The Greatest of All Time?

For once I'm going to write a blog post in English, and I'm going to write about tennis and philosophy. The latter maybe only in an indirect sort of way. It concerns tennis because Novak Djokovic is now "The GOAT," The Greatest Of All Time, (male) tennis player. With 23 Grand Slams and 387 weeks as number one, the numbers are clear. Also by any other measurable achievement he stands above the rest, mainly Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer. Those two metrics, the Grand Slams and the weeks as number one, are the commonly agreed standards by which to measure the status. Tennis allows no draws, so that's it and that's that. Except, of course, for the future. Nobody can know what will happen in the future, so the accolade is not earned for eternity but only until a better one comes along. (Photo: ATPTour) 

However, Novak is not as widely liked as - particularly - Roger Federer. Therefore, we are subjected to mental gymnastics with ridiculous arguments to 'prove' that he is not The GOAT. One such display is provided by a fellow philosopher, the Australian Ben Bramble - who was also a good tennis player. It's in The Guardian newspaper, no less. (For a more objective view of the achievement, you may want to read this from the ATPTour team.)

First he softens up our brains by introducing the 30 ft serve-bot who wins 30 slams on his serve alone. This is ridiculous, of course, given that tennis is a game where shorter and taller people have different advantages, and where the most successful tend to be in the range 180 - 198 cm. Someone as tall as 30 ft. would have great trouble moving around the court, picking up drop shots and slices, etc. There may be sports where this sort of height may be of decisive value (maybe basketball?), but not in tennis. 

The second brain softener is an imagined long world war where most young men are conscripted, but "Dave" is not and wins 30 slams (a world war at least 7,5 years long). Again, ridiculous, but Bramble has a higher mission: The Glory that is Roger Federer. 

Bramble is right in one thing: One has also to factor in who else was playing at the time. Fair enough. Novak has played against the other two giants of the game: Federer and Rafael Nadal. Federer some years older, but Rafa about the same age. Novak has the upper hand in Head-to-Head with both, so that's settled. But then we get this from Roger's knight in shining armour:

Since 2019, Djokovic has won eight slams. But during this time, Federer was too old and injured to play his best, and the competition was generally pretty weak. It is not that these eight slams don’t count. But they are worth less.

No mention of Federer being six years older, and having five and six years on Rafa and Novak respectively to play without having their annoying prowess to contend with. Federer had 16 grand slams before Novak's breakthrough season in 2011. This is conveniently overlooked to make a very poor argument. This age of tennis now coming to an end, has been the era of 'the great three,' but Bramble wants to brush this under the carpet. 

The most curious factor he claims we need to take into account, is 'physical advantages.' This follow, I guess, from the specious 30 ft. player argument. Consider this as an argument: 'his physical advantages, at the same time, reduce the greatness of his achievements.' Suck on that: In sport, having physical advantages - such as high oxygen uptake for marathon runners, fast legs (think Usain Bolt), being light yet explosive (think ski jumpers), etc. 'reduce the greatness' of their achievements. It is too ridiculous for words - particularly in tennis.  

Tennis requires such a vast range of skills, talents and abilities that one advantage is not enough. Even a wide array of advantages is not enough is one is missing - such as mental fortitude in clutch moments. Bramble also mentions this, and concludes that it is 'unclear who is best in this regard.' The metrics are hard to find, but it's equally hard to find anyone who would not put Novak at the top of such a list. A case in point are the six tie-breakers he played at Roland Garros this year: Not one unforced error in any of these high tension, very decisive tie-breaks. 

I urge anyone entering the GOAT debate to do this: Acknowledge that you may like, love and admire a player more than the GOAT. Hard numbers and reliable statistics determine who is the GOAT. What is not OK is coming up with up a series of specious arguments to 'cook the books' just because your hero is not The GOAT. 

(And if you hate Novak Djokovic - why not come clean?)