After all these years Nadal and Djokovic are only 700 points apart in accumulated points total

[timnz]

For ease I have reduced the weighting points down by a factor of 1000 eg Slams are worth 2 instead of their ATP 2000. Using current atp points

Scale is: (SV x 2) + (SEFNL x 1.5) + (SEFOL x 1.3) + (SEFRUNL x 1) + (SRU x 1.2) + (TOP9 x 1) + (TOP9RU x 0.60) + (SEFRUOL x 0.80) + (OSG x 0) + (SSF x 0.72) + (SEFSFNL x 0.60) + (500S x 0.50)

Nadal = (19 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (0 x 1.3) + (2 x 1) + (8 x 1.2) + (35 x 1) + (16 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (1 x 0) + (6 x 0.72) + (1 x 0.60) + (20 x 0.50) = 109.12

Djokovic = (16 x 2) + (3 x 1.5) + (2 x 1.3) + (2 x 1) + (9 x 1.2) + (33 x 1) + (16 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (0 x 0) + (11 x 0.72) + (0 x 0.60) + (12 x 0.50) = 108.42

•Slam Victories (SV) 2000 ATP points
•Slam Runner-ups (SRU) 1200 ATP points
•Slam Semi-finals (SSF) 720 ATP points
•Season end final victories with no loss before the final (WTF, WCT Finals * & Grand Slam Cup *) (SEFNL) 1500 ATP points
•Season end final victories with one loss before the final (WTF, WCT Finals * & Grand Slam Cup *) (SEFOL) 1300 ATP points
•Season end final runner-ups with no loss before the final (WTF, WCT Finals * & Grand Slam Cup *) (SEFRUNL) 1000 ATP points
•Season end final runner-ups with one loss before the final (WTF, WCT Finals * & Grand Slam Cup *) (SEFRUOL) 800 ATP points
•Season end final semi-finals with no loss before the semi-final (WTF, WCT Finals * & Grand Slam Cup *) (SEFSFNL) ATP 600 points
•Masters 1000 equivalent victories (we will call (Top 9)) ATP 1000 points
•Masters 1000 equivalent runner-ups (TOP9RU) ATP 600 points
•Olympic Gold Metal Singles (OSG) ATP 0 points **
•500 Series equivalents (500S) ATP 500 points

 

[Deleted member 763691]

Does it mean anything?

 

[ADuck]

No surprise really, since it's WTF where Novak makes up a lot of ground over Rafa and regardless of if it's the 5th most important tournament, the points are nonetheless inflated there.

 

[oldmanfan]

No surprise really, since it's WTF where Novak makes up a lot of ground over Rafa and regardless of if it's the 5th most important tournament, the points are nonetheless inflated there.

Inflated? Come on now. A slam, worth 2000 points, can be won without facing a single top 20 player (USO17). Yet, to win the WTF, you can't do it without beating at least 3 (likely 4-5) top 10 players, and the max you can possibly net is 1500 points.
Which one is inflated again?

 

[UnderratedSlam]

You should have included slam QFs and M1000 semis if you´ve got WTF semis in there. WTF is overrated hence there is a Novak bias. I realize that the ATP weigh in more with the WTFs but they are of course wrong. A slam QFs is certainly worth more of inclusion than a WTF semis. Just because the ATP screws up doesn´t mean we have to err that way too.

 

[ADuck]

Inflated? Come on now. A slam, worth 2000 points, can be won without facing a single top 20 player (USO17). Yet, to win the WTF, you can't do it without beating at least 3 (likely 4-5) top 10 players, and the max you can possibly net is 1500 points.
Which one is inflated again?

WTF is.
If you're rating titles on top 10 opponents played it's time for you to convert to Lewisian maths and admit Djokovic > Federer. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

No surprise really, since it's WTF where Novak makes up a lot of ground over Rafa and regardless of if it's the 5th most important tournament, the points are nonetheless inflated there.

YEC RR = 200 points ~ a little bigger than Slam 4R = 180 points. A Slam match is BO5 but top 8 players don't meeet other top 8 players in 4R (they could meet #9-10, but it's rare), whereas a YEC match is between two top 8 players if no-one is injured, and top 10 players almost always.

YEC SF = 400 points = Masters final (1000-600). OK, maybe a bit too much, could be 300 points.

YEC F = 500 points > Masters final, as it should be since YEC>Masters.

Overrated by 100 points maybe, not any more.

 

[ADuck]

YEC RR = 200 points ~ a little bigger than Slam 4R = 180 points. A Slam match is BO5 but top 8 players don't meeet other top 8 players in 4R (they could meet #9-10, but it's rare), whereas a YEC match is between two top 8 players if no-one is injured, and top 10 players almost always.

YEC SF = 400 points = Masters final (1000-600). OK, maybe a bit too much, could be 300 points.

YEC F = 500 points > Masters final, as it should be since YEC>Masters.

Overrated by 100 points maybe, not any more.

I would estimate around 250 points maybe. The problem with RR is you get 3 chances, a slam 4R you lose once and you get knocked out.

A lot of the points given out are predicated upon being a top 8 player, but unlike in slams, the top 8 players don't have to prove they are in top 8 form by making it past the rest of the field. That's why slams/masters are slowing increasing the awarded points round by round, but WTF just says "top 8 - therefore points."

The strength of the field at WTF can be entirely random because of that, if you have a strong top 8 that year, great. If not, the points are not warranted.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

I would estimate around 250 points maybe. The problem with RR is you get 3 chances, a slam 4R you lose once and you get knocked out.

A lot of the points given out are predicated upon being a top 8 player, but unlike in slams, the top 8 players don't have to prove they are in top 8 form by making it past the rest of the field. That's why slams/masters are slowing increasing the awarded points round by round, but WTF just says "top 8 - therefore points."

The strength of the field at WTF can be entirely random because of that, if you have a strong top 8 that year, great. If not, the points are not warranted.

The average 4R opponent is considerably weaker than YEC RR opposition, so what's the problem. Also can't see that reaching 4R/QF nominally proves being in form, beating a couple of MUGS doesn't necessarily require solid form. You can even make a slam final with no special form, hewhew.
Think of the points as the average estimation of difficulty I guess. There are easy groups and free wins, moreso recently, but a lot of tough groups have happened too that could deserve more points than a Slam 4R. You're pointing out the former but ignoring the latter, conveniently as expected.

 

[ADuck]

The average 4R opponent is considerably weaker than YEC RR opposition, so what's the problem. Also can't see that reaching 4R/QF nominally proves being in form, beating a couple of MUGS doesn't necessarily require solid form. You can even make a slam final with no special form, hewhew.
Think of the points as the average estimation of difficulty I guess. There are easy groups and free wins, moreso recently, but a lot of tough groups have happened too that could deserve more points than a Slam 4R. You're pointing out the former but ignoring the latter, conveniently as expected.

The average 4R is not necessarily easier all of the time. By the time you reach that far you're theoretically facing the top 12.5% of players in the draw or the top 16 out of 128. Let's assume it is easier most of the time though, you still get 3 chances to play for 200 points. Entering the tournament is half the work done already.

Also, you say that getting to 4R/QF doesn't prove you're in good form, but I think you know that it proves it's far more likely you are, which is what matters here because it's about averages. I for one rarely see most of the seeds make it to where they should be these days in masters/slams. It's more of a shock if nobody is upset before the QF.

 

[dropshotlikeitshot]

Thread title: Nadal and Djokovic separated by 700 points in accumulated points total.
TTW posters: Debate whether slam 4R/QF or WTF is a bigger accomplishment.

 

[Cupcake]

Scale is: (SV x 2) + (SEFNL x 1.5) + (SEFOL x 1.3) + (SEFRUNL x 1) + (SRU x 1.2) + (TOP9 x 1) + (TOP9RU x 0.60) + (SEFRUOL x 0.80) + (OSG x 0) + (SSF x 0.72) + (SEFSFNL x 0.60) + (500S x 0.50)

Nadal = (19 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (0 x 1.3) + (2 x 1) + (8 x 1.2) + (35 x 1) + (16 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (1 x 0) + (6 x 0.72) + (1 x 0.60) + (20 x 0.50) = 109.12

Djokovic = (16 x 2) + (3 x 1.5) + (2 x 1.3) + (2 x 1) + (9 x 1.2) + (33 x 1) + (16 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (0 x 0) + (11 x 0.72) + (0 x 0.60) + (12 x 0.50) = 108.42

My head hurts.....

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

The average 4R is not necessarily easier all of the time. By the time you reach that far you're theoretically facing the top 12.5% of players in the draw or the top 16 out of 128. Let's assume it is easier most of the time though, you still get 3 chances to play for 200 points. Entering the tournament is half the work done already.

Also, you say that getting to 4R/QF doesn't prove you're in good form, but I think you know that it proves it's far more likely you are, which is what matters here because it's about averages. I for one rarely see most of the seeds make it to where they should be these days in masters/slams. It's more of a shock if nobody is upset before the QF.

'Far more likely'? Being able to overcome MUGS doesn't indicate good form by any necessity, kommon.

It's obviously true an out-of-form player could provide a free 200-pointer in RR, but we've seen masters draws collapse for someone to get lucky 360, 600 or even 1000 points (Paris 17 anyone?), only difference is playing more matches but for a pro player it's not much more difficult to beat multiple out-of-form opponents than one. Just this year, look at Fedr in Miami or Nadal in Montreal, mugs all around.

 

[TheGhostOfAgassi]

 

[ADuck]

'Far more likely'? Being able to overcome MUGS doesn't indicate good form by any necessity, kommon.

Yes. Are you taking into account it's the form of all top8/16 that are being measured when advancing to the 4R/QF, or are you focusing only on the big 3? Let's use an example here: Thiem. Is he really likely to be in top 8 form in WTF conditions?

It's obviously true an out-of-form player could provide a free 200-pointer in RR, but we've seen masters draws collapse for someone to get lucky 360, 600 or even 1000 points (Paris 17 anyone?), only difference is playing more matches but for a pro player it's not much more difficult to beat multiple out-of-form opponents than one.

This is the same draw structure you use to rate and rank the best players of all the time with. The foundation of rankings, greatness everything is based on this specific knockout tournament structure. So my guess is on average, it's better. If not, tennis made a horrible mistake.

It also seems weird and inconsistent that they allow entry based on the points gained using this draw structure, but then decide that more points will be given to these players based on another one entirely. The whole RR thing is obviously just trying to best simulate what is in place already.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Yes. Are you taking into account it's the form of all top8/16 that are being measured when advancing to the 4R/QF, or are you focusing only on the big 3? Let's use an example here: Thiem. Is he really likely to be in top 8 form in WTF conditions?

We'll see, likely not I agree. But what is top 8 form anyway? Some top 8 form by Schwartzman and Dimitrov and Berrettini this USO, so competitive they were, not really.

This is the same draw structure you use to rate and rank the best players of all the time with. The foundation of rankings, greatness everything is based on this specific knockout tournament structure. So my guess is on average, it's better. If not, tennis made a horrible mistake.

It also seems weird and inconsistent that they allow entry based on the points gained using this draw structure, but then decide that more points will be given to these players based on another one entirely. The whole RR thing is obviously just trying to best simulate what is in place already.

So according to your wisdom, all tennis must maintain the same draw structure because? variety is bad or something?

 

[Tenez101]

Inflated? Come on now. A slam, worth 2000 points, can be won without facing a single top 20 player (USO17). Yet, to win the WTF, you can't do it without beating at least 3 (likely 4-5) top 10 players, and the max you can possibly net is 1500 points.
Which one is inflated again?

>best of 3

 

[ADuck]

We'll see, likely not I agree. But what is top 8 form anyway? Some top 8 form by Schwartzman and Dimitrov and Berrettini this USO, so competitive they were, not really.

Well that's just because it's a weak era. Still better to face them than seeds who lost already.

So according to your wisdom, all tennis must maintain the same draw structure because? variety is bad or something?

Top 8 and WTF participants is dictated by this draw structure throughout the entire year, yet we throw out the logic that got them there for WTF? Doesn't make sense to me. It's counter-intuitive.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Well that's just because it's a weak era. Still better to face them than seeds who lost already.

No appreciable difference, easy match is easy.

Top 8 and WTF participants is dictated by this draw structure throughout the entire year, yet we throw out the logic that got them there for WTF? Doesn't make sense to me. It's counter-intuitive.

What does it matter if anyone's intuition agrees with it or not?

 

[ADuck]

No appreciable difference, easy match is easy.

By top 8 form I mean you are one of the top 8 players in the current moment, in the current court conditions. Dimitrov, Berrettini, Schwartzman were decided by the draw structure to be one of the best 8 players of the tournament, hence they recieved more points than the 120 other players below them - pushing their rankings towards the top 8.

What you said is off-topic though? It's just big 3 showing their superiority over the field. If anything what you said is evidence that the form of the top 5-8 players in the rankings is often comparable to players far outside that ranking considering they're handled all in similar fashion by the big 3. Not good for WTF draw strength if true.

Here's a way of determining if what I'm saying is in any way true. What is Nadal/Federer/Djokovic's win pct vs top 8 outside WTF vs at WTF? I'm guessing it's a lot higher at WTF. The big 3 are all ATG's and are almost always in "good" form compared to the rest of the field so I'm treating their form like a constant here, whereas the rest of the top 8 are inconsistent comparitively and are always changing. If my guess is correct then that means top 8 players are more difficult to win against after they have proven their form already by reaching QF's.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

What you said is off-topic though? It's just big 3 showing their superiority over the field. If anything what you said is evidence that the form of the top 5-8 players in the rankings is often comparable to players far outside that ranking considering they're handled all in similar fashion by the big 3. Not good for WTF draw strength if true.

This is a weak era so WTFs are weakened along with other tournaments including Slams...

Here's a way of determining if what I'm saying is in any way true. What is Nadal/Federer/Djokovic's win pct vs top 8 outside WTF vs at WTF? I'm guessing it's a lot higher at WTF. The big 3 are all ATG's and are almost always in "good" form compared to the rest of the field so I'm treating their form like a constant here, whereas the rest of the top 8 are inconsistent comparitively and are always changing. If my guess is correct then that means top 8 players are more difficult to win against after they have proven their form already by reaching QF's.

A good idea, but we need to account for surface as well, e.g. Federer is better on HC than clay so he'd have less success on clay against the same quality of opposition too, and Nadal is better on clay and struggles on indoor HC so his success is down even if competition is, too.

 

[oldmanfan]

>best of 3

Yes, WTF is now best of 3. But in this case, when talking about playing non-top20's vs. playing all top10's, it's not simply bo5 > bo3.

Tell me which is harder:

1) beating qualifiers, walk-overs (like Djokr's USO16, Nadl's USO19), little-known WCs, top70-top100 players, in a best of 5
2) beating Fedalovicray in a best of 3

Which do you think Fedalovicray would prefer if they had a choice?

 

[Tarkovsky]

Nadal also overtook Djokovic in total GS points:

Federer: 69595
Nadal: 56215
Djokovic: 55285

 

[Deleted member 758560]

No appreciable difference, easy match is easy.

что у вас тут за утиные истории сегодня

 

[xFedal]

Nadal also overtook Djokovic in total GS points:

Federer: 69595
Nadal: 56215
Djokovic: 55285

What is the number now?

 

[Tarkovsky]

What is the number now?

After AO21:

Federer: 70315
Nadal: 58935
Djokovic: 60665

 

[socallefty]

Is there a way to know how many ATP (including ITF Grand Slam) points in total the Big 3 have accumulated in their entire careers? It would be nice if the ATP made this statistic available in the career ranking of players.

We are all fixated on Slams to measure the career performance of players because the tennis establishment does not make even the most basic stat like total ATP points accumulated in a career available to us as fans. I guess we could add up the year-end points which is accumulated over the previous 12 months for each year of their careers and come up with the calculation. Has @Lew II or anyone else tried to calculate this?

It would be nice to see the career total and also the total divided by years on tour to get a yearly average of ATP points earned.

 

[Lew II]

Is there a way to know how many ATP (including ITF Grand Slam) points in total the Big 3 have accumulated in their entire careers? It would be nice if the ATP made this statistic available in the career ranking of players.

We are all fixated on Slams to measure the career performance of players because the tennis establishment does not make even the most basic stat like total ATP points accumulated in a career available to us as fans. I guess we could add up the year-end points which is accumulated over the previous 12 months for each year of their careers and come up with the calculation. Has @Lew II or anyone else tried to calculate this?

It would be nice to see the career total and also the total divided by years on tour to get a yearly average of ATP points earned.

I could make a thread.

 

[socallefty]

I could make a thread.

Thank you, Lew. It would start a whole new dimension of GOAT arguments and we might also look at the dominance on different surfaces differently.

 

[xFedal]

After AO21:

Federer: 70315
Nadal: 58935
Djokovic: 60665

Numbers now?

 

[Tarkovsky]

Numbers now?

After USO21:

Federer: 70855
Nadal: 59655
Djokovic: 65865

Done quickly, hope I didn't make mistakes

 

[xFedal]

After USO21:

Federer: 70855
Nadal: 59655
Djokovic: 65865

Done quickly, hope I didn't make mistakes

Numbers now? Updates?

 

[Tarkovsky]

Numbers now? Updates?

After RG23, Djokovic overtakes Federer:

Federer: 70855
Nadal: 64600
Djokovic: 72225

 

[nolefam_2024]

After RG23, Djokovic overtakes Federer:

Federer: 70855
Nadal: 64600
Djokovic: 72225

Leaving Nadal in the dust.

 

[Texas Tennis Fan]

Dust is the appropriate metaphor for Nadal.

 

[Tarkovsky]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1668298090061889537

 

[DSH]

Dust is the appropriate metaphor for Nadal.

Nadal is sad.