Not all Year End #1 are equally impressive

[TMF]

Sampras 6 YE #1:
1993: 85-16(84%), 2 slams, 2 slam finals, 8 titles
1994: 77-12(86%), 2 slams, 2 slam finals, YEC, 10 titles
1995: 72-16(82%), 2 slams, 3 slam finals, 5 titles
1996: 65-11(85%), 1 slam, 1 slam final, YEC, 8 titles
1997: 55-12(82%), 2 slams, 2 slam finals, YEC, 8 titles
1998: 61-17(78%), 1 slam, 1 slam final, 4 titles


Federer 5 YE #1:
2004: 74-6(93%), 3 slams, 3 slam finals, YEC, 11 titles
2005: 81-4(95%), 2 slams, 2 slam finals, 11 titles
2006: 92-5(95%), 3 slams, 4 slam finals, YEC, 12 titles
2007: 68-9(88%), 3 slams, 4 slam finals, YEC, 8 titles
2009: 61-12(84%), 2 slams, 4 slam finals, 4 titles





Total:
Sampras: 82.8%(ave), 10 slams, 11 slam finals, 3 YEC, 43 titles
Federer: 91%(ave), 13 slams, 17 slam finals, 3 YEC, 46 titles

Despite Federer has one year #1 less than Sampras, he was much more dominant than Sampras, and more consistent on every surfaces. Sampras never had a 90+ winning percentage in a year while FEderer has 3.

I didn't include total Master Shield but I know Federer is also well ahead of Sampras too.

=====================================================================

SIDE NOTE:

Federer Non-Prime Years
2003: 78-17(82%), 1 slams, 1 slam finals, YEC, 7 titles
2008: 66-15(81%), 1 slams, 3 slam finals, 4 titles
2010: 65-13(83%), 1 slams, 1 slam finals, YEC, 5 titles
2011: 64-12(84%), 0 slams, 1 slam finals, YEC, 4 titles
2012: 71-12(86%), 1 slams, 1 slam finals, 6 titles
2013: 45-17(73%), 0 slams, 0 slam finals, 1 titles
2014: 73-12(86%), 0 slams, 1 slam finals, 5 titles

Sampras Non-Prime Years
1990: 51-17(75%), 1 slams, 1 slam finals, 4 titles
1999: 40-8(83%), 1 slams, 1 slam finals, YEC, 5 titles
2000: 42-13(76%), 1 slams, 2 slam finals, 2 titles
2001: 35-16(67%), 0 slams, 1 slam finals, 0 titles
2002: 27-17(61%), 1 slams, 1 slam finals, 1 titles

 

[mightyrick]

Ok, so:

- Not all YE #1 are equally impressive
- Not all slams are equally impressive.
- Not all titles are equally impressive.
- Not all matches are equally impressive.

So where does that leave your logic?

 

[Phoenix1983]

Ok, so:

- Not all YE #1 are equally impressive
- Not all slams are equally impressive.
- Not all titles are equally impressive.
- Not all matches are equally impressive.

So where does that leave your logic?

He just wants Federer to be ranked No 1 in everything.

Unfortunately for him, Sampras remains top on this score in the Open Era with six YE No 1's.

 

[tennis_pro]

I still can't believe how Sampras ended 1998 as #1 in the world with his results. He had almost identical results as Del Potro in 2009 who finished at no....5.

 

[TMF]

Ok, so:

- Not all YE #1 are equally impressive
- Not all slams are equally impressive.
- Not all titles are equally impressive.
- Not all matches are equally impressive.

So where does that leave your logic?

You missed the point on purpose.

The YE #1 doesn't tell the whole story about the player's accomplishment that year. No way you can convince someone that Sampras 1 slam/year are equal to Federer 3 slam/year just because they ended the year #1.

 

[TMF]

He just wants Federer to be ranked No 1 in everything.

Unfortunately for him, Sampras remains top on this score in the Open Era with six YE No 1's.

It's not about wanting him to be #1, but comparing their YE #1 to see a better picture. If we ignore the details, one can just assumed(without any knowledge) Sampras have accomplished more than Federer because he's got 6 years to Federer 5. However, that's not the case after you sum it up.

Total:
Sampras: 82.8%(ave), 10 slams, 11 slam finals, 3 YEC, 43 titles
Federer: 91%(ave), 13 slams, 17 slam finals, 3 YEC, 46 titles

 

[Mayonnaise]

It's not about wanting him to be #1, but comparing their YE #1 to see a better picture. If we ignore the details, one can just assumed(without any knowledge) Sampras have accomplished more than Federer because he's got 6 years to Federer 5. However, that's not the case after you sum it up.

Total:
Sampras: 82.8%(ave), 10 slams, 11 slam finals, 3 YEC, 43 titles
Federer: 91%(ave), 13 slams, 17 slam finals, 3 YEC, 46 titles

I think a simpler way to deal with this is to ask ourselves this question:

What is the primary obective of Tennis? Is it to rank #1 at the end of the year? Or is it to win titles?

 

[TMF]

Nadal 3 YE #1:
2008: 82-11(88%); 2 slams, 2 slam finals, 8 titles
2010: 71-10(88%); 3 slams, 3 slam finals, 7 titles
2013: 75-7(91%); 2 slams, 3 slam finals, 10 titles


Nole 3 YE #1:
2011: 70-6(92%); 3 slams, 3 slam finals, 10 titles
2012: 75-12(86%); 1 slams, 3 slam finals, YEC, 6 titles
2014: 61-8(88%); 1 slams, 2 slam finals, YEC, 7 titles

 

[TMF]

I still can't believe how Sampras ended 1998 as #1 in the world with his results. He had almost identical results as Del Potro in 2009 who finished at no....5.

Not all YE #1 player end the same achievement, that's the reason why each YE #1 needs to be analyze before comparing to another YE #1 .

 

[zam88]

Roddick's #1 season = GOAT #1 season, no?

clearly there are differences on how tough it was in a given year to end up #1.

Some of the sampras #1's were a result of there being no dominant players so simply being "very good" was good enough... back in the days when a lot of different players won tournaments..

When you have only 2-3 players winning 100% of the masters tournaments then the titles are very lopsided.

 

[TMF]

Roddick's #1 season = GOAT #1 season, no?

clearly there are differences on how tough it was in a given year to end up #1.

Some of the sampras #1's were a result of there being no dominant players so simply being "very good" was good enough... back in the days when a lot of different players won tournaments..

When you have only 2-3 players winning 100% of the masters tournaments then the titles are very lopsided.

That's all subjective, but in my opinion players from 2003 Roddick to 2014 Nole are dealing with a tougher competition to win the YE #1. 1998 was one of the worst year in men's tennis that numerous players that ended the year #2 would have been #1 in 1998.

 

[TheMusicLover]

I think a simpler way to deal with this is to ask ourselves this question:

What is the primary obective of Tennis? Is it to rank #1 at the end of the year? Or is it to win titles?

I actually thought it was all about having positive H2H's? :razz:

 

[Mayonnaise]

I actually thought it was all about having positive H2H's? :razz:

Yes, indeed :lol: I always wonder why Nadal bothers to play off Clay. If he only played on Clay, he'd have even better H2Hs. After all, H2H is everything, no?

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Yes, indeed :lol: I always wonder why Nadal bothers to play off Clay. If he only played on Clay, he'd have even better H2Hs. After all, H2H is everything, no?

He would also have the greatest winning percentage of all time! As long as it is red clay, of course.

 

[Phoenix1983]

It's not about wanting him to be #1, but comparing their YE #1 to see a better picture. If we ignore the details, one can just assumed(without any knowledge) Sampras have accomplished more than Federer because he's got 6 years to Federer 5. However, that's not the case after you sum it up.

Total:
Sampras: 82.8%(ave), 10 slams, 11 slam finals, 3 YEC, 43 titles
Federer: 91%(ave), 13 slams, 17 slam finals, 3 YEC, 46 titles

Oh yeah, a guy with the user name "TMF" isn't biased towards Federer...:lol:

Federer's greater number of slams is already accounted for when comparing him with Sampras, i.e. when comparing their slams. Don't try and take away the one achievement which Sampras has over Federer, i.e. 6 years as No 1 > 5 years.

Federer is the GOAT but he's not No 1 in every statistic. Sampras has more years as No 1 and you will have to face that fact.

 

[Mayonnaise]

Federer is the GOAT but he's not No 1 in every statistic. Sampras has more years as No 1 and you will have to face that fact.

There are certain posters that claim YE#1 is the only metric

 

[DRII]

Oh yeah, a guy with the user name "TMF" isn't biased towards Federer...:lol:

what does TMF =?

Total Master Federer

 

[SpicyCurry1990]

So why does this only apply for YE #1s? Like you said some YE #2s accomplished more than YE #1s did.

If not all YE #1s are the same shouldn't some 2s and even 3s be better than some 1s?

 

[Mayonnaise]

what does TMF =?

Total Master Federer

The Mighty Federer.

 

[mightyrick]

You missed the point on purpose.

The YE #1 doesn't tell the whole story about the player's accomplishment that year. No way you can convince someone that Sampras 1 slam/year are equal to Federer 3 slam/year just because they ended the year #1.

If you are just going to count slams, then count slams. That's your metric. Enjoy it. I'm not sure why you even made this thread.

If you are wanting to start trying to quantify "degree of dominance", doesn't determining degree of dominance have something to do with the level of dominance of the opponents, as well? Should a great margin of victory against a weak opponent be considered the same as a low margin of victory against a strong one?

I don't think you want to remotely get into that discussion. By you asserting that a "dominance" level exists... then you also logically have to assert that a "lack of dominance" exists. Now we get into the weak draw arguments.

I'd rather boil it down to this. The greatest player ever is the player who was the greatest among their peers for the most number of years.

You can go ahead argue strong era/weak era... but you'd better be willing to go into the draws of each title and margins of victory to defend that kind of argument.

 

[Mayonnaise]

The greatest player ever is the player who was the greatest among their peers for the most number of years.

So Roddick > Becker

 

[Wynter]

The Mighty Federer.

Not The Midget Frenchman?

 

[Zoid]

Sampras 6 YE #1:
1993: 85-16(84%); 2 slams, 2 slam finals, 8 titles
1994: 77-12(86%); 2 slams, 2 slam finals, YEC, 10 titles
1995: 72-16(82%); 2 slams, 3 slam finals, 5 titles
1996: 65-11(85%); 1 slam, 1 slam final, YEC, 8 titles
1997: 55-12(82%); 2 slams, 2 slam finals, YEC, 8 titles
1998: 61-17(78%); 1 slam, 1 slam final, 4 titles


Federer 5 YE #1:
2004: 74-6(93%); 3 slams, 3 slam finals, YEC, 11 titles
2005: 81-4(95%), 2 slams, 2 slam finals, 11 titles
2006: 92-5(95%), 3 slams, 4 slam finals, YEC, 12 titles
2007: 68-9(88%), 3 slams, 4 slam finals, YEC, 8 titles
2009: 61-12(84%), 2 slams, 4 slam finals, 4 titls





Total:
Sampras: 82.8%(ave), 10 slams, 11 slam finals, 3 YEC, 43 titles
Federer: 91%(ave), 13 slams, 17 slam finals, 3 YEC, 46 titles

Despite Federer has one year #1 less than Sampras, he was much more dominant than Sampras, and more consistent on every surfaces. Sampras never had a 90+ winning percentage in a year while FEderer has 3.

I didn't include total Master Shield but I know Federer is also well ahead of Sampras too.

2 different era - please do not compare like nothing gives. Sampras played in a day when there were specialist clay courters/grass courters/hard courters. I think the ranking system was different and masters weren't even called masters then. Homogenous surfaces mean consistency of results is easier - which is why the same big 4 have dominated EVERY slam for the last 5-6 years. Back then you had such disparity between the RG semi players and the wimby semi players. Harder to dominate a whole calendar year back then, Silly thread.

 

[ktid]

Oh yeah, a guy with the user name "TMF" isn't biased towards Federer...:lol:

Federer's greater number of slams is already accounted for when comparing him with Sampras, i.e. when comparing their slams. Don't try and take away the one achievement which Sampras has over Federer, i.e. 6 years as No 1 > 5 years.

Federer is the GOAT but he's not No 1 in every statistic. Sampras has more years as No 1 and you will have to face that fact.

As big a Federer fan as I am, I have to agree with this.

 

[Charlemagne]

Here comes 90s Clay for the rebuttal in 5...4... 3...2...

 

[eldanger25]

All YE #1s are impressive - each season presents different challenges, and there's usually one or more really impressive gut-check moments for the player later deemed best of the year. Shouldn't be lost in all these "best of" comparisons.

That said, some seasons are tougher than others, and there have been some pretty great runner-up seasons in the Open Era (I'm basing this on player of the year lists, not ATP #1 designations alone). These include:

Borg 1976
Vilas/Connors 1977 (I rate Borg's season the most impressive, but Vilas is arguably split #1)
Connors 1978
Mac 1982 (Lendl 1982 as well)
Wilander 1983
Lendl 1989 (maybe the closest to a split #1 with Becker of any Open Era season, besides maybe 1973. Dragging W. Germany to the Davis Cup title that year may be decisive for Boris - the prestigious Wimbledon-US Open double plus DC is tailor-made for the history books, just a classic year)
Agassi 1995
Safin 2000
Kuerten 2001
Federer 2003 (also a nod to Ferrero)
Nadal 2005
Nadal 2007
Nadal 2011
Federer 2012
Djokovic 2013

 

[TMF]

2 different era - please do not compare like nothing gives. Sampras played in a day when there were specialist clay courters/grass courters/hard courters. I think the ranking system was different and masters weren't even called masters then. Homogenous surfaces mean consistency of results is easier - which is why the same big 4 have dominated EVERY slam for the last 5-6 years. Back then you had such disparity between the RG semi players and the wimby semi players. Harder to dominate a whole calendar year back then, Silly thread.

That's ridiculous, and reaching for straws in defending Sampras. Just because Federer outclassed Sampras in all of their YE #1 doesn't mean Sampras had a tougher competition. I would lean towards Federer having tougher field but since it's something that can't be prove, we can only base on accomplishment.

No one in their right mind would say Sampras is equal to Federer on clay just because we can't compare generation. Using that logic, one can argue Murrray = Sampras on grass because they are from different generation. LOL

 

[TMF]

So why does this only apply for YE #1s? Like you said some YE #2s accomplished more than YE #1s did.

If not all YE #1s are the same shouldn't some 2s and even 3s be better than some 1s?

I'm more interested in comparing the YE #1, because #1 have impact on player's legacy, but like I said, not every #1s are equally impressive. Of course there are some #2 were more impressive than some #1(e.g. 2007 Nadal > 1998 Sampras).

 

[mightyrick]

I'm more interested in comparing the YE #1, because #1 have impact on player's legacy, but like I said, not every #1s are equally impressive. Of course there are some #2 were more impressive than some #1(e.g. 2007 Nadal > 1998 Sampras).

Can you articulate exactly what makes one player's YE#1 season more impressive than another? Is it sheer number of victories? Or is it margin of victories? Are you only taking into account the statistics of the person being measured? Or do you also take into account the statistics of the opponents that they faced?

And forget Sampras for a second. Let's just talk from Federer's perspective only, I'm not sure I would jump to a conclusion and say that his 2006 year was more impressive than his 2005 year. I don't know how anyone could possibly say that. But your simple criteria would absolutely suggest that.

 

[TMF]

Can you articulate exactly what makes one player's YE#1 season more impressive than another? Is it sheer number of victories? Or is it margin of victories? Are you only taking into account the statistics of the person being measured? Or do you also take into account the statistics of the opponents that they faced?

And forget Sampras for a second. Let's just talk from Federer's perspective only, I'm not sure I would jump to a conclusion and say that his 2006 year was more impressive than his 2005 year. I don't know how anyone could possibly say that. But your simple criteria would absolutely suggest that.

I don't know how hard it is to acknowledge which year #1 is more impressive the other since achievements is the measuring stick. Titles, total atp points(convert to same system), win/loss records, consistency...all determine which year is more impressive. Players they faced is pointless because you can't prove which players were more formidable opponents(even though Nadal is a tougher on clay than any Sampras faced by consensus). You got to be kidding yourself if you rather have Sampras 1998 than any years that Roger won 3 slams plus many other achievements.

Federer 2006 is more impressive than 2005, but that's not saying that 2006 is better in every categories. At some point he was better in 2005 like Wimbledon, but 2006 he made the finals on every tournaments he played except Cincy(many fans believe he tanked that match and was questioned by the reporter). There's a debate about the top 10 best seasons, and most sport fans have agree that Roger's 2006 is more impressive than 2005.
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=17605

 

[Mayonnaise]

I don't know how hard it is to acknowledge which year #1 is more impressive the other since achievements is the measuring stick. Titles, total atp points(convert to same system), win/loss records, consistency...all determine which year is more impressive. Players they faced is pointless because you can't prove which players were more formidable opponents(even though Nadal is a tougher on clay than any Sampras faced by consensus). You got to be kidding yourself if you rather have Sampras 1998 than any years that Roger won 3 slams plus many other achievements.

Federer 2006 is more impressive than 2005, but that's not saying that 2006 is better in every categories. At some point he was better in 2005 like Wimbledon, but 2006 he made the finals on every tournaments he played except Cincy(many fans believe he tanked that match and was questioned by the reporter). There's a debate about the top 10 best seasons, and most sport fans have agree that Roger's 2006 is more impressive than 2005.
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=17605

I'm a Federer fan, but you're making a false argument. Is Nadal's 2008 French Open worth more than Federer's 2009 French Open because he lost fewer sets? It doesn't work that way. A win is a win is a win. Just like Sampras's YE#1s are all worth the same as any of Federer's. It doesn't matter how decisively he ranked #1 as long as he deservedly ranked #1. Nobody is saying Sampras's 1996 season is equal to Federer's 2006. That is ridiculous. But their YE#1s for the two years are worth the same. Federer's reward comes with his additional Slams wins and other tournament wins.

Federer is above Sampras in every other metric. But YE#1 goes to Sampras, and deservedly so.

 

[TMF]

I'm a Federer fan, but you're making a false argument. Is Nadal's 2008 French Open worth more than Federer's 2009 French Open because he lost fewer sets? It doesn't work that way. A win is a win is a win. Just like Sampras's YE#1s are all worth the same as any of Federer's. It doesn't matter how decisively he ranked #1 as long as he deservedly ranked #1. Nobody is saying Sampras's 1996 season is equal to Federer's 2006. That is ridiculous. But their YE#1s for the two years are worth the same. Federer's reward comes with his additional Slams wins and other tournament wins.

Federer is above Sampras in every other metric. But YE#1 goes to Sampras, and deservedly so.

I never said 1 FO is better than the other FO, but 3 slams/year is greater than either 2 or 1 per year. How hard is that to grasp?

And I never said Sampras doesn't deserve the #1. All I'm saying is they are not equal in achievement if you view their results throughout the year. Just saying all YE #1 are equally achieved is misleading. For casual fans that's ok, but tennis enthusiasms like to see a clearer picture thus have better understanding their placement in all time great. I mean would you take Nole 2012 or Federer 2004 since they both end the year #1? Of course 2004.

 

[Mayonnaise]

I never said 1 FO is better than the other FO, but 3 slams/year is greater than either 2 or 1 per year. How hard is that to grasp?

Do you know the difference between a season and a YE#1?

And I never said Sampras doesn't deserve the #1. All I'm saying is they are not equal in achievement if you view their results throughout the year. Just saying all YE #1 are equally achieved is misleading. For casual fans that's ok, but tennis enthusiasms like to see a clearer picture thus have better understanding their placement in all time great. I mean would you take Nole 2012 or Federer 2004 since they both end the year #1? Of course 2004.

Again, you're comparing seasons. Djokovic's 2012 YE#1 = Federer's 2004 YE#1. But Djokovic's 2012 season < Federer's 2004 season.

 

[TMF]

If a player has a better season in terms of results and level of dominance then his YE #1 is more impressive.

The problem is some fans say Sampras accomplished more because he has 6 years to Fed 5, but the reality is Federer have accomplished more. It's misleading if taking out of context. If they are well informed, I'm sure they will agree that Fed 5 years achievements is greater than Sampras 6 years achievements.

 

[Mayonnaise]

If a player has a better season in terms of results and level of dominance then his YE #1 is more impressive.

More impressive doesn't mean it was more valuable. They're worth the same. Nadal's 2008 FO was more impressive than Federer's 2009 FO, but they're worth the same.

The problem is some fans say Sampras accomplished more because he has 6 years to Fed 5

Accomplished more in terms of YE#1, yes. That is one metric. Federer is ahead in every other metric, some of which are more important than YE#1s.[/QUOTE]

 

[mightyrick]

If a player has a better season in terms of results and level of dominance then his YE #1 is more impressive.

The problem is some fans say Sampras accomplished more because he has 6 years to Fed 5, but the reality is Federer have accomplished more. It's misleading if taking out of context. If they are well informed, I'm sure they will agree that Fed 5 years achievements is greater than Sampras 6 years achievements.

You keep focusing on ATP YE #1 and I'm not sure why. The best player of the year is awarded by the ATP and ITF both. Several times, the ATP has actually awarded best player to someone who did not finish #1 in their own rankings. When the ATP and ITF both agree on who was the best player of the year, that is an "undisputed" distinction.

There are different paths that a player can take to achieve that distinction. In some years, a player may have to face an incredibly tough field. In other years, the field might be easier. In some years, there might be injury or adversity. Some years might be one of total health and all physical things falling into place. Some years might see tournament changes. Some years might see a player being banned from a tournament.

The best player of the year is a single achievement which takes into account all aspects of a player's performance -- with regards to themselves and the field.

Does Federer have more slams than Sampras? Of course. Nobody disputes that. It is not disputable. However, Sampras was recognized as the best of the best longer than Federer. Gonzales is formally recognized as having been the best of the best longer than anyone else who has ever played the game.

Everyone has to pick their own criteria for greatness. I've simplified it down to one. Others choose other metrics -- which is fine.

 

[Mayonnaise]

Everyone has to pick their own criteria for greatness. I've simplified it down to one. Others choose other metrics -- which is fine.

Do you think Hewitt > Becker?

 

[tipsa...don'tlikehim!]

Sampras finished many times number 1 in november because his 2 strongest slams were Wimbledon + US open.

Now imagine Australian open being played in July and the French in september...

That's why this achievement in overrated IMO. The total number of weeks is a stronger indicator.

 

[Mayonnaise]

Sampras finished many times number 1 in november because his 2 strongest slams were Wimbledon + US open.

Now imagine Australian open being played in July and the French in september...

It would make no difference. You only have 1 Wimbledon and 1 USO every year, whichever way you slice it.

 

[mightyrick]

Do you think Hewitt > Becker?

Yep, I do. I actually think Hewitt's career is one of the most underrated careers ever. I think 2001 and 2002 were two of the toughest years in the Open Era. Massive technology changes. Massive change in playing style (S&V moving to baselining). He dealt with that adversity when nobody else could.

Again, if you're just going to count slams, then great. Enjoy that metric. It isn't my metric. It also isn't the metric that the ATP or ITF use to determine the best player for a given year.

 

[Mayonnaise]

Yep, I do. I actually think Hewitt's career is one of the most underrated careers ever. I think 2001 and 2002 were two of the toughest years in the Open Era. Massive technology changes. Massive change in playing style (S&V moving to baselining). He dealt with that adversity when nobody else could.

Again, if you're just going to count slams, then great. Enjoy that metric. It isn't my metric. It also isn't the metric that the ATP or ITF use to determine the best player for a given year.

Okay, now you're being consistent. I disagree with you, but I respect that you're consistent. Earlier, you used to have a double-standard, using Slams to judge greatness, and YE#1s to judge the greatest, which is ridiculous. Using YE#1s alone to judge greatness, for me, is wrong, but as long as you're consistent, it's okay and respectable.

 

[tipsa...don'tlikehim!]

It would make no difference. You only have 1 Wimbledon and 1 USO every year, whichever way you slice it.

It could make a difference, Sampras was not always number 1 after the French open but he was managing to come back to number 1 at the end of the year.

 

[Mayonnaise]

It could make a difference, Sampras was not always number 1 after the French open but he was managing to come back to number 1 at the end of the year.

Um, do you understand how ranking works? You're #1 if you have the most points, and you'll only have played any tournament only once in the past 12 months. There were times when Sampras went and played some lower-level events later in the year so he could finish #1, but it really doesn't make a different when which tournament is for the YE#1.

 

[mightyrick]

Okay, now you're being consistent. I disagree with you, but I respect that you're consistent. Earlier, you used to have a double-standard, using Slams to judge greatness, and YE#1s to judge the greatest, which is ridiculous. Using YE#1s alone to judge greatness, for me, is wrong, but as long as you're consistent, it's okay and respectable.

Well, I believe I said if you want use # of slams as a tiebreaker after BPOY... that's fine. I agree it is not consistent to do that, but I can see the argument. Believe me, I'm consistent on this. If Djokovic finishes with a BPOY award this year (and I think he will), then in my mind he will have surpassed Nadal.

I don't see Djokovic being able to pass Federer, though. I just don't know if Djokovic has that many years of undisputed BPOY tennis left in his body.

 

[Mayonnaise]

Well, I believe I said if you want use # of slams as a tiebreaker after BPOY... that's fine. I agree it is not consistent to do that, but I can see the argument. Believe me, I'm consistent on this.

Not many days ago, you were saying you used Slams to measure greatness, but PoY to decide who is the greatest ever.

 

[tipsa...don'tlikehim!]

Um, do you understand how ranking works? You're #1 if you have the most points, and you'll only have played any tournament only once in the past 12 months. There were times when Sampras went and played some lower-level events later in the year so he could finish #1, but it really doesn't make a different when which tournament is for the YE#1.

In general it makes differences, if the end of the year was in june for example, Sampras would have 5 YE as number 1 and not 6.

Agassi would have one more (in 2003)
So yeah if you swicth all the calendar it's not the same.

But objectively it's not more impressive to have the best January-November period than to have the best July-June, or the best May-April...for me it's all the same.

 

[Mayonnaise]

In general it makes differences, if the end of the year was in june for example, Sampras would have 5 YE as number 1 and not 6.

That is true, it can make a difference, but what I meant is that it's not beneficial to anyone no matter when it ends. It just turns out differently, at times.

But objectively it's not more impressive to have the best January-November period than to have the best July-June, or the best May-April...for me it's all the same.

Yes, the difficulty is the same. But the ATP honors YE#1, which gives players motivation to try and finish the year at #1, and that's what makes it more valuable.

 

[Zoid]

That's ridiculous, and reaching for straws in defending Sampras. Just because Federer outclassed Sampras in all of their YE #1 doesn't mean Sampras had a tougher competition. I would lean towards Federer having tougher field but since it's something that can't be prove, we can only base on accomplishment.

No one in their right mind would say Sampras is equal to Federer on clay just because we can't compare generation. Using that logic, one can argue Murrray = Sampras on grass because they are from different generation. LOL

"reaching for straws in defending sampras??"" - I wasn't defending sampras, i'm not a fanboy on here - merely pointing out something that you people don't consider when coming on here to throw your 'vast and respected' knowledge of the game around. I have a hunch most of you don't even play tennis/only started following in the last 5 years. "Federer having a tougher field?" - Son, i love fed but please go to the ATP site, click on rankings and go back to any of the years sampras finished year end 1 and tell me some of the names you see. "stick, becker, edberg, chang, lendl, medvedev, rafter, ivansevic, agassi, courier" off the top of my head. I'm sure i missed a lot of grand slam winners.

Federer is much more accomplished on clay than sampras, but you don't understand tennis if you don't think that modern surfaces and string allow players to play well on all the surfaces now more so than in the 90's. rant over.

btw - murray on grass has a pretty amazing record.

 

[Mayonnaise]

Son, i love fed but please go to the ATP site, click on rankings and go back to any of the years sampras finished year end 1 and tell me some of the names you see. "stick, becker, edberg, chang, lendl, medvedev, rafter, ivansevic, agassi, courier" off the top of my head. I'm sure i missed a lot of grand slam winners.

1997:

1998:

2004:

2004 looks more impressive to me than 1997 and 1998.

 

[Zoid]

1997:

1998:

2004:

2004 looks more impressive to me than 1997 and 1998.

Wow Mayonnaise, i think what you just did there (and correct me if i am wrong) - is go to Sampras' worst field of the yr he ended 1, and then picked out fed's strongest early years. And even then, i don't think that 04 year is that much stronger. Two can play that game.

sampras 95'

1 - pete
2 - agassi
3 - brugera
4 - becker
5 - ivanesevic
6 - chang
7 - edberg
8 - berasategui
9 - stich
10 - martin (todd)
11 - courier
12 - kafelnikov
the rest of the teens are ferreria, rosset, medvedev, krajiceck, muster, korda, rafter, correjta.

federer 06'

1 - fed
2 - nadal
3 - DAVYDENKO
4 - BLAKE
5 - LJUBICIC
6 roddick
7 ROBREDO
8 NALBANDIAN
9 ANCIC
10 GONZALEZ
haas, baghdatis, berdych, ferrer, neimenen, djokovic, murray, gasquet


this is how silly your point was - and it goes back to my original point. you cannot compare eras. Im sorry but anyone who has an inkling about tennis knows this