Yes, he hardly plays it. For sure he doesn't care about it as much as haters want to believe. Winning there would be cool but no way I would trade this USO for a WTF title.Rafa is the only one who has qualified for the WTF every year since he turned pro. Injury has plagued his success there. Many times he has not even played and even when he's played he has had to pull out with injury.
If only Rafa could have done something about that conspicuous zero against "Nitto ATP Finals Titles". If he had he would be THE Big Title King by now!
He almost never plays it, so how can he win? Last time he played more than 1 match there was in 2015.If only Rafa could have done something about that conspicuous zero against "Nitto ATP Finals Titles". If he had he would be THE Big Title King by now!
Dimitrov and Zverev the former champions, what a prestigious event lol
He almost never plays it, so how can he win? Last time he played more than 1 match there was in 2015.
We can name any number of unexpected Slam winners though (Gaudio, Korda, Johansson anybody?). Do they undermine the value of those Slams?
Maybe he should try to rectify that before it's too late. Who wants to see that zero every time the ATP publishes its latest list of Big Title Kings?
Does not compare to Sascha and Grigor b2b champions
Sascha and Grigor were top #8 players though. What ranking were Gaudio, Korda and Johansson?
Rafa is the only one who has qualified for the WTF every year since he turned pro. Injury has plagued his success there. Many times he has not even played and even when he's played he has had to pull out with injury.
If Federer had won Olympic Singles Gold, it would have been included.
gaudio was 44Sascha and Grigor were top #8 players though. What ranking were Gaudio, Korda and Johansson?
It's not like 1 title will look much better compared to Federer's and Djokovic's 6 and 5 titles. If he can win it-great. If not, he still won two MUCH more important titles this year.Maybe he should try to rectify that before it's too late. Who wants to see that zero every time the ATP publishes its latest list of Big Title Kings?
Here's a list of winners of the Olympic Gold Medal in men's singles:
2016 and 2012: Andy Murray
2008: Rafael Nadal
2004: Nicolas Massu
2000: Yevgeny Kafelnikov
1996: Andre Agassi
1992: Marc Rosset
1988: Miloslav Mecir
I am not at all confident that I would rate Massu or Rosset as greater players than Zverev or Dimitrov. Indeed, I am not at all sure that, by the end of their careers, Zverev or Dimitrov will be worse players than Mecir or even possibly Kafelnikov.
Here's a list of winners of the Olympic Gold Medal in men's singles:
2016 and 2012: Andy Murray
2008: Rafael Nadal
2004: Nicolas Massu
2000: Yevgeny Kafelnikov
1996: Andre Agassi
1992: Marc Rosset
1988: Miloslav Mecir
I am not at all confident that I would rate Massu or Rosset as greater players than Zverev or Dimitrov. Indeed, I am not at all sure that, by the end of their careers, Zverev or Dimitrov will be worse players than Mecir or even possibly Kafelnikov.
They'll certainly be worse than Kafelnikov.
The value of Olympic Singles Gold has gone up considerably in the last 14 years or so, because all the elite players desperately want to win it and say so. Last 3 editions have only been won by the elite.
I'd liken it to the increase in prestige and value of the Australian Open, which half the players used to skip. When the top 3 GOAT contenders all scream about how desperately they want the title, it's prestige jumps immensely. It is clearly a big title.
You're sure that Zverev will be worse than Kafelnikov? I agree that it is likely but not that it is certain. I know that Zverev's results in majors continue to be deeply disappointing, but here's an overall comparison, and bear in mind that Zverev isn't yet 22 and a half (although he is 22.75 in Slam years).
1. Slam titles: Kafelnikov 2-0 Zverev
2. Slam finals: Kafelnikov 3-0 Zverev
3. Slam semi-finals: Kafelnikov 6-0 Zverev
4. Slam quarter-finals: Kafelnikov 13-2 Zverev
Conclusion: Yes, most likely Kafelnikov better here.
5. Olympic + WTF titles (treating them as equally important, given that that's what is at stake in this thread): Kafelnikov 1-1 Zverev
6. Olympic + WTF finals: Kafelnikov 2-1 Zverev
7. Masters Series titles: Kafelnikov 0-3 Zverev
8. Masters Series finals: Kafelnikov 5-5 Zverev
9. Overall titles: Kafelnikov 26-11 Zverev
10. Overall finals: Kafelnikov 46-17 Zverev
11. Rankings achievements:
a. Highest ranking: Kafelnikov 1-3 Zverev
b. Highest year-end ranking: Kafelnikov 2-4 Zverev
c. Year-end finishes in top 2: Kafelnikov 1-0 Zverev
d. Year-end finishes in top 3: Kafelnikov 2-0 Zverev
e. Year-end finishes in top 4: Kafelnikov 3-2 Zverev
f. Year-end finishes in top 5: Kafelnikov 5-2 Zverev
g. Year-end finishes in top 10: Kafelnikov 6-2 Zverev [might well be 6-3 at end of 2019, but we don't know yet]
Overall, while I agree that Kafelnikov has a substantial lead, I don't think it is insurmountable. I think Zverev could still win a Slam or two and that, if he were to do so and to continue doing as he is otherwise, it could be close. Zverev could definitely end up with around 25 titles and around 45 finals.
I agree that it'd really take something for Dimitrov to rival Kafelnikov.
Injury has been his biggest obstacle there. Although he has qualified every single year, He has missed quite a few and even when he's played he's had to pull out with injury. In 2017, he pulled out after the first RR against Goffin.If only Rafa could have done something about that conspicuous zero against "Nitto ATP Finals Titles". If he had he would be THE Big Title King by now!
Appreciate the effort you've put in here - and yes, *if* Zverev becomes a multiple major winner, he could have a career that's better than Kafelnikov.
However, the man has only reached 2 slam QFs and really struggles in the 5-set format. I can't see him going from barely making slam QFs to winning multiple majors.
Nuff said.Dimitrov and Zverev the former champions, what a prestigious event lol
I don't think it's gone up. I think it is what it was: about on a par with the tour finals. Surprise results were more common until the last 14 years or so because the tour wasn't so top-heavy. It's an important event, no doubt. But I don't think it's more important than the tour finals.
The WTF is an exho, open only to the top 8 at YE or any random player available if one of those drop out and the alternate can't play. One year, Stepanek, as #22 ended up playing half way through the RR.I don't think it's gone up. I think it is what it was: about on a par with the tour finals. Surprise results were more common until the last 14 years or so because the tour wasn't so top-heavy. It's an important event, no doubt. But I don't think it's more important than the tour finals.
The WTF is an exho, open only to the top 8 at YE or any random player available if one of those drop out and the alternate can't play. One year, Stepanek, as #22 ended up playing half way through the RR.
I think if you asked pretty much all the top players which they valued more, WTF or Olympic Singles Gold....WTF would lose heavily.
WTF is more important to Federer fans (and to Djoker fans, but they go on about it less) because it helps make their guy seem better than Nadal. But if Fed fans were honest with themselves, they'd admit the players don't actually value WTF as much as OSG
It's not like 1 title will look much better compared to Federer's and Djokovic's 6 and 5 titles. If he can win it-great. If not, he still won two MUCH more important titles this year.
The WTF is an exho,
Big Title Points | Federer | Nadal | Djokovic |
---|---|---|---|
Grand Slam points (x2) | 20 Slams >>> 40 points | 19 Slams >>> 38 points | 16 Slams >>> 32 points |
WTF/Olympics points (x1.5) | 6 WTFs >>> 9 points | 1 Olympic Gold Medal >>> 1.5 points | 5 WTFs >>> 7.5 points |
Masters 1000 points (x1) | 28 Masters >>> 28 points | 35 Masters >>> 35 points | 33 Masters >>> 33 points |
Total points | 77 points | 74.5 points | 72.5 points |
Big Title count is a lazy measure of greatness, in all honesty. It basically counts Slams and Masters 1000 titles the same.
If you really want to go down that route, consider the Slams to be 2 points, the WTF/Olympics 1.5 points, and the Masters 1000 titles 1 point each, to keep consistent with the points awarded for winning each (which are undeniably fairer measurements than counting each tournament the same).
Big Title Points Federer Nadal Djokovic Grand Slam points (x2) 20 Slams >>> 40 points 19 Slams >>> 38 points 16 Slams >>> 32 points WTF/Olympics points (x1.5) 6 WTFs >>> 9 points 1 Olympic Gold Medal >>> 1.5 points 5 WTFs >>> 7.5 points Masters 1000 points (x1) 28 Masters >>> 28 points 35 Masters >>> 35 points 33 Masters >>> 33 points Total points 77 points 74.5 points 72.5 points
And no, I don't wanna hear the WTF/Olympics denigrating BS.
If we do that, then I would instead change the title of the table to "Title points" instead of Big Title points.For the sake of thoroughness you may as well include David Cups, the 500's and 250's for good measure.
True, but it would also make more sense than the usual title count. Connors wouldn't be the leader, that's for sure.If we do that, then I would instead change the title of the table to "Title points" instead of Big Title points.
Very well, then. Here's a full table (with some other big names, but mostly the players who played nearly their full career in the era of Masters 1000s being officially established, so that excludes Connors). I don't take this one as seriously as the previous table I posted, but it does shed some light on the title race. I bumped the numbers up a digit so I won't have to deal with too many decimals.True, but it would also make more sense than the usual title count. Connors wouldn't be the leader, that's for sure.
Tournament Points | Federer | Nadal | Djokovic | Sampras | Agassi | Murray |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Grand Slam points (x20) | 20 Slams >> 400 points | 19 Slams >> 380 points | 16 Slams >> 320 points | 14 Slams >> 280 points | 8 Slams >> 160 points | 3 Slams >> 60 points |
WTF/Olympics points (x15) | 6 WTFs >> 90 points | 1 OSG >> 15 points | 5 WTFs >> 75 points | 5 WTFs >> 75 points | 1 WTF, 1 OSG >> 30 points | 1 WTF, 2 OSG >> 45 points |
Masters 1000 points (x10) | 28 Masters >> 280 points | 35 Masters >> 350 points | 33 Masters >> 330 points | 11 Masters >> 110 points | 17 Masters >> 170 points | 14 Masters >> 140 points |
ATP 500 points (x5) | 23 ATP 500s >> 115 points | 20 ATP 500s >> 100 points | 12 ATP 500s >> 60 points | 12 ATP 500 equivalents >> 60 points | 6 ATP 500 equivalents >> 30 points | 9 ATP 500s >> 45 points |
ATP 250 points (x2.5) | 25 ATP 250s >> 62.5 points | 9 ATP 250s >> 22.5 points | 9 ATP 250s >> 22.5 points | 20 ATP 250 equivalents >> 50 points | 27 ATP 250 equivalents >> 67.5 points | 16 ATP 250s >> 40 points |
Total points: | 947.5 total points | 867.5 total points | 807.5 total points | 575 total points | 457.5 total points | 330 total points |
Very well, then. Here's a full table (with some other big names, but mostly the players who played nearly their full career in the era of Masters 1000s being officially established, so that excludes Connors). I don't take this one as seriously as the previous table I posted, but it does shed some light on the title race. I bumped the numbers up a digit so I won't have to deal with too many decimals.
Tournament Points Federer Nadal Djokovic Sampras Agassi Murray Grand Slam points (x20) 20 Slams >> 400 points 19 Slams >> 380 points 16 Slams >> 320 points 14 Slams >> 280 points 8 Slams >> 160 points 3 Slams >> 60 points WTF/Olympics points (x15) 6 WTFs >> 90 points 1 OSG >> 15 points 5 WTFs >> 75 points 5 WTFs >> 75 points 1 WTF, 1 OSG >> 30 points 1 WTF, 2 OSG >> 45 points Masters 1000 points (x10) 28 Masters >> 280 points 35 Masters >> 350 points 33 Masters >> 330 points 11 Masters >> 110 points 17 Masters >> 170 points 14 Masters >> 140 points ATP 500 points (x5) 23 ATP 500s >> 115 points 20 ATP 500s >> 100 points 12 ATP 500s >> 60 points 12 ATP 500 equivalents >> 60 points 6 ATP 500 equivalents >> 30 points 9 ATP 500s >> 45 points ATP 250 points (x2.5) 25 ATP 250s >> 62.5 points 9 ATP 250s >> 22.5 points 9 ATP 250s >> 22.5 points 20 ATP 250 equivalents >> 50 points 27 ATP 250 equivalents >> 67.5 points 16 ATP 250s >> 40 points Total points: 947.5 total points 867.5 total points 807.5 total points 575 total points 457.5 total points 330 total points
So yeah. Fed has gained that massive lead partly because of the larger degree of "small" tournaments he's won. But he's also ahead in Big Title points so you can't really put that against him.
The WTF is a joke of a tournament.
It's a glorified exho, and awarding high amounts of ranking points for it is against the spirit of sport, and only serves to give the top players an unfair advantage over the rest of the field.
There are numerous reasons why the Tour Finals should not be taken too seriously as an important tournament, but the most obvious ones are:
1. The absurd format. You can win the tournament while losing 2 out of 5 matches. While this scenario is somewhat unlikely, winning while losing 1 out of 5 matches has happened before (including Zverev last year).
2. Due to very nature of the tournament, it has to be held right at the end of a physically demanding and gruelling 11-month season. Consequently, the quality of tennis is (comparitively) poor, as almost all of the players are exhausted.
3. As above, the winner is basically who is the freshest and least injured, rather than the best.
4. You get players who collected the vast majority of their points in the early half of the season qualifying for the tournament, and not being in any kind of "top 8" form by November.
5. The fact that you can't face the normal field further invalidates any possibility it has of being seriously considered as a major tournament.
LMAO so true! Don't forget davydenko has won it was well!Dimitrov and Zverev the former champions, what a prestigious event lol
Its funny fed fans and commentators even are now saying "maybe we are putting too . much emphasis on the slam count for greatest of all time".Until Roger's slam count record looked impregnable, that was apparently the only yardstick for measuring GOAT status. Once that became shaky, other criteria also began to emerge. It looks like, if not Rafa, Novak will likely convert every one of these additional "criteria" to stand in his favor by the time this is all over and done.