Djokovic low Final/title conversion in GS?

torpantennis said:
Only winners are remembered. 1slam = 2WTF = 4MS. Losing in finals or losing in 1st round, nobody cares. You measure the consistency in weeks #1.
Click to expand...

But if you lose in the first round you have no chance of winning the title but if you reached the final you have! After all you dont reach the final with the idea to lose it.

Final - 1mln + 1200 points
1st round - 20k + 20 points

See the difference? Lone Slam final give you top 20 ranking for a year which means better seeding and a lot more money.
 
tennisaddict said:
Rafa needs 1 WTF to round out his resume. That is fine.

But when we compare career accomplishments and talk about Novak's performance since 2011, winning 3 WTF's is not just an 'icing'. All of the 3 WTF needs to be taken into account and not just 'he won WTF during the period'.

Otherwise a player with 0 majors is same as one with 0 majors + 4 WTF.
Click to expand...

You are right that multiple WTF titles need to be taken into account but they are not given the same value as multiple slams. They ARE icing titles, slams are not.
 
drm025 said:
When we talk about careers, Federer is more the up and down one that you are referring to while Nadal is the more consistent one. You would think with Fed's numbers from 2004-2007, he would have a better win-loss pct., but he was sub-par pre-prime. Nadal being more consistent throughout his career, has the higher win-loss pct.

Why shouldn't an early bloomer be favored?? They got better sooner, so that would be a plus. If they don't play as long, then they have less opportunities to win and then their consistency doesn't matter if they don't have the titles. Look at Borg, is he considered the GOAT for having the highest win pct. in slams? No, cause he only won 11.
Click to expand...

Nadal has been the most consistent on clay that's it. Federer's numbers are better on 2/3 surfaces, Nadal is just a monster on the dirt and always has been. Trying to argue Nadal is the most consistent overall is silly considering he doesn't have the numbers off clay to make a case for it. Unless you think consistency can be separated from 'well rounded'.
 
Djokovic2011 said:
No, Federer's 04-07 period was how you define ultra consistency, the like of which has never been seen before in the sport. Nole's 11-14 period has also been very consistent cc0, you know this of course but you just don't want to acknowledge it because you dislike him.
Click to expand...

I always acknowledge that Djokovic has been very consistent since 2011 but not exceptional compared to Nadal during that time, at least not at slams. At Masters 1000 events, Djokovic is the man.
 
tennisaddict said:
Not true at all.

Lendl's 8 USO finals is still talked even today.
Click to expand...

It's talked because they all laugh at his mediocre record in the finals. It's only in that way that the finals losses are remembered. When Lendl got as a coach of Murray, everybody was pointing to Lendl's struggles in winning, comparing him to Murray. :lol:
 
cc0509 said:
You are right that multiple WTF titles need to be taken into account but they are not given the same value as multiple slams. They ARE icing titles, slams are not.
Click to expand...

Beating five top 10 players in a row is an icing title ....really? So why all Pro players are fighting so hard to reach that meaningless tournament?
 
Bukmeikara said:
But if you lose in the first round you have no chance of winning the title but if you reached the final you have! After all you dont reach the final with the idea to lose it.

Final - 1mln + 1200 points
1st round - 20k + 20 points

See the difference? Lone Slam final give you top 20 ranking for a year which means better seeding and a lot more money.
Click to expand...

Check my last sentence: "You measure the consistency in weeks #1."

That loss in the final indeed gives you more ATP points, and when we compare the greatness of the players, we include this "consistency" by checking how many weeks the player has been at #1.
 
torpantennis said:
It's talked because they all laugh at his mediocre record in the finals. It's only in that way that the finals losses are remembered. When Lendl got as a coach of Murray, everybody was pointing to Lendl's struggles in winning, comparing him to Murray. :lol:
Click to expand...

So if you are laughing at someone like Lendl, what is you feeling towards the other 99.99% of the tennis players? I bet you think that everyone below 5 Slams is a journeyman?
 
NatF said:
Nadal has been the most consistent on clay that's it. Federer's numbers are better on 2/3 surfaces, Nadal is just a monster on the dirt and always has been. Trying to argue Nadal is the most consistent overall is silly considering he doesn't have the numbers off clay to make a case for it. Unless you think consistency can be separated from 'well rounded'.
Click to expand...

I'm not really concerned with the semantics, or separating surfaces because tennis is played on all of them and Nadal plays on all of them. Throughout his entire career, when he steps on the court, he has been the most consistent player. This is backed up by not only win pct., but his win conversion, finals conversion, etc. Of course, this can all change. But, as we've seen with Federer, the early years are what bring your numbers down more than the later years, at least for the top, top players. Whatever they lack physically as they get older, they can somewhat make up for by their supreme mental ability and experience which they were still developing when younger.
 
Last edited:
Bukmeikara said:
Beating five top 10 players in a row is an icing title ....really? So why all Pro players are fighting so hard to reach that meaningless tournament?
Click to expand...

I am not saying it is a meaningless tournament. Look, I am a Federer fan and he has the WTF record so of course it is an incredible achievement and yes all great players want to win the WTF title but there is NO comparison between the value of winning a slam compared to the value of winning a WTF title. Forget just the ranking points, I am talking about legacy value.

Again, wouldn't Novak forego his WTF titles for one FO? Seriously.
 
Federer is in a class all his own.

Nadal is closer to Sampras and Rod Laver.

Navok is closer to McEnroe and Borg.
 
drm025 said:
I'm not really concerned with the semantics, or separating surfaces because tennis is played on all of them and Nadal plays on all of them. Throughout his entire career, when he steps on the court, he has been the most consistent player. This is backed up by not only win pct., but his win conversion, finals conversion, etc. Of course, this can all change. But, as we've seen with Federer, the early years are what bring your numbers down more than the later years, at least for the top, top players. Whatever they lack physically, they can somewhat make up for by their supreme mental ability and experience which they were still developing when younger.
Click to expand...

Nadal has better % because after 2004 he skipped every Major tournament outside the clay + including the Masters at least once. If he played those, do you think that he would fair as good as he normaly do? WTF 2009 and 2011 ring a bell to you? Nadal skips tournaments when not fully fit so he can save his confidence untouched.
 
cc0509 said:
I am with you. I am just stating that more ranking points are allotted for a slam finalist than they are for a Masters 1000 winner.
Click to expand...

And that aids in getting you to world #1, which then lifts your resume. Losses in finals don't lift your resume, in some cases even the contrary. :|
 
drm025 said:
Also, a Masters win + WTF win is worth more points than a slam. The points system does not determine greatness.
Click to expand...

Points system does determine greatness and value.

Theory of adding points is what is "flawed". 8 clay ATP 250's would not be a major, otherwise Muster is a multi FO champion.
 
cc0509 said:
I am not saying it is a meaningless tournament. Look, I am a Federer fan and he has the WTF record so of course it is an incredible achievement and yes all great players want to win the WTF title but there is NO comparison between the value of winning a slam compared to the value of winning a WTF title. Forget just the ranking points, I am talking about legacy value.

Again, wouldn't Novak forego his WTF titles for one FO? Seriously.
Click to expand...

This is an imposible scenario, you cant switch titles like that. If a man lose his daughter wouldnt he preffer to replace her with his wife or mother? YES .. NO?!!!!
 
tennisaddict said:
Points system does determine greatness and value.

Theory of adding points is what is "flawed". 8 clay ATP 250's would not be a major, otherwise Muster is a multi FO champion.
Click to expand...

If you go by the ranking system, then a Masters title is worth half of a slam title. Logically, then, you would have to agree that 2 Masters titles is worth one slam.
 
cc0509 said:
I am not saying it is a meaningless tournament. Look, I am a Federer fan and he has the WTF record so of course it is an incredible achievement and yes all great players want to win the WTF title but there is NO comparison between the value of winning a slam compared to the value of winning a WTF title. Forget just the ranking points, I am talking about legacy value.

Again, wouldn't Novak forego his WTF titles for one FO? Seriously.
Click to expand...

Would he forego his WTF titles for an AO ? I wouldn't think so.

Don't go by what is missing from someone's resume.

We are comparing the value of a WTF vis-a-vis a major. We know it is less. To you it is just an icing. But for others it is a very important title, way above Masters and just below slams.
 
drm025 said:
I'm not really concerned with the semantics, or separating surfaces because tennis is played on all of them and Nadal plays on all of them. Throughout his entire career, when he steps on the court, he has been the most consistent player. This is backed up by not only win pct., but his win conversion, finals conversion, etc. Of course, this can all change. But, as we've seen with Federer, the early years are what bring your numbers down more than the later years, at least for the top, top players. Whatever they lack physically as they get older, they can somewhat make up for by their supreme mental ability and experience which they were still developing when younger.
Click to expand...

Nadal does not win on them equally though, not even close. Which is very relevant when talking about consistency. It's you who decided that win/loss pct is the real mark of consistency anyway. But carry avoiding the fact that Nadal's win/loss pct like his major accomplishments have a definite clay skew. The guy is barely top 10 win/loss pct on grass or hards yet comes #1 because of clay and you want to talk about him being the most consistent player ever :lol:
 
torpantennis said:
And that aids in getting you to world #1, which then lifts your resume. Losses in finals don't lift your resume, in some cases even the contrary. :|
Click to expand...

Seriosly reaching the final of the top 4 events in tennis is downgrading you resume ... ? Really?:) So Gaudio or Wawrinkas slam titles are better than Roddicks resume at WImbledon :)
 
drm025 said:
If you go by the ranking system, then a Masters title is worth half of a slam title. Logically, then, you would have to agree that 2 Masters titles is worth one slam.
Click to expand...

Again, you cannot add points from multiple tournaments. In that scenario, Connors would be the GOAT of tennis.
 
tennisaddict said:
Would he forego his WTF titles for an AO ? I wouldn't think so.

Don't go by what is missing from someone's resume.

We are comparing the value of a WTF vis-a-vis a major. We know it is less. To you it is just an icing. But for others it is a very important title, way above Masters and just below slams.
Click to expand...

Of course he would or at least three of them.
 
Bukmeikara said:
Nadal has better % because after 2004 he skipped every Major tournament outside the clay + including the Masters at least once. If he played those, do you think that he would fair as good as he normaly do? WTF 2009 and 2011 ring a bell to you? Nadal skips tournaments when not fully fit so he can save his confidence untouched.
Click to expand...

Nadal doesn't play when he can't play, like all the other players. Unfortunately, he is injury-prone. When you don't play, you can't win or loss, its simple. If he ends up winning the same amount with less opportunities, then good on him.
 
drm025 said:
If you go by the ranking system, then a Masters title is worth half of a slam title. Logically, then, you would have to agree that 2 Masters titles is worth one slam.
Click to expand...

Its a fair system. Ferrari is a Ferrari but in the end you can say that it is equal to two Porsches.
 
tennisaddict said:
Again, you cannot add points from multiple tournaments. In that scenario, Connors would be the GOAT of tennis.
Click to expand...

You're the one suggesting that points correlate to the overall value of a title, not me.

If you agree with the first sentence in my post, you MUST agree with the second. There's no way around it.
 
drm025 said:
Nadal doesn't play when he can't play, like all the other players. Unfortunately, he is injury-prone. When you don't play, you can't win or loss, its simple. If he ends up winning the same amount with less opportunities, then good on him.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Who give a crap about anything else? Winning a major is winning a major.
 
Bukmeikara said:
No its not. You cant switch titles the same way you cant replace a death person with someone else. Simple as that.
Click to expand...

Of course you can't switch titles, my point was that IF they could switch WTF titles with slams they would in a heartbeat. It is a no-brainer.
 
cc0509 said:
Of course you can't switch titles, my point was that IF they could switch WTF titles with slams they would in a heartbeat. It is a no-brainer.
Click to expand...

You cant know for sure what they would do even if possible. For me its insane to switch 2-3-4 WTF titles for 1 Slam title and yet for someone like you its a no-brainer.
 
Bukmeikara said:
Seriosly reaching the final of the top 4 events in tennis is downgrading you resume ... ? Really?:) So Gaudio or Wawrinkas slam titles are better than Roddicks resume at WImbledon :)
Click to expand...

Roddick's resume is far superior to Gaudio/Wawrinka because of his consistent RANKING in the top 10, and even top 5. The ONLY measure of consistency is the ranking.
 
Bukmeikara said:
You cant know for sure what they would do even if possible. For me its insane to switch 2-3-4 WTF titles for 1 Slam title and yet for someone like you its a no-brainer.
Click to expand...

Whatever you say. But most tennis analysts and players would disagree with you. Tweet one of the great players such as McEnroe, Becker, Wilander, etc. and ask them the question. Ask them if Djokovic would trade three of his WTF titles for one FO.
 
drm025 said:
You're the one suggesting that points correlate to the overall value of a title, not me.

If you agree with the first sentence in my post, you MUST agree with the second. There's no way around it.
Click to expand...

You can compare points between majors and Wtf.

ATP 250, 500 and. 1000 are fillers and prep tournament for the real deal - Wtf and majors. So, their points don't mean much
 
cc0509 said:
Whatever you say. But most tennis analysts and players would disagree with you. Tweet one of the great players such as McEnroe, Becker, Wilander, etc. and ask them the question. Ask them if Djokovic would trade three of his WTF titles for one FO.
Click to expand...

I really hope that one day I would have the possibility to ask someone like Novak, Federer or Nadal about this particular trade :) But in the end every title has special meaning for the player even the smallest ones. For us they are just 250, 500, 1000, 2000 but its different for the actual winners. Look how happy were Nadal and Novak with their first titles in Poland and Holland, I believe that they wouldnt trade them for any Slam, WTF or Master title because they summarized years of training and dedication with no guarantee that they would get somethign in return.
 
Bukmeikara said:
I really hope that one day I would have the possibility to ask someone like Novak, Federer or Nadal about this particular trade :) But in the end every title has special meaning for the player even the smallest ones. For us they are just 250, 500, 1000, 2000 but its different for the actual winners. Look how happy were Nadal and Novak with their first titles in Poland and Holland, I believe that they wouldnt trade them for any Slam, WTF or Master title because they summarized years of training and dedication with no guarantee that they would get somethign in return.
Click to expand...

I agree with this, well said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Third Serve
  • Poll Poll
Exactly how much weight do you place on final conversion rate?
2
Replies
54
Views
3K
abmk
abmk
Djokodalerer31
How come Murray didn't play against Nadal in GS final even once??
Replies
47
Views
3K
NaomiKonjuhPotapova
NaomiKonjuhPotapova
uscwang
Is history repeating itself?
2
Replies
73
Views
5K
Stannis Baratheon
S
Cup8489
Disappointed in djokovic major final record.
2 3 4
Replies
161
Views
16K
Omega_7000
Omega_7000
nolefam_2024
Djokovic and Big title finals record
2 3 4
Replies
156
Views
8K
nolefam_2024
nolefam_2024
Back
Top