If Nadal won the AO final would it have been his year?

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
The reason I ask is, I wouldn't mind getting some insight into how much weight the slams actually have to one's season vs rankings.

I'm not taking into consideration that if he'd have won his confidence would've been higher, would've won more other tournaments etc. Nope, none of that, everything else happens the same way, just that he has an AO title instead of RU.

Personally, I think it would. He'd still be ranked YE#3 iinm, but having 2 majors out of 4, is more significant than rankings imo.
 
S

Sirius Black

Guest
The better question is would there be any new slam winners if he did?
 
S

Sirius Black

Guest
Cilic? Nadal had no role in his win.

I don't want to be off topic, but I think Stan breaking through played a large part in motivating the younger guys to step up this year.
 

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
I don't want to be off topic, but I think Stan breaking through played a large part in motivating the younger guys to step up this year.

You were never on topic to begin with.

I clearly said that everything else still happens the way it did, only Nadal won the final instead of lost.

But obviously, it's too much to expect people to read these days.
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
Yes.

However isn't it double standards Rafa fans asking such questions ?

If the question posed was 'If Fed won the Wimb, would the year have been his ?' , we would have heard you cannot gift hypothetical majors.
 
S

Sirius Black

Guest
You were never on topic to begin with.

I clearly said that everything else still happens the way it did, only Nadal won the final instead of lost.

But obviously, it's too much to expect people to read these days.

My apologies, I won't post here no more :oops:.
 

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
Yes.

However isn't it double standards Rafa fans asking such questions ?

If the question posed was 'If Fed won the Wimb, would the year have been his ?' , we would have heard you cannot gift hypothetical majors.

I'm not trying to gift Nadal a hypothetical major.

Nadal didn't win it and that's that.

All I want to know is IF he had won it, how would people view his season. This can be applied to any player you want to apply it to.

A player wins 2 majors, but loses in 4th round of Wimbledon, misses a good chunk of season, doesn't win much else. Is it still a better season than a guy who wins a major, WTF, 3 masters and has more consistent results to the point they are ranked YE#1? Or a guy who had consistent good results but didn't win any majors but still ends up ranked higher at YE#2?
 
S

Sirius Black

Guest
On second thought (and on topic), I would take two slams over consistency and YE number 1. 2012 was very similar slam-wise to 2014 for Nadal: a final in Australia, a win at Roland Garros, an early exit at Wimbledon (early-ish in 2014), and missing the US Open.
 
I'm not trying to gift Nadal a hypothetical major.

Nadal didn't win it and that's that.

All I want to know is IF he had won it, how would people view his season. This can be applied to any player you want to apply it to.

A player wins 2 majors, but loses in 4th round of Wimbledon, misses a good chunk of season, doesn't win much else. Is it still a better season than a guy who wins a major, WTF, 3 masters and has more consistent results to the point they are ranked YE#1? Or a guy who had consistent good results but didn't win any majors but still ends up ranked higher at YE#2?

It would be very close to a good season. not great just good. especially since we haven't had a 2-slam-winner a year in a while (well except for Rafa)
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
It's weird, I was thinking just the other day of making a thread about 1 Slam seasons vs 2 Slam seasons so I think you must've read my mind T_O! Personally I think if Nadal had won the AO his year would've been about equal to Djokovic's. 1 Slam + WTF + 4 Masters 1000 + 1 Slam RU is about the same as 2 Slams + 1 Masters in my book but I just know cc0 will disagree with me on this till the cows come home. :grin:
 
Last edited:

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
I'm not trying to gift Nadal a hypothetical major.

Nadal didn't win it and that's that.

All I want to know is IF he had won it, how would people view his season. This can be applied to any player you want to apply it to.

A player wins 2 majors, but loses in 4th round of Wimbledon, misses a good chunk of season, doesn't win much else. Is it still a better season than a guy who wins a major, WTF, 3 masters and has more consistent results to the point they are ranked YE#1? Or a guy who had consistent good results but didn't win any majors but still ends up ranked higher at YE#2?

2 majors is huge. It would triumph pretty much any combination. Closest would be 1 major win + 2 major finals + 1 WTF.
 
D

Deleted member 688153

Guest
If Nadal had won the AO, it would have been his year, yes.

If Federer had won Wimbledon, it would have been his year, definitely.
 

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
It's weird, I was thinking just the other day of making a thread about 1 Slam seasons vs 2 Slam seasons so I think you must've read my mind T_O! Personally I think if Nadal had won the AO his year would've been about equal to Djokovic's. 1 Slam + WTF + 4 Masters 1000 is about the same as 2 Slams + 1 Masters in my book but I just know cc0 will disagree with me on this till the cows come home. :grin:

I wonder if Novak would rather have won AO+WIM this year and say IW, but lost WTF and the other 3 Masters finals.

I think he'd take the 2 slams personally. Having another multi slam season would be great for his legacy. Better than winning masters and wtf.
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
It's weird, I was thinking just the other day of making a thread about 1 Slam seasons vs 2 Slam seasons so I think you must've read my mind T_O! Personally I think if Nadal had won the AO his year would've been about equal to Djokovic's. 1 Slam + WTF + 4 Masters 1000 is about the same as 2 Slams + 1 Masters in my book but I just know cc0 will disagree with me on this till the cows come home. :grin:

Master tournaments to the Big 3 are nothing but a ladder to get the top ranking and gain match practice to gear up for the real matches at the majors.

May be a trifle in terms of getting into the head of the challenger.

They really don't sweat about the result after 2 days.
 

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
If Nadal had won the AO, it would have been his year, yes.

If Federer had won Wimbledon, it would have been his year, definitely.

So even though, he'd still be ranked YE#3, the season would still belong to him, despite Federer and Djokovic's higher rankings and more consistent performances?
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
So even though, he'd still be ranked YE#3, the season would still belong to him, despite Federer and Djokovic's higher rankings and more consistent performances?

People think Cilic had a better year than Federer, even though he has less than half his points.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
I wonder if Novak would rather have won AO+WIM this year and say IW, but lost WTF and the other 3 Masters finals.

I think he'd take the 2 slams personally. Having another multi slam season would be great for his legacy. Better than winning masters and wtf.

I just edited my post to include his RU at the French as well.
And there's no point in wondering since we can only go off what happened and imo both seasons would be equal.
 

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
People think Cilic had a better year than Federer, even though he has less than half his points.

So then, by that virtue, even if Novak has more weeks at #1 then Nadal come May 2015, his greatness as a player is still completely obliterated by Nadal given the fact he has 7 (possibly 6 if Novak wins AO15 or 8 if Nadal wins it) more majors?

How many more weeks at #1 would Novak need to make up the +/-7 majors difference?
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
Master tournaments to the Big 3 are nothing but a ladder to get the top ranking and gain match practice to gear up for the real matches at the majors.

May be a trifle in terms of getting into the head of the challenger.

They really don't sweat about the result after 2 days.

They're still big tournaments and are treated as such by all the top players. I'm sick and tired of all this "Slams are everything blah blah blah". They're really not.
 

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
I just edited my post to include his RU at the French as well.
And there's no point in wondering since we can only go off what happened and imo both seasons would be equal.

His RU at the French should be included in both scenarios.

Also, if we can only go off what happened, why is it that you insist Novak is a better US Open player than Nadal, given Nadal has beat him in 2/3 finals there and in so doing has more US Open titles?
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
So then, by that virtue, even if Novak has more weeks at #1 then Nadal come May 2015, his greatness as a player is still completely obliterated by Nadal given the fact he has 7 (possibly 6 if Novak wins AO15 or 8 if Nadal wins it) more majors?

How many more weeks at #1 would Novak need to make up the +/-7 majors difference?

He'd probably need at least another 100 weeks at #1 and that's if Nadal never increases his total either.
 

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
They're still big tournaments and are treated as such by all the top players. I'm sick and tired of all this "Slams are everything blah blah blah". They're really not.

They're not everything.

This thread was basically designed to see how much more people value slams over rankings and other lesser tournaments.

It seems the majority so far agrees that having 2 majors and doing **** pretty much everywhere else is still better than having 1 major, 1 WTF and 4 Masters...
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
His RU at the French should be included in both scenarios.

Also, if we can only go off what happened, why is it that you insist Novak is a better US Open player than Nadal, given Nadal has beat him in 2/3 finals there and in so doing has more US Open titles?

I don't recall having ever insisted that T_O.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
They're not everything.

This thread was basically designed to see how much more people value slams over rankings and other lesser tournaments.

It seems the majority so far agrees that having 2 majors and doing **** pretty much everywhere else is still better than having 1 major, 1 WTF and 4 Masters...

As I've said before, I loved Sampras back in the day but boy does he have a helluva lot to answer for....
 

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
He'd probably need at least another 100 weeks at #1 and that's if Nadal never increases his total either.

So 100 more weeks at #1 and Novak is the greater player even if the major difference remains at roughly 7?

That's a very strange opinion to say the least. I'm sure Hewitt has many more weeks at #1 then Becker, but nobody would want Hewitt's career over Boom Boom's if given the choice and the difference there is only 4 majors...
 

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
I don't recall having ever insisted that T_O.

You have said something along the lines of - nothing about Nadal's game translates well on a HC and it's somewhat a travesty that Nadal has more US Open titles than Novak.

I'm not sure what you expected me to conclude from this statement other than you insist Novak is a better US Open player than Nadal...
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
So 100 more weeks at #1 and Novak is the greater player even if the major difference remains at roughly 7?

That's a very strange opinion to say the least. I'm sure Hewitt has many more weeks at #1 then Becker, but nobody would want Hewitt's career over Boom Boom's if given the choice and the difference there is only 4 majors...

Well I'm assuming that if he spent another 100 weeks at #1 he'd also win more majors along the way.
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
As I've said before, I loved Sampras back in the day but boy does he have a helluva lot to answer for....

Andy Murray 481-151 (77% Career Win-loss)

Pete Sampras 762-222 ( Same 77 % career win-loss)

It is the big matches that ultimately count when comparing greats.
 

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
Well I'm assuming that if he spent another 100 weeks at #1 he'd also win more majors along the way.

The question was:

"How many more weeks at #1 would Novak need to make up the +/-7 majors difference?"

So I'm assuming that Novak keeps making it to slam finals and losing them, still ending YE#1, how many more weeks would he need to make up that relatively large gap in majors?
 
S

Sirius Black

Guest
They're still big tournaments and are treated as such by all the top players. I'm sick and tired of all this "Slams are everything blah blah blah". They're really not.

Would you take a two slam year from Djokovic in exchange for a few masters and a WTF?
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
You have said something along the lines of - nothing about Nadal's game translates well on a HC and it's somewhat a travesty that Nadal has more US Open titles than Novak.

I'm not sure what you expected me to conclude from this statement other than you insist Novak is a better US Open player than Nadal...

I agree about the travesty part but not necessarily the rest. I don't think I ever said that nothing about Nadal's game translated to HC, that would be silly.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
The question was:

"How many more weeks at #1 would Novak need to make up the +/-7 majors difference?"

So I'm assuming that Novak keeps making it to slam finals and losing them, still ending YE#1, how many more weeks would he need to make up that relatively large gap in majors?

I'm not too sure about that one mate. What do you think?
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
Andy Murray 481-151 (77% Career Win-loss)

Pete Sampras 762-222 ( Same 77 % career win-loss)

It is the big matches that ultimately count when comparing greats.

As it should be. All I'm saying is it's not only the big matches that should count in a player's career.
 

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
I'm not too sure about that one mate. What do you think?

I think no amount of weeks at #1 could ever make up for a difference of 7 majors.

I think a couple of majors difference and yeah you could make an argument for having a significantly higher amount of weeks at #1 to make up for it. But when it's 7 majors forget about it.
 

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
What makes you think I hate Nadal and his fans T_O? MN's one of my favourite posters on here! :)

I'm mistaken. You love Nadal and his fans. It gives you purpose to come on here.

It does seem though that nobody agrees with you that Novak's year would've still been better than Nadal's had he won the AO.

The importance of majors is really being highlighted here by tennis fans...
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
I'm mistaken. You love Nadal and his fans. It gives you purpose to come on here.

It does seem though that nobody agrees with you that Novak's year would've still been better than Nadal's had he won the AO.

The importance of majors is really being highlighted here by tennis fans...

Well if Slams are everything then thank God Nadal didn't win AO and Novak finished with the better season! :razz:
 
It would be a very rare case any 2 slam year would be inferior to any 1 slam year.

Pretty much the only time in history I can think where it was believed a 1 slam year was superior to a 2 slam year was Graf vs Navratilova in 87. That was a year Graf had something like a 86-2 record and Navratilova won only 2 non slam tournaments despite her usually playing almost every week schedule. Even then some still pick Navratilova. A poll on another site had Navratilova with about 40% of votes (out of nearly a thousand voters) as true #1 of that year. So needless to say anything less than that extreme extreme and the 2 slam year is better.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
IMO if one guy wins 1 Slam, the WTF, 4 Masters and 2 500s and another guy wins 2 Slams and absolutely nothing else, I'm gonna take the 1 Slam guy's season any day of the week thank you very much.
 
Last edited:

Chico

Banned
1. Nadal didn't win AO. No one asked last year what would happen if Novak won FO (which he should have if not for Pascal Maria). I wonder why?

2. Even if that happened by some miracle, it would still have been Novak's year by far. Just like it was his year last year in 2013.
 
D

Deleted member 688153

Guest
So even though, he'd still be ranked YE#3, the season would still belong to him, despite Federer and Djokovic's higher rankings and more consistent performances?

2 slams is difficult to argue against, although Djokovic winning Wimbledon (the most valuable one), the WTF, and being YE #1 also gives him a good case.
 
Top