Neptune
Hall of Fame
Is it only weaker than 2011-2016? What about 2004-2009?
OP stats are very clear, look at the actual opposition the Player actually got.
Is it only weaker than 2011-2016? What about 2004-2009?
I don't think the OP accurately represents the oppositionOP stats are very clear, look at the actual opposition the Player actually got.
I don't think the OP is accurate represents of opposition
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
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.
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.
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.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.
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 healthyRaonic 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.
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.
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.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
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 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.
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.
Rank | Country | Name | No. 2 Player | Points No. 1 | Points No. 2 | Points Pct. Diff. | Season |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 |
| Roger Federer |
| 8370 | 4470 | 87.2% | 2006 |
2 |
| Novak Djokovic
|
| 16585 | 8945 | 85.4% | 2015 |
3 |
| Roger Federer |
| 6335 | 3655 | 73.3% | 2004 |
4 |
| Pete Sampras |
| 5097 | 3249 | 56.9% | 1994 |
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
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.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
Rank Country Name No. 2 Player Points No. 1 Points No. 2 Points Pct. Diff. Season 1 SUIRoger Federer Rafael Nadal8370 4470 87.2% 2006 2 SRBNovak Djokovic Andy Murray16585 8945 85.4% 2015 3 SUIRoger Federer Andy Roddick6335 3655 73.3% 2004 4 USAPete Sampras Andre Agassi5097 3249 56.9% 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.
His cherry picking and feeling based view can be entertaining. LOLRaonic 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.
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.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
Is that good or bad from your feeling, or common sense?
The ELO is for chess.
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.
People do dump on the ATP system too but admittedly people are less defensive over it than the ELO.Elo is better than ATP ranking to predict tennis match outcome
So mad when feeling/common sense fails in front of ranking system.
People do dump on the ATP system too but admittedly people are less defensive over it than the ELO.
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.
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.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.
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.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.