Search results

  1. O

    "Why the French Open is the Worst Grand Slam"

    Well, naturally, some people will have their highest elo at the grass events. I'd average the respective elos of each surface if I wanted to look too much into this. I wasn't really making too much of a claim other than to challenge his notion that the competition seems to be particularly weak...
  2. O

    "Why the French Open is the Worst Grand Slam"

    'Predictability' The article claims that some of this predictability may be due to the top 25 players excelling less on clay than the other surfaces. It seems plausible, but the article simply asserts the claim because Nadal has been so dominant. How is this testable? Well, one way would be to...
  3. O

    Nadal is ahead of Federer in Slams adjusted by difficulty

    There is elo evidence that suggests Nadal was consistently getting better after 2005. He is 120 points higher at the end of 2008 compared to the end of 2005. I'm not aware of any published elo data that challenges the ascendancy of Nadal's ability over those years. Nadal was a one of a kind...
  4. O

    "Nadal piling more RG titles only cements more and more his Clay GOAT status"

    I don't understand why I need to value surface distribution. Why can't I just average the results?
  5. O

    "Nadal piling more RG titles only cements more and more his Clay GOAT status"

    I think a slam is a slam. It is false to say that this statement 'forgets' tennis is a multi surface sport. All court players will be rewarded for their success. The better you are on more surfaces, the better your results will be. To reward distribution more than it is already accounted for by...
  6. O

    Nadal needs either 2 more slams or the Aus Open to surpass Federer

    You can adjust the H2H to match surface prevalence on the tour, and I think it's been done quite a bit. Nadal -due to the massive clay advantage- retains the H2H lead even after this adjustment. Though H2H is not much of substance in this debate. I agree that conditions play a substantial role...
  7. O

    Nadal guaranteed 180+ weeks at number 1 as we speak

    Conceivably, the person with the most atp ranking points over a 10 year span could fail to take a solitary year end number one, or even a week end number one. This was the point regarding the utility of career ranking points.
  8. O

    Nadal guaranteed 180+ weeks at number 1 as we speak

    Total points generated from total tournaments played.
  9. O

    Nadal guaranteed 180+ weeks at number 1 as we speak

    Let me see if I can clarify my thinking. The ATP ranking system is a useful tool proportionate to the extent to which you agree with the ranking system they set up. I would imagine most want to weight some things differently. The total points is going to be more useful than time spent at number one.
  10. O

    Nadal guaranteed 180+ weeks at number 1 as we speak

    You're right, there still needs to be a way to compare players even if tournament results have intrinsic value and rankings do not. This comparison is essentially a ranking system. The rankings are useful when you look at totals, week end number one and year end number ones can easily run into...
  11. O

    Nadal guaranteed 180+ weeks at number 1 as we speak

    My position is the same. Rankings are only valuable insofar as they accurately convey tournament success. The rankings themselves while perhaps a useful heuristic, are void of any intrinsic value. If rankings perfectly convey tournament success, comparing tournament success to tournament success...
  12. O

    Nadal guaranteed 180+ weeks at number 1 as we speak

    The rankings are at best an imperfect proxy for tournament results. When you can compare tournament results to tournament results, why should weeks at number one or year end number ones even enter into the discussion? It is fundamentally unnecessary and more than a fair bit misguided.
Top