Decades, & The Player of the Decade

The current 2010s decade started on?

  • Total voters
    16
J

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
Hitman said:
You do know that sentence doesn't make sense, right? ;)
Click to expand...

Yes, it does. Because greatest off all time doesn't mean a point in time. It just means greatest achievements of all time.

That doesn't mean that you are the best in every time frame. It means that out of all history you have the best achievements. Out of all players in history.

Then out of all players in the last millennium you have best achievements in this all time frame of the last millennium.

All time doesn't infer to all time, it means greatest achievements of all time.
And all time can be any set time frame.

We can say Laver is the goat of pre open era. Serena is goat in female era. Federer is the goat of open era. Jordan is the goat too.

It's just a phrase. Djokovic was goat of the year 2011. It means out of all players in 2011 he had the greatest achievement during all time of that period.
 
The_Order

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
jg153040 said:
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.
Click to expand...

You're digging yourself deeper into the hole.

There are 2 factual fallacies in your post.

1) Greatest of all time of the last millennium makes zero sense (which Hitman pointed out)

2) There is no greatest of millennium/all time because of the reasons I already explained.
 
Chico

Chico

Banned
LOL. :shock: People still considering and discussing nonexistent decades here. It is sad when ignorance, noneducational and misinformation prevail.

Please check your facts, the current decade started on January 1st 2011. That is the truth that can't be denied.
 
Last edited:
vive le beau jeu !

vive le beau jeu !

Talk Tennis Guru
Russeljones said:
Do you hit women too? ;)
Click to expand...
Hitman said:
who? me? hehe ;)
Click to expand...

he tried... but it didn't turn out as hoped. ;)

jz8vvm.jpg


(nice forehand...)
 
F

Federer302

Guest
Djokovic2011 said:
What about Masters titles, weeks at #1?
Click to expand...

Are you going to pay me? ;)

You could argue weeks at number one is a flawed metric due to the fact 2009 results would have contributed to the 2010 decade weeks at number #1. Only a minor issue.
 
J

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
The_Order said:
You're digging yourself deeper into the hole.

There are 2 factual fallacies in your post.

1) Greatest of all time of the last millennium makes zero sense (which Hitman pointed out)

2) There is no greatest of millennium/all time because of the reasons I already explained.
Click to expand...

It's not a fallacy if you change the meaning of what all time means.

I said all time means all time of that period.

All time of a certain era. I can be greatest of entire time in 2010. You are just arguing semantics here.

Hey when you say Nadal is the greatest clay courter of all time, you also don't mean all time do you? Clearly he was the best only in years 2005-2015.

You mean that out of all tennis players in last 100 years or maybe less, he was the goat.

Use some common sense please.
 
S

Strobe Lights

Semi-Pro
TMF said:
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)
Click to expand...

Arbitrary.

Player of the decade
2005-2014: Nadal (14 Majors) - unless Fed wins USO to tie
1995-2004: Sampras (9 Majors)
1985-1994: Lendl (7 Majors)
1975-1984: Borg (10 Majors)

And I am a Fed fan. This is just some weird way for fanboys to big up their man even more. Total number of Majors matters, not whether they occurred in some defined decade.

And yes, I regard 4 Majors in a row over 2 years to be the same as 4 in one year (e.g. Navratilova 6 in a row is superior to Graf's Grand Slam. And # of weeks at #1 is more important than year-end #1.
 
J

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
Strobe Lights said:
Arbitrary.

Player of the decade
2005-2014: Nadal (14 Majors) - unless Fed wins USO to tie
1995-2004: Sampras (9 Majors)
1985-1994: Lendl (7 Majors)
1975-1984: Borg (10 Majors)

And I am a Fed fan. This is just some weird way for fanboys to big up their man even more. Total number of Majors matters, not whether they occurred in some defined decade.

And yes, I regard 4 Majors in a row over 2 years to be the same as 4 in one year (e.g. Navratilova 6 in a row is superior to Graf's Grand Slam. And # of weeks at #1 is more important than year-end #1.
Click to expand...

You can argue 5 in a row during 2 years is better, but you can't argue 4 in a row is better than CYGS.

It's basic math. It's different sequence and it's not the same.

Let's say you are cutting a tree. You start January 1st. And that tree grows back till the end of a season. You need four swings with an ax to cut it down.

Now if you don't win AO, after winning RG,USO,W the tree grows back so you have to start all over again. Only special sequence cuts down the tree.

That's why CYGS is the holy grail in tennis because it has to be this exact sequence. You miss one slam, the sequence resets and you need to start all over again.
 
Russeljones

Russeljones

Talk Tennis Guru
Strobe Lights said:
Arbitrary.

Player of the decade
2005-2014: Nadal (14 Majors) - unless Fed wins USO to tie
1995-2004: Sampras (9 Majors)
1985-1994: Lendl (7 Majors)
1975-1984: Borg (10 Majors)

And I am a Fed fan. This is just some weird way for fanboys to big up their man even more. Total number of Majors matters, not whether they occurred in some defined decade.

And yes, I regard 4 Majors in a row over 2 years to be the same as 4 in one year (e.g. Navratilova 6 in a row is superior to Graf's Grand Slam. And # of weeks at #1 is more important than year-end #1.
Click to expand...

The fact that we're discussing what constitutes a decade and when it begins, just shows the intellectual level of today's debates.
 
Chico

Chico

Banned
Russeljones said:
The fact that we're discussing what constitutes a decade and when it begins, just shows the intellectual level of today's debates.
Click to expand...

Indeed! I am shocked and surprised to realize how many people choose to remain ignorant on this subject and refuse to listen to facts and reason.

And the hard fact is that decades start with years ending with 1. Just the way it is. We count things starting with 1, not with 0. There is no year 0, no month 0, no date 0, ...
So this current decade started on January 1st 2011. (i.e. - 01/01/11).
And not on 00/00/10 - since there is no such thing.
Or on 01/01/10 - since it does not make sense to mix and match (1 day and month and 0 year - :shock:).
 
M

Magnetite

Professional
The #1 signifies the end of the first completed year. You aren't born when you are 1. The zero year is the first year of the decade.
 
Feather

Feather

Legend
Chico said:
Indeed! I am shocked and surprised to realize how many people choose to remain ignorant on this subject and refuse to listen to facts and reason.

And the hard fact is that decades start with years ending with 1. Just the way it is. We count things starting with 1, not with 0. There is no year 0, no month 0, no date 0, ...
So this current decade started on January 1st 2011. (i.e. - 01/01/11).
And not on 00/00/10 - since there is no such thing.
Or on 01/01/10 - since it does not make sense to mix and match (1 day and month and 0 year - :shock:).
Click to expand...

You said you are a programmer. What language you work in? There also you insist that there is no zero but only one?
 
NatF

NatF

Bionic Poster
There has to be a date '0', year 1 is logically 0-1 because if you start from 1 then it means there has already been a a whole year before it. Think about your birthday, you celebrate your first birthday one year after your birth..
 
S

Strobe Lights

Semi-Pro
jg153040 said:
You can argue 5 in a row during 2 years is better, but you can't argue 4 in a row is better than CYGS.

It's basic math. It's different sequence and it's not the same.

Let's say you are cutting a tree. You start January 1st. And that tree grows back till the end of a season. You need four swings with an ax to cut it down.

Now if you don't win AO, after winning RG,USO,W the tree grows back so you have to start all over again. Only special sequence cuts down the tree.

That's why CYGS is the holy grail in tennis because it has to be this exact sequence. You miss one slam, the sequence resets and you need to start all over again.
Click to expand...

The CYGS has to be in an exact sequence, the same way that I could give a name to winning it in the exact sequence of RG-W-USO-AO or W-USO-AO-RG or USO-AO-RG-W. These are the 4 different sequences you could win them in. People pick only 1 as being special as it is within the same season. I don't care about the distinction. 4 in a row is 4 in a row for me. You can take your argument and change the starting point to RG and your point would be that winning AO-RG-W-USO is not as special.

jg153040 said:
Then why did we celebrate new millennium Januray 1st 2000, not January first 2001?

Cuz the entire world disagrees with you

And please continue this hehe it's funny.
Click to expand...

The 21st century and the 3rd millennium did start on January 1st 2001 and people celebrating it in 2000 were wrong. The 21st century and the 2000s are different centuries, offset by 1 year. I just fail to see why any of this matters. Neither is more "special" than the other.

ARBITRARY.
 
D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
vive le beau jeu ! said:
oops, i hope this little joke didn't come at a critical moment... :-?
(we never know !)
everything's fine ?
7127-b46ea9ad19cedcda7dfbd0a93e701421.jpg




PS: maybe the following picture would have been more appropriate ? ;)

sk-357-02str.jpg
Click to expand...

Don't worry buddy, all's good!

Yeah, nothing quite like being double teamed!
 
Chico

Chico

Banned
Sorry this is something that can't be decided or determined by popular vote. Science and Math tells us that current decade started on January 1st 2011. No ignorant uninformed majority vote can change that, sorry.

This is like posting a poll asking if earth is flat and claiming it is indeed since it got more votes in the poll. :shock:
 
S

Strobe Lights

Semi-Pro
NatF said:
There has to be a date '0', year 1 is logically 0-1 because if you start from 1 then it means there has already been a a whole year before it. Think about your birthday, you celebrate your first birthday one year after your birth..
Click to expand...

Year 1 is not logically 0-1. There was a whole year before year 1, we just happen to call it 1 BC rather than 0.

In the Gregorian calendar, a year was set as 1 AD with the year before it labelled 1 BC. The year goes from January 1st through to December 31st, then on the next January 1st the year number increments by 1. The year number is not gradually increasing throughout the year. A year 0 could have been included and is in other calendar systems, but not the one we use.
 
S

Strobe Lights

Semi-Pro
Chico said:
Sorry this is something that can't be decided or determined by popular vote. Science and Math tells us that current decade started on January 1st 2011. No ignorant uninformed majority vote can change that, sorry.

This is like posting a poll asking if earth is flat and claiming it is indeed since it got more votes in the poll. :shock:
Click to expand...

Could you please elaborate on what "science" has to do with this incredibly strict definition of decade that you have?
 
NatF

NatF

Bionic Poster
Strobe Lights said:
Year 1 is not logically 0-1. There was a whole year before year 1, we just happen to call it 1 BC rather than 0.

In the Gregorian calendar, a year was set as 1 AD with the year before it labelled 1 BC. The year goes from January 1st through to December 31st, then on the next January 1st the year number increments by 1. The year number is not gradually increasing throughout the year. A year 0 could have been included and is in other calendar systems, but not the one we use.
Click to expand...

Surely the first year mathematically would be 0-1 then the second 1-2 and so on?

I can see from a calendar perspective the first year is 1 and we are in the first year until it gets to year 2 etc...

I'm too tired for this :lol:
 
S

Strobe Lights

Semi-Pro
NatF said:
Surely the first year mathematically would be 0-1 then the second 1-2 and so on?

I can see from a calendar perspective the first year is 1 and we are in the first year until it gets to year 2 etc...

I'm too tired for this :lol:
Click to expand...

What is the "first" year? The "first" year of what? There is a year before year 1 AD, that is the year 1 BC. There is a year before that, that is the year 2 BC.

If we are talking about the first year of what we set as the "1st century", then we set the beginning as 01/01/0001 and the end as 31/12/0001. 0000 could have been chosen but was not. There is no need to confuse matters with the mathematical idea of the year starting at 0, increasing throughout and ending at 1.

In terms of our calendar system, it actually does make most sense to talk about decades as separate blocks from 1-10, since it began with 1. However, saying "2nd decade of the 21st century" (2011-2020) does not exactly roll off the tongue. So people find it easier to discuss decades that are from 0-9, such as 2010-2019.

I mean we could stop talking about the "swinging 60s" (1960-1969) and start talking about the "swinging 7th decade of the 20th century" (1961-1970) but I don't think it would catch on.

Djokovic probably ends up with the best stats from both 2010-2019 and 2011-2020 so he can be the players of both those decades anyway.
 
S

Strobe Lights

Semi-Pro
Also, the poll question is tremendous, because by definition the 2010s started on January 1st 2010. The top answer is correct, the bottom answer is wrong. It isn't a question of opinion.
 
T

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Strobe Lights said:
Arbitrary.

Player of the decade
2005-2014: Nadal (14 Majors) - unless Fed wins USO to tie
1995-2004: Sampras (9 Majors)
1985-1994: Lendl (7 Majors)
1975-1984: Borg (10 Majors)

And I am a Fed fan. This is just some weird way for fanboys to big up their man even more. Total number of Majors matters, not whether they occurred in some defined decade.

And yes, I regard 4 Majors in a row over 2 years to be the same as 4 in one year (e.g. Navratilova 6 in a row is superior to Graf's Grand Slam. And # of weeks at #1 is more important than year-end #1.
Click to expand...

Well you and The_Order are one of the minority, because CYGS, Year End #1, Player of the Year and Player of the Decade has a specific time frame that are universal accepted. A year start from Jan and end in December, and a decade start from 0 and end in 9.

This system doesn't only applies to sport. Song or film of the year is judge from Jan-December. Greatest songs or films of the 80s, or 90s are judge from "0" to "9".

Even awards are based on the same system.
 
J

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
I don't use Gregorian calendar. I like zeros, it's less confusing.

Even if somebody is wrong, there are no consequences.

So, does that mean a day starts at 1:00 a.m.?

Most people use January 2000 is new decade.
Especially in tennis.

I'm more interested in practical use.
 
S

Strobe Lights

Semi-Pro
TMF said:
Well you and The_Order are one of the minority, because CYGS, Year End #1, Player of the Year and Player of the Decade has a specific time frame that are universal accepted. A year start from Jan and end in December, and a decade start from 0 and end in 9.

This system doesn't only applies to sport. Song or film of the year is judge from Jan-December. Greatest songs or films of the 80s, or 90s are judge from "0" to "9".

Even awards are based on the same system.
Click to expand...

Of course they are, because it is the easiest and simplest way to put things into sections and boxes in our mind. I understand completely why it is done. But it doesn't actually mean anything. Why should one player be rewarded for winning things mainly between 2000-2009 when another mainly won between 2005-2014? One achievement is not greater than the other. We just like to list things, create titles and labels and awards and choose the simplest way to block it out.

Do you agree that these are arbitrarily created though? Or do you genuinely believe that being the best player from 2000-2009 is inherently better than 2005-2014?

jg153040 said:
I don't use Gregorian calendar. I like zeros, it's less confusing.

Even if somebody is wrong, there are no consequences.

So, does that mean a day starts at 1:00 a.m.?

Most people use January 2000 is new decade.
Especially in tennis.

I'm more interested in practical use.
Click to expand...

You don't use the Gregorian calendar? So what date is it considered where you are?

Who claimed a day started at 1am?

I am not denying that you can consider 2000 the start of a decade. The same way you can 2001. It is obvious why people are happier to talk about things in terms of the former. But why does it matter?
 
J

jhhachamp

Hall of Fame
Chico said:
Sorry this is something that can't be decided or determined by popular vote. Science and Math tells us that current decade started on January 1st 2011. No ignorant uninformed majority vote can change that, sorry.

This is like posting a poll asking if earth is flat and claiming it is indeed since it got more votes in the poll. :shock:
Click to expand...

You are wrong. A decade can be any 10 year period. These 5 sources below 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

The 2010s decade is from 2010-2019. The decade from 2011-2020 is also a decade but terming this decade the 2010s decade makes no sense.
 
Last edited:
conway

conway

Banned
It doesnt matter as player of the decade is a meaningless title anyway. Which decade your achievements came in, or how they were split per decade is one of the dumbest ways of assessing players and their achievements I have heard.
 
J

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
Strobe Lights said:
Of course they are, because it is the easiest and simplest way to put things into sections and boxes in our mind. I understand completely why it is done. But it doesn't actually mean anything. Why should one player be rewarded for winning things mainly between 2000-2009 when another mainly won between 2005-2014? One achievement is not greater than the other. We just like to list things, create titles and labels and awards and choose the simplest way to block it out.

Do you agree that these are arbitrarily created though? Or do you genuinely believe that being the best player from 2000-2009 is inherently better than 2005-2014?



You don't use the Gregorian calendar? So what date is it considered where you are?

Who claimed a day started at 1am?

I am not denying that you can consider 2000 the start of a decade. The same way you can 2001. It is obvious why people are happier to talk about things in terms of the former. But why does it matter?
Click to expand...

I use the calendar correctly, just not when I talk about centuries or decades. It's easier to use zero and most people use this technically false system, but if it's used in real life by most, of course I will use it. Date is correct, just for me new decade starts 1st January 0, instead of 1st Januray 1. Because most people use this too.

Why is it important? Well, it's not, unless aliens are coming next decade and you want to know what system they use, so you wont miss them or be early :).

But why is it important here? Because people don't understand that it doesn't really matter. And also because some Djokovic fans want to use this incorrectly to prove Djokovic is better than Nadal or that this means something. They think this proves something and it doesn't and they don't understand that. That's why it's important.

They think it's science but it doesn't mean anything or proves anything if you start a decade in 2001 or in 2000. It's irrelevant.
 
E

eldanger25

Hall of Fame
conway said:
It doesnt matter as player of the decade is a meaningless title anyway. Which decade your achievements came in, or how they were split per decade is one of the dumbest ways of assessing players and their achievements I have heard.
Click to expand...

Yep. The fact that sperm met egg for the Federers sometime in late 1980 after daddy Federer wriggled his moustache at the Mrs. at the end of a hot night of wine, dark chocolate, and some Philly soul LPs, or that Mr. and Mrs. Djokovic did the Belgrade Shuffle without a wrapper sometime in 1986, relative to the Nadals knocking boots to the strenuous sounds of Jan Hammer circa early season two Miami Vice episodes in 1985, means basically nothing in the best of all time debate.
 
tennis_pro

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
I see the major ownage that I put on Chico wasn't enough so he came here for more. And he got it.

The 2010's (AS THE NAME SUGGESTS) BEGAN in 2010. If it did in 2011 then the year 2020 would also have to be included in the 2010's which would be total blasphemy.

I don't need no facts or data to determine that the 90's include the year 1990, 1991, 1992....1998 and it ends with 1999, not with 2000. This is common sense which Chico (and the other 3 people who voted for 2011) is clearly lacking.

Btw the most hilarious part is that the only reason Chico is still arguing is not that he believes that the year 2011 is the beginning of the 2010's but because he wants Djokovic to be the player of the decade and the only way he can accomplish that is to cut off Nadal's 3-Slam year which he had in 2010. He's the most blatantly obvious troll I have met here, predictable to the bone + he's a total whiner.
 
Last edited:
conway

conway

Banned
Like I said in another thread if Seles wasnt stabbed she probably would have been the female player of the 90s. Yet Graf probably still would be the GOAT overall today, despite being only the 2nd best of the 90s (or even 3rd best behind Hingis), and 2nd best of the 80s (or even 3rd best behind Evert). That already proves how meaningless best of the decade is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Cody
The Decade in Review
Replies
4
Views
1K
Andres
Andres
T
Criteria for Player of the decade
Replies
1
Views
274
WYK
WYK
T
Criteria for Player of the decade
Replies
19
Views
771
TupeloDanger
TupeloDanger
B
2010 decade era...
Replies
49
Views
4K
timnz
T
OddJack
Tennis Player Of The Decade
Replies
2
Views
795
nCode2010
N
Top