Fed 2004-09 vs Nole 2011-16 vs Nole 2018-23

Neptune

Hall of Fame
6 Year Periods

Sampras (93-98) -> 10 Slams / 43 titles / Win% against top 5 = 72.34%
Federer (04-09) -> 14 Slams / 50 titles / Win% against top 5 = 65.67%
Nadal (08-13) -> 10 Slams / 38 titles / Win% against top 5 = 64.38%
Djokovic (11-16) -> 11 Slams / 48 titles / Win% against top 5 = 72.53%
Djokovic (18-23) -> 12 Slams / 30 titles / Win% against top 5 = 69.81%


@Holmes, @Kralingen, @Pheasant -> Whose numbers do you feel are most impressive and whose do you feel are the least impressive ?

Rafa 2008-13 and Pete 1993-98 added in post #2
 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
Rafa 2008-13 and Pete 1993-98 added in post #2

Nice ....

On more thing is that ELO is not the best way to determine strength of the field..... the ELO technique is fraud, it tells us that Murray has a higher peak ELO than Sampras which is nonsense.
 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
Here is how you judge field strength @Neptune


Age of Top 5 Players with Highest win% against the Top 10 [Min 35 matches .... age of player at the beginning of the year considered]


Sampras's (93-98) -------> Sampras (21-26) Agassi (22-27) Becker (25-30) Stich (24-29) Muster (25-30)
Federer's (04-09) -------> Federer (22-27) Nadal (17-22) Murray (16-21) Djokovic (16-21) Davydenko(22-27)
Nadal's (08-13) -------> Nadal (21-26) Djokovic (20-25) Murray (20-25) Federer (26-31) Soderling (23-28)
Djokovic's (11-16) -------> Djokovic (23-28) Nadal (24-29) Federer (29-34) Murray (23-28) Wawrinka (25-30)
Djokovic's (18-23) -------> Djokovic (30-35) Nadal (31-36) Alcaraz (14-19) Medvedev (21-26) Thiem (24-29)


Assuming 21(+) to 31(-) is PRIME .... anyone 31 and above / 21 and below should be post prime / pre prime... So lets mark someone who is majorly pre prime/post prime in RED and someone who is majorly in prime years to be BLUE

Federer's 04-09 and Djokovic's 18-23 are the most garbage phases of Tennis in terms of competition, any era where teens/oldies in 30s dominate the top 2-3 slots is bound to be garbage because that means the guys in the mid 20s who are supposed to be at their peak are abject losers..... thats what makes an era weak.

Strongest phases are Pete's, Rafa's and Novak's, more or less all the phases are similar.
 
Last edited:

Neptune

Hall of Fame
Nice ....

On more thing is that ELO is not the best way to determine strength of the field..... the ELO technique is fraud, it tells us that Murray has a higher peak ELO than Sampras which is nonsense.

How about ATP ranking points? don't just diss something you don't understand enough. No ranking system is perfect, and Elo is even better than ATP ranking to predict match outcome, that is all you need to remember.

Elo peak: Pete 1994 and Murray 2016:

1994 ATP points: Pete 9684, Agassi 6173(No.2)
2016 ATP points: Murray 12410, Nole 11780(No.2)

How do you explain with 2 less matches Murray has 2726 more points while having such a strong competition from Nole?

1994 points adjusted over generously btw.
 
Last edited:

Neptune

Hall of Fame
Here is how you judge field strength @Neptune


Age of Top 5 Players with Highest win% against the Top 10 [Min 35 matches .... age of player at the beginning of the year considered]


Sampras's (93-98) -------> Sampras (21-26) Agassi (22-27) Becker (25-30) Stich (24-29) Muster (25-30)
Federer's (04-09) -------> Federer (22-27) Nadal (17-22) Murray (16-21) Djokovic (16-21) Davydenko(22-27)
Nadal's (08-13) -------> Nadal (21-26) Djokovic (20-25) Murray (20-25) Federer (26-31) Soderling (23-28)
Djokovic's (11-16) -------> Djokovic (23-28) Nadal (24-29) Federer (29-34) Murray (23-28) Wawrinka (25-30)
Djokovic's (18-23) -------> Djokovic (30-35) Nadal (31-36) Alcaraz (14-19) Medvedev (21-26) Thiem (24-29)


Assuming 21(+) to 31(-) is PRIME
.... anyone 31 and above / 21 and below should be post prime / pre prime... So lets mark someone who is majorly pre prime/post prime in RED and someone who is majorly in prime years to be BLUE

Federer's 04-09 and Djokovic's 18-23 are the most garbage phases of Tennis in terms of competition, any era where teens/oldies in 30s dominate the top 2-3 slots is bound to be garbage because that means the guys in the mid 20s who are supposed to be at their peak are abject losers..... thats what makes an era weak.

Strongest phases are Pete's, Rafa's and Novak's, more or less all the phases are similar.

There are ATP ranking/rating and Elo ranking/rating you don't want to use,
Yet you create your own ranking system
I am not interested.
 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
There are ATP ranking/rating and Elo ranking/rating you don't want to use,
Yet you create your own ranking system
I am not interested.

Doesnt matter whether you are interested or not, athletes in 20s are at their physical peaks, this is not something which I created, this is what GOD created.

1994 year end top 7 had Sampras, Agassi, Becker, Bruiguera, Ivanisevic, Chang and Edberg, all of them are/were grand slam winners.

2016 had Raonic and Nishikori in the top 5 ? Horrible.... Djokovic reached the final of the US open by an easy draw and still lost it because he was that bad at that time and thats how bad the field was for him to reach the final, you think Murray ending up 1 at that time compares to Sampras ???

The ELO system is nonsense.... anybody who brings in ELOs in a conversation is not fit to be taken seriously, please talk of real stuffs that ATP recognizes, not fan made rubbish.
 

NoleFam

Bionic Poster
Doesnt matter whether you are interested or not, athletes in 20s are at their physical peaks, this is not something which I created, this is what GOD created.

1994 year end top 7 had Sampras, Agassi, Becker, Bruiguera, Ivanisevic, Chang and Edberg, all of them are/were grand slam winners.

2016 had Raonic and Nishikori in the top 5 ? Horrible.... Djokovic reached the final of the US open by an easy draw and still lost it because he was that bad at that time and thats how bad the field was for him to reach the final, you think Murray ending up 1 at that time compares to Sampras ??? The ELO system is nonsense.... anybody who brings in ELOs in a conversation is not fit to be taken seriously, please talk of real stuffs that ATP recognizes, not fan made rubbish.
Raonic has 3 wins over Federer, 2 wins over Nadal, and 4 wins over Murray. He has a better head to head record against Fedal than Wawrinka has. You better put a little more respect on that man's name. He was not a mug like many on here say he was.
 

RS

Bionic Poster
Raonic has 3 wins over Federer, 2 wins over Nadal, and 4 wins over Murray. He has a better head to head record against Fedal than Wawrinka has. You better put a little more respect on that man's name. He was not a mug like many on here say he was.
Really good vs Fed in Wim 16 shame he dropped off against Murray a bit in the final and may have beaten Murray too at AO if healthy
 

Neptune

Hall of Fame
Doesnt matter whether you are interested or not, athletes in 20s are at their physical peaks, this is not something which I created, this is what GOD created.

1994 year end top 7 had Sampras, Agassi, Becker, Bruiguera, Ivanisevic, Chang and Edberg, all of them are/were grand slam winners.

2016 had Raonic and Nishikori in the top 5 ? Horrible.... Djokovic reached the final of the US open by an easy draw and still lost it because he was that bad at that time and thats how bad the field was for him to reach the final, you think Murray ending up 1 at that time compares to Sampras ???

The ELO system is nonsense.... anybody who brings in ELOs in a conversation is not fit to be taken seriously, please talk of real stuffs that ATP recognizes, not fan made rubbish.

Also not interested in cherry picking.
ATP ranking and Elo rating is much better and more objective than whatever you come up from your feeling.
 

NoleFam

Bionic Poster
Really good vs Fed in Wim 16 shame he dropped off against Murray a bit in the final and may have beaten Murray too at AO if healthy
He was a servebot but was one of the best at it and for a tall guy that wasn't a great athlete, he wasn't bad off the ground. Not enough respect is given to Raonic as a player. He was great at 2016 Wimbledon. Too bad he couldn't crack the code in that Wimbledon final. He almost beat Murray that year at AO right? I think he beat Wawrinka before that match.
 

Neptune

Hall of Fame
Raonic has 3 wins over Federer, 2 wins over Nadal, and 4 wins over Murray. He has a better head to head record against Fedal than Wawrinka has. You better put a little more respect on that man's name. He was not a mug like many on here say he was.

Yep, so many people like cherry picking and base on gut feeling, while dissing ATP ranking and Elo rating...
so objective
 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
Raonic has 3 wins over Federer, 2 wins over Nadal, and 4 wins over Murray. He has a better head to head record against Fedal than Wawrinka has. You better put a little more respect on that man's name. He was not a mug like many on here say he was.

Raonic has never beaten Nadal at a Slam but Wawrinka has and that too in a slam final.
Raonic has beaten Federer at a Slam but then so has Wawrinka once, and Stan happened to beat Djokovic at that slam as well and win it.
Raonic is younger than all of the Big 3 while Stan was older than 2 of them and closer in age to Federer, had it much tougher than Raonic and yet he has the medals to show that he performed while Raonic doesn't.

No point glorifying Raonic and also pointless to defend your fellow Nolefam who is pointing to 2016 Murray being better than 1994 Sampras using his ELOs, haha.

Also not interested in cherry picking.
ATP ranking and Elo rating is much better and more objective than whatever you come up from your feeling.

It is not feeling, it is common sense.

Sampras's 1994 is a highly rated season, it is the 4th most dominant season in terms of ATP Points % difference over the rank 2....

Top 4 are this
RankCountryNameNo. 2 PlayerPoints No. 1Points No. 2Points Pct. Diff.Season
1
ch.png
SUI
Roger Federer
es.png
Rafael Nadal
active.png
8370447087.2%2006
2
rs.png
SRB
Novak Djokovic
active.png
gb.png
Andy Murray
active.png
16585894585.4%2015
3
ch.png
SUI
Roger Federer
us.png
Andy Roddick
6335365573.3%2004
4
us.png
USA
Pete Sampras
us.png
Andre Agassi
5097324956.9%1994


That weak 2016 season where Murray vultured so many ranking points in the second half does not compare to all this, keep your silly ELOs with you...... Djokovic's 18-23 competition is the worst in history.... even worse than Federer's 04-09..... Your attempts at glorifying the field of 18-23 won't work..... Djokovic is playing at a great level but his competitors are not.
 

NoleFam

Bionic Poster
Raonic has never beaten Nadal at a Slam but Wawrinka has and that too in a slam final.
Raonic has beaten Federer at a Slam but then so has Wawrinka once, and Stan happened to beat Djokovic at that slam as well and win it.
Raonic is younger than all of the Big 3 while Stan was older than 2 of them and closer in age to Federer, had it much tougher than Raonic and yet he has the medals to show that he performed while Raonic doesn't.

No point glorifying Raonic and also pointless to defend your fellow Nolefam who is pointing to 2016 Murray being better than 1994 Sampras using his ELOs, haha.



It is not feeling, it is common sense.

Sampras's 1994 is a highly rated season, it is the 4th most dominant season in terms of ATP Points difference over the rank 2....

Top 4 are this


That weak 2016 season where Murray vultured so many ranking points in the second half does not compare to all this, keep your silly ELOs with you...... Djokovic's 18-23 competition is the worst in history.... even worse than Federer's 04-09..... Your attempts at glorifying the field of 18-23 won't work..... Djokovic is playing at a great level but his competitors are not.
Raonic only played Nadal once in a Slam and his 2-7 record against Nadal is a heck of a lot better than Wawrinka's 3-19 against him. Raonic beat Federer at Wimbledon which is way more impressive than Wawrinka beating him at RG when he had much declined on his worst surface. What I'm getting at is he was not a mug at his best and Wawrinka is 0-3 against him in Slams which is bad for him if he's not a great player.
 

Neptune

Hall of Fame
Raonic only played Nadal once in a Slam and his 2-7 record against Nadal is a heck of a lot better than Wawrinka's 3-19 against him. Raonic beat Federer at Wimbledon which is way more impressive than Wawrinka beating him at RG when he had much declined on his worst surface. What I'm getting at is he was not a mug at his best and Wawrinka is 0-3 against him in Slams which is bad for him if he's not a great player.
His cherry picking and feeling based view can be entertaining. LOL
 

Third Serve

Talk Tennis Guru
Really good vs Fed in Wim 16 shame he dropped off against Murray a bit in the final and may have beaten Murray too at AO if healthy
Yeah Raonic was actually legit at the AO that year. Wish he was healthy, I feel that final might have been more interesting than another round of Murrovic.
 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
Is that good or bad from your feeling, or common sense?

Clearly you are a troll/somebody who started watching tennis from 2011 onwards? so I wont waste more time on you after this post.

Comparing an alpha like Sampras to Murray should be considered a crime.

Top 7 ranks of 1994 were slam winners, Sampras shone like a true alpha male over these men, won AO, sunshine double, rome, wimbledon, would have won us open too if not for his hiatus due to injury at wimbledon and aggravated at davis cup, he signed off the season by winning ATP Finals over Becker..... what an year

Compared to that in 2016 murray was Djokovic's lapdog in the first half of the season (lost to him in the first 2 slams in both 1 sided matches) and then got lucky as Nole declined rapidly after his NCYGS and then Murray won a lot over the bad field which consisted of mugs and did not have Federer/Nadal.

Enjoy your ELOs well.
 

Neptune

Hall of Fame
Clearly you are a troll/somebody who started watching tennis from 2011 onwards? so I wont waste more time on you after this post.

Comparing an alpha like Sampras to Murray should be considered a crime.

Top 7 ranks of 1994 were slam winners, Sampras shone like a true alpha male over these men, won AO, sunshine double, rome, wimbledon, would have won us open too if not for his hiatus due to injury at wimbledon and aggravated at davis cup, he signed off the season by winning ATP Finals over Becker..... what an year

Compared to that in 2016 murray was Djokovic's lapdog in the first half of the season (lost to him in the first 2 slams in both 1 sided matches) and then got lucky as Nole declined rapidly after his NCYGS and then Murray won a lot over the bad field which consisted of mugs and did not have Federer/Nadal.

Enjoy your ELOs well.

So mad when feeling/common sense fails in front of ranking system.
 

Third Serve

Talk Tennis Guru
Elo is well suited for helping predict matches but it’s next to useless when making cross-era comparisons because of its inflationary nature and with how slow it is to adjust over time.
 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
So mad when feeling/common sense fails in front of ranking system.

What matters is how you got those points, not how much you've got. If you play bad rivals then your points can hit the roof, that doesn't necessarily mean much in terms of quality.

Murray was lagging Djokovic by 8000+ points after Nole finished his NCYGS, thats how sh*t Murray was..... and at that time Fedal were ranked 3rd and 4th right below Murray, by the end of the year Federer was out of the top 10, Nadal was ranked like 9th or 10th..... Djokovic lost most of his points that he retained from 2015....Murray basically vultured that year end rank 1 and that too with great difficulty which broke his hips.

Stop embarassing yourself by putting Murray 2016 above Sampras 1994 based on some ELO system created by some nerd.
 

Neptune

Hall of Fame
People do dump on the ATP system too but admittedly people are less defensive over it than the ELO.

I believe ATP system and Elo both are more reliable than personal feeling. You can have different or opposite opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RS

Neptune

Hall of Fame
What matters is how you got those points, not how much you've got. If you play bad rivals then your points can hit the roof, that doesn't necessarily mean much in terms of quality.

Murray was lagging Djokovic by 8000+ points after Nole finished his NCYGS, thats how sh*t Murray was..... and at that time Fedal were ranked 3rd and 4th right below Murray, by the end of the year Federer was out of the top 10, Nadal was ranked like 9th or 10th..... Djokovic lost most of his points that he retained from 2015....Murray basically vultured that year end rank 1 and that too with great difficulty which broke his hips.

Stop embarassing yourself by putting Murray 2016 above Sampras 1994 based on some ELO system created by some nerd.

Go blaming ATP, stop being mad at me for just showing the numbers.
 

RS

Bionic Poster
I believe ATP system and Elo both are more reliable than personal feeling. You can have different or opposite opinion.
In theory the eye test and personal feeling isn’t better but if it’s in good faith I do like people talking about what actually happened in the matches since this is a forum.
 

Neptune

Hall of Fame
In theory the eye test and personal feeling isn’t better but if it’s in good faith I do like people talking about what actually happened in the matches since this is a forum.

Agree, and bottom line, don't get mad when number does not fit.
 

Pheasant

Legend
6 Year Periods

Sampras (93-98) -> 10 Slams / 43 titles / Win% against top 5 = 72.34%
Federer (04-09) -> 14 Slams / 50 titles / Win% against top 5 = 65.67%
Nadal (08-13) -> 10 Slams / 38 titles / Win% against top 5 = 64.38%
Djokovic (11-16) -> 11 Slams / 48 titles / Win% against top 5 = 72.53%
Djokovic (18-23) -> 12 Slams / 30 titles / Win% against top 5 = 69.81%


@Holmes, @Kralingen, @Pheasant -> Whose numbers do you feel are most impressive and whose do you feel are the least impressive ?
Age would definitely factor into the most impressive category. With that being said, Djoker's 2018-2023 is something that nobody at that age has ever come close to. This one is by far the most impressive. There is nothing comparable to this.

If I were to go by level of play, I'd probably go.
1. Federer 2004-2009. 14 slams and 50 titles are simply too tough to ignore. Most of his 65 match winning streak on grass is in that time frame. Most of his 56 match winning streak on hard courts is in that time span, and all of his 2nd-best ever 35 match winning streak on hard courts is in that time span. That is truly ridiculous. Also, he defended his title 3 straight times at the USO and 4 straight times at Wimbledon. That is pure dominance.
2. 2011-16 Djokovic. His competition was tougher than Fed's. So this is very close. But I cannot ignore Fed's ridiculous streaks. Streaks to me show dominance. This is very close.
3. Sampras- he played on much more polarized surfaces. Also, he bagged 3 WTF titles, which were a huge deal back in the day. I rate those tourneys on par with slams, due to always playing somebody inside the top-10, or a slam title winner that year.
4. Nadal....he could peak on any surface about as high as anybody. But injuries wrecked his momentum. He dropped to 4th, due to a lack of a WTF title.
5. Djoker 2018-23. This is the most impressive run of all time. But it's just a slight tick lower than the guys above. I don't think his physicality would allow him to beat the field above.
 

Neptune

Hall of Fame
Age would definitely factor into the most impressive category. With that being said, Djoker's 2018-2023 is something that nobody at that age has ever come close to. This one is by far the most impressive. There is nothing comparable to this.

If I were to go by level of play, I'd probably go.
1. Federer 2004-2009. 14 slams and 50 titles are simply too tough to ignore. Most of his 65 match winning streak on grass is in that time frame. Most of his 56 match winning streak on hard courts is in that time span, and all of his 2nd-best ever 35 match winning streak on hard courts is in that time span. That is truly ridiculous. Also, he defended his title 3 straight times at the USO and 4 straight times at Wimbledon. That is pure dominance.
2. 2011-16 Djokovic. His competition was tougher than Fed's. So this is very close. But I cannot ignore Fed's ridiculous streaks. Streaks to me show dominance. This is very close.
3. Sampras- he played on much more polarized surfaces. Also, he bagged 3 WTF titles, which were a huge deal back in the day. I rate those tourneys on par with slams, due to always playing somebody inside the top-10, or a slam title winner that year.
4. Nadal....he could peak on any surface about as high as anybody. But injuries wrecked his momentum. He dropped to 4th, due to a lack of a WTF title.
5. Djoker 2018-23. This is the most impressive run of all time. But it's just a slight tick lower than the guys above. I don't think his physicality would allow him to beat the field above.

You could base on post #1 and #2 numbers.
1slam≈1.5TFC=2Master=4ATP500=8ATP250
 
Top