is Defense of a Title a Measure of Greatness

[McEnroeisanartist]

How important is defense of a Title a Measure of Greatness?

If you compared Federer and Nadal at a similiar point in their career - 2012/2007 Basel, Federer has defended the following tournaments:

Vienna (1)
Halle (3)
Wimbledon (4)
ATP World Tour Finals (2)
Australian Open (1)
Dubai (2)
Indian Wells (2)
U.S. Open (3)
Miami (1)
Hamburg (1)
Bangkok (1)
Doha (1)

Federer defended at 3 Grand Slams, the ATP World Tour Finals, and 3 Masters Series Tournaments. He defended on all three surfaces.

Nadal has defended the following tournaments:
Monte Carlo (7)
Barcelona (5)
Rome (3)
The French Open (5)

Nadal defended 1 Grand Slam and 2 Masters Series Tournaments. He defended on one surface.

[ollinger]

Ummm, why is defense of a title more a "Measure of Greatness" (the sense of self-importance in these threads is stupefying) than winning titles that one didn't win last year???

[Towser83]

I don't really care that much about defending titles, though it is impressive if you can win an event several years in a row. But Nadal has done that obviously (8 MC titles in a row is insane)

But you know I don't think winning Miami 2 years in a row is any better than wining IW one year and Miami the next for instance.

Of course the fact that Federer has Defended 3 of the slams, is impressive but just because he has managed to own 3 different slams.

[Prisoner of Birth]

No.

10char

[kragster]

Originally Posted by Towser83

I don't really care that much about defending titles, though it is impressive if you can win an event several years in a row. But Nadal has done that obviously (8 MC titles in a row is insane)

But you know I don't think winning Miami 2 years in a row is any better than wining IW one year and Miami the next for instance.

Of course the fact that Federer has Defended 3 of the slams, is impressive but just because he has managed to own 3 different slams.

This. It is a useless stat because if you are looking to measure consistency as a sign of greatness all you need to know comes from titles/slam won in consecutive years.

Now if you are looking to figure out what tournaments a player likes best/suits them the best, then you can use title defense as an indicator.

[McEnroeisanartist]

Originally Posted by kragster

This. It is a useless stat because if you are looking to measure consistency as a sign of greatness all you need to know comes from titles/slam won in consecutive years.

Now if you are looking to figure out what tournaments a player likes best/suits them the best, then you can use title defense as an indicator.

So what you are saying is that Federer has had 3X as many tournaments that have better suited his game than have suited Nadal's.

[The Bawss]

OP, you are slightly pro-Fed biased, no?

[McEnroeisanartist]

Originally Posted by The Bawss

OP, you are slightly pro-Fed biased, no?

Stats do not have a bias. Am I biased in the number of posts about him, yes of course. But, I think I have started to somewhat diversify my posts about other players recently.

[kragster]

Originally Posted by McEnroeisanartist

So what you are saying is that Federer has had 3X as many tournaments that have better suited his game than have suited Nadal's.

Indirectly yes, although another way to spin it would be Federer's game is more suited for 3x as many surfaces. However in general this stat doesnt even tell us that as you could well have the following

Player one : wins IW every year
Player 2 : alternates between winning IW and Miami

Both should be equal but this stat would 'consider' player 1 the better player for defending his IW title. not really a useful metric.

[kiki]

yes, if you are called Bjorn Borg and, year after year, defend your fortress at both sides of the Channel.

[1972murat]

I am not sure if that is a measure of greatness but there might be something in there about being consistent and not being bothered playing with a bulls-eye on your back and still coming through...

[absurdo]

i bealieve defending a title is an important thing. not sure if its a measure of greatness but sure means something.

there is extra pressure when you are the defending champ. there is extra pressure when you are suposed to win. there is extra pressure when you are number 1 and everyone else is fighting to take your spot. there is extra pressure when you are playing for the history books.

its allways easier to be the underdog.

[OddJack]

Originally Posted by McEnroeisanartist

How important is defense of a Title a Measure of Greatness?

If you compared Federer and Nadal at a similiar point in their career - 2012/2007 Basel, Federer has defended the following tournaments:

Vienna (1)
Halle (3)
Wimbledon (4)
ATP World Tour Finals (2)
Australian Open (1)
Dubai (2)
Indian Wells (2)
U.S. Open (3)
Miami (1)
Hamburg (1)
Bangkok (1)
Doha (1)

Federer defended at 3 Grand Slams, the ATP World Tour Finals, and 3 Masters Series Tournaments. He defended on all three surfaces.

Nadal has defended the following tournaments:
Monte Carlo (7)
Barcelona (5)
Rome (3)
The French Open (5)

Nadal defended 1 Grand Slam and 2 Masters Series Tournaments. He defended on one surface.

4 times. How could you miss that?

[SoBad]

Nadal defended the French like a billion times, and yet the haters are still trolling all over. So I guess to them it's not a measure.

[Ico]

Originally Posted by SoBad

Nadal defended the French like a billion times, and yet the haters are still trolling all over. So I guess to them it's not a measure.

Still waiting on a single title defense off of clay. Heck, any win off of clay would be a surprise at this point. Have to go back to Tokyo 2010 for one of those.

[Clarky21]

Originally Posted by Ico

Still waiting on a single title defense off of clay. Heck, any win off of clay would be a surprise at this point. Have to go back to Tokyo 2010 for one of those.

Still waiting for Cvacula to defend something off of hardcourts. Heck,any win off of hardcourt would be a surprise at this point. We have to go all the way back to July 2011 for one of those,and before that it was even more pathetic.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by Clarky21

Still waiting for Cvacula to defend something off of hardcourts. Heck,any win off of hardcourt would be a surprise at this point. We have to go all the way back to July 2011 for one of those,and before that it was even more pathetic.

And yet he's gonna win 17 Slams

[Gonzo_style]

Originally Posted by Clarky21

Still waiting for Cvacula to defend something off of hardcourts. Heck,any win off of hardcourt would be a surprise at this point. We have to go all the way back to July 2011 for one of those,and before that it was even more pathetic.

I hope that Cvac will never again win a title on grass and clay, only that you would be happy

[Clarky21]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

And yet he's gonna win 17 Slams

There are more hardcourt tournaments than there are anything else. Hardcourts are his best surface. You don't see the correlation?

[Clarky21]

Originally Posted by Gonzo_style

I hope that Cvac will never again win a title on grass and clay, only that you would be happy

I am just pointing out the hypocrisy amongst the people here. When Nadal doesn't win off of clay it's a travesty worthy of an old fashioned hanging,but when hardcourt specialists such as Cvacula don't win anything off of hardcourt,not a word is said about it.