If Novak wins USO 2014, then he is better than Rafa on 3 majors

[SpicyCurry1990]

Just a philosophical difference, I think.

Think of it in terms of the Murray-Djokovic question at the US Open: right now, Novak is the greater performer there. Yet if Andy wins a second title in New York without beating Novak, I think we'd agree that he's had a greater career there than Novak due to the 2-1 title split.

But if Murray beats Novak in the finals, on the way to a second title, while we might both still agree that Murray is greater at that event, we'd likely part ways as to the resulting gap between them. I'd look at the 18 percent w/p in championship matches and 0-2 title bout h2h and say - larger gap favoring Murray. You'd likely look at the additional final and final weekend reached - noting that Novak has now made 6 finals and 8 final weekends - and say Murray, but just slightly. (apologies if I'm putting the wrong words in your mouth)

Two valid, subjective, differing conclusions reached by analyzing the tangible stats.

You are correct in your assessment of my expected views should a Murray 2nd title happen and I ask why do you feel that way? Why is it better to lose earlier in an event than it is to make a final? Your over-all ranking points garnered from the event are lower, you make less money, and your world ranking for the year suffers. Yet somehow you reach the conclusion it is better to lose earlier in a tournament if you don't win it.

 

[Chico]

If Novak wins USO 2014, then he is better on 3 majors/surfaces over Nadal. Just like Fed.

AO - Novak

FO - Nadal

Wimbledon - Novak . 2 majors each, however Novak beat Rafa in a final there.

USO - Novak. 2 majors each. However Novak has probably countless finals and SF.

If Murray finds form, he can also perhaps target this goal. Not really out of the question.

Isn't it an irony that a 14 major winner is still inferior to his contemporaries on 3 of 4 surfaces in terms of performance ?

Thoughts ?

Indeed. Agree absolutely!

 

[eldanger25]

And therein lies the problem I have with head-to-head. You are effectively penalizing 20 year old Djokovic for being good enough to reach the semifinals in 07, when he was clearly nowhere near his best yet and losing to Nadal who was clearly further along in his development. If Djokovic had lost in the QF that year instead, but say made the SF in 09 his over-all record at Wimbledon has not changed, yet now the head-to-head at Wimbledon goes from 1-1 vs Nadal to 1-0. How does this show any impact on who was the greater player?

Also your contention about 2010 is easily negated by 2013 AND 2014 when Djokovic was reaching the Finals and Nadal missed his "appointment" as you say to give Djokovic a chance to rectify his head-to-head. We can clearly garner Nole's superior record at SW19 in those years. This is why I prefer using winning % at a slam over all other criteria, besides slam wins, such as Finals Appearances, Final Weekends Reached, and especially head-to-head as it shows the most full picture of consistency and totally of record against the whole field. I can live with you just needing 1 more SF at Wimby for Nole to be ranked higher though, as opposed to needing 3 more Finals or 1 more title as some have suggested.

I am still at a loss in regards to your USO evaluation. Let me summarize for you once again why your head-to-head evaluation is preposterous. If Wawrinka beats Nole in the 5th set semifinal at USO last year, Nadal vs Nole at USO never happens. Suddenly, if Nole wins without beating Nadal this year. Nole's record goes to 2 titles, 5 Finals, and 3 SF instead of 2 titles, 6 Finals, 2 SF. By your assessment, the former would have you 100% convinced Nole has the better USO record, but the later has you at 60%, ergo its better to have lost to Wawrinka than won. Does that make any logical objective sense?

Final point is I recognize there is subjectivity in saying USO 2010 was not Nole in his prime yet. But I think it is pretty reasonable to consider the results he had surrounding 2010 compared to what he has had every year since. I don't like using that argument, but its the only way to counter the ridiculous head-to-head argument because it penalizes young players for playing deeper into fields early in their career and losing to future rivals or actually values consistency as a negative.

Novak and Rafa are a year apart in age. 8 or so weeks after their match at Wimbledon, Novak was contesting his first major final. A few months later, he was celebrating his first major title. I don't think there's much of a reason to diminish that matchup. It means far, far less than their 2011 matchup, but it's something.

I bring up 2010 v. 2011 purely because those are their respective best seasons at the slams. We have some clear data points as to how great 2011 was in part because one or both of Nadal and Federer kept showing up on the final weekend against Novak. Rafa didn't have that luxury in 2010, when he would have been favored to beat Novak and Roger at RG and SW19, and did beat Novak at the US Open.

Relatedly, a 2010 US Open final between Roger and Rafa is the great lost match in the rivalry, in my opinion.

I'm curious to get your take on my Murray-Novak hypothetical - still mulling over your most recent USO points, which are interesting. EDIT: see below.

 

[eldanger25]

You are correct in your assessment of my expected views should a Murray 2nd title happen and I ask why do you feel that way? Why is it better to lose earlier in an event than it is to make a final? Your over-all ranking points garnered from the event are lower, you make less money, and your world ranking for the year suffers. Yet somehow you reach the conclusion it is better to lose earlier in a tournament if you don't win it.

I think pre-final weekend results are suitably encompassed in your overall w/p at the event metric, and in a larger sense the player's ranking during their careers. I don't really pay much heed to differences b/w a 2nd and a 4th round loss or a 4th round loss and a QF loss (though I recognize QF appearances are valued to some).

I do think you have to take overall w/p differences into account once there's a solid 3-5 percent gap. Right now Murray and Novak are 5 points apart at the Open, which is meaningful - that gap would likely shrink by some amount if the former won a second title. Might still be a meaningful counter to their championship match h2h.

 

[eldanger25]

And therein lies the problem I have with head-to-head. You are effectively penalizing 20 year old Djokovic for being good enough to reach the semifinals in 07, when he was clearly nowhere near his best yet and losing to Nadal who was clearly further along in his development. If Djokovic had lost in the QF that year instead, but say made the SF in 09 his over-all record at Wimbledon has not changed, yet now the head-to-head at Wimbledon goes from 1-1 vs Nadal to 1-0. How does this show any impact on who was the greater player?

Also your contention about 2010 is easily negated by 2013 AND 2014 when Djokovic was reaching the Finals and Nadal missed his "appointment" as you say to give Djokovic a chance to rectify his head-to-head. We can clearly garner Nole's superior record at SW19 in those years. This is why I prefer using winning % at a slam over all other criteria, besides slam wins, such as Finals Appearances, Final Weekends Reached, and especially head-to-head as it shows the most full picture of consistency and totally of record against the whole field. I can live with you just needing 1 more SF at Wimby for Nole to be ranked higher though, as opposed to needing 3 more Finals or 1 more title as some have suggested.

I am still at a loss in regards to your USO evaluation. Let me summarize for you once again why your head-to-head evaluation is preposterous. If Wawrinka beats Nole in the 5th set semifinal at USO last year, Nadal vs Nole at USO never happens. Suddenly, if Nole wins without beating Nadal this year. Nole's record goes to 2 titles, 5 Finals, and 3 SF instead of 2 titles, 6 Finals, 2 SF. By your assessment, the former would have you 100% convinced Nole has the better USO record, but the later has you at 60%, ergo its better to have lost to Wawrinka than won. Does that make any logical objective sense?

Final point is I recognize there is subjectivity in saying USO 2010 was not Nole in his prime yet. But I think it is pretty reasonable to consider the results he had surrounding 2010 compared to what he has had every year since. I don't like using that argument, but its the only way to counter the ridiculous head-to-head argument because it penalizes young players for playing deeper into fields early in their career and losing to future rivals or actually values consistency as a negative.

But 2013 did happen. Two men entered the ring, one man was left standing.

If Novak lost to Stan, and Stan lost to Rafa, and Novak won this year's Open without facing Nadal - such that the Novak-Rafa title match h2h remained at 1-1 in NYC with all other metrics equal - then I would drop down past that hugely important category to a lower priority one like final weekend consistency and 100 percent deem Novak a greater performer at the Open.

 

[Backspin1183]

If Djokovic wins another match, he's better than Nadal.

 

[tipsa...don'tlikehim!]

tennisaddict you should change your username to nadaladdict

 

[SpicyCurry1990]

Novak and Rafa are a year apart in age. 8 or so weeks after their match at Wimbledon, Novak was contesting his first major final. A few months later, he was celebrating his first major title. I don't think there's much of a reason to diminish that matchup. It means far, far less than their 2011 matchup, but it's something.

On the contrary. Nole's first slam final appearance 8 weeks later and his first major title a few months after that both came on hard courts. Nole was clearly far along in his hard court development by that point, but was miles away on grass as shown by his 2nd round loss at Wimbledon the next year to Marat Safin, his QF loss to Tommy Haas the year after, and his SF loss to Tomas Berdych in 2010. Grass is not a surface suited to cater to his offensive baselining game and he had problems with players who could serve big and hit power strokes early in his career on grass because he could not use his defenses the way he could on hard court.

The age is not what is important here but the development. Rafa was fully developed into his prime at an abnormally young age on both grass and clay. By 07 he had already contested a Wimbledon Final against the GOAT grass court player and taken him to 5 sets. Nadal, similarly did not adapt his hard court game to full development until 2008.

Like I said the matchup has no meaning to me because Nole could have just as easily lost the QF 5th set to Baghdatis in 07 and beaten Tommy Haas in the QF in 09 and ended up with the same exact Wimbledon record without that head to head match-up. Players careers should be evaluated against the field.

I bring up 2010 v. 2011 purely because those are their respective best seasons at the slams. We have some clear data points as to how great 2011 was in part because one or both of Nadal and Federer kept showing up on the final weekend against Novak. Rafa didn't have that luxury in 2010, when he would have been favored to beat Novak and Roger at RG and SW19, and did beat Novak at the US Open.

Why does this matter though? I value Nadal's 3 slams in 2010 the same as I value the 3 slams Nole won in 2011 and my evaluation of 2011 Nole as a better year tan 2010 Nadal has very little to do with who they faced. It has to do with Nole's 43 match win streak against the whole field, 5 Masters Shields against the whole field, SF appearance in the lost major over QF, higher winning % against the whole field, and maybe as a final tack on point the 6-0 record vs Nadal.

Relatedly, a 2010 US Open final between Roger and Rafa is the great lost match in the rivalry, in my opinion.

Agreed, but I was rooting for Nole in 2010 semi so I was fine with the result

 

[SpicyCurry1990]

But 2013 did happen. Two men entered the ring, one man was left standing.

If Novak lost to Stan, and Stan lost to Rafa, and Novak won this year's Open without facing Nadal - such that the Novak-Rafa title match h2h remained at 1-1 in NYC with all other metrics equal - then I would drop down past that hugely important category to a lower priority one like final weekend consistency and 100 percent deem Novak a greater performer at the Open.

Exactly my point, so because Novak beat Stan he is not greater at the Open than Nadal. Had he lost, he would be. This is what valuing head to head over winning % does.

 

[SpicyCurry1990]

I think pre-final weekend results are suitably encompassed in your overall w/p at the event metric, and in a larger sense the player's ranking during their careers. I don't really pay much heed to differences b/w a 2nd and a 4th round loss or a 4th round loss and a QF loss (though I recognize QF appearances are valued to some).

I do think you have to take overall w/p differences into account once there's a solid 3-5 percent gap. Right now Murray and Novak are 5 points apart at the Open, which is meaningful - that gap would likely shrink by some amount if the former won a second title. Might still be a meaningful counter to their championship match h2h.

This is the same argument we are having with Wawrinka/Nadal/Novak last year.

Lets say for example Murray beats Nadal in one semifinal and reaches the final this year and Wawrinka beats Djokovic in the other.

Murray wins the title over Wawrinka. You evaluate the gap between Murray and Djokovic to be smaller in that scenario (where Djokovic loses in the SF) than if Djokovic beat Wawrinka and lost to Murray in the final (where Djokovic loses in the F). Again you are decreasing the greatness of a player at an event as a result of a win through high valuation of head-to-head, precisely why it is a terrible metric to have anywhere near the top of your categories.

 

[Tony48]

If Novak wins USO 2014, then he is better on 3 majors/surfaces over Nadal. Just like Fed.

AO - Novak

FO - Nadal

Wimbledon - Novak . 2 majors each, however Novak beat Rafa in a final there.

USO - Novak. 2 majors each. However Novak has probably countless finals and SF.

If Murray finds form, he can also perhaps target this goal. Not really out of the question.

Isn't it an irony that a 14 major winner is still inferior to his contemporaries on 3 of 4 surfaces in terms of performance ?

Thoughts ?

Novak only has 1 US Open title.

 

[eldanger25]

I think we've gotta chalk this up to philosophical differences - performance v. the field versus performance versus the player at the micro level.

Might even be a regional or sports background thing - I'll give you an example from the NBA, my other favorite sport, that I referenced earlier - the classic Lakers/Celtics rivalry of the 1980s. The LA Lakers are generally considered the greater team of that decade for the following reasons, in order of priority:

1. Five titles for LA to three for the Celtics
2. A 2-1 edge for LA in their NBA Finals matchups
3. Eight appearances in the NBA Finals for LA to five for the Celtics
4. Nine conference finals appearances for LA to eight for the Celtics

Now, if the Celtics had beaten the Lakers in the 1987 NBA Finals - their rubber match - I'm confident that most NBA fans would consider them a slightly greater "team of the decade" - all the Lakers-favoring stats against the field would've been the same, and they'd both have 4 titles overall - but that 2-1 edge in the championship round swinging to the Celtics would've been paramount. Big emphasis put on the duel, the showdown - "pistols at dawn, ten paces."

Bottom line: I think your analysis unduly waters down actual matches between Nadal and Djokovic at the Open in comparing their careers at the Open. You likely think I underrate Novak's consistency at the event. So it goes - always a pleasure to shoot the breeze with you.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Novak only has 1 US Open title.

Not for much longer.

 

[Tony48]

Not for much longer.

I hope so, too

 

[SpicyCurry1990]

I think we've gotta chalk this up to philosophical differences - performance v. the field versus performance versus the player at the micro level.

Might even be a regional or sports background thing - I'll give you an example from the NBA, my other favorite sport, that I referenced earlier - the classic Lakers/Celtics rivalry of the 1980s. The LA Lakers are generally considered the greater team of that decade for the following reasons, in order of priority:

1. Five titles for LA to three for the Celtics
2. A 2-1 edge for LA in their NBA Finals matchups
3. Eight appearances in the NBA Finals for LA to five for the Celtics
4. Nine conference finals appearances for LA to eight for the Celtics

Now, if the Celtics had beaten the Lakers in the 1987 NBA Finals - their rubber match - I'm confident that most NBA fans would consider them a slightly greater "team of the decade" - all the Lakers-favoring stats against the field would've been the same, and they'd both have 4 titles overall - but that 2-1 edge in the championship round swinging to the Celtics would've been paramount. Big emphasis put on the duel, the showdown - "pistols at dawn, ten paces."

Bottom line: I think your analysis unduly waters down actual matches between Nadal and Djokovic at the Open in comparing their careers at the Open. You likely think I underrate Novak's consistency at the event. So it goes - always a pleasure to shoot the breeze with you.

Who is better at the US Open all time, Agassi or Nadal?

 

[eldanger25]

Exactly my point, so because Novak beat Stan he is not greater at the Open than Nadal. Had he lost, he would be. This is what valuing head to head over winning % does.

Absolutely - because folks could speculate about what would've happened in the hypothetical 2013 Nole-Rafa final based on how wonderfully Novak played in their 2011 matchup. All one can do is draw conclusions based on available evidence, for better or worse. If Stan had bested Novak, there'd be less evidence to use, but still conclusions to draw - again, for better or worse.

How's this for potential common ground: if we each had 100 dollars - or bones, or clams, or what have you - to wager the day before the Open begins, I reckon we'd both put it down on Novak before Nadal to reach the final, assuming such a wager exists. That said, if we each had 100 clams to throw down the day before a Novak-Rafa final this coming year at the Open, however, I imagine the logical side of your brain would think to bet on Nadal (though you may bet on Novak out of loyalty).

 

[Noleberic123]

Not for much longer.

djokovic is coming in as the clear favourite. I Hope he can go on a tear now in the slams like he has in the masters.

 

[eldanger25]

Who is better at the US Open all time, Agassi or Nadal?

Overall, Andre - very few Nadal-favoring metrics.

Nadal through 2013 Open (last appearance) compared to Andre's age-equivalent year (1997), Nadal. Many Nadal-favoring metrics.

 

[SpicyCurry1990]

Overall, Andre - very few Nadal-favoring metrics.

Nadal through 2013 Open (last appearance) compared to Andre's age-equivalent year (1997), Nadal. Many Nadal-favoring metrics.

Ok, I'm just talking over-all composite career. Would you say Andre clearly?

 

[eldanger25]

Ok, I'm just talking over-all composite career. Would you say Andre clearly?

I'd probably say Andre had the "greater" career there in no small part due to the longevity factor (18 years between first and last final weekend; 15 years between finals appearances) - while acknowledging that it's slightly unfair to Nadal since he hasn't had a chance to compete on that level.

I'd have to think about how to rate the minor overall Open winning percentage issue favoring Nadal, as well as Andre's repeated struggles at the Open against his generational rival Pete relative to Rafa conquering his generational rival Novak two out of three times in the championship match. Context matters, of course - beating Novak twice for a US Open title is "greater" than topping Stich, YK, Todd Martin, etc., and never getting over the line against Pete, in my opinion. Speaks to how highly I rate Novak on HCs.

Probably Andre though, overall - an interesting question.

 

[SpicyCurry1990]

I'd probably say Andre had the "greater" career there in no small part due to the longevity factor (18 years between first and last final weekend; 15 years between finals appearances) - while acknowledging that it's slightly unfair to Nadal since he hasn't had a chance to compete on that level.

I'd have to think about how to rate the minor overall Open winning percentage issue favoring Nadal, as well as Andre's repeated struggles at the Open against his generational rival Pete relative to Rafa conquering his generational rival Novak two out of three times in the championship match. Context matters, of course - beating Novak twice for a US Open title is "greater" than topping Stich, YK, Todd Martin, etc., and never getting over the line against Pete, in my opinion. Speaks to how highly I rate Novak on HCs.

Probably Andre though, overall - an interesting question.

Ok now let me ask you this question. Assuming Novak wins this USO without beating Nadal.

Who do you rate higher between Novak and Agassi at USO.

 

[BringBackSV]

Really, so you don't think Phil Mickelson feels more pressure to win the US Open where he has finished 2nd six times versus the Masters which he has won 3 times? You don't think a US Open will enhance Mickelson's career more than a 4th Masters would?

I'm just saying there gets to a point when being fixated on the major # when comparing players is a poor way to rate greatness. At the lower levels it should be given the utmost priority, but when we start getting into guys like Fed, Sampras, and Nadal this has be considered when ranking the greatest of them all.

Phil might want a US Open trophy in a way that a 4th Masters wouldn't quite fill but then again a 4th masters brings with it something that a US Open doesn't. They are unique but they are all quite valuable and full of pressure. Phil does not play at any major without feeling major pressure though, whether he won there 3 times or 0 times.

I don't necessarily believe in a "greatest of them all". If that's the case, we can't just stop at Fed, Sampras and Rafa for obvious reasons. We are also not talking about a guy in Rafa who hasn't won at all venues. It's not the most balanced sure but Fed only has one FO and Pete has 0. Rafa's success in some ways is more impressive given that his favorite surface only represents 1/4 of the slams each year yet he's made inroads and beat his two rivals on their best surfaces.

 

[SpicyCurry1990]

Phil might want a US Open trophy in a way that a 4th Masters wouldn't quite fill but then again a 4th masters brings with it something that a US Open doesn't. They are unique but they are all quite valuable and full of pressure. Phil does not play at any major without feeling major pressure though, whether he won there 3 times or 0 times.

I don't necessarily believe in a "greatest of them all". If that's the case, we can't just stop at Fed, Sampras and Rafa for obvious reasons. We are also not talking about a guy in Rafa who hasn't won at all venues. It's not the most balanced sure but Fed only has one FO and Pete has 0. Rafa's success in some ways is more impressive given that his favorite surface only represents 1/4 of the slams each year yet he's made inroads and beat his two rivals on their best surfaces.

I was only refering to open era GOAT, I think thats a very viable criteria to gauge. If you go further back then yes it becomes more complicated. But in the open era its really only those 3 plus Borg considered to be top tier and almost everyone has Borg 4th.

The point is when you look at Fed vs Nadal you see this:

Slow Hard Courts
4-1 AO
6-3 Masters

Fast Hard Courts
5-2 USO
7-4 Masters

Indoor Hard Courts
6-0 WTF
2-1 Masters

Grass
7-2 Wimb
7-1 Halle/Queens

How can dominating JUST Clay over-ride all of that on all of the other 4 surfaces? People literally say if Nadal wins 3 more RGs he would be the GOAT over Fed.

Not to mention

YE #1s
5-3

Weeks #1
302-143

 

[MichaelNadal]

Strongly disagree. For me Nole would only need to win another USO to be considered greater than Nadal there. Heck, I even think it's quite debatable the way things stand now.

Fanboyism to the extreme. Murray must be better than Novak at Wimbledon then :shock:

 

[Djokovic2011]

Fanboyism to the extreme. Murray must be better than Novak at Wimbledon then :shock:

Not quite MN. Djokovic has more F/SF and his W/L% is higher than Murray's so I would still put Nole ahead of him anyway.

 

[SpicyCurry1990]

Fanboyism to the extreme. Murray must be better than Novak at Wimbledon then :shock:

Nadal is ahead at USO right now for sure, but its hardly the same comparison.

Nole has more SF appearances, finals appearances, more wins, and a greater winning % at Wimbledon compared to Murray, IN ADDITION to the 2-1 title edge.

Nole has more SF appearances, finals appearances, more wins, and a greater winning % at USO compared to Nadal, ONLY BEHIND in the 2-1 title edge.

 

[SpicyCurry1990]

Absolutely - because folks could speculate about what would've happened in the hypothetical 2013 Nole-Rafa final based on how wonderfully Novak played in their 2011 matchup. All one can do is draw conclusions based on available evidence, for better or worse. If Stan had bested Novak, there'd be less evidence to use, but still conclusions to draw - again, for better or worse.

How's this for potential common ground: if we each had 100 dollars - or bones, or clams, or what have you - to wager the day before the Open begins, I reckon we'd both put it down on Novak before Nadal to reach the final, assuming such a wager exists. That said, if we each had 100 clams to throw down the day before a Novak-Rafa final this coming year at the Open, however, I imagine the logical side of your brain would think to bet on Nadal (though you may bet on Novak out of loyalty).

How can what people hypothesize be used to determine who is the greater player over tangible results. It is a contradiction of the highest order to suggest winning any match can result in diminishing of your greatness.

Additionally, why do you rate an individual match-up with greater regard than vs the entire field? This sport is about performance against all peers and always has been. When pro-tours were played back in the day where more than 2 people competed, the tour winner was the person with the best winning percentage, not the one who held the head-to-head among the top 2.

There was tour when Pancho Gonzales lost the head to head to Lew Hoad 13-15, but beat Anderson and Cooper 34-0, while Hoad beat them 27-7. Gonzales was named the tour champion. Was Hoad greater?

Its the same thing with Djokovic vs Nadal. The other matches matter and saying that a loss to nadal + a win over someone else is worse than simply just losing to someone else with no win doesn't make much sense.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Nadal is ahead at USO right now for sure, but its hardly the same comparison.

Nole has more SF appearances, finals appearances, more wins, and a greater winning % at Wimbledon compared to Murray, IN ADDITION to the 2-1 title edge.

Nole has more SF appearances, finals appearances, more wins, and a greater winning % at USO compared to Nadal, ONLY BEHIND in the 2-1 title edge.

You mean the edge that matters? Yes I get it's not the same, no kidding. But it's a silly statement. 2 slams>> 1. I don't care how much anyone might WANT or HOPE or WISH Novak had a better career than Rafa... he doesn't. The sooner they deal, the better. Let Novak go out and actually ACHEIVE these things and then no one has issues.

 

[Djokovic2011]

You mean the edge that matters? Yes I get it's not the same, no kidding. But it's a silly statement. 2 slams>> 1. I don't care how much anyone might WANT or HOPE or WISH Novak had a better career than Rafa... he doesn't. The sooner they deal, the better. Let Novak go out and actually ACHEIVE these things and then no one has issues.

You have to take other things into account though MN. Consistency counts for a lot as well and should also be highly valued.

 

[Sentinel]

Why talk about "Ifs.........."

Wimby- Rafa (by your logic -> "However Rafa has 2 more finals" )


So Rafa IS currently better than Djoko at 3 Majors! :twisted:

Three early exits. So there's that, too.

 

[MichaelNadal]

You have to take other things into account though MN. Consistency counts for a lot as well and should also be highly valued.

It sure does. But it doesn't dwarf an extra slam, it never has and never will.

 

[Djokovic2011]

It sure does. But it doesn't dwarf an extra slam, it never has and never will.

Why should winning 7 best of 5 set matches be considered so much better than winning 6?

 

[eldanger25]

How can what people hypothesize be used to determine who is the greater player over tangible results. It is a contradiction of the highest order to suggest winning any match can result in diminishing of your greatness.

Additionally, why do you rate an individual match-up with greater regard than vs the entire field? This sport is about performance against all peers and always has been. When pro-tours were played back in the day where more than 2 people competed, the tour winner was the person with the best winning percentage, not the one who held the head-to-head among the top 2.

There was tour when Pancho Gonzales lost the head to head to Lew Hoad 13-15, but beat Anderson and Cooper 34-0, while Hoad beat them 27-7. Gonzales was named the tour champion. Was Hoad greater?

Its the same thing with Djokovic vs Nadal. The other matches matter and saying that a loss to nadal + a win over someone else is worse than simply just losing to someone else with no win doesn't make much sense.

You're being unnecessarily reductive, and taking a far too quantitative approach to a dynamic issue. Novak beating Stan and then losing to Nadal last year increased the absolute value of his career at the Open, to the extent a final appearance is more impressive than a semifinal appearance. Novak losing the rubber match between he and Nadal, and in so doing falling behind him in the high stakes encounters and number of titles at the tournament hurt his comparative value to Nadal.

Moreover, I believe that title bouts are utterly unique, and deserve special consideration - hence my inclusion of winning percentage in finals interacting with total finals reached. Novak has been labelled as somebody who can't deliver when the lights are brightest - he just recently spoke about how much that issue was in his head through last Sunday, and how important it was for him to beat Roger. So beating Stan and losing to Rafa actually reinforced a negative stereotype about his game, psyche, and championship demeanor - that he's not clutch - and therefore did harm to his legacy at the Open, regardless of how many quantitative metrics he performed well in.

I can't tell you how derisively LeBron James was treated by fans and the media when he couldn't win in the conference and NBA finals through 2012. How about Peyton Manning or Wayne Rooney? Not a playoff performer - not clutch, etc. Ever read any articles comparing Peyton to his little brother Eli? The former blew the latter out of the water stats-wise, but Eli had mystique because he won the Super Bowl 2x via clutch play. Maybe that's not fair, but it's relevant. And it's even less fair for top guys in team sports, because they have to rely on others much moreso than tennis players, who have their own fates in their own hands.

Again, you gotta look deeper than the numbers - I don't mean to be facile, but these are people, not machines. Some guys handle the pressure of the championship match (and the final weekend) better than others, which isn't adequately captured by numbers alone, but is incredibly relevant to comparing careers at one major or another.

Usually these things average out, particularly when players are within 1-2 years of each other age-wise. I'm sure we'll have a pretty clear picture of who had the "greater" career b/w the two in NYC when all is said and done. But the idea that actual matches at the actual venue b/w the two players lack standalone value - well, that I just can't get behind.

Context matters, however messy it may be. You may find Novak losing a few more championship matches in a row in New York to be great for his career, since it seems to lend itself to a rockin' winning percentage and lots of ranking points. I think it's a problem for him - that if it played out that way, he'd be just another of those guys who too often choke in the clutch, despite having all the talent in the world.

Just so I'm clear, since we've drilled down pretty deep here - we agree that titles trump all, and the only question is how much to value performances against the field versus performances against the player as tiebreakers when both players have the same number of titles - is that right?

 

[eldanger25]

Ok now let me ask you this question. Assuming Novak wins this USO without beating Nadal.

Who do you rate higher between Novak and Agassi at USO.

Same answer as before. Overall, Andre - his impact at the event across eras is tremendous. Through 1997, which is the fairest comparison to Novak - I'd give the edge to Novak.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Same answer as before. Overall, Andre - his impact at the event across eras is tremendous. Through 1997, which is the fairest comparison to Novak - I'd give the edge to Novak.

What impact are you talking about?

 

[BringBackSV]

I was only refering to open era GOAT, I think thats a very viable criteria to gauge. If you go further back then yes it becomes more complicated. But in the open era its really only those 3 plus Borg considered to be top tier and almost everyone has Borg 4th.

The point is when you look at Fed vs Nadal you see this:

Slow Hard Courts
4-1 AO
6-3 Masters

Fast Hard Courts
5-2 USO
7-4 Masters

Indoor Hard Courts
6-0 WTF
2-1 Masters

Grass
7-2 Wimb
7-1 Halle/Queens

How can dominating JUST Clay over-ride all of that on all of the other 4 surfaces? People literally say if Nadal wins 3 more RGs he would be the GOAT over Fed.

Not to mention

YE #1s
5-3

Weeks #1
302-143

Borg did not even compete at the AO, a lot has changed since he played. Again, arguing about who the GOAT is to me rather pointless. The title doesn't exist, it's subjective and people will have their preferences. Fed has his respective accomplishments (and they are impressive), as does Rafa. Fed, i'd always argue benefited from timing but there is no doubt that he is overall better on two of the three surfaces. Does that make him a greater player? There is an argument but if Rafa surpasses his GS total, I think it's rather weak. At the end of the day, it really doesn't matter how many are on clay. If it were that easy, surely another would have done it. What Rafa has done on clay is unprecedented and he's also won major titles on all surfaces. Also, your argument would be a little more valid IMV if Fed had more than one FO. The fact is, he doesn't and thus is not balanced in his GS titles either. I don't really care about Halle/Queens, they aren't even masters 1000s. Lastly, it's pretty telling that when you aimed to compare them, you completely left out clay results.

 

[eldanger25]

What impact are you talking about?

Mentioned it earlier - making finals 15 years apart, making final weekends 18 years apart. Classic battles with 70s guys like Connors early in his career, and 2000s guys like Federer at the end of it. Plus a few titles in-between.

 

[eldanger25]

How can what people hypothesize be used to determine who is the greater player over tangible results. It is a contradiction of the highest order to suggest winning any match can result in diminishing of your greatness.

Additionally, why do you rate an individual match-up with greater regard than vs the entire field? This sport is about performance against all peers and always has been. When pro-tours were played back in the day where more than 2 people competed, the tour winner was the person with the best winning percentage, not the one who held the head-to-head among the top 2.

There was tour when Pancho Gonzales lost the head to head to Lew Hoad 13-15, but beat Anderson and Cooper 34-0, while Hoad beat them 27-7. Gonzales was named the tour champion. Was Hoad greater?

Its the same thing with Djokovic vs Nadal. The other matches matter and saying that a loss to nadal + a win over someone else is worse than simply just losing to someone else with no win doesn't make much sense.

I'm a little hesitant to switch the terms of the conversation from a comparison of performances at an event across careers to evaluation of performances at multiple events across a single season - as I've said a few times, this is a dynamic inquiry.

Is there a link to the results of the season you're referencing - would be interested to look at it more closely before making any blanket statements.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Why should winning 7 best of 5 set matches be considered so much better than winning 6?

Why don't you ask the people that made the tennis rules? 7 matches to win a slam. I don't see it as much better than 6 persay, but winning a slam is infinitely better than making a semi. No one really cares that Nadal lost in the semis of the US Open in 2008. It's a moot point in history.

 

[BringBackSV]

Nole has more SF appearances, finals appearances, more wins, and a greater winning % at USO compared to Nadal, ONLY BEHIND in the 2-1 title edge.

Only behind in the title edge huh?

 

[BringBackSV]

Why should winning 7 best of 5 set matches be considered so much better than winning 6?

That's a good point actually. Novak probably can't tell the difference between the feeling of winning this final and the previous three that he lost.

 

[MichaelNadal]

That's a good point actually. Novak probably can't tell the difference between the feeling of winning this final and the previous three that he lost.

In the words of Djokovic2011... please promise me you aren't going anywhere? :lol:

 

[Djokovic2011]

That's a good point actually. Novak probably can't tell the difference between the feeling of winning this final and the previous three that he lost.

But in the grand scheme of things 7 isn't that much more than 6 is it? D'you know what I mean?

 

[Noleberic123]

But in the grand scheme of things 7 isn't that much more than 6 is it? D'you know what I mean?

Not really?? :lol: 7 means you win the slam, 6 means your runner up haha

 

[Djokovic2011]

Not really?? :lol: 7 means you win the slam, 6 means your runner up haha

Being runner up is better than losing in the first round though.

 

[Noleberic123]

Being runner up is better than losing in the first round though.

I think I have to go back and read your entire conversation, because when did first rounds come into this?

 

[MichaelNadal]

But in the grand scheme of things 7 isn't that much more than 6 is it? D'you know what I mean?

Bed would be much more comfortable than this place

 

[Djokovic2011]

I think I have to go back and read your entire conversation, because when did first rounds come into this?

Being runner up at a Slam is also classed as an achievement. Check out timnz' thread.

 

[Noleberic123]

Being runner up at a Slam is also classed as an achievement. Check out timnz' thread.

Yes I know that! but I would have liked nole to hold up the champions trophy in those 3 finals instead of the runners up plate

 

[eldanger25]

I don't think any fan of Novak would deny that it would be more meaningful for him to take out Nadal this year on the way to the US Open title, rather than have Nadal lose in the SF and Novak win without facing down his archrival. This despite the fact that Nadal reaching and losing an extra final would add value to his career and make it marginally harder for Novak to reach YE#1.

My recollection is that Nadal fans were thrilled he beat Novak in NY last year, despite it meaning Nadal would have to work a little harder to be YE#1.

Why is that? Because nothing tops topping your nemesis on the biggest stages, when all eyes are on the two of you. Anybody think Vajda et al would've gone around humping cars in Madrid if Novak had beaten Tsonga in the 2011 final?