I sense a shift in the TIGER debate as Djoker sets aim on Rafa

BringBackSV

Hall of Fame
With the amount of big clay tourneys, surprised Rafa has not got number one more often.
For longer? You are going to have a big advantage for weeks at number #1 if your number 1 surface represents 2 thirds of the biggest events. Ideally it would be a third grass, clay, and HC but obviously never going to happen.
 
For longer? You are going to have a big advantage for weeks at number #1 if your number 1 surface represents 2 thirds of the biggest events. Ideally it would be a third grass, clay, and HC but obviously never going to happen.
There is only 1 Slam on clay. There are far more hard court tournaments than clay tournaments.
There are 4 big clay tourneys for 5000 points while Feds best surface he has 2500 points and one big tourney. Half the points on his best surface... but I get what you are saying about hards being the majority, but Djoker is there to take many points from him. Plus, I figured with the amount of clay points he gets yearly, that he would still get many from hards to become number one more frequently. He has always been good at HC's.

Think it has more to do with injury?
 

BringBackSV

Hall of Fame
There are 4 big clay tourneys for 5000 points while Feds best surface he has 2500 points and one big tourney. Half the points on his best surface... but I get what you are saying about hards being the majority, but Djoker is there to take many points from him. Plus, I figured with the amount of clay points he gets yearly, that he would still get many from hards to become number one more frequently. He has always been good at HC's.

Think it has more to do with injury?
It wasn't about Fed but I don't think his dropoff from grass to HC is much at all, he's arguably the best HC player ever too (which is why I think he's the best player to date) and quite frankly if grass were a bigger part of the tour it would be more apparent.

Rafa has been good on HC but his consistency on the surface has been less than it should. Injury has been part of it but tactics as well, the transition from clay to the other two surfaces is greater IMO so it kinda makes sense.
 

Sport

Legend
There are 4 big clay tourneys for 5000 points while Feds best surface he has 2500 points and one big tourney. Half the points on his best surface... but I get what you are saying about hards being the majority, but Djoker is there to take many points from him. Plus, I figured with the amount of clay points he gets yearly, that he would still get many from hards to become number one more frequently. He has always been good at HC's.

Think it has more to do with injury?
Still, Federer is better on hard than Nadal, so the fact thast there are more tournamets on hard than clay benefits his interests.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
Effectively weeks at number 1 are combining them but we already have a system for counting the majors, it's called slam count and it's not diluted.

You don't recall him mentioning that he was going to fight (POST USO) for the YE#1? I do

Also, he was closer to BREAKING the record for weeks at number 1 than he was breaking the record for YE#1.

I'm not denying that weeks at #1 are part of building ones resume but ultimately it's just not nearly as important as slams. All else being equal or quite close to it? Perhaps, it would depend.
Please tell me how weeks at #1 is at anyway diluted? You're either #1, week to week, or you're not.

He always fights for YE #1 because he wants to be the best. I don't understand why you are pretending to be obtuse. He mentioned breaking the weeks at #1 record not YE #1, bottom line.

Djokovic is at least 6+ months away from tying the weeks at #1 record when he was a few matches away from tying the YE#1 record this fall.

It's the most imortant metric outside of Slams. Its pretty difficult to deny that.
 

BringBackSV

Hall of Fame
Please tell me how weeks at #1 is at anyway diluted? You're either #1, week to week, or you're not.

He always fights for YE #1 because he wants to be the best. I don't understand why you are pretending to be obtuse. He mentioned breaking the weeks at #1 record not YE #1, bottom line.

Djokovic is at least 6+ months away from tying the weeks at #1 record when he was a few matches away from tying the YE#1 record this fall.

It's the most imortant metric outside of Slams. Its pretty difficult to deny that.
He mentioned that fighting for the YE#1 this year was IMPORTANT to him, do you understand? Does he need to explain it's because he wanted to tie Pete and then eventually have a chance at the record should he do so? Really?

Weeks at #1 are basically about consistency in majors and minors. I'm not saying minors don't matter but the MAJORS matter a lot more and so the drop off in terms of relevance is significant.

I'm not going to debate the YE#1 vs weeks at number 1 thing, it's inane. He cares about both, lets move on. The earliest Novak could have broken the record for YE#1 at the time was over a year away, weeks at number 1 could have been achieved sooner.
 

DSH

Legend
I pretty much agree with Hitman. Rafa has never had 2 great seasons in a row and I already see signs that he will be injured at AO (his hand injury seems to be a recurring problem and he's playing a lot of matches lately). But I have hope that 2020 could be different. I think Rafa has clear ideas for what he can do to keep improving his game and that is really motivating for him at the moment. I feel like 2020 is either going to be even better than 2019, or it will be a big letdown. The most contributing factor will be his health.

How do you define that, perhaps you mean winning multiple Majors in consecutive seasons?
If that so, you are right.
But he has 2 more years at a great level. If he manages to win 1 Slam in 2020, it would be a successful season already.
In 2021 he can break the record, for sure.
 

TheGhostOfAgassi

Talk Tennis Guru
How do you define that, perhaps you mean winning multiple Majors in consecutive seasons?
If that so, you are right.
But he has 2 more years at a great level. If he manages to win 1 Slam in 2020, it would be a successful season already.
In 2021 he can break the record, for sure.
Didn’t Rafa win a slam 9 years in a row or something? Isn’t that a record?
Cannot say that if you win a slam that the year was bad.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
He mentioned that fighting for the YE#1 this year was IMPORTANT to him, do you understand? Does he need to explain it's because he wanted to tie Pete and then eventually have a chance at the record should he do so? Really?

Weeks at #1 are basically about consistency in majors and minors. I'm not saying minors don't matter but the MAJORS matter a lot more and so the drop off in terms of relevance is significant.

I'm not going to debate the YE#1 vs weeks at number 1 thing, it's inane. He cares about both, lets move on. The earliest Novak could have broken the record for YE#1 at the time was over a year away, weeks at number 1 could have been achieved sooner.
He says fighting for YE #1 is important every year. Didn't he just say it last year? I guess you must have missed that. The only records Djokovic has mentioned wanting to break are the Slam record and weeks at #1 record.

Being in the top 10 or top 5 is about consistency. Being #1 is about being the best over the rest of the field.
 

DSH

Legend
He says fighting for YE #1 is important every year. Didn't he just say it last year? I guess you must have missed that. The only records Djokovic has mentioned wanting to break are the Slam record and weeks at #1 record.

Being in the top 10 or top 5 is about consistency. Being #1 is about being the best over the rest of the field.




Nadal or Djokovic will tie Sampras' record!
:)
 

BringBackSV

Hall of Fame
He says fighting for YE #1 is important every year. Didn't he just say it last year? I guess you must have missed that. The only records Djokovic has mentioned wanting to break are the Slam record and weeks at #1 record.

Being in the top 10 or top 5 is about consistency. Being #1 is about being the best over the rest of the field.
Literally said slams and YE#1 are two most important achievements a month ago.

Novak on YE#1

Lets just accept that I was right and move on.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
Literally said slams and YE#1 are two most important achievements a month ago.

Novak on YE#1

Lets just accept that I was right and move on.
You're muddying the waters to prove your point but he is talking about what is most important at the end of the year. I would agree with what he is saying here. The difference is we are talking about what is most important at the end of their careers. This is what he said this year in reference to his end goals, and what he wants by the end of his career:

"Of course, I would love to have a shot at as many grand-slam titles as possible. Those are probably the top goals and ambitions. Next to that is the historic number one, which is not so far away."

So no, you need to accept that I was right and let it go.
 
Last edited:

Sport

Legend
He says fighting for YE #1 is important every year. Didn't he just say it last year? I guess you must have missed that. The only records Djokovic has mentioned wanting to break are the Slam record and weeks at #1 record.

Being in the top 10 or top 5 is about consistency. Being #1 is about being the best over the rest of the field.
Both weeks as #1 and Year End #1 are about being the most regular player, not necessarily "being the best".

Why weeks as #1 are about regularity, not necessarily "being the best in the world": The first half of 2017 Federer and Nadal were the best players in the world, despite the fact that Murray was listed #1.

Why Year End #1 is about regularity, not necessarily "being the best in the world": The most regular player of the year is Year End #1. In 2016 Murray was YE #1 with only 1 Slam while Djokovic was YE #2 with 2 Slams. I think the best player of the year is the one who wins most Slams, while the most regular is the one who achieves more ATP points.

By the way, why are you dismissing Year End #1? Djokovic assersts that Grand Slams and Year End #1 are the two biggest achievements in tennis:

"In my personal opinion it’s one of the two biggest achievements you can have as a professional competitor and tennis player – winning a Grand Slam and being No. 1 in the world at the end of the season" -Djokovic

 

BringBackSV

Hall of Fame
You're muddying the waters to prove your point but he is talking about what is most important at the end of the year. I would agree with what he is saying here. The difference is we are talking about what is most important at the end of their careers. This is what he said this year in reference to his end goals, and what he wants by the end of his career:

"Of course, I would love to have a shot at as many grand-slam titles as possible. Those are probably the top goals and ambitions. Next to that is the historic number one, which is not so far away."

So no, you need to accept that I was right and let it go.
I'm hoping you are just being argumentative and are not actually this dense.

Does Novak have to explain that he's trying to break Roger's record when he talks about the significance of slams to him? Or are we all capable of understand what is occurring?
He doesn't have to explain to us that he's trying to tie Pete's record for YE#1's, he's made it CLEAR that it is (along with slams), the most important achievement. He didn't say at the end of the year, he said the YEAR END #1". Get it?

‘"At this stage of my career obviously in terms of goals and achievements that’s right at the top". If you are still unsure, here is reiterating that it is AT THE TOP OF HIS GOALS at this point in his career. As many slams and YE#1s.

The more significant point though is that you were downplaying where it ranks in terms of his priorities, which his own words refute. There is nothing else that needs to be said, I was right and you were wrong. Not a big deal, lets just move on.
 

BringBackSV

Hall of Fame
Both weeks as #1 and Year End #1 are about being the most regular player, not necessarily "being the best".

Why weeks as #1 are about regularity, not necessarily "being the best in the world": The first half of 2017 Federer and Nadal were the best players in the world, despite the fact that Murray was listed #1.

Why Year End #1 is about regularity, not necessarily "being the best in the world": The most regular player of the year is Year End #1. In 2016 Murray was YE #1 with only 1 Slam while Djokovic was YE #2 with 2 Slams. I think the best player of the year is the one who wins most Slams, while the most regular is the one who achieves more ATP points.

By the way, why are you dismissing Year End #1? Djokovic assersts that Grand Slams and Year End #1 are the two biggest achievements in tennis:

"In my personal opinion it’s one of the two biggest achievements you can have as a professional competitor and tennis player – winning a Grand Slam and being No. 1 in the world at the end of the season" -Djokovic

He's just being argumentative (possibly to lessen the blow of losing out on it) or whatever other mental gymnastics are occurring.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
Both weeks as #1 and Year End #1 are about being the most regular player, not necessarily "being the best".

Why weeks as #1 are about regularity, not necessarily "being the best in the world": The first half of 2017 Federer and Nadal were the best players in the world, despite the fact that Murray was listed #1.

Why Year End #1 is about regularity, not necessarily "being the best in the world": The most regular player of the year is Year End #1. In 2016 Murray was YE #1 with only 1 Slam while Djokovic was YE #2 with 2 Slams. I think the best player of the year is the one who wins most Slams, while the most regular is the one who achieves more ATP points.

By the way, why are you dismissing Year End #1? Djokovic assersts that Grand Slams and Year End #1 are the two biggest achievements in tennis:

"In my personal opinion it’s one of the two biggest achievements you can have as a professional competitor and tennis player – winning a Grand Slam and being No. 1 in the world at the end of the season" -Djokovic

I've pretty much already answered what you are asking and I never dismissed YE #1.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
I'm hoping you are just being argumentative and are not actually this dense.

Does Novak have to explain that he's trying to break Roger's record when he talks about the significance of slams to him? Or are we all capable of understand what is occurring?
He doesn't have to explain to us that he's trying to tie Pete's record for YE#1's, he's made it CLEAR that it is (along with slams), the most important achievement. He didn't say at the end of the year, he said the YEAR END #1". Get it?

‘"At this stage of my career obviously in terms of goals and achievements that’s right at the top". If you are still unsure, here is reiterating that it is AT THE TOP OF HIS GOALS at this point in his career. As many slams and YE#1s.

The more significant point though is that you were downplaying where it ranks in terms of his priorities, which his own words refute. There is nothing else that needs to be said, I was right and you were wrong. Not a big deal, lets just move on.
I'm clearly not the one being dense here. You must the only person who is thinking he is talking about breaking Pete's YE #1 record, since the entire article is about him breaking Federer weeks at #1 record, and so was everyone's comments in this entire thread about his comment:


Once again you are being absolutely ridiculous, much like your comments the other day about how little value Djokovic's RG title is to you. Djokovic wants to break the Slam record and the weeks at #1 record, period. You were wrong then and you are wrong now. Get over yourself.
 

BringBackSV

Hall of Fame
I'm clearly not the one being dense here. You must the only person who is thinking he is talking about breaking Pete's YE #1 record, since the entire article is about him breaking Federer weeks at #1 record, and so was everyone's comments in this entire thread about his comment:


Once again you are being absolutely ridiculous, much like your comments the other day about how little value Djokovic's RG title is to you. Djokovic wants to break the Slam record and the weeks at #1 record, period. You were wrong then and you are wrong now. Get over yourself.
You are just making **** up, don't blame your poor memory or reading comprehension on me. I said that Novak beating Rafa in 2015 at RG was not impressive, I didn't say his RG title didn't have merit. Do I think he won it in 16 because he'd just taken his game to another level at RG? No. Does he have to? No, both things can be true. Do I think that Roger's 09 title was more impressive, yes. That's the extent of what I said. Get it?

As to the topic at hand, he mentioned that winning the YE#1 is at the TOP of his priorities. Unlike you, I don't think he can only have ONE or two priorities. As I said I don't know how many posts back, he values them both. Why should he necessarily mention breaking Pete's record when he hasn't even tied it? Why does he even have to mention Pete's record, he's already SAID he values the YE#1 extremely highly. Understand? He wants to win as many as possibly, doesn't really matter about Pete even to that end.

In the quotes I cited, he didn't even mention total weeks at number 1 as his top priorities, does that mean it wasn't among them? Is it possible that perhaps he didn't cover all his bases in both those interviews? This should not be THAT difficult for you to comprehend. If nuance is difficult for you just say so.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
You are just making **** up, don't blame your poor memory or reading comprehension on me. I said that Novak beating Rafa in 2015 at RG was not impressive, I didn't say his RG title didn't have merit. Do I think he won it in 16 because he'd just taken his game to another level at RG? No. Does he have to? No, both things can be true. Do I think that Roger's 09 title was more impressive, yes. That's the extent of what I said. Get it?

As to the topic at hand, he mentioned that winning the YE#1 is at the TOP of his priorities. Unlike you, I don't think he can only have ONE or two priorities. As I said I don't know how many posts back, he values them both. Why should he necessarily mention breaking Pete's record when he hasn't even tied it? Why does he even have to mention Pete's record, he's already SAID he values the YE#1 extremely highly. Understand? He wants to win as many as possibly, doesn't really matter about Pete even to that end.

In the quotes I cited, he didn't even mention total weeks at number 1 as his top priorities, does that mean it wasn't among them? Is it possible that perhaps he didn't cover all his bases in both those interviews? This should not be THAT difficult for you to comprehend. If nuance is difficult for you just say so.
This conversation is over and there's nothing left to say to you on either topic. No one can reason with someone who refuses to actually see reason.
 
Top