TMF
Talk Tennis Guru
Yes, it's a challenge because Nole is playing catch up. Federer, Sampras, Lendl and Connors were younger than Nole when they reach 171 weeks.
Nole 171 weeks at #1 moves him to fifth all-time
- Thread starter TMF
- Start date
TMF
Talk Tennis Guru
Murray is on pace to move ahead of Nole by 3,535 points if he wins the AO. There's certainly a successor to his throne.
It's possible that Nole will not even surpass Lendl and Connors weeks at #1.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Irrelevant, because it's not happening. His inexorable decline has begun.
GabeT
Talk Tennis Guru
What does your crystal ball say about the Lotto?
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
You're stealing my joke mate.
TMF
Talk Tennis Guru
Hard to tell. But at this point, it looks like Murray will remain at #1 for awhile since Nole has so much points to defend until after RG. I think Murray will have his biggest lead over Nole after RG.
N
NachoGPT
Guest
He’s about to approach the big 4-0.. and he’s #3 in the world. Pretty incredible.
junkieballer
Legend
GoatNo1
Legend
well
GoatNo1
Legend
well well
Red Rick
Bionic Poster
Amazing post Rick. True clairvoyant
Poisoned Slice
Bionic Poster
lol
TearTheRoofOff
G.O.A.T.
BorgTheGOAT
G.O.A.T.
Beatles fan was wrong about everything regarding her Djoko predictions. Time and time again she spouted with lots of certainty what Nole all wouldn’t achieve and was always proven wrong.
Last edited:
RS
Bionic Poster
Seriously though I wonder why though.
Like once in a while sure but it's relatively frequent.
BorgTheGOAT
G.O.A.T.
It’s a little lame to dig out old threads and make fun about posters wrong predictions.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
This was a great prediction.
GoatNo1
Legend
another very important stat (T1 GOAT criteria) that lost its value when nole beat the record. and the bigger margin nole doas with some records the more value they lose!!!
no1 stats is the main reason why it is actually bigger gap between nole and fedal than between them and sampras!!!!
T1 GOAT criteria (YE#1, weeks at #1 and slams):
YE#1: no1e (8), sampras(6), feda (5 each)
weeks at #1: no1e (209+209+10=428), fed (310), sampras (286), rafa (209)
slams: no1e (24), rafa (22), fed (20) sampras (14)
+ i usually value all big records with 100 points bonus: YE#1, weeks at #1, slams, all titles, ATP points, W%. that would be another 500 points to nole!
no1 stats is the main reason why it is actually bigger gap between nole and fedal than between them and sampras!!!!
T1 GOAT criteria (YE#1, weeks at #1 and slams):
YE#1: no1e (8), sampras(6), feda (5 each)
weeks at #1: no1e (209+209+10=428), fed (310), sampras (286), rafa (209)
slams: no1e (24), rafa (22), fed (20) sampras (14)
| no1e | fed | rafa | sampras | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YE#1 - 100p | 8 - 800 | 5 - 500 | 5 - 500 | 6 - 600 |
| weeks at #1 - 50 weeks = 100p | 428 - 856 | 310 - 620 | 209 - 418 | 286 - 572 |
| slams - 100p | 24 - 2400 | 20 - 2000 | 22 - 2200 | 14 - 1400 |
| CGS - 100p | 3 - 300 | 1 - 100 | 2 - 200 | 0 - 0 |
| slam F - 15p | 14 - 210 | 11 - 165 | 8 - 120 | 4 - 60 |
| WTF - 40p | 7 - 280 | 6 - 240 | 0 - 0 | 5 - 200 |
| OG - 40p | 1 - 40 | 0 - 0 | 1 - 40 | 0 - 0 |
| masters - 20p | 40 - 800 | 28 - 560 | 36 - 720 | 11 - 220 |
| GM - 100p | 2 - 200 | 0 - 0 | 0 - 0 | 0 -0 |
| MM - 5p | 27 - 135 | 49 - 245 | 33 - 165 | 32 - 160 |
| holding all slams -100 | 1 - 100 | 0 - 0 | 0 - 0 | 0 - 0 |
| POINTS | 6121 | 4430 | 4363 | 3312 + 60 (2 GS cup) = 3372 |
Last edited:
junkieballer
Legend
Is Nadal really greater than Sampras?
WI 7 > 2
UO 5 > 4
AO 2 = 2
YEC 5 > 0
#1 weeks 286 > 209
#1 years 6 > 5
GoatNo1
Legend
yes, but with mach lesser margin than nole is over him!
according to my GOAT points:
| no1e | fed | rafa | sampras | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YE#1 - 100p | 8 - 800 | 5 - 500 | 5 - 500 | 6 - 600 |
| weeks at #1 - 50 weeks = 100p (2p/w) | 428 - 856 | 310 - 620 | 209 - 418 | 286 - 572 |
| slams - 100p | 24 - 2400 | 20 - 2000 | 22 - 2200 | 14 - 1400 |
| CGS - 100p | 3 - 300 | 1 - 100 | 2 - 200 | 0 - 0 |
| slam F - 15p | 14 - 210 | 11 - 165 | 8 - 120 | 4 - 60 |
| WTF - 40p | 7 - 280 | 6 - 240 | 0 - 0 | 5 - 200 |
| OG - 40p | 1 - 40 | 0 - 0 | 1 - 40 | 0 - 0 |
| masters - 20p | 40 - 800 | 28 - 560 | 36 - 720 | 11 - 220 |
| GM - 100p | 2 - 200 | 0 - 0 | 0 - 0 | 0 -0 |
| MM - 5p | 27 - 135 | 49 - 245 | 33 - 165 | 32 - 160 |
| holding all slams simultaneously -100 | 1 - 100 | 0 - 0 | 0 - 0 | 0 - 0 |
| POINTS | 6121 | 4430 | 4363 | 3312 + 60 (2 GS cup) = 3372 |
Last edited:
jackson vile
G.O.A.T.
Another fail thread of hate by the usual suspects 
junkieballer
Legend
You should also count Grand Slam Cup for Sampras at least on par with Masters.
Also 1 point for every Davis Cup match won.
GoatNo1
Legend
i did not look as close, it is more worth as WTF. but it is problem that he would have more chances than fed and rafa to get those 40p. i can maybe give it 30p. so 60p for 2.
he did not get actually any points for those because i missed it.
junkieballer
Legend
Including 1 pt for every Davis Cup win:
Djokovic 6162
Nadal 4459
Federer 4402
Sampras 3387
Alcaraz 1357
GoatNo1
Legend
no, it is team event as ATP cup
and to get 2 points for each no1 week and 1p for a single win vs random player is not logical.
junkieballer
Legend
GoatNo1
Legend
yes it WAS! but it always was a team event. and players often played much lesser ranked opponents. it is nice bonus to career but not big greatness indicator in a individual sport that tennis is when you are in huge need of other players wins. for example nole won all his DC matches including both in the final in 2013 but he did not win the title.
junkieballer
Legend
That's why I said matches won, not titles won
GoatNo1
Legend
i know. but it is to much value to single match. it is all random players. it is not titles. is 2 random DC wins worth 1 week at no1? is 20 random wins as master. i like to keep DC for his own and as nice bonus.
duaneeo
G.O.A.T.
Especially when those threads were made during the Normal Order...when it was assumed the next generation of players would take over (as all the previous ones did).
Hitman
Bionic Poster
What's all this Normal Order stuff.
In 1969 Laver aged 31 won all four slams to win a CYGS, the only open era CYGS....not won a player in his supposed peak and prime
In 1971 and 1972 Rosewall won a slams at over 36 and 37 years of age, his last one is still the record for the oldest ever winner
In 1972 Gimeno won RG at 34 years of age.
Basically the first few years of the open era have several slams, won by players who were very old and that is back in the freaking 70s. They didn't have the modern science and medicine of today to help them.
So this period you speak of....it is not something that has never been experienced before, these things happen. Combine that with the fact Federer, Nadal and Djokovic are absolute freaks, and you get the perfect storm.
All you want to do is devalue what Djokovic did and say it doesn't count, when we all know how you were posting in early 2018 when Federer won his 20th slam and became the oldest world number one of all time. If you didn't complain then, you don't really get to complain now and think you have leg to stand on.
insideoutforehanders
Hall of Fame
Yes even the craziest of Djokovic fans (and that is saying something) would have never predicted 24 slams 8 years ago, heck even 4 or 5 years ago. Most, including Fed fans, predicted 17 would be an unbeatable mark (meaning even they figured Federer himself was winning no more due to his age of 33-35) 10 years and more ago. The continuation total ineptitude of the 3 or so most useless generations in history all in a row somehow; plus increased longevity in tennis through advanced science, health research, training knowledge, and better quality PEDs, was unimaginable. Mocking people for predicting things likely not that far from what they all would have said back then is just stupid.
duaneeo
G.O.A.T.
1969 is a single season. 2017-2023 is an era and there's no other era where players in their 30s dominated the slams. 23 of 27 slams played won by players in their 30s! Nothing even close to this has happened before, and that's because all previous eras followed the normal process of the rising NextGeneration turning the tables and taking charge.
Hitman
Bionic Poster
A 31 year was allowed to complete a CYGS....an achievement that is meant to be so rare and hard to achieve, was done by a 31 year old....let that sink in.
And as I said, multiple old timers were still winning slams apart from Laver, I just told you about Rosewell having the record during that time for oldest.
So, what Federer, Nadal and Djokovic didn't wasn't something that was never seen before. It just happened for a few more years, but if you take into account the nutrition, the science, the medicine, it all adds up.
Why is it that it must always follow the same path, who the heck said that is some law? If those old timers did it in the late 60s and early 70s, why cannot it be done again?
insideoutforehanders
Hall of Fame
In fairness players in general are clearly aging better than ever before, but even that can't justify a stat like that. 10 of 27 maybe, but not 23 of 27.
duaneeo
G.O.A.T.
Declined players in their 30s winning slams is normal. I'm talking of an era where they dominated tennis...23 slams and 6 YE#1 (5 consecutive).
Simply admit that the generations of Nishikori/Dimitrov/Raonic/Thiem/Medvedev/Zverev (those expected to take over the reins as all the previous generations had done) were weak and the era was abnormal. You're the numbers guy. These are combined generations that didn't have a multi-slam winner. That never ended the year #1. That only won 2 slams. That couldn't reach 20+ weeks at #1. That only won titles at one of the slams. That couldn't beat their PastGens or their NextGens in slam finals.
Last edited:
Hitman
Bionic Poster
You automatically assume that all players are decllining from the same point and that they must all conform to this model in the exact same way. In statistics these are called outliiars and they do happen and no it is not exclusively because the younger players suck.
GoatNo1
Legend
I do not know how it can be easier to assume that whole tour suck in 20 years than that nole is extraordinary player.
Last edited:
Hitman
Bionic Poster
It can be if you want to push an agenda.
junkieballer
Legend
-ATP-Tour-Tennis-ATP-T.png)
duaneeo
G.O.A.T.
I see. 90's-borns just happen to be the only players who didn't conform to the model....meaning that you DO agree that it is not something that has been experienced before; that they are the only group of players in history not to produce multi-slam winners, not to end the year #1, and not to takeover from the past generation.
Hitman
Bionic Poster
I said that we have seen it before where players past their 30s were dominating. I have already given the examples of three men who for the first few years of the open era did things that to do this day have not been replicated. So no, I don't fully agree with this statement.
And again, you make it out like every player is of the same level. Federer, Nadal and Djokovic are unique players, who not only had insane peaks, but were able to slow their decline significantly. Their drop is from a higher level, especially when you take into account the advances in sport science, nutrition, medicine etc....and the homogenization of the surfaces also allowed them to continue to play more or less the same way with a few key differences year round, a luxury that was not given to the players of the 90s and the 80s and so forth.
You cannot solely put this on the 90s born generation, as if all they needed to do was play good against those versions of the big 3 and everything would just happen as you state.
Similar threads
