Djokovic's 5 years at #1 more impressive than Federer?

timnz

Legend
2013 - at the very most....

Regarding 2013 - what can be said about that year is 'at the very most' Djokovic could be considered co-number 1 that year with Nadal (the ATP's pick for YE#1).

What is undisputed is the fact that Djokovic's choice of ITF number 1 for 2013 was highly controversial.

Federer's 5 years as YE #1 in contrast are without dispute by any party.

Now having said all that Djokovic has had 3 undisputed years as YE #1. He is almost certainly going to finish this year as YE #1 (though don't count your chicken's before they are hatched!) - that would make 4. But what he will do in future years is not clear.

What is clear - is that is no unbelievably amazing teenager or early 20's player out there. There are some very good ones - but not the sort of ones that win slams as a teenager like Nadal, Becker, Borg etc. Coric or one of the other youngsters could become number 1 in 4 or 5 years or so though. But who will be Djokovic's competition from 2016 on? A lot can happen in tennis, we shall see.

So in Summary: Djokovic has had 3 undisputed YE #1's, a probable (but not certain) YE #1 this year (I don't believe in ever giving a player credit for what they haven't achieved yet, only what they have achieved).
 

Kalin

Legend
This site must be full of delusional Nadal fanboys.

Now that the delusional Nadal fanboys are hopefully fading into oblivion or trekking to Finland do we really need a delusional Djoker fanboy to replace them? Which part of the year-end rankings don't you understand?
 

Andres

G.O.A.T.
Regarding 2013 - what can be said about that year is 'at the very most' Djokovic could be considered co-number 1 that year with Nadal (the ATP's pick for YE#1).
While I agree with most of your points, I'm struggling with this last sentence. Nadal wasn't anyone's PICK for #1. It wasn't a choice, like ITF's. Nadal won the ATP YE#1 because he ended up with the most points.

It wasn't subjective, it wasn't random, it wasn't a choice. He wasn't picked. He earned the most ranking points, therefore, he was the #1.

What kind of criteria used ITF to pick Djokovic? No idea. Maybe ITF-only points? I would guess Nole earned more points at the Slams than Rafa, despite only winning 1 against Nadal's 2.
 

wangs78

Legend
Not sure why everyone is so focused on year end #1. Total weeks at #1 is a much better indicator of ongoing consistency and Fed is at like, what, 302 weeks? Djokovic is at only half that.
 

AngieB

Banned
ITF vs ATP war. Someone call AngieB!
At the end of the day, #ITF achievements are the most celebrated and coveted in #tennis. Without them, you cannot be inducted into the #ITHOF as a former player. Historically-speaking, ATP tour-level events are nothing more than "paid exhibitions" used as ranking generators for #ITF-event seeding purposes and places to fulfill contractual marketing for advertisers . #Harsh, but true.

#AngiesLyst
 

Agassifan

Hall of Fame
as mentioned.. since there was an ITF#1 and a different ATP #1, it means that no one player had a dominant year. Thus this thread is garbage.
 

Zoid

Hall of Fame
1 slam win, 2 other slam finals, 1 other slam semi => 2 slam wins, 1st round loss, DNP

3 Masters + WTF => 5 Masters

ITF and encyclopedia agree and both say Djokovic > Nadal in 2013.

But…But….but why is Nadal holding the trophy as the year end number 1!!!!????? :oops:

Hi Chico, we didn't miss you
 
Last edited:

abmk

Bionic Poster
jeez, some people are in denial. Seriously.

Nadal was clear #1 in 2013. End of story.
 

SystemicAnomaly

Bionic Poster
No, Roger's 302 weeks at #1 is more impressive than Novak's 149 weeks (as of 6/1). Novak is currently #6 on this list and still has less than 1/2 of Roger's mark.

It isnt just the ITF- the most powerful and respected authority in tennis, but encyclopedia- the most accurate facts site in the world. BOTH say Novak was #1 for 2013. This site must be full of delusional Nadal fanboys.

Which encyclopedia is that? They might not all agree. I would think that most encyclopediae would go with the ATP YE #1. Tennis Magazine also put Nadal at #1 for 2013. Rafa also earned more prize money that year than Novak. But all this is moot. Years at #1 is nice but very misleading. Total weeks #1 is much more meaningful.
.
 
Last edited:

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
LOL @ you. The fact that there is even a discussion (and Rafa ended up the ATP #1) means that Nole wasn't dominant in 2013.

You don't need to be a dominant number 1 to be considered the best player of the year. It always bemuses me that so many people think this is the case.
 

Faker

Semi-Pro
1 slam win, 2 other slam finals, 1 other slam semi => 2 slam wins, 1st round loss, DNP

3 Masters + WTF => 5 Masters

ITF and encyclopedia agree and both say Djokovic > Nadal in 2013.

Sure, 3 masters+WTF is about equivalent to 5 masters.

But 1 slam win + 2 slam finals + 1 slam semi does not in any way equal 2 slam wins. Ask any player, would they rather have 4 slam finals or 1 slam win and the obvious answer would be the 1 slam win. That is why people talk about slam WINS and masters WINS when talking about the GOAT debate.

Honestly I don't even remember Chico being this ignorant and stubborn. Why don't we just ignore atp rankings altogether despite it being the STANDARD for everyone in the world. If anyone even asks Djokovic himself who was the YE #1 for 2013, even he will answer Nadal both ATP points wise and level of play.
 

timnz

Legend
While I agree with most of your points, I'm struggling with this last sentence. Nadal wasn't anyone's PICK for #1. It wasn't a choice, like ITF's. Nadal won the ATP YE#1 because he ended up with the most points.

It wasn't subjective, it wasn't random, it wasn't a choice. He wasn't picked. He earned the most ranking points, therefore, he was the #1.

What kind of criteria used ITF to pick Djokovic? No idea. Maybe ITF-only points? I would guess Nole earned more points at the Slams than Rafa, despite only winning 1 against Nadal's 2.

I believe that Nadal was the 2013 YE #1. I wrote the best Djokovic's position could be considered reasonably by anyone (not including me or you) was co-number 1 - no better. Hence, Djokovic wasn't clear number 1 by any reasonable commentator. So I then contrasted Federer 5 clear YE#1's with Djokovic's 3 clear YE#1's.
 

timnz

Legend
Sure, 3 masters+WTF is about equivalent to 5 masters.

But 1 slam win + 2 slam finals + 1 slam semi does not in any way equal 2 slam wins. Ask any player, would they rather have 4 slam finals or 1 slam win and the obvious answer would be the 1 slam win. That is why people talk about slam WINS and masters WINS when talking about the GOAT debate.

Honestly I don't even remember Chico being this ignorant and stubborn. Why don't we just ignore atp rankings altogether despite it being the STANDARD for everyone in the world. If anyone even asks Djokovic himself who was the YE #1 for 2013, even he will answer Nadal both ATP points wise and level of play.

My pick for YE #1 for 2013 was definitely Nadal. But I do agree that others can make a case. So the following is putting forth a position that isn't my own - but I can understand the reasoning.

If you use the ATP points for instance:

Djokovic: (1 Slam x 2000 points=2000) + (1 WTF x 1500 points=1500) + (2 Slam runner-ups x 1200 points=2400) + (3 M1000's x 1000 points=3000) + (1 Slam semi-final x 750 points=750) = Total 9650 points

Nadal (2 Slams x 2000 points=4000) + (0 WTF x 1500 points=0) + (0 Slam runner-ups x 1200=0) + (5 M1000's x 1000 points = 5000) + (0 x Slam semi-finals x 750 points=0) = Total 9000 points

9650 > 9000

I realise that 'Greatness' isn't just established by points (hence, my choice of Nadal) but the other side does have a case that they could reasonably put forward. (Note: If I wanted to 'win' this discussion based on points I could say that Nadal had another 1000 points for his runner-up finish at the WTF - hence 10000 Nadal > 9650 Djokovic. Either way the numbers are very close).
 
Last edited:

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
You don't need to be a dominant number 1 to be considered the best player of the year. It always bemuses me that so many people think this is the case.
For a career I'd always go with weeks at #1 for that factor.

But it seems strange that the ITF gave the #1 bragging rights to the guy who won only 1 slam over the guy who won 2. I can only think of AngieB talking about the ITF here! Seems like THEY were majoring in minors that year!
 

JMR

Hall of Fame
My pick for YE #1 for 2013 was definitely Nadal. But I do agree that others can make a case.

The year-end ranking -- or indeed any ranking -- becomes totally irrelevant if each fan can make his own "picks." To be blunt, the only rankings in the open era that mean anything at all in GOAT arguments are the ATP computer rankings. Everything else is just noise.
 

spinovic

Hall of Fame
as mentioned.. since there was an ITF#1 and a different ATP #1, it means that no one player had a dominant year. Thus this thread is garbage.

If 5/9 Masters and 2/4 majors isn't dominant, then I reckon anything but Laver's calendar slam falls short of the criteria. But, to each their own.
 

spinovic

Hall of Fame
My pick for YE #1 for 2013 was definitely Nadal. But I do agree that others can make a case. So the following is putting forth a position that isn't my own - but I can understand the reasoning.

If you use the ATP points for instance:

Djokovic: (1 Slam x 2000 points=2000) + (1 WTF x 1500 points=1500) + (2 Slam runner-ups x 1200 points=2400) + (3 M1000's x 1000 points=3000) + (1 Slam semi-final x 750 points=750) = Total 9650 points

Nadal (2 Slams x 2000 points=4000) + (0 WTF x 1500 points=0) + (0 Slam runner-ups x 1200=0) + (5 M1000's x 1000 points = 5000) + (0 x Slam semi-finals x 750 points=0) = Total 9000 points

9650 > 9000

I realise that 'Greatness' isn't just established by points (hence, my choice of Nadal) but the other side does have a case that they could reasonably put forward. (Note: If I wanted to 'win' this discussion based on points I could say that Nadal had another 1000 points for his runner-up finish at the WTF - hence 10000 Nadal > 9650 Djokovic. Either way the numbers are very close).

If you're going to use the ATP Points system, you can't cherry pick the ones you include to come up with the points. :)

I realize it isn't your argument, but it's not an argument at all. It's a fabrication.
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
If you're going to use the ATP Points system, you can't cherry pick the ones you include to come up with the points. :)

I realize it isn't your argument, but it's not an argument at all. It's a fabrication.
Did he cherry pick? I really don't know. It seems possible that one player can win more points from racking up Fs an SFs if everything else is close. :confused:
 

spinovic

Hall of Fame
Did he cherry pick? I really don't know. It seems possible that one player can win more points from racking up Fs an SFs if everything else is close. :confused:

Nadal was the YE #1, so yes, he cherry-picked. Here is the reality:

Nadal (2013)
Vina del Mar (F) - 150 points
Brasil Open (W) - 250
Acapulco (W) - 500
Indian Wells (W) - 1000
Miami (withdrew) - 0
Monte Carlo (F) - 600
Barcelona (W) - 500
Madrid (W) - 1000
Rome (W) - 1000
Roland Garros (W) - 2000
Halle (withdrew) - 0
Wimbledon (R128) - 10
Canada (W) - 1000
Cincinnati (W) - 1000
U.S. Open (W) - 2000
Beijing (F) - 300
Shanghai (SF) - 360
Basel (withdrew) - 0
Paris (SF) - 360
WTF (F) - 1000

Total - 13030
75-7 match record
10 Titles (2 Majors, 5 Masters, 2 500, 1 250)
14 Finals


Djokovic (2013)
Australian Open (W) - 2000 points
Davis Cup - 40
Dubai (W) - 500
Indian Wells (SF) - 360
Miami (R16) - 90
Davis Cup - 130
Monte Carlo (W) - 1000
Madrid (R32) - 10
Rome (QF) - 180
Roland Garros (SF) - 720
Wimbledon (F) - 1200
Canada (SF) - 360
Cincinnati (QF) - 180
U.S. Open (F) - 1200
Davis Cup - 140
Beijing (W) - 500
Shanghai (W) - 1000
Paris (W) - 1000
WTF (W) - 1500
Davis Cup - 150

Total - 12260
74-9 match record
7 Titles (1 Major, 3 Masters, 2 500, WTF)
9 Finals
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
Nadal was the YE #1, so yes, he cherry-picked. Here is the reality:

Nadal (2013)
Vina del Mar (F) - 150 points
Brasil Open (W) - 250
Acapulco (W) - 500
Indian Wells (W) - 1000
Miami (withdrew) - 0
Monte Carlo (F) - 600
Barcelona (W) - 500
Madrid (W) - 1000
Rome (W) - 1000
Roland Garros (W) - 2000
Halle (withdrew) - 0
Wimbledon (R128) - 10
Canada (W) - 1000
Cincinnati (W) - 1000
U.S. Open (W) - 2000
Beijing (F) - 300
Shanghai (SF) - 360
Basel (withdrew) - 0
Paris (SF) - 360
WTF (F) - 1000

Total - 13030
75-7 match record
10 Titles (2 Majors, 5 Masters, 2 500, 1 250)
14 Finals


Djokovic (2013)
Australian Open (W) - 2000 points
Davis Cup - 40
Dubai (W) - 500
Indian Wells (SF) - 360
Miami (R16) - 90
Davis Cup - 130
Monte Carlo (W) - 1000
Madrid (R32) - 10
Rome (QF) - 180
Roland Garros (SF) - 720
Wimbledon (F) - 1200
Canada (SF) - 360
Cincinnati (QF) - 180
U.S. Open (F) - 1200
Davis Cup - 140
Beijing (W) - 500
Shanghai (W) - 1000
Paris (W) - 1000
WTF (W) - 1500
Davis Cup - 150

Total - 12260
74-9 match record
7 Titles (1 Major, 3 Masters, 2 500, WTF)
9 Finals
Thanks. I thought so. It's almost impossible with today's point system to win more points if you win fewer slams.

To this moment I can't figure out why the ITF flipped it and made Novak #1 that year.
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
At the end of the day, #ITF achievements are the most celebrated and coveted in #tennis. Without them, you cannot be inducted into the #ITHOF as a former player. Historically-speaking, ATP tour-level events are nothing more than "paid exhibitions" used as ranking generators for #ITF-event seeding purposes and places to fulfill contractual marketing for advertisers . #Harsh, but true.

#AngiesLyst
That's why I do not understand why (apparently) the ITF supported Novak for player of the year in 2013 when he only won one slam, and Nadal won two.
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
That's why I do not understand why (apparently) the ITF supported Novak for player of the year in 2013 when he only won one slam, and Nadal won two.

I doesn't really matter why, ATP is the official system and Djokovic fans can't just cherry pick that one year they will use different system.

Rafa had more ATP points, end of story.

Sure, Rafa's performance was poor at W and AO, but rankings isn't about slams. Also he compensated for his poor performance at AO and W with being great elsewhere.
 

AngieB

Banned
That's why I do not understand why (apparently) the ITF supported Novak for player of the year in 2013 when he only won one slam, and Nadal won two.
I believe on cursory you will find that #Rafael stumbled horribly at #Wimbledon that year(1st Round) and did not play at the #Australian Open. #Novak performed better overall at all four major tournaments would be my guess.

#AngiesLyst
 

SpinToWin

Talk Tennis Guru
I love how some Djokovic fans are just full of contradictions.

On the one hand, they want to bundle up Masters 1000 with Slams under the tag "tier 1" and they are considering them as some of the greatest tournaments in tennis as a consequence.

On the other hand, they want to consider the ITF YE#1 (only) for 2013, which only places Novak at #1 due to his overall better performances at the Slams (making a clear distinction between Masters and Slams).

You can't have your cake and eat it too hypocrites, either the tournaments are all tier one and Nadal is indisputably YE#1 for 2013, or the Slams are significantly more important and Djokovic has severely underachieved from 2012-2014.
 

Russeljones

Talk Tennis Guru
Is Djokovic being #1 5 straight years (assuming he ends this year as the #1 which seems a foregone conclusion) more impressive than Federer who couldnt do it 5 years straight.

Djokovic- 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015
Federer- 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009

That would give Djokovic the slight edge there IMO.

As someone has undoubtedly already pointed out, the consecutive weeks will always take precedent.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Djokovic's years at no.1 are impressive. But Federer's are more impressive.

The guy was no.1 for a record 237 consecutive weeks. In 2005-2007 he was no.1 for the entirety of this period. Djokovic still went through some period when he wasn't no.1 for the entirety of a season. 2015 might be the first time he is no.1 for an entire season.

Also Federer won plenty of slams in each season to consolidate that ranking. Djokovic only did it for 1 season and in 2015 he has a chance to do it for another.
 

Prabhanjan

Professional
I believe on cursory you will find that #Rafael stumbled horribly at #Wimbledon that year(1st Round) and did not play at the #Australian Open. #Novak performed better overall at all four major tournaments would be my guess.

#AngiesLyst

But you always said #ITF finals #minors don't count for anything. Its only winning the #Final that matters. Like how u strongly debated that #minors of Fed's 2 extra Wimbledon finals count for zilch and that Pete in #majors is what matters. U projected and we all took u for #ITF :twisted:
 

ArcspacE

G.O.A.T.
That you're a troll that gets his feelings hurt the moment anyone points to your abject lack of rational contribution.

The day my feelings are hurt by someone who's lack of tennis knowledge is so abundandtly clear by every ultra-biased and poorly researched post yet to come - keep trying
 

Omega_7000

Legend
More crap about Novak being better than Federer.
roflpuke2.gif


Nothing Novak has done so far, aside from winning 5 AOs has been more impressive than anything Federer has accomplished. Let's get that straight.

These are desperate Nadal fans trying to pit Novak and Federer fans against each other...

1374500153_Lets_Jump_Ship_4.jpg
 
Top