Decades, & The Player of the Decade

[LazyNinja19]

I guess there are 2 schools of thought on this issue. Can we reach a conclusion?

If it helps, ATP announced Federer as the Player of the Decade 2000-2009.
http://www.atpworldtour.com/news/tennis/2009/12/decade-in-review-players.aspx

Take a look back at the best five players and best doubles team of the past decade. Performances between the years of 2000 to 2009 only have been considered

1. Roger Federer
2. Rafael Nadal
3. Lleyton Hewitt
4. Andre Agassi
5. Andy Roddick

So clearly, the ATP considers the current decade as 2010-2019.
:arrow: Even if we cannot reach a consensus on this issue, i think it's safe to say that decades in Tennis terms should be counted as the years starting from 0 to 9.

 

[Federer302]

Main things
Slams
Nadal 8
Djokovic 6

YE #1
Nadal 2
Djokovic 2

Other Stuff
Finals
Nadal 12
Djokovic 12

SF
Nadal 12
Djokovic 16

QF
Nadal 14
Djokovic 24 (100%)

WTF
Nadal 0 (2 finals)
Djokovic 2


It is a tight race with Nadal currently leading.

5 and bit years to go

 

[smoledman]

Fed not even #3 in this decade!

 

[TMF]

The race for this current decade so far:

1. Nadal
2. Nole
3. Federer
4. Murray

In the end, most likely will be either Nadal or Nole wins the Player Of The Decade.

 

[tennisaddict]

The race for this current decade so far:

1. Nadal
2. Nole
3. Federer
4. Murray

In the end, most likely will be either Nadal or Nole wins the Player Of The Decade.

5 years left. One of the young guns need to win about 7-8 majors out of a possible 20 to cause a surprise.

Tough, not impossible.

 

[TMF]

5 years left. One of the young guns need to win about 7-8 majors out of a possible 20 to cause a surprise.

Tough, not impossible.

You're right, anything can happen.

 

[Backspin1183]

Too early to talk about player of the decade for 2010-2019.

 

[mike danny]

Too early to talk about player of the decade for 2010-2019.

Agree. Just like it was too early in 2004 to talk about Federer as the player of the decade

 

[Chico]

As we elaborated and proved already, since there was never year 0 and counting starts with 1, not 0, decades start with the years ending with 1. Anything else is ignorance and misinformation on this particular subject.

So this current decade started on January 1st 2011 and player of the current decade so far is clearly NOVAK DJOKOVIC.

Anything else is wrong, regardless of how hard some try to convince us.

 

[tennisaddict]

As we elaborated and proved already, since there was never year 0 and counting starts with 1, not 0, decades start with the years ending with 1. Anything else is ignorance and misinformation on this particular subject.

So this current decade started on January 1st 2011 and player of the current decade so far is clearly NOVAK DJOKOVIC.

Anything else is wrong, regardless of how hard some try to convince us.

Ninja is right on this one. You have an issue, take up with ATP.

And what is this obsession over 2011 Novak ? Was that his father that played from 2006-2010 ?

 

[Cup8489]

As we elaborated and proved already, since there was never year 0 and counting starts with 1, not 0, decades start with the years ending with 1. Anything else is ignorance and misinformation on this particular subject.

So this current decade started on January 1st 2011 and player of the current decade so far is clearly NOVAK DJOKOVIC.

Anything else is wrong, regardless of how hard some try to convince us.

Actually, no. We don't consider 2000 as part of the 90's. It's part of the 2000's. Just like We wouldn't consider January 1st, 1900 as part of the 1800's, it's clearly the first year of the 1900s. Djokovic is number two behind Nadal. Though I think Djokovic will eventually become the player of this decade... he currently is not.

 

[Strobe Lights]

Of course it is completely arbitrary. Just because our number system starts with the year 1 does not mean that 1 BC - 9 AD is not a decade. So the idea that it HAS to be 1991-2000, 2001-2010, etc. is silly. Just the same way that saying it HAS to be 1990-1999, 2000-2009, etc. is silly. It is just that people find it easier and more convenient to talk about the 90's, 00's, etc.

You could pick and choose if you wanted. Fed fans could pick 2003-2012 and get all of his 17 Majors in one decade.

The guy that gets hurt by the common breaking it down into 90's, 00's, etc. is Nadal as his Major wins are from the latter half of one and the first half of the other. If we talk about the decade of 2005-2014 then he has 14 Major to Roger's 13 (14 if he wins USO). That way we get Sampras still as a decade GOAT (1995-2004) and Rafa the next (2005-2014).

It is all arbitrary and people getting upset about it is quite amusing.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Personally, my favourite decade (and it's also the best decade, and anyone who disagrees is just another reprehensible and unforgivable muppeteer) is from 17th April 2447 - 16th of April 2457.


This is the best decade and if you don't like it you can suck my.


I have just unveiled to you all the best actual decade in the history of life. Deal with it.

 

[Strobe Lights]

As we elaborated and proved already, since there was never year 0 and counting starts with 1, not 0, decades start with the years ending with 1. Anything else is ignorance and misinformation on this particular subject.

So this current decade started on January 1st 2011 and player of the current decade so far is clearly NOVAK DJOKOVIC.

Anything else is wrong, regardless of how hard some try to convince us.

Ignorance and misinformation? A decade is 10 years. That's it. You can take it from any arbitrary starting point you like.

You are correct, 2011-2020 is going to be a decade. Well done. And at the moment Novak Djokovic has the most Majors of the almost 4 years of THAT decade so far. In addition, 2010-2019 is also going to be a decade. At the moment, Rafael Nadal has the most Majors in the almost 5 years of THAT decade that have taken place.

Both will be decades. Both may have the same person have the most Majors in them. Or they may not.

You could even do this:

Most Majors of the Decade
...
1995-2004: Pete Sampras
1996-2005: Pete Sampras
1997-2006: Roger Federer
1998-2007: Roger Federer
1999-2008: Roger Federer
2000-2009: Roger Federer
2001-2010: Roger Federer
2002-2011: Roger Federer
2003-2012: Roger Federer
2004-2013: Roger Federer
2005-2014: Rafael Nadal (Federer could tie at USO)

 

[Feather]

As we elaborated and proved already, since there was never year 0 and counting starts with 1, not 0, decades start with the years ending with 1. Anything else is ignorance and misinformation on this particular subject.

So this current decade started on January 1st 2011 and player of the current decade so far is clearly NOVAK DJOKOVIC.

Anything else is wrong, regardless of how hard some try to convince us.

This is getting boring. Give it up. You are wrong. In Cricket when a batsmen struggles to reach hundred after reaching 90 or 90 plus it's said nervous nineties. In movies, when you consider the best films of a decade they consider exactly like how ATP considered it.

When someone say I like the films from 80s it includes 80 -89. It's how it is everywhere. Give it a rest

 

[Djokovic2011]

Main things
Slams
Nadal 8
Djokovic 6

YE #1
Nadal 2
Djokovic 2

Other Stuff
Finals
Nadal 12
Djokovic 12

SF
Nadal 12
Djokovic 16

QF
Nadal 14
Djokovic 24 (100%)

WTF
Nadal 0 (2 finals)
Djokovic 2


It is a tight race with Nadal currently leading.

5 and bit years to go

What about Masters titles, weeks at #1?

 

[Chico]

This is getting boring. Give it up. You are wrong. In Cricket when a batsmen struggles to reach hundred after reaching 90 or 90 plus it's said nervous nineties. In movies, when you consider the best films of a decade they consider exactly like how ATP considered it.

When someone say I like the films from 80s it includes 80 -89. It's how it is everywhere. Give it a rest

Sorry can't admit I am wrong when I am correct about something. Please go check the facts. Decades, centuries and millenniums start with years ending with 1. Counting starts with 1 not 0. A simple math fact. Just the way it is in this world. Not my or math or science problem that many people are ignorant and misinformed about this simple fact of life.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

What about Masters titles, weeks at #1?

Can't be bothered to figure out weeks.. 14-12 to Nole in the Masters count since 2010.

Who is the best player since 2010?

 

[Chico]

Can't be bothered to figure out weeks.. 14-12 to Nole in the Masters count since 2010.

Who is the best player since 2010?

Djokovic is the best since 2011. Who is the best since 2010 is irrelevant.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Can't be bothered to figure out weeks.. 14-12 to Nole in the Masters count since 2010.

Who is the best player since 2010?

I think Nadal is on 96 weeks, Novak 110 so far.

 

[Strobe Lights]

Djokovic is the best since 2011. Who is the best since 2010 is irrelevant.

They are both as relevant and irrelevant as each other.

 

[Strobe Lights]

What happens if there is a calendar reform and it is decided to change what year 1 is set at, with the next January 1st considered 2016 and all past years being altered by 1? All of a sudden, in this new calendar system, Nadal is the best since 2011.

All arbitrary.

 

[Tiger8]

Player of the decade is between Djokovic and Nadal, with Murray third and Fed fourth. Imo, it's basically 1a and 1b between the Rafa and Nole. Here are the following significant stats since 2010, in comparison with the two players.

Nadal:
Overall ATP Titles/Finals: 28 wins- 17 losses
Grand Slam Titles/Finals: 8-4
ATP Masters 1000 Titles/Finals:12-7
WTC Titles/Finals: 0-2
Main 3 Tournaments Titles/Finals Overall: 20-13

Grand Slam Results:
3 Tournaments Not played
1 First Round Exit
1 Second Round Exit
1 Fourth Round Exit
2 Quarter Finals Exits
12 Final Appearances

Top 10 Wins: 68

Win-Loss Vs Big 4:
vs Djokovic: 9-12
vs Federer: 10-3
vs Murray: 8-3
Overall: 27-18

Davis Cup Finals:
1 Win

Djokovic:
Overall ATP Titles/Finals: 29 wins- 11 losses
Grand Slam Titles/Finals: 6-6
ATP Masters 1000 Titles/Finals:14-4
WTC Titles/Finals: 3-0
Main 3 Tournaments Titles/Finals Overall: 23-10

Grand Slam Results:
(2014 US Open pending, Quarter Finals so far)
3 Quarter Finals Exits
4 Semi Finals Exits
12 Final Appearances

Top 10 Wins: 81

Win-Loss Vs Big 4:
vs Nadal: 12-9
vs Federer: 12-7
vs Murray: 8-5
Overall: 32-21

Davis Cup Finals:
1 Win, 1 Finals Loss

Looking at these statistics, like I said, pretty even. Nadal has 2 more GS's. Djokovic has 2 more Masters and 3 more WTC's. Also, he has a fourth place finish at the Olympics. Any other stats I'm missing? I saw someone post the number of weeks ranked at number 1 for each player, I think Djokovic leads by 14 weeks or something. Anyway, for me, Djokovic is 1a only because of his consistency for so long, in all the big tournaments.

 

[beast of mallorca]

Hahaha...........can't believe that people are arguing with Chico about this. It's better that you speak to a wriggly wet worm and watch slime created on its path.....:twisted:

 

[Gonzo_style]

The player of the decade or whatever is another 'achievement' that doesn't mean anything (ok it means something but only in TMF's basement).

Of course that player born, let's say in 1990 has a better chance to be player of the decade than player born in 1995. That's why it's stupid.

I am Djokovic fan but couldn't care less about that.

 

[jhhachamp]

As we elaborated and proved already, since there was never year 0 and counting starts with 1, not 0, decades start with the years ending with 1. Anything else is ignorance and misinformation on this particular subject.

So this current decade started on January 1st 2011 and player of the current decade so far is clearly NOVAK DJOKOVIC.

Anything else is wrong, regardless of how hard some try to convince us.

You are simply wrong. A decade can be any 10 year period. That's it. Here are 5 sources that prove you wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decade
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/decade
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/decade
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/decade
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us...english/decade

 

[Djokovic2011]

Player of the decade is between Djokovic and Nadal, with Murray third and Fed fourth. Imo, it's basically 1a and 1b between the Rafa and Nole. Here are the following significant stats since 2010, in comparison with the two players.

Nadal:
Overall ATP Titles/Finals: 28 wins- 17 losses
Grand Slam Titles/Finals: 8-4
ATP Masters 1000 Titles/Finals:12-7
WTC Titles/Finals: 0-2
Main 3 Tournaments Titles/Finals Overall: 20-13

Grand Slam Results:
3 Tournaments Not played
1 First Round Exit
1 Second Round Exit
1 Fourth Round Exit
2 Quarter Finals Exits
12 Final Appearances

Top 10 Wins: 68

Win-Loss Vs Big 4:
vs Djokovic: 9-12
vs Federer: 10-3
vs Murray: 8-3
Overall: 27-18

Davis Cup Finals:
1 Win

Djokovic:
Overall ATP Titles/Finals: 29 wins- 11 losses
Grand Slam Titles/Finals: 6-6
ATP Masters 1000 Titles/Finals:14-4
WTC Titles/Finals: 3-0
Main 3 Tournaments Titles/Finals Overall: 23-10

Grand Slam Results:
(2014 US Open pending, Quarter Finals so far)
3 Quarter Finals Exits
4 Semi Finals Exits
12 Final Appearances

Top 10 Wins: 81

Win-Loss Vs Big 4:
vs Nadal: 12-9
vs Federer: 12-7
vs Murray: 8-5
Overall: 32-21

Davis Cup Finals:
1 Win, 1 Finals Loss

Looking at these statistics, like I said, pretty even. Nadal has 2 more GS's. Djokovic has 2 more Masters and 3 more WTC's. Also, he has a fourth place finish at the Olympics. Any other stats I'm missing? I saw someone post the number of weeks ranked at number 1 for each player, I think Djokovic leads by 14 weeks or something. Anyway, for me, Djokovic is 1a only because of his consistency for so long, in all the big tournaments.

And welcome to TT. :wink:

 

[conway]

Contrary to what Chico seems to believe the decade started in 2010. It is Nadal comfortably right now. If Djokovic wins the U.S open though and ends the year #1 it is a close race at this point with Nadal having 8 majors and 2 years as best player, and Djokovic 7 majors and 3 years as best player.

 

[conway]

The player of the decade or whatever is another 'achievement' that doesn't mean anything

Very true. If Seles wasnt stabbed Graf would probably not have been the player of any decade (considering she was alerady 5 slams behind, and her 97-99 was ruined by injuries, even though I am not one of those who thinks Seles was ever going to dominate long term), yet there is a good chance she would still be considered the best ever overall despite that.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Contrary to what Chico seems to believe the decade started in 2010. It is Nadal comfortably right now. If Djokovic wins the U.S open though and ends the year #1 it is a close race at this point with Nadal having 8 majors and 2 years as best player, and Djokovic 7 majors and 3 years as best player.

Please read post #23. Unless you think the Slams are everything and nothing else matters?

 

[conway]

Please read post #23. Unless you think the Slams are everything and nothing else matters?

Slams far override everything else and YE#1s are a strong 2nd, lets put it that way. I am consistent in that belief no matter which player is involved.

 

[Tiger8]

Slams far override everything else and YE#1s are a strong 2nd, lets put it that way. I am consistent in that belief no matter which player is involved.

I wouldn't say it's Nadal "comfortably", Djokovic is right there, and other then Grand Slams, he basically beats out Nadal in everything else. However, like you said, Grand Slams are a major factor, so that's why I'd say it's basically a tie, who you choose is a matter of opinion and you can't really be criticized for picking or the other. I do think that if Djokovic wins this US Open and finishes the year as number 1, he'd be in the lead for now.

 

[forzamilan90]

Fed not even #3 in this decade!

debatable...Fed has 2 slams won since beginning of 2010, same amount as Murray.

 

[TMF]

It's not debatable

debatable...Fed has 2 slams won since beginning of 2010, same amount as Murray.

Both have two slams but what separate Federer apart is his 2 WTF and have reached #1 in the world. Murray never reaches #1 and was always ranked below Federer.

 

[smoledman]

Both have two slams but what separate Federer apart is his 2 WTF and have reached #1 in the world. Murray never reaches #1 and was always ranked below Federer.

True Fed is #3 of the decade.

2 slams
6 MS-1000
2 YEC
#1 in the world

vs Murray

2 slams
5 MS-1000
0 YEC
peak #3 in the world

 

[The_Order]

This is one of the most useless stats. But I'll give my opinion anyway since it seems to be a hot topic around here lately.

Nadal was #2 from 2000-2009 having won 6 majors and YE#1 + Olympics and a load of Masters titles. Only behind Federer.

2010-current Nadal is #1 because 2 majors is too big of a difference to start considering other things. If Novak wins this year's US Open, I'd be more inclined to lean towards Novak, but not when 2 majors behind.

 

[TMF]

This is one of the most useless stats.

It's not useless because the stats determine who will be the player of the decade.

Player of the decade
2010 - 2019: ???????????????
2000 - 2009: Federer (15 slams)
1990 - 1999: Sampras (12 slams)
1980 - 1989: Lendl (7 slams)
1970 - 1979: Borg (8 slams)
1960 - 1969: Laver (11 slams, but 6 were amateur)

 

[timnz]

Nadal 95 weeks this decade (so far)

I think Nadal is on 96 weeks, Novak 110 so far.

Close. Nadal is on 95 weeks this decade (so far).

June 7, 2010 - July 3, 2011 = 56 weeks
October 7, 2013 - July 6, 2014 = 39 weeks

56 + 39 = 95 weeks

 

[The_Order]

It's not useless because the stats determine who will be the player of the decade.

Player of the decade
2010 - 2019: ???????????????
2000 - 2009: Federer (15 slams)
1990 - 1999: Sampras (12 slams)
1980 - 1989: Lendl (7 slams)
1970 - 1979: Borg (8 slams)
1960 - 1969: Laver (11 slams, but 6 were amateur)

Player of the decade is useless. Quit being a tool, nobody really cares when a player achieves, only what they achieve.

If a guy wins 3 majors in 2009 and then 3 in 2010 that is 6 majors. Now let's just say that hypothetically in the decade from 2000-2009 a different player has 4 majors and then from 2010-2019 another different player has 4 majors. Everyone else in those decades has less than 4 majors.

These 2 players who both only have 4 majors each would be ranked "player of the decade" while the guy with 6 majors isn't considered?

You don't look at when they win, only if they win and what they win.

 

[Bryan Swartz]

This is one of the most pointless arguments I've ever read here.

And that's saying something. Whatever happened to appreciating players regardless of what decade their best moments fall in? *boggle*

 

[timnz]

Federer has been number 1 for 39.43 weeks this decade (so far)

FYI - Federer has been number 1 for 39.43 weeks this decade (so far)

January 1, 2010 to June 6, 2010 = 22.43 weeks
July 9, 2012 to November 4, 2012 = 17 weeks

22.43 + 17 = 39.43 weeks

 

[Chico]

FYI - Federer has been number 1 for 39.43 weeks this decade (so far)

January 1, 2010 to June 6, 2010 = 22.43 weeks
July 9, 2012 to November 4, 2012 = 17 weeks

22.43 + 17 = 39.43 weeks

Sorry, but only 17 is in this decade. Nice achievement regardless though.

 

[TMF]

Player of the decade is useless. Quit being a tool, nobody really cares when a player achieves, only what they achieve.

If a guy wins 3 majors in 2009 and then 3 in 2010 that is 6 majors. Now let's just say that hypothetically in the decade from 2000-2009 a different player has 4 majors and then from 2010-2019 another different player has 4 majors. Everyone else in those decades has less than 4 majors.

These 2 players who both only have 4 majors each would be ranked "player of the decade" while the guy with 6 majors isn't considered?

You don't look at when they win, only if they win and what they win.

If player of the decade is useless according to you then the Calendar Slam is also useless because a player can win 4 consecutive slams that overlapped two years. It's the same with the Year End #1 award. Why chose December, but not April, or July? You see the pattern? Everything are chosen at the end. Which means a year is end in December, and decade is end in "9".

Player of the decade is nothing new...all sports have great player named player of the decade. e.g. Kobe Bryant was named 2000-2009 Player of the Decade.
http://www.nba.com/alldecade/vote13/

 

[The_Order]

If player of the decade is useless according to you then the Calendar Slam is also useless because a player can win 4 consecutive slams that overlapped two years. It's the same with the Year End #1 award. Why chose December, but not April, or July? You see the pattern? Everything are chosen at the end. Which means a year is end in December, and decade is end in "9".

Player of the decade is nothing new...all sports have great player named player of the decade. e.g. Kobe Bryant was named 2000-2009 Player of the Decade.
http://www.nba.com/alldecade/vote13/

Yes, winning 4 consecutive slams over the 2 years is just as impressive as winning 4 in one season. Tell me, how many players in the open era have won 4 majors in a row, being non calendar? I doubt it's ever happened!

 

[jg153040]

Maybe Nole is better than Nadal in the last decade. Even if for the sake of the argument use false 2011 starting point.

But, Nadal is greater than Djokovic in the last millennium.
And that is more important.

Federer is the goat of the last millennium.

 

[The_Order]

Maybe Nole is better than Nadal in the last decade. Even if for the sake of the argument use false 2011 starting point.

But, Nadal is greater than Djokovic in the last millennium.
And that is more important.

Federer is the goat of the last millennium.

No he isn't. You can't compare to pre-open era players.

In fact, you'd have a hard time comparing to open era from early on. The surfaces and technological changes prove it impossible to definitively say players from 2000's are better/worse than players from 1980.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Currently it is Nadal. 8 Slams to 6 Slams firmly puts him in the pole position.

The battle for number one this decade could get really exciting in the next two years or so, as we may see a new dominant player emerge that might just challenge the stats put up by Rafa and Nole. Interesting to see. But so far, Nadal rightfully is the best player of this decade, but he has Djokovic right on his heels. A win here in NYC could make this debate a lot more interesting, but for now...Rafa is king.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Maybe Nole is better than Nadal in the last decade. Even if for the sake of the argument use false 2011 starting point.

But, Nadal is greater than Djokovic in the last millennium.
And that is more important.

Federer is the goat of the last millennium.

You do know that sentence doesn't make sense, right?

 

[Russeljones]

You do know that sentence doesn't make sense, right?

Do you hit women too?

 

[jg153040]

No he isn't. You can't compare to pre-open era players.

In fact, you'd have a hard time comparing to open era from early on. The surfaces and technological changes prove it impossible to definitively say players from 2000's are better/worse than players from 1980.

I'm not comparing pre open era, hence the last millennium.

Just after 2000.

I said Fed is the greatest player in the last millennium.