Ya thats basically what it does (with delineations of separation like at say 30/31, 20/21 etc). The roundaboutness of it I think sheds light on why its a reasonable system though (in regards to the ratios lining up fairly well with the number of players it discriminates from throughout history).
Ya its a good base point I think. No question Lendl had a lot of tough matches, but you also have to consider some of his wins made up for that. He got Pernfors, Mecir, Mecir in 3 of his wins and a retirement from Edberg (after losing the 1st set) in a 4th (during a year Edberg was #1). He also blew a shot vs Pat Cash at a reasonable Wimbledon in 87.
Right, I've felt the same way. Like for instance if you swapped one of those 3 and Murray's eras I think Murray gets to #1 and adds a few more slams and the one you swapped probably doesn't and loses slams. Wilander and Becker only got to 20 and 13 weeks at #1 anyways. Edberg had many more but he was sort of a transitionary #1 between Lendl and Sampras.
I agree, I've said this before. I think all 3 have been shorted compared to Sampras, but Fed has gotten benefit over Nadal/Djoker too. Prior to the 31 top 10 wins this year from Nole, the record was 24 shared by Djokovic 2012, Djokovic 2013, Nadal 2013. 12-13 was insanity levels of competition. The season ATP points accumulated by Nole's 1 slam years those seasons were outrageous. His 2013 is above Nadal 08/Fed 09. His 2012 is even above Fed 04/Fed 05/Nadal 10.
Further comparison: Fed statistically performed better at Wimbledon, the USO, and the WTF in the pre-finals in 2015 than 2005 and he finished 2015 with the same number of top 10 wins as 2005.
Yep on all the non non magenta stuff.. just to let you know I've read it and concur.
**
There's a lot of complicated stuff here. For example, Djokovic's record against the top 10 is unreal this year, but I don't think it necessarily means he's had it tougher this year than he had it in say 2011 - I'd say he hasn't. There is a sterility to the tour right now which has made the top rankings very stable and therefore results more predictable. If a new wave of very talented young players came through in 2016-2017, Djokovic could be just as impressive as he was this year and win 3 Slams etc. but not get anywhere close to 31 top-ten wins due to the state of flux that such an uprising would stir on the tour, where things are less stable and it's far more likely for the lower ranked rising players to play above rank and for those in the top 10, definitively on the way down and finally being shoved aside by new talents, to be playing below rank. In short, the more stable and stagnant the tour, the more chances one is going to get to defeat a top-ten. Make no mistake though, I do not think this was a weak year. The year was fine and Federer provided ample competition, and Stan rocked Djokovic's world at the French Open.
2011-2013 were strong years.. especially 2012 for reasons I've shared with you before, but 2011 and 2013 are noteworthy for featuring two peaking all-time greats, with it being 1-1 in terms of who won those battles. Djokovic has overall had more difficult years than Federer during his peak period if we 2011 and 2004 as starting points. He was punished in that he lost out on YE#1 one year and also won less Slams than he could have done. Going by a finals system, he's at least somewhat compensated. If 2012 and 2013 were a bit weaker, he could have won 2-3 Slams in those years. However, I do believe his 2015 iteration is the best iteration, and is better mentally, strategically and tactically than the Djokovic who played in 2012-2013, and I even prefer 2015 over 2011, even though I think Nadal was a slightly more live hurdle to get past than Federer was in 2015.
As for Federer in 2015, clearly he's at a very high level otherwise he wouldn't have reached the last 3 biggest available tournament finals consecutively. I don't know much about the stats but I'll take your word for it.
For me the explanation is simple. Strategically, Djokovic has mastered his key rivals this year to an extent rarely before seen. Federer does have some issues compared to his pomp, mainly psychological, but he's clearly adapted as he's gotten older and was able to produce prime tennis this year at 3 of the 5 biggest events. In which case, why couldn't he beat Djokovic?
1. Djokovic produced a ridiculous year of tennis and Federer needed to be GOATing in the matches to compete.
2. Djokovic with Becker is waaaaaaay more ready on a strategic and tactical level for matches. He's out-prepared Federer, Murray and Nadal this year by a huge margin. He's mastered the match-ups.
3. As a follow on, Federer was basically as good as Djokovic this year at Wimbledon and the US Open
or better but when it came to the specific match-up, Djokovic had the key.
4. This isn't to say Federer isn't disadvantaged regardless of the above points and stats before the big finals. There's something to be said for reaching the peak, descending and then trying to climb it again as opposed to soaring at the highest peak right in the middle of one's pomp on a psychological level.
5. So basically, Federer = Djokovic in terms of tennis against the field at Wimbledon and US Open if we exclude how they do against each other.
Harking back to my opening point:
Top ten wins can be deceiving. While I tout them often on this board and do feel they are a useful representation in many ways of one's ability to peak in a match, the current climate dictates that Djokovic playing this well would achieve 31 wins against top-ten opposition. Nonetheless, this isn't a knock on Djokovic but just a point that it doesn't alone begin to dictate the strength of a year.
**
On why Nadal was a tougher hurdle than Federer.
Nadal was at the top of his game and supremely confident, and Djokovic took that version of Nadal, in full 2010 mode, made him question himself and his game and surpassed his level.
It's different with Federer in 2015, whose pure tennis has been outstanding at 2 of the 4 Slams, but psychologically his situation is drastically different, and unfortunately for Federer that has mattered, and his problems were further compounded by Djokovic's outstanding preparation.
TL;DR
Djokovic has had it tougher so far and is due a regression to the mean, which, much to the chagrin of many Fedal fans, might be happening. Lost out on some Slams through stiff comp.
Djokovic in 2015 was too good.. Djokovic is on the level of former highest all-time greats, therefore Djokovic wins unless a rival produces more or less their best ever year also, so for example as happened in 2011 and 2013.
Top-ten wins don't tell us everything, though they are useful.
