts would send his Win ratio up, even though it would appear unlikely at first.
OK Born Slippy, I think you may have missed this post as there were 10000 posts immediately after it about something else.
Anyway these are the significant periods he's missed due to injury (as far as I can recall... please point out if I've missed any out), now of course you can be the judge to whether his Win ratio would be above 84%:
-2004 clay season, 2009 grass court season, 2012 hard court season (+AO 2013), 2014 US hard court season; keep in mind also that if you really want to make an accurate analysis of how injuries affect W/L- take into consideration matches where he has played despite being injured, that of course has a negative impact on W/L.

I had seen it. Will need to properly consider his historical W/L though before I can really comment.

A while back I did a year by year change in W/L for Nadal (as well as Roger), I'll try and find it, it may help you.

by It Must Be Love Mon 15 Sep 2014, 7:24 pm

ok Born Slippy, here is the breakdown:

Nadal:
Accumulatively by aged 22: 81.4%
" By age 23: 81.6% (400/490)
" By age 24: 82.5% (471/571)
" By age 25: 82.5 % (540/655)
" By age 26: 82.8% (582/ 703)
" By age 27: 83.7% (653/780)

Federer's maximum ever has been 82%

by **JuliusHMarx** Mon 15 Sep 2014, 8:57 pm

I have taken DirectView's advice and removed all recent off-topic posts, but to be honest I don't have the time or the heart to trawl back through all of it.
Let's call it a day for that aspect of the thread shall we?
Contacting the mods/admins can be done via PM or using the report button.

by HM Murdock Mon 15 Sep 2014, 9:01 pm

JHM, is the new badge because you've 'jumped the shark'? Wink

by **JuliusHMarx** Mon 15 Sep 2014, 9:09 pm

Haha - yes I get the reference!
Blame Adam for the badge.

by DirectView2 Mon 15 Sep 2014, 9:50 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:I have taken DirectView's advice and removed all recent off-topic posts, but to be honest I don't have the time or the heart to trawl back through all of it.
Let's call it a day for that aspect of the thread shall we?
Contacting the mods/admins can be done via PM or using the report button.

Excellent

Good to know somebody took my advice too Yahoo

[Actually you should be the second, somebody else backed me earlier, don't remember the name, please leave this comment on, its a pride moment Yahoo

]

by summerblues Mon 15 Sep 2014, 9:51 pm

Born Slippy wrote:The thread on 31 Aug is not a GOAT thread. It is an article about painting. Whilst there is a passing reference to the fact it was a similar argument to the current one, there really is nothing more to it than that.

Hehe, fair enough, I thought you were being serious.

by DirectView2 Mon 15 Sep 2014, 9:54 pm

Hmmm , all I see is my comment be removed and other comments remain . Rolling Eyes

You need to be executed now Mr. Mod for bluffing me and just removing my comments, may be i should cry foul too Sad

But leave it the world is biased , what is the point in blaming you alone.

by lydian Mon 15 Sep 2014, 10:56 pm

by LuvSports! Mon 15 Sep 2014, 10:59 pm

Hey Lydian, you didn't get my PM did ya?

by lydian Mon 15 Sep 2014, 11:03 pm

No LS, but then my Inbox has been 100% full for ages. I'll clear a few messages out if you want to resend?

by **laverfan** Tue 16 Sep 2014, 3:05 am

invisiblecoolers wrote:LF understands she is overstepping the line yet no action taken either on her comments or her and where as I am not even allowed to defend it as my comments will be deleted.

The dialogue, despite being off-topic was constructive and informative (at least to me). Before you get upset further, I suggest a bit of calmer thinking. You are taking banter too seriously, too.

History and Databases, both, teach us not to be too hasty. Delete an archive log and the recovery is gone, fire an arrow, and it never comes back, but another may be headed in the opposite direction.

Recall our discussion about engagement vs disengagement.

by invisiblecoolers Tue 16 Sep 2014, 3:27 am

laverfan wrote:
invisiblecoolers wrote:LF understands she is overstepping the line yet no action taken either on her comments or her and where as I am not even allowed to defend it as my comments will be deleted.

The dialogue, despite being off-topic was constructive and informative (at least to me). Before you get upset further, I suggest a bit of calmer thinking. You are taking banter too seriously, too.

History and Databases, both, teach us not to be too hasty. Delete an archive log and the recovery is gone, fire an arrow, and it never comes back, but another may be headed in the opposite direction.

Recall our discussion about engagement vs disengagement.

Why was my comment deleted then LF? JHM was in haste to delete a comment of mine which I merely defended on the wrong arguments on me.

If you really understand what bullying, check how many people ganged on me here and the funny part is the kid is crying foul picard

I am not allowed to defend either, and reporting won't help either, so what should I do? I have been more than patient enough when this kid has been harassing me for last 2 days, all patience has its limit.

by bogbrush Tue 16 Sep 2014, 6:45 am

IC, I know how frustrating it can be when a poster does the double whammy on you: is rude or insulting, then cries foul. I saw Haddie do that the other day, then when "temporary" came on whining about the counter posts the second part fell into place. I guess the efforts to beatify Haddie are effectively going for the hat trick.

It happens, Internet forums are stupid places at the best of times, and this isn't the best of times right now. I'd lay off laverfan & Julius who are only trying to do their best.

Wooffie (for it is probably her if it isn't Haddie) will shuffle off soon, they're just a bit pent up what with waiting for Rafa.

by lydian Tue 16 Sep 2014, 7:30 am

bogbrush wrote:IC, I know how frustrating it can be when a poster does the double whammy on you

BB, your allegiance with IC is wholly misplaced. This is the poster who slagged me off in the forum ("fangirl", "pseudo ID", to name but a few recent labels), then apologised to me via PM, then slagged me off in the forum again, which I wasn't too enamoured with.

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue 16 Sep 2014, 8:29 am

IC, the posts I deleted were not just from yourself but a dialog between yourself and IMBL (I have also since deleted some later posts from at least 2 other people, including temporary21).
Temporary21's posts were primarily a dialog between T21 and laverfan. LF considers that dialog to be "constructive and informative". I did not consider the dialog between yourself and IMBL to be so. It's that simple really - nothing more than that.
My own conversation with T21 was via PM.
Hopefully things will return to some sort of normality now, but I'm relying on all posters to help out with that.
As explained previously LF and I sometimes have to make judgements based on any number of things - including for things that happened while we were offline. I am more likely to take quick action if I see things as they happen (to nip things in the bud), but if posts were made several hours ago and things have died down since then I often don't have the time or inclination to go back and decide what goes and what stays.
BB - I cannot be certain of T21's previous ID, although I am fairly sure - and it is neither wooffie nor haddie. If I am correct it was a poster whom everyone got along with very well.

Edit - To everyone - I've also edited a few posts. Please do not be offended if one was yours. Simply trying to make today a bit better than yesterday (at least for myself and LF if no-one else)

by socal1976 Tue 16 Sep 2014, 8:51 am

lydian wrote:
bogbrush wrote:IC, I know how frustrating it can be when a poster does the double whammy on you
BB, your allegiance with IC is wholly misplaced. This is the poster who slagged me off in the forum ("fangirl", "pseudo ID", to name but a few recent labels), then apologised to me via PM, then slagged me off in the forum again, which I wasn't too enamoured with.

I'd just like it to be noted that I had no role in the fighting on this thread, and did not start a goat discussion or participate in it. I actually found the thread a little dull till the acrimoney and blood letting began then it got kind of interesting.

by socal1976 Tue 16 Sep 2014, 8:53 am

PS I reiterate my offer to moderate this site, if and only if all other mods are fired. Furthermore, anytime you wish to respond or address me you must address me as "your excellency".

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue 16 Sep 2014, 8:59 am

~~socal~~, Your excellency, I edited your post to remove the bit that would cause extra work more LF and myself later on Smile

I ought to be working!

by socal1976 Tue 16 Sep 2014, 9:05 am

See Julius you are already getting a hang of it. I can guarantee you this site would be quite eventful upon my coronation.

by **laverfan** Tue 16 Sep 2014, 10:34 am

socal1976 wrote:See Julius you are already getting a hang of it. I can guarantee you this site would be quite eventful upon my coronation.

You will need a Grand Vizier and Commander of the Army. Let me know when the balloting starts. I am very tempted to quit moderation but feel that JHM needs a hand, till your excellency ascends the throne. Laugh

I am willling to sticky a GOAT thread, if the community as a whole can give me assurances (yes, assurances) that none of that will spill into any other threads. There is no need for a weekly anoint-my-fav-to-GOATdom thread necessary and trench warfare that follows.

I would also have all bickering go to a second sticky, if that can act as a DCR, for anyone who wants it.

Since Murray is not making any front-page news, there is little to slag him off, so CC, Calder, Danny, et al., are in quiet corner.

@JHM... thanks. I had asked iC to wait, till you had a chance to look at the threads. Hug

PS:

socal1976 wrote:I actually found the thread a little dull till the acrimoney and blood letting began then it got kind of interesting.

Your Excellency, please note you cannot be a king of a kingdom in which everyone dies, you will be ruling skeletons which make that eerie rattling sound. Wink

by **laverfan** Tue 16 Sep 2014, 11:10 am

It Must Be Love wrote:
lydian wrote:
bogbrush wrote:IC, I know how frustrating it can be when a poster does the double whammy on you
BB, your allegiance with IC is wholly misplaced. This is the poster who slagged me off in the forum ("fangirl", "pseudo ID", to name but a few recent labels), then apologised to me via PM, then slagged me off in the forum again, which I wasn't too enamoured with.
Actually worse than that Lydian

IMBL, are you interested in starting a second round of trench warfare? chin

by **laverfan** Tue 16 Sep 2014, 11:11 am

It Must Be Love wrote:
Invisiblecoolers wrote:If the answer is no action will be taken on this kid, then I am ready to swear the shiit out of this _______ and move on from this forum.
I don't think so.

Do you want to be a moderator? If yes, please apply to Admins.

by It Must Be Love Tue 16 Sep 2014, 11:28 am

Wait, that makes no sense at all ?

Julius, are you trying to protect people you like ?

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue 16 Sep 2014, 11:35 am

No - I'm protecting the thread and the forum - at this point in time, while I am online.

by **laverfan** Tue 16 Sep 2014, 11:38 am

It Must Be Love wrote:Wait, that makes no sense at all ?

Julius, are you trying to protect people you like ?

Take it easy, IMBL. Are you looking for protection? If you are in a forum and need protection from each other, do you realize what is wrong with the picture?

There is enough blame to go around at everyone's doorstep for the state of this thread.

And I am surprised that you are now asking "Julius".

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue 16 Sep 2014, 11:41 am

LF - I'll keep editing quotes that contain 'old' material, if that's OK. There is no benefit in old ground now being publicly brought back. It should be left in the past as we move forward.

by It Must Be Love Tue 16 Sep 2014, 11:45 am

You're not applying your own rules consistently.
You said phrases from the deleted thread are not allowed. Earlier Lydian rightly pointed out that IC called him a fangirl on that thread.
That was not removed.

I then quoted some other things that was said towards Haddie and Lydian by BB and IC; which were very insulting and offensive abuse. You then edited my post (to the extent my post no longer makes sense) to remove what was quoted from the thread, presumably on the basis of what you said yesterday with 'no quotes from the thread allowed' (even though btw there is no house rule saying this, and I've checked). But Lydians post was allowed, which did quote, no ?

So your position makes no sense and is hypocritical, unless you're trying to protect people you like.

by **laverfan** Tue 16 Sep 2014, 11:47 am

NP, JHM. Thanks. rose

There is no real reason to bring out the sewage, it stinks anyway.

There is not enough purge/delete/prune of stored memory happening during sleep cycles, and posters come back stressed, with the baggage of history.

by socal1976 Tue 16 Sep 2014, 11:49 am

laverfan wrote:
socal1976 wrote:See Julius you are already getting a hang of it. I can guarantee you this site would be quite eventful upon my coronation.

You will need a Grand Vizier and Commander of the Army. Let me know when the balloting starts. I am very tempted to quit moderation but feel that JHM needs a hand, till your excellency ascends the throne.

I am willling to sticky a GOAT thread, if the community as a whole can give me assurances (yes, assurances) that none of that will spill into any other threads. There is no need for a weekly anoint-my-fav-to-GOATdom thread necessary and trench warfare that follows.

I would also have all bickering go to a second sticky, if that can act as a DCR, for anyone who wants it.

Since Murray is not making any front-page news, there is little to slag him off, so CC, Calder, Danny, et al., are in quiet corner.

@JHM... thanks. I had asked iC to wait, till you had a chance to look at the threads.

PS:
socal1976 wrote:I actually found the thread a little dull till the acrimoney and blood letting began then it got kind of interesting.

Your Excellency, please note you cannot be a king of a kingdom in which everyone dies, you will be ruling skeletons which make that eerie rattling sound.

I would certainly consider you for appointment to my court LF. I don't want to think of it as kingdom, no the world of 606v2, is much to small for that title. More like a Baronial fiefdom. I like the old medieval ways in some respects. Trial by battle and by fire worked wonders for the jurisprudence of the dark ages.

by **laverfan** Tue 16 Sep 2014, 11:52 am

It Must Be Love wrote:You're not applying your own rules consistently.
You said phrases from the deleted thread are not allowed. Earlier Lydian rightly pointed out that IC called him a fangirl on that thread.
That was not removed.

I then quoted some other things that was said towards Haddie and Lydian by BB and IC; which were very insulting and offensive abuse. You then edited my post (to the extent my post no longer makes sense) to remove what was quoted from the thread, presumably on the basis of what you said yesterday with 'no quotes from the thread allowed' (even though btw there is no house rule saying this, and I've checked). But Lydians post was allowed, which did quote, no ?

So your position makes no sense and is hypocritical, unless you're trying to protect people you like.

So, do not quote stuff from earlier threads, leave it clean, and there would be no editing needed.

For example iC had a clear issue with multi-ids, correct? Should posters with multiple IDs be banned? And think very hard about it, before you make any comments regarding this. Wink

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue 16 Sep 2014, 11:57 am

It Must Be Love wrote:You're not applying your own rules consistently.
You said phrases from the deleted thread are not allowed. Earlier Lydian rightly pointed out that IC called him a fangirl on that thread.
That was not removed.

I then quoted some other things that was said towards Haddie and Lydian by BB and IC; which were very insulting and offensive abuse. You then edited my post (to the extent my post no longer makes sense) to remove what was quoted from the thread, presumably on the basis of what you said yesterday with 'no quotes from the thread allowed' (even though btw there is no house rule saying this, and I've checked). But Lydians post was allowed, which did quote, no ?

So your position makes no sense and is hypocritical, unless you're trying to protect people you like.

It is not hypocritical and I am not trying to protect people I like. It may not be perfect to your required standards IMBL because believe or not this is a work day for me and I'm trying to fit in looking after this forum with a busy working day. It would help me greatly if posters did not keep trying to re-hash what is in the past and followed the advice of laverfan and myself. And the forum would be better off for it.

by lydian Tue 16 Sep 2014, 12:26 pm

laverfan wrote:For example iC had a clear issue with multi-ids, correct? Should posters with multiple IDs be banned? And think very hard about it, before you make any comments regarding this.

LF, think very hard before you make comments like that too... Wink

Why? Because you're inadvertently lending credence to IC's "issue" by not acknowledging the negative impact on those falsely accused such as myself. As a long-standing member of this forum with over 8300 posts its very disappointing to be accused (at the bottom on Page2) of having a multi-ID, its actually worse than being called various disparaging names on here for merely posting about Monfils/Federer. So, in regard to the bolded bit above, shouldn't the converse apply - i.e. that posters when proved wrong in their muck-slinging multi-ID accusations by IP checks are likewise banned? Its this type of inequity of applied focus that's hardly inviting me back to regular thread posting...

by HM Murdock Tue 16 Sep 2014, 12:40 pm

Anyone else up for this thread being locked or deleted?

Most of the posts are arguments and airing of grievances and are nothing to do with the OP. It's also so heavily edited that it doesn't even make much sense anymore.

I'd be quite happy to sacrifice the 1 in 1000 chance that someone can add something new to the GOAT debate for the sake of some sanity returning.

by lydian Tue 16 Sep 2014, 12:43 pm

HMM - I raise a serious point about posters being falsely accused of having multiple IDs and deliberately winding people up. There's a point of principle here.

invisiblecoolers wrote:@ temp poster, with your two above comments its pretty clear ur one of the old poster in pseudo id, n I suspect it to be either Lydian or Haddie, if mods can check for the ip pls, I guesd its clearly agaibst house rules to have multiple ids to wind up people here.

Otherwise if made clear, yes let's delete and move on.

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue 16 Sep 2014, 1:13 pm

It's a fair point Lydian. I can only say that it didn't occur to me that an accusation of having a multiple ID would cause more offense than some other things. I guess it's a case of different people being offended by different things.
The 'report a post' button is there to help LF and myself when we make erroneous decisions (or fail to spot) on what to remove/not to remove - this alerts us to give the matter further thought.

by lydian Tue 16 Sep 2014, 1:27 pm

Ok, thanks JHM - have to admit I've never really paid attention to the "!" buttons before.
I'm loathe to add to your workloads on here...lord knows we all have a "real life" too...but some of these things rankle and people have to understand there are potential forum consequences to false accusation too.
Normally, I might turn a blind eye to it...but its been one thing on top of another recently...additive effect.

by Adam D Tue 16 Sep 2014, 1:28 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:It's a fair point Lydian. I can only say that it didn't occur to me that an accusation of having a multiple ID would cause more offense than some other things. I guess it's a case of different people being offended by different things.
The 'report a post' button is there to help LF and myself when we make erroneous decisions (or fail to spot) on what to remove/not to remove - this alerts us to give the matter further thought.

And they make a lot of erroneous decisions Very Happy

Just to let you know, that both Laver and Julius are discussing everything with the other admins and we are behind them 100%. If anyone does have concerns though, then get in touch with us and we can discuss. And by "us", I mean the other two founders, HERO and ENFORCER

by Calder106 Tue 16 Sep 2014, 1:28 pm

laverfan wrote:

Since Murray is not making any front-page news, there is little to slag him off, so CC, Calder, Danny, et al., are in quiet corner.

Yes us Murray supporters are the ones who are always being accused of being too sensitive on this forum. Supporters of other players would never be like that. Whistle

by invisiblecoolers Tue 16 Sep 2014, 1:31 pm

HM Murdoch wrote:Anyone else up for this thread being locked or deleted?

Most of the posts are arguments and airing of grievances and are nothing to do with the OP. It's also so heavily edited that it doesn't even make much sense anymore.

I'd be quite happy to sacrifice the 1 in 1000 chance that someone can add something new to the GOAT debate for the sake of some sanity returning.

+1

by It Must Be Love Tue 16 Sep 2014, 1:32 pm

HM Murdoch wrote:
I'd be quite happy to sacrifice the 1 in 1000 chance that someone can add something new to the GOAT debate for the sake of some sanity returning.

How dare you, somewhere in this mess I've been having a stunning discussion with Born Slippy Wink

by Born Slippy Tue 16 Sep 2014, 1:41 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:
HM Murdoch wrote:
I'd be quite happy to sacrifice the 1 in 1000 chance that someone can add something new to the GOAT debate for the sake of some sanity returning.
How dare you, somewhere in this mess I've been having a stunning discussion with Born Slippy

Hopefully will revert this evening!

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue 16 Sep 2014, 1:49 pm

More posts deleted. Thread locked. Any further issues discuss with LF and myself via PM. Thank you.

by Sponsored content