Lack of relationship between weeks #1 and Slam Titles

[timnz]

Both Slam Titles and Weeks at number 1 are important markers of success. What I find interesting is that lack of relationship between them.

For instance Djokovic has more weeks at number 1 than Nadal but has 6 less slams. Or Roddick has more weeks at number 1 than Becker but has 5 less slams. Lendl and Sampras have a similar number of weeks (270 vs 286) but Lendl is behind Sampras by 6 slams.

It is my belief that there is probably more correspondence between weeks in the top 4 ie being a top contender and slam victories than weeks at number 1 and slam victories.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Yes, because if an era has several anomalies of greatness then it will be harder to stay at #1, but you can still be a contender for the Slams much in the capacity that you would've been even with the #1 ranking. Staggering then that Lendl achieved his tally of weeks and years at #1 in such a fiercely strong era at the top.

In a potential ranking system, I'd also award general points for being in the top 4 as a mark of consistency and excellence. Top 4 rather than 5 isn't as arbitrary as it might initially sound, though perhaps lesser points could be awarded for being in the top 8.

 

[moonballs]

Only the very best has both, no dilemma there!

 

[cc0509]

Only the very best has both, no dilemma there!

That is it. You NEED both to be considered the greatest.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

If someone has a lot of #1 weeks, it means they are a seriously great player, regardless of other achievements, even if there is a disconnect between #1 weeks and slams.

We say slams are the most important thing in these discussions, and they are, but someone like Novak, for instance, has plenty of slams.
Eight slams is a huge haul, no need to compare to Fedal here.

So with eight slams, there is clearly no deficiency, so no way are his #1 weeks that disproportionate to his other achievements.

This is what I was trying to get at earlier on, slams are the most important, but Novak is not lacking in that category (only if we compare to Tier 1), so he's doing just fine on all metrics.

He actually has a very well-rounded resume when you think about it.
-Plenty of slams
-Plenty of WTF
-Tons of Masters
-Tons of #1 weeks
-Plenty of other stuff like 500s

Not bad really.

Saying slams are the most important isn't supposed to be a diss on Novak.

In the future, RG should be his absolute main goal, he already has plenty of #1 weeks too, obviously no deficiency there.
Also another USO would be good, and of course Olympic Gold would be amazing too.

And the Real Slam.

But he has everything else covered.

 

[SpinToWin]

Nadal won a lot of his slams in a period where one other player was sweeping the tour on 2/3 surfaces. He consistently had more points than many previous world #1s, but then again that other player had more points at #1 than almost anybody else historically. As has been said before in this thread, the competition and the (lack of) existence of an ATG in the same period of time plays a great role whether you will be number 1 with a given amount of points.

 

[DerekNoleFam1]

There are certainly some discrepancies, Ivan Lendl so many weeks with 8 Slams, Mats Wilander only 20 weeks with 1 less Slam, ie 7.
Lots of mitigating factors involved.
Becker won 2 Slams in 1989, clearly the best player of that year, but Lendl pips him for YE#1 with 1 Slam, and held it until mid-1990.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Finally someone does a good job explaining what I was trying to say. When a guy loses 4 or 5 matches a year, you're pretty much just unlucky to have your peak coincide with his. Rafa won what, 10 or 11 tournaments including a slam in 05?

 

[The Green Mile]

Finally someone does a good job explaining what I was trying to say. When a guy loses 4 or 5 matches a year, you're pretty much just unlucky to have your peak coincide with his. Rafa won what, 10 or 11 tournaments including a slam in 05?

Yep, 11 including 4 M1000s.

 

[JanowiczJ]

Only the very best has both, no dilemma there!

Simple as this.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Yep, 11 including 4 M1000s.

That's why it's really not black and white, Nadal has way too many weeks at #2 that are superior to even what Novak has had in a lot of his. That's the way the cookie crumbles, but we shouldn't pretend not to know this.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Almost all of Djokovic's time at #1 has been superior in terms of points earned to Nadal's time at #2. The period in which Nadal has his highest #2 points total was when he got usurped by....


...Novak Djokovic...

In the 2011 season.

Now we can certainly compare it to Hewitt and we can even compare Murray to Hewitt and see that there was some relatively easy pickings compared to other times, but I don't see Djokovic overtaking Nadal in weeks at #1 as something unfair or too dependant on timing. Within his own era, Nadal has had as fair a crack as Djokovic for world #1, but he's less fit and participates less consistently and gets punished in the #1 stakes for it. That's a quirk of Nadal.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Sampras also.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Sampras' era had two tennis anomalies where as Nadal's had three, so this would factor somewhat into my personal judgment for the greatness of players, but within his own era Nadal has had it completely fair. His method of going about his career has been immense at the Slams but merely very good for the #1 rank. Djokovic's quality of #1 weeks is super high.

I don't like to compare the eras points for points too much because Sampras' time was a very different time with rather disparate surface conditions. So I can't take too much away from Sampras' achievement of ending the year as #1 six times.

Nadal can have no real qualms about Federer or Djokovic. He can have qualms about his fitness, perhaps.

 

[King Fed WW]

TBF to Sampras, he did not play in a homogenized era making it difficult for him and his fellow players to accumulate as many titles/points.

That is why Federer and Nadal's Career grand slams should not be used against Pete.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Finally someone does a good job explaining what I was trying to say. When a guy loses 4 or 5 matches a year, you're pretty much just unlucky to have your peak coincide with his. Rafa won what, 10 or 11 tournaments including a slam in 05?

And people say he wasn't prime. :lol:
He had more points than Pete did.

Djokovic has never had a 10+ title season, either.
What's up with that? It's not like he isn't good enough to.

Maybe it's because he doesn't play many 250-type events?

 

[SpinToWin]

Almost all of Djokovic's time at #1 has been superior in terms of points earned to Nadal's time at #2. The period in which Nadal has his highest #2 points total was when he got usurped by....


...Novak Djokovic...

In the 2011 season.

Now we can certainly compare it to Hewitt and we can even compare Murray to Hewitt and see that there was some relatively easy pickings compared to other times, but I don't see Djokovic overtaking Nadal in weeks at #1 as something unfair or too dependant on timing. Within his own era, Nadal has had as fair a crack as Djokovic for world #1, but he's less fit and participates less consistently and gets punished in the #1 stakes for it. That's a quirk of Nadal.

I definitely wouldn't argue the way that you just rightfully criticised. If anything I would say that Nadal was unlucky with when he hit the tour. Initially he was competing against one of the most consistently dominant players in history and then he gets merely one year of "freedom" before Djokovic 2.0 hits the scene. It would have been extremely interesting if all 3 had peaked at the same time. It seems to me like each of them would dominate a certain part of the season with little margins deciding who is #1.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

It has nothing to do with only having one year of "freedom".

http://tennis28.com/charts/No1_Players.GIF

Djokovic can complain practically as much as Nadal. Nadal grabbed the #1 ranking in his early 20s. It's his own fitness that has let him down. He doesn't consistently compete throughout whole seasons as much as Federer or Djokovic, so in the end he'll suffer regarding his achievements at #1. It's the logical outcome with how he goes about his career compared to the other 2. He's produced more instances of dominance at the biggest events than Djokovic (14-8 ) but has showcased less consistency (as some stats I'm working on show). Nadal and Djokovic being basically equal right now for weeks at #1 makes practically perfect sense.

 

[Bukmeikara]

Being number 1 made you the best on the Tour for the past 12 months.
Winning a Slam title, made you the best for two weeks. Nothing more, nothing less.

Nadal offcource had a strong case in 2005, but his other Slam results were what? 1st round,2nd round and 4th or something like that.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

TBF to Sampras, he did not play in a homogenized era making it difficult for him and his fellow players to accumulate as many titles/points.

That is why Federer and Nadal's Career grand slams should not be used against Pete.

I'd agree if it wasn't so abundantly clear that Sampras never even began to sniff the RG title. Because he didn't, I find it to be weak argumentation. Nadal and Federer have shown a greater willingness to be consistently versatile across all surfaces, even if it's easier today. Sampras would have needed to get close at RG for me to give him a pass.

 

[mike danny]

Sampras' era had two tennis anomalies where as Nadal's had three, so this would factor somewhat into my personal judgment for the greatness of players, but within his own era Nadal has had it completely fair. His method of going about his career has been immense at the Slams but merely very good for the #1 rank. Djokovic's quality of #1 weeks is super high.

I don't like to compare the eras points for points too much because Sampras' time was a very different time with rather disparate surface conditions. So I can't take too much away from Sampras' achievement of ending the year as #1 six times.

Nadal can have no real qualms about Federer or Djokovic. He can have qualms about his fitness, perhaps.

Sampras probably had the weakest ever year in which 1 player ends no.1. Hpw can you be end no.1 in 1998 with only a slam as your biggest title and nothing else?

Roddick had a better year in 2003 by winning a slam and 2 masters.

 

[The Green Mile]

And people say he wasn't prime. :lol:
He had more points than Pete did.

Djokovic has never had a 10+ title season, either.
What's up with that? It's not like he isn't good enough to.

Maybe it's because he doesn't play many 250-type events?

He won 10 titles in his 2011 season.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Sampras probably had the weakest ever year in which 1 player ends no.1. Hpw can you be end no.1 in 1998 with only a slam as your biggest title and nothing else?

Roddick had a better year in 2003 by winning a slam and 2 masters.

We cannot transpose Roddick into 1998, so that doesn't mean much to me.


As for the 1998 year, it was weak pickings and should be looked at closely. Ultimately, Sampras still did what he had to do to keep his streak going. One plans accordingly for their circumstance.

1998 was weak.

 

[JanowiczJ]

And people say he wasn't prime. :lol:
He had more points than Pete did.

Djokovic has never had a 10+ title season, either.
What's up with that? It's not like he isn't good enough to.

Maybe it's because he doesn't play many 250-type events?

This and he rarely plays 500's as well. Last year he played less tournaments than 33yo Fed.

Also, even tho Rafa missed 1/3 of the season due to injuries, he still played 14 tournaments only one less than Novak. :shock:

That just shows how much Djokovic is planing for the future and people that predicted he'd be running on fumes by now couldn't be more wrong.

 

[mike danny]

We cannot transpose Roddick into 1998, so that doesn't mean much to me.


As for the 1998 year, it was weak pickings and should be looked at closely. Ultimately, Sampras still did what he had to do to keep his streak going. One plans accordingly for their circumstance.

1998 was weak.

Agree but it shows that he wasn't any better than the other guys who won a slam that year.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Spin, as for the idea of all reaching prime at the same time, that's interesting. My feeling is Federer will still have enough to win the #1 and probably Slam war over their peaks but that's only guess work. If that would've happened, than Nadal and Djokovic might have had even less weeks and years #1 than they currently do and Federer should also have less because we'd be looking at a shorter window of time and less weeks to allocate up to now (well I suppose we could start the prime at Federer's time and assume Nadal and Djokovic are older but it was easier for me to bring Federer forward). At least with the order of things, Nadal putting in some impressive early prime performance in his late teens and early 20s doesn't hurt him as his peak coincided with Federer's ending.

In other words, they have all had their ample time and space to operate, which is abundantly clear from looking at the earlier chart and looking at the very impressive weeks at #1 that all of the Trifecta have so far tallied. It may yet grow further for Nadal yet (we know it will for Djokovic). Federer is likely done, though if he had primed at the same time would still currently be in the running and with the upcoming supposed weak era might actually be favoured over Djokovic right now in the hypothetical to add to his #1 accolades with them both aged around about 28-29, though Nadal would be slightly younger, so perhaps none would really be favoured at the current time.

 

[King Fed WW]

Overall I agree with MickNadal, Nole's biggest rival to 2012 and 2014 YE #1 was *******. Nadal had peak Fed 2005-07.

I'd agree if it wasn't so abundantly clear that Sampras never even began to sniff the RG title. Because he didn't, I find it to be weak argumentation. Nadal and Federer have shown a greater willingness to be consistently versatile across all surfaces, even if it's easier today. Sampras would have needed to get close at RG for me to give him a pass.

Would Federer and Nadal have had a sniff at the Wimbledon title on 90s grass?

Probably yes but maybe no

 

[MichaelNadal]

I definitely wouldn't argue the way that you just rightfully criticised. If anything I would say that Nadal was unlucky with when he hit the tour. Initially he was competing against one of the most consistently dominant players in history and then he gets merely one year of "freedom" before Djokovic 2.0 hits the scene. It would have been extremely interesting if all 3 had peaked at the same time. It seems to me like each of them would dominate a certain let of the season with little margins deciding who is #1.

Exactly, im not sure what's gotten into NN lately, but I don't care enough to argue.

 

[xan]

there are 4 chances to win a slam in a year. in a contrast only one guy finishes the year as no1.

 

[MichaelNadal]

there are 4 chances to win a slam in a year. in a contrast only one guy finishes the year as no1.

The 2006 YE#1 is not going to be equal to the 2015 #1 in my eyes, sorry. It says zip about competition or circumstances.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

He won 10 titles in his 2011 season.

So he did.
Last time I rely on Wikipedia.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Would Federer and Nadal have had a sniff at the Wimbledon title on 90s grass?

Probably yes but maybe no

Probably yes and maybe no, with strong hunch of probably yes. I don't really doubt Federer's ability at all to get the job done and I don't write Nadal off so easily as others do here. However the only evidence I have is that Federer and Nadal have Career Slams and are very special talents with multiple final appearances at all Slam events, and that Sampras never even sniffed a RG title. Lendl made a much better first of things at Wimbledon than Sampras did at RG.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Lol. Someone disagrees with one's outlook and "I dunno what's gotten into them recently". The answer BTW is nothing.

I've provided my lines of reasoning and enjoy debate. You're entitled to your lines.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

The 2006 YE#1 is not going to be equal to the 2015 #1 in my eyes, sorry. It says zip about competition or circumstances.

I think that in 2006 you had two Tier 1s in their prime, whereas now you have one strong ATG, and Andy Murray.

On paper though, and in my view, I have to say, both achievements are equal, as it's just so difficult to quantify stuff like competition.
I prefer not to bother and just say it's all relative.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Within an era, typically everyone gets their fair shake, though nuances should be discussed. Across eras though it's really difficult and it really is all relative.

Look at 1998 for example, as has been brought up. This era is certainly impressive to be #1 in IMO, as there are 3 legends competing in one single era with largely overlapping primes. That's rare stuff.

 

[King Fed WW]

Probably yes and maybe no, with strong hunch of probably yes. I don't really doubt Federer's ability at all to get the job done and I don't write Nadal off so easily as others do here. However the only evidence I have is that Federer and Nadal have Career Slams and are very special talents with multiple final appearances at all Slam events, and that Sampras never even sniffed a RG title. Lendl made a much better first of things at Wimbledon than Sampras did at RG.

However motivation plays a big part as Wimbledon is the holy grail. Hence why Lendl was so desperate and went the extra mile to try and win it. Pete wasn't going to do anything radical to win the French, he wanted it but not as bad as Lendl wanted Wimbledon. Maybe this is reflected in their respective results at their missing slam.

Pete has Ivan as a GOAT contender alongside himself, maybe the reasons you have stated are why

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

However motivation plays a big part as Wimbledon is the holy grail. Hence why Lendl was so desperate and went the extra mile to try and win it. Pete wasn't going to do anything radical to win the French, he wanted it but not as bad as Lendl wanted Wimbledon. Maybe this is reflected in their respective results at their missing slam.

Pete has Ivan as a GOAT contender alongside himself, maybe the reasons you have stated are why

That's true but I can hardly let Sampras off the hook just because RG isn't the holy grail. He could have cared about it a lot more and tried a lot harder than he did. Didn't he even admit that in an interview somewhere? I can't give him the benefit of the doubt for not caring (relatively speaking). Maybe he had the potential to reach RG finals and have a crack but he chose not to truly try and master the clay. He probably regrets it a bit now with how Federer and Djokovic chased or are chasing RG and with Fedal have the Career Slam, but Lendl did lead the way even before Sampras.

As for Lendl being a contender for GOAT, all I'll say is that he's possibly underrated.. or that we currently overrate the present champions because we have a distorted view of history.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Within an era, typically everyone gets their fair shake, though nuances should be discussed. Across eras though it's really difficult and it really is all relative.

Indeed.
So what defines one "era"?
Were Fed and Nadal dominant in different eras?
Are we now in a different era to 2006?
Do we have to go as far back as Pete?
These are the big questions.

Look at 1998 for example, as has been brought up. This era is certainly impressive to be #1 in IMO, as there are 3 legends competing in one single era with largely overlapping primes. That's rare stuff.

I think the Borg/McEnroe/Connors/Lendl era was strong as, maybe the GOAT era.
But I stop short of saying that certain eras are "stronger".
Maybe Fedal are just so good that they made their competition (who would otherwise be far better) look bad.
I'm not really saying that has to be the case, but it's hard to tell.

 

[MichaelNadal]

NN if you think Novak would have been #1 from 04 to 07 with peak Fed around, that's your prerogative indeed. All I'm saying is being #1 has a lot to do with circumstance as well. You're a good poster, again it's not serious enough to bicker over. I just don't like when people play dumb just to shortchange a player they don't like. It's not even about Novak, I don't see any other player being able to snatch that ranking from Federer from 04-07. It's more than fair to say Nadal was a bit unlucky his prime started in 05.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Indeed.
So what defines one "era"?
Were Fed and Nadal dominant in different eras?
Are we now in a different era to 2006?
Do we have to go as far back as Pete?
These are the big questions.


I think the Borg/McEnroe/Connors/Lendl era was strong as, maybe the GOAT era.
But I stop short of saying that certain eras are "stronger".
Maybe Fedal are just so good that they made their competition (who would otherwise be far better) look bad.
I'm not really saying that has to be the case, but it's hard to tell.

That's not an easy question to answer, but I consider the time from about 2007-2012 now as a fair period of time to judge the comparative achievements of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic for example, in that they were all certainly prime in that period for my money.

Different people are going to decide on slightly different windows for their notions of generations, peaks, primes and eras. Through looking quite deeply into what I consider to be the metropolitan era to the inner city era of '07-'12, which is '03/'04ish-'15, I see enough data to suggest that they've all had their fair crack at garnering accomplishments and thus can more or less be compared fairly against each other (The Trifecta, that is).

Nadal's career tempi and lack of consistent fitness and consistency has quite simply cost him time at #1. Without those problems he'd likely be leading Djokovic in the #1 stakes, but he does things differently. His methods have worked tremendously well at the Slams. He just couldn't quite conquer both realms. Nadal conquered one realm and Djokovic is conquering another.

You'll like this...


Federer conquered all worlds.

Should I stick in an obligatory Fed image... awww go on then.

http://www.**************.org/Editor/Img/Roger-Federer-img15026_668.jpg

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

NN if you think Novak would have been #1 from 04 to 07 with peak Fed around, that's your prerogative indeed. All I'm saying is being #1 has a lot to do with circumstance as well. I just don't like when people play dumb just to shortchange a player they don't like. It's not even about Novak, I don't see any other player being able to snatch that ranking from Federer from 04-07. It's more than fair to say Nadal was a bit unlucky his prime started in 05.

Nadal is no more unlucky than Novak, though opinion on this is open to change depending on what happens in the next few years. That is how I see it, because that is how I see it. There are no ulterior motives here.

As for your first statement, that isn't what I'm saying and I don't think it's what anybody else is saying. You are the one trying to undermine Djokovic's currently equal or superior achievement to Nadal at #1 by suggesting he's had it easier. Nadal's fitness is what cost him not his timing. Djokovic wasn't able to claim the #1 spot until way later than Nadal and was getting swamped and disillusioned by what was at one point an unshakable duopoly—Fedal. #1 is very important, and Nadal and Djokovic have and are having their fair cracks at it. Djokovic doesn't need to be further punished for not necessarily being a dominant #1. To punish him further for the achievement itself would be double counting punishments against him given that his lesser Slam count is very suitable punishment. Djokovic's tally of points at #1 are almost always higher than Nadal's #2 point tally. He's hardly putting in weak years—his #1 reigns are very impressive and extremely solid. If he traded career tempi with Nadal and he was the one who suffered injuries and a crisis of confidence then Nadal would currently be beating him for world #1 accolades. Djokovic has had it hard but has simply been the best player in the world since 2011 and has earned it against mixtures of prime Federer and prime+peak Nadal and Murray.

We disagree. Am I trying to undermine Nadal?

No.

 

[Feather]

Almost all of Djokovic's time at #1 has been superior in terms of points earned to Nadal's time at #2. The period in which Nadal has his highest #2 points total was when he got usurped by....


...Novak Djokovic...

In the 2011 season.

Now we can certainly compare it to Hewitt and we can even compare Murray to Hewitt and see that there was some relatively easy pickings compared to other times, but I don't see Djokovic overtaking Nadal in weeks at #1 as something unfair or too dependant on timing. Within his own era, Nadal has had as fair a crack as Djokovic for world #1, but he's less fit and participates less consistently and gets punished in the #1 stakes for it. That's a quirk of Nadal.

This is not correct. You can't compare 2005 points of Nadal and 2011 points of Nadal.

ATP changed the points structure in 2009. In 2005 a runnerup in major got 700, while in 2011 a runerup got 1200

Rafa's points in 2011 is highly inflated if you are comparing with what Rafa earned in 2005

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

This is not correct. You can't compare 2005 points of Nadal and 2011 points of Nadal.

ATP changed the points structure in 2009. In 2005 a runnerup in major got 700, while in 2011 a runerup got 1200

Rafa's points in 2011 is highly inflated if you are comparing with what Rafa earned in 2005

It is correct.

http://tennis28.com/charts/No1_Players.GIF

Djokovic and Nadal have approx. an equal amount of time for which they could have been a worthy #1 at another time and Federer has been punished too in his later career. Djokovic almost matches Nadal for the same period but is behind somebody else unfortunately for him. Even more impressive that he achieved that by bumping into even greater overall competition at the very top, as Fedal had both fully matured. This graph isn't lying. Djokovic is no more fortunate than Nadal up to this point of them both reaching about 140+ weeks at #1. As for the future, that's up in the air, as we're unsure as to how good the competition is going to be in the future.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Nadal is no more unlucky than Novak, though opinion on this is open to change depending on what happens in the next few years. That is how I see it, because that is how I see it. There are no ulterior motives here.

As for your first statement, that isn't what I'm saying and I don't think it's what anybody else is saying. You are the one trying to undermine Djokovic's currently equal or superior achievement to Nadal at #1 by suggesting he's had it easier. Nadal's fitness is what cost him not his timing. Djokovic wasn't able to claim the #1 spot until way later than Nadal and was getting swamped and disillusioned by what was at one point an unshakable duopoly—Fedal. #1 is very important, and Nadal and Djokovic have and are having their fair cracks at it. Djokovic doesn't need to be further punished for not necessarily being a dominant #1. To punish him further for the achievement itself would be double counting punishments against him given that his lesser Slam count is very suitable punishment. Djokovic's tally of points at #1 are almost always higher than Nadal's #2 point tally. He's hardly putting in weak years—his #1 reigns are very impressive and extremely solid. If he traded career tempi with Nadal and he was the one who suffered injuries and a crisis of confidence then Nadal would currently be beating him for world #1 accolades. Djokovic has had it hard but has simply been the best player in the world since 2011 and has earned it against mixtures of prime Federer and prime+peak Nadal and Murray.

We disagree. Am I trying to undermine Nadal?

No.

Injuries have nothing to do with 04-07. If anyone else could have done better, im open to being convinced. I'm not trying to undermine Novak, but it's easy to see why he was able to equal Nadals weeks with 8 slams and other people, mainly Federer fans are even agreeing.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

That's not an easy question to answer, but I consider the time from about 2007-2012 now as a fair period of time to judge the comparative achievements of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic for example, in that they were all certainly prime in that period for my money.

Different people are going to decide on slightly different windows for their notions of generations, peaks, primes and eras. Through looking quite deeply into what I consider to be the metropolitan era to the inner city era of '07-'12, which is '03/'04ish-'15, I see enough data to suggest that they've all had their fair crack at garnering accomplishments and thus can more or less be compared fairly against each other (The Trifecta, that is).

Nadal's career tempi and lack of consistent fitness and consistency has quite simply cost him time at #1. Without those problems he'd likely be leading Djokovic in the #1 stakes, but he does things differently. His methods have worked tremendously well at the Slams. He just couldn't quite conquer both realms. Nadal conquered one realm and Djokovic is conquering another.

So you think that we are in the same era now (based on your metropolitan definition) as Fed was?
Interesting, and I think I agree with you.
An era would have to be the bubble of time enveloping the careers of one group of top players.
So the transition (countryside between cities) would be 2000-2003, then?
I agree with that.

I think all three have been quite unlucky to have to deal with each other, honestly. We're talking about three of the finest players ever to grace the game here, and they have to play each other? No fair.
They didn't make Pete do it.

You'll like this...


Federer conquered all worlds.

Should I stick in an obligatory Fed image... awww go on then.

http://www.**************.org/Editor/Img/Roger-Federer-img15026_668.jpg

Class and dominance, the way of The Master.
A jack of all trades, and a man for all surfaces.

But seriously now, I think Roger was able to dominate the #1 directly because he dominated the slams. That's all there is to it, really.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Injuries have nothing to do with 04-07. If anyone else could have done better, im open to being convinced. I'm not trying to undermine Novak, but it's easy to see why he was able to equal Nadals weeks with 8 slams and other people, mainly Federer fans are even agreeing.

Again, not the point. The point is that Nadal is no more unlucky than Djokovic regarding his timing. Also, I'm not convinced Federer is lucky either.. that depends on one's opinion of the "all 3 start their prime at the same time" hypothetical. Djokovic's 140+ weeks at #1 are as deserved as Nadal's.

***

Firstservingman...


"I think all three have been quite unlucky to have to deal with each other, honestly."

I more or less agree with this. Perhaps Federer has been luckier, perhaps not. I've only really analysed the Djokdal angle and not yet the Fedalovic angle in as much depth.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Fed wasn't lucky, Fed is the GOAT. I'm not saying Novak is "lucky" either as he could have been #1 sooner than he was. But he himself says he's at his peak right now. Where's the competition? Murray and Raonic?

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Nadal has more multi-Slam years than Djokovic which partly factors into why he's won more Slams. You don't get bonus weeks (well you can if someone is close in the rankings) at #1 for dominating. So Nadal and Djokovic probably got about equal purchase for #1 stats across 2010-11 and 2012-13, but a week at #1 isn't suddenly worth 2 weeks just because Nadal won 3 Slams in the year and Djokovic won 1. In other words, Djokovic is already punished for not being a "dominant" #1 in 2012 by having less Slams. It's disingenuous to double punish him by having people infer that his #1 stats aren't as good as Nadal's. As has now clearly been shown, both were shut out despite impressive performance for approx. an equal amount of time. Also, Nole's weeks at #1 have been very impressive and consistent and those behind him (usually Nadal and Federer) often put in efforts during the period that might have sufficed another time, yet Djokovic held them at bay.

I have as much respect for Djokovic's current tally of weeks and years at #1 as I do for Nadal's.

Fed wasn't lucky, Fed is the GOAT. I'm not saying Novak is "lucky" either as he could have been #1 sooner than he was. But he himself says he's at his peak right now. Where's the competition? Murray and Raonic?

Up to now, it's simply unfair to marginalise Djokovic's achievements here. Now as for the future, we wait and see. Like I said somewhere right at the beginning of this thread (I think), my opinion is subject to change depending on the competition to come. But up till now his reign has been fantastic and he's held off greats in producing it and he had to wait an awful long time to get there.. Djokovic has fantastic fitness and consistency that is helping him win the #1 war against Nadal for their era, though Nadal is comparably good in the Slams in these recent years. Whether that remains the case or not we'll see. I do believe Nadal is out of prime now.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Nadal has more multi-Slam years than Djokovic which partly factors into why he's won more Slams. You don't get bonus weeks (well you can if someone is close in the rankings) at #1 for dominating. So Nadal and Djokovic probably got about equal purchase for #1 stats across 2010-11 and 2012-13, but a week at #1 isn't suddenly worth 2 weeks just because Nadal won 3 Slams in the year and Djokovic won 1. In other words, Djokovic is already punished for not being a "dominant" #1 in 2012 by having less Slams. It's disingenuous to double punish him by having people infer that his #1 stats aren't as good as Nadal's. As has now clearly been shown, both were shut out despite impressive performance for approx. an equal amount of time. Also, Nole's weeks at #1 have been very impressive and consistent and those behind him (usually Nadal and Federer) often put in efforts during the period that might have sufficed another time, yet Djokovic held them at bay.

I have as much respect for Djokovic's current tally of weeks and years at #1 as I do for Nadal's.




Up to now, it's simply unfair to marginalise Djokovic's achievements here. Now as for the future, we wait and see. Like I said somewhere right at the beginning of this thread (I think), my opinion is subject to change depending on the competition to come. But up till now his reign has been fantastic and he's held off greats in producing it and he had to wait an awful long time to get there.. Djokovic has fantastic fitness and consistency that is helping him win the #1 war against Nadal for their era, though Nadal is comparably good in the Slams in these recent years. Whether that remains the case or not we'll see. I do believe Nadal is out of prime now.

I have no problem with this poast. Before you weren't explaining this well. From mid 2014 on though, Novak has had it pretty easy. Id say the same if it was Rafa, it is what it is.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

My mantra since the very beginning of the thread has been clear; that Nadal and Djokovic have had an approximately equally hard time of it for achieving #1 accolades, and that it's no accident that Nadal is now surpassing him for weeks at #1 given their career tempi.

I laid the gauntlet down right at the beginning:

"Within his own era, Nadal has had as fair a crack as Djokovic for world #1, but he's less fit and participates less consistently and gets punished in the #1 stakes for it. That's a quirk of Nadal."

They would both have benefited tremendously from peaking at the same time as Federer did but in a Federless world.

I stated this at the beginning and have argued it consistently up to now.

Djokovic is being rewarded right now for his incredibly consistency (and it is incredible). Nadal is different, and rewarded more where it does count more, which is in winning Majors. His tremendous consistency has allowed for a very impressive reign so far as the world #1 (in terms of points tally).


From mid 2014, Federer has been very good, though he's getting on a bit. There have definitely been stronger times, though Djokovic is keeping up his standard for sure, or in other words would likely still be #1 right now given his quality even if Federer, Nadal and Murray were all in good form, similarly to 2012 IMO. I can't criticise his own super levels at the moment in holding onto #1, but surely we demand that he be challenged for that spot in the not too distant future or things will look ez.