Best seasons listed by year

[Deleted member 757377]

You still haven't answered my question. What is the conclusion of your data?

BTW, best season ranking isn't an objective statistic. It factors in a lot of stats but the priorities given to each stat on the website is a subjective choice

My conclusion is late 90s and early 2000s lacked 1-2 champions, compared to all other eras.

They use common criteria: slam titles, slam finals, masters titles, ecc. If you disagree tell me which criteria you believe is the best and I will try to apply it.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

The biggest joke out of all this is that the same website ranks Federer as Open era GOAT based on the exact same criteria. It gives him 901 GOAT points (the metric used to determine best season) with Djokovic on 749 and Nadal on 736. Do you accept these are simply objective stats as well?

By results, yes.

But that ranking doesn't try to measure competition.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

Hardcourt top100 seasons:

2004: 3
2005: 1
2006: 1
2007: 2
2008: 4
2009: 5
2010: 4
2011: 4
2012: 3
2013: 3
2014: 5
2015: 3
2016: 3
2017: 3

 

[KINGROGER]

I don't think I have double standards: IMO when a bunch of players dominate the competition is high

Imo when one peak ATG doesn’t have anyone at his level it’s a weak year. IE 2006 and 2015.

 

[Towny]

By results, yes.

But that ranking doesn't try to measure competition

Well actually it does factor in ELO as part of the ranking. But that's besides the point. The ranking of seasons is entirely based on the same system of achievements as well. Ergo, if a dominating player like Nadal blocks everyone from winning in the clay season, no-one else is going to have a particularly high ranking clay season, regardless of how well they play. And this ranking rewards consistency over peak performance. Like I said in an earlier post, Stan wasn't consistent in 2014 but his AO run was exceptional and obviously strong competition. His level was about the same the year before. Novak beating him in 2013 was impressive, but according to this ranking, it's more or less irrelevant

 

[KINGROGER]

Strange that in 15 years at the top he was at peak only in a 4 years timespan, just when the competition was at its lowest.

Peaking only in weak years affects his legacy.

Well Djokovic had 2 weak years himself in 2015-2016 where he won a large chunk of his GS titles. 2018 USO was weak too.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

Well actually it does factor in ELO as part of the ranking. But that's besides the point. The ranking of seasons is entirely based on the same system of achievements as well. Ergo, if a dominating player like Nadal blocks everyone from winning in the clay season, no-one else is going to have a particularly high ranking clay season, regardless of how well they play. And this ranking rewards consistency over peak performance. Like I said in an earlier post, Stan wasn't consistent in 2014 but his AO run was exceptional and obviously strong competition. His level was about the same the year before. Novak beating him in 2013 was impressive, but according to this ranking, it's more or less irrelevant

I can't measure exceptions, while I can measure ATG level.

 

[Towny]

I can't measure exceptions, while I can measure ATG level

Well that's my point. Your system doesn't account for exceptions like that, or Verdasco AO2009 or Safin AO05. The early/mid 2000s had a number of players who weren't the most consistent but could bring a high level when in form - like Wawrinka in the 2010s. As I've said, this is still a subjective ranking system. It may be based on objective stats, but the ranking is subjective, plain and simple. Therefore, you can't say 2015 has 4 players in the top 150 or whatever is objective because it clearly isn't

 

[Deleted member 757377]

Well that's my point. Your system doesn't account for exceptions like that, or Verdasco AO2009 or Safin AO05. The early/mid 2000s had a number of players who weren't the most consistent but could bring a high level when in form - like Wawrinka in the 2010s. As I've said, this is still a subjective ranking system. It may be based on objective stats, but the ranking is subjective, plain and simple. Therefore, you can't say 2015 has 4 players in the top 150 or whatever is objective because it clearly isn't

You can't measure exceptions while I can measure ATG level.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

@Towny

ATGs won more than 80% of slam finals against non-ATGs.

Maybe you overrate the importance of exceptions, which I repeat you can't assign to certain years because they can't be measured. We can at best measure the level of second tier players, as I did here

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/most-gs-wins-by-year-top10.629649/

2009 had many good second tier players, for example.

 

[Towny]

You can't measure exceptions while I can measure ATG level

I appreciate it's difficult to measure these exceptions but that's why you have to be careful about the way you apply these stats. Personally I don't think either Fed or Djoker had particularly great competition in 2006 and 2015 respectively and you can make arguments for either above the other. Djokovic had the more consistent competition, Federer had the higher level competition (Nadal). It's kind of immaterial tbh. As I said in an earlier post, both were at a very high level and both would have won a lot regardless of competition. You say you're only trying to show Djokovic had the stronger competition but even if you could what would it prove? It wouldn't automatically make him better than Federer. Lendl probably faced the strongest competition out of any of the ATGs. I don't see him topping anyone's GOAT list

 

[Deleted member 757377]

Sets lost en route to the slam final lost to Federer:

Philippoussis 6
Safin 9
Roddick 1
Hewitt 0
Roddick 5
Agassi 7
Baghdatis 7
Nadal 2
Roddick 3
Gonzalez 4
Nadal 5
Djokovic 3
Murray 5
Soderling 4
Roddick 6
Murray 1
Murray 4
Nadal 5
Cilic 4
Cilic 3

average: 4.2


Sets lost en route to the slam final lost to Nadal:

Puerta 5
Federer 2
Federer 1
Federer 3
Federer 0
Federer 2
Soderling 4
Berdych 4
Djokovic 4
Federer 1
Djokovic 4
Ferrer 0
Djokovic 3
Djokovic 2
Wawrinka 2
Anderson 3
Thiem 3

average: 2.53


Sets lost en route to the slam final lost to Djokovic:

Tsonga 2
Murray 2
Nadal 3
Nadal 1
Nadal 2
Murray 2
Federer 1
Murray 2
Federer 1
Federer 0
Murray 4
Murray 6
Anderson 6
Del Potro 1

average: 2.36

 

[Deleted member 757377]

Djokovic won his first 10 slam finals, in 2008-15, against players who had dropped 1.6 sets on average

 

[Deleted member 757377]

I appreciate it's difficult to measure these exceptions but that's why you have to be careful about the way you apply these stats. Personally I don't think either Fed or Djoker had particularly great competition in 2006 and 2015 respectively and you can make arguments for either above the other. Djokovic had the more consistent competition, Federer had the higher level competition (Nadal). It's kind of immaterial tbh. As I said in an earlier post, both were at a very high level and both would have won a lot regardless of competition. You say you're only trying to show Djokovic had the stronger competition but even if you could what would it prove? It wouldn't automatically make him better than Federer. Lendl probably faced the strongest competition out of any of the ATGs. I don't see him topping anyone's GOAT list

Lendl won only 8 slams. If he was around 15 he could enter the GOAT discussion.

 

[Towny]

Lendl won only 8 slams. If he was around 15 he could enter the GOAT discussion

Agreed, but would it be reasonable for me to infer that you believe Djokovic had harder competition than Federer and therefore he is better?

 

[NatF]

Sets lost en route to the slam final lost to Federer:

Philippoussis 6
Safin 9
Roddick 1
Hewitt 0
Roddick 5
Agassi 7
Baghdatis 7
Nadal 2
Roddick 3
Gonzalez 4
Nadal 5
Djokovic 3
Murray 5
Soderling 4
Roddick 6
Murray 1
Murray 4
Nadal 5
Cilic 4
Cilic 3

average: 4.2


Sets lost en route to the slam final lost to Nadal:

Puerta 5
Federer 2
Federer 1
Federer 3
Federer 0
Federer 2
Soderling 4
Berdych 4
Djokovic 4
Federer 1
Djokovic 4
Ferrer 0
Djokovic 3
Djokovic 2
Wawrinka 2
Anderson 3
Thiem 3

average: 2.53


Sets lost en route to the slam final lost to Djokovic:

Tsonga 2
Murray 2
Nadal 3
Nadal 1
Nadal 2
Murray 2
Federer 1
Murray 2
Federer 1
Federer 0
Murray 4
Murray 6
Anderson 6
Del Potro 1

average: 2.36

Federer's era was deeper therefore the paths to slam finals were tougher

 

[KINGROGER]

Djokovic won his first 10 slam finals, in 2008-15, against players who had dropped 1.6 sets on average

Didn’t Fed lose a bunch of sets pre final in 2012? Compared to 1 in 2015? Yet his level in 2012 was way higher. Go figure.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

Federer's era was deeper therefore the paths to slam finals were tougher

Cool story.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

Agreed, but would it be reasonable for me to infer that you believe Djokovic had harder competition than Federer and therefore he is better?

Higher peak (2011, 2015 and 4 slams in a row), but not greater yet. 6 slams difference is big.

 

[Towny]

Higher peak (2011, 2015 and 4 slams in a row), but not greater yet. 6 slams difference is big

Certainly agree that Djokovic is in the conversation for highest peak, though would go with Federer myself. I appreciate that you acknowledge that 6 slams is too wide a gap to be ignored, regardless of competition

 

[VenusEnvy_69]

Federer's era was deeper therefore the paths to slam finals were tougher

Is this the most delusional quote I've read or what. Federer was beating Davydenko and Roddick, Djok has had to beat either Nadal and Fed (or both) en route to the majority of his Slams

 

[VenusEnvy_69]

Didn't see Fed ever beat Nadal at RG over 5, Djok has certainly done that, even though he lost to Stan that year 2 rounds later. Who's path has been more difficult again!?!

 

[KINGROGER]

Is this the most delusional quote I've read or what. Federer was beating Davydenko and Roddick, Djok has had to beat either Nadal and Fed (or both) en route to the majority of his Slams

For 2011-2013? Fair enough, Fed played some top level tennis and Nadal was in his prime too.

2014-2016? Nah not having it. Fed was nowhere near his peak and he lacked his main weapon..

 

[KINGROGER]

Didn't see Fed ever beat Nadal at RG over 5, Djok has certainly done that, even though he lost to Stan that year 2 rounds later. Who's path has been more difficult again!?!

Fed’s. 2009 Del Potro >>>>> 2016 Murray at RG.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

Federer's era was deeper therefore the paths to slam finals were tougher

average Top-10 seeds met

Federer's final opponents: 1.15

Djokovic's final opponents: 1.43

So they lost nearly twice less sets playing against slightly higher ranked players.

 

[RS]

This thread is so interesting to read. Deserves a bump up.