Not all Year End #1 are equally impressive

Mayonnaise

Banned
Ok mayonnaise if you're going to be a child about it - the point of that quote about any of his years was that during years he was 1 he must have competed against 10 other players with slams, if not more.
And why were there so many Slam winners? Because Agassi was taking so many breaks, and Sampras couldn't dominate, year-round.

again - everyone needs to stop arguing with just stats on here because it never tells the whole story. Rafa didn't even play 3 months of 09 after french. So when you say agassi was too busy 'doing meth and shopping wigs" (for 6 years really?) I'm not sure what goes thru your head when making comments about rafa in 09. Bias perhaps?
Look at the year-end rankings for Agassi and Nadal the years Sampras/Federer ended #1:

Agassi: 24, 2, 2, 8, 110, 6
Nadal: 51, 2, 2, 2, 2

Agassi was ranked 110 in 1997. Why? Because he played just 1 Slam that year. Who was away for longer? Nadal who missed 1 Slam in 2009 or Agassi who missed 3 Slams in 1997? Are you that ignorant? Did you start watching Tennis last year?



Again, your sampras stats don't tell the story - sampras played the vast majority of their matches well after his prime (probably all the ones he lost came after 2000). It's like taking fed's h2h with the players he played only after 2008 and comparing them. Silly
Then why dismiss Hewitt and Roddick as not worthy rivals? Just because Federer was good enough to dominate them, while Sampras was a mug on Clay, and nowhere near as consistent as Federer anywhere else?
 

Mayonnaise

Banned
Federer is a much better clay courter than sampras - but to say it was a tougher era in fed's is just not right. You cannot compare. Fed would have won the french multiple times in pete's era, but no way he gets that many wimby's or US with pete/krajiceck et al back then

Remove Sampras from the 90s, and put Federer in Sampras's position. How many Slams do you think Federer would win? Be honest to yourself, and you'll realize who faced tougher competition.
 

Mayonnaise

Banned
Doing that would take a hell of a lot of speculation and breakdown of matches.

Please speculate, do a breakdown, and answer my question to yourself. You'll find the answer to the competition question as long as you're honest to yourself :)
 

mightyrick

Legend
I remember that I entertained the ridiculous notion that we could compare years and draws and seeds between Federer and Sampras. I went into this thinking that Sampras' draws and slam wins appeared stronger than Federer's.

My own findings (ranking opponents by seed, ranking opponents by slam counts) were that Sampras and Federer's fields were pretty much exactly equal.

The only conclusion I could draw (which still is completely non-scientific) were that the results would be the same if Federer and Sampras were to switch decades. Federer would win more slams than Sampras. Sampras would win more undisputed best player of the years.

Yet again it is up to the eye of the beholder to decide if slam count is more valuable than undisputed best player of the year count.
 

Mayonnaise

Banned
You want me to speculate? and then use that speculation as justification and a sound reasoning on this argument? wow. ok i will.

While I'm speculating your request - can you do a breakdown by putting laver in today's game and tell me how many slams he wins, say between 2004-2008?

You have to be more specific. Laver at what age and against what opposition from 2004-2008?
 

Mayonnaise

Banned
This is why you cannot compare eras. aaaagain - back to my main point.

So you're saying you can't compare eras? Then how come you're saying Sampras's competition was tougher here?

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.
 

Mayonnaise

Banned
read comment on bottom of previous page. You clearly DO NOT read anyone else's posts with any real thought.

I'm glad you are going to humour me by actually running this idea through. Can't wait to see your results!

1. You didn't answer my question
2. You are blind to your own hypocrisy
 

Indio

Semi-Pro
Zoid;8603129 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 said:
Just out of curiosity, where did you find your 1995 Top 10 list? Here's the real year-end Top 10:
1 Sampras
2 Agassi
3 Muster
4 Becker
5 Chang
6 Kafelnikov
7 Enqvist
8 Courier
9 Ferriera
10 Ivanisevic

Krajicek, Stich, Martin, Enqvist, Rosset and Ferreira all failed to reach even one QF in a major in 1995, and Ivanisevic was gone after the 1st round in three of the four (though one was a retirement). Rafter and Edberg weren't in the Top 20. The question "What have you done for me lately?" applies to tennis players as much as to any other athletes.
 

Mayonnaise

Banned
I haven't said either had tougher eras - I'm just arguing that fed's wasn't 'tougher'. Where have i said that sampras' era was tougher than federers? All i have done is shown you how tough pete's era was because in all your tennis knowledge you seem to 'know' that fed's was tougher…
Okay, so you say there's no way of saying Sampras or Federer had tougher competition?

you are still stalling on putting laver in fed's position from 04-08. Maybe you are strting to realise how stupid that is but don't want to admit it??
That's because you didn't answer my question, genius. Is Federer around from 2004-2008 or does he not exist in this hypothetical?

i only joined last week - turning out to be a mistake at this rate because no one has played tennis at any decent level/understands the game at all.
Well, you're always welcome to leave, I guess.
 

Mayonnaise

Banned
Absolutely not. Are you saying there is a way of deciding who's was tougher out of those two conclusively?

I didn't think that needed clarification after the ridiculous hypothetical you gave me: "Remove Sampras from the 90s, and put Federer in Sampras's position" - - remove fed and put laver in his position for federer's era.

i want to see how many slams you think laver gets with your amazing knowledge of tennis and speculative mind


By my best estimation, Laver would win 6 Slams, going by his career trajectory, from 2004-2008.
 

Mayonnaise

Banned
Can you give me a breakdown of how you got that magical number?

What racket is he using, surely not that wooden one?

Is he still hitting with those same grips from the 60's??

details, I'm really curious! :)

look harder into that crystal ball mayonnaise!!!!

I've given you my speculation. Quid pro quo, doctor 8)

Now speculate on how many Slams Federer would win if he were Sampras's age and Sampras didn't exist. It's your turn.
 

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
i'm glad you humoured me (and everyone else no doubt) with your crystal ball predictions.

Unfortunately, as someone with respect for the game, and who understands the game well enough to know you can't do things like this - I am at a loss to even begin to fathom how many slams in total fed would have won accurately had he played in pete's era. I can give you some really hazy insights of mine based off what i believe.

- i think he may have won a few french
- probs win wimby a few times
- same for US - win there a few times i reckon
- does he take the aussie seriously? probs win it a few times

all added up, lets see……yea somewhere between 8-20 majors. Who knows though, completely different era

I completely understand what you are trying to say, but 8 majors is a really low end for Federer. All in all, I don't think you can give him any less credit than the 17 he has now regardless of era, but then you can't really give him extra slams like they're free beer at a frat party either.

So, in short, I get your point.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Lendl 4 YE #1:
1985: 84-7(92%); 1 slams, 2 slam finals, YEC, 11 titles
1986*: 74-6(93%); 2 slams, 3 slam finals, YEC, 9 titles
1987: 74-7(91%); 2 slams, 3 slam finals, YEC, 8 titles
1989: 79-7(92%); 1 slams, 2 slam finals, 10 titles

* The Australian Open Tennis was not played in the year 1986 so that year Lendl only played 3 slam tournaments. Had the tournament was available, I think Lendl would have an excellent chance of making at least the final because in the previous year he lost to the eventual champion Edberg in the semifinal.

Lendl was incredibly consistent with having all 4 years winning over 90%.
 
Last edited:

Mayonnaise

Banned
I'd say dimitrov's level now is equal if not greater than prime hewitt. Roddick on the quick old US open courts was amazing - i think he would have given the young crop a good hiding there

No way this Dimitrov is better than prime Hewitt. He could get better, but he's not better now. Young Hewitt was beating Sampras on fast grass. This Dimitrov is losing to Djokovic (although he did beat Murray).
 

The Green Mile

Bionic Poster
I'd say dimitrov's level now is equal if not greater than prime hewitt. Roddick on the quick old US open courts was amazing - i think he would have given the young crop a good hiding there

I disagree with this. Prime Hewitt was amazing back in the day. One of the fastest guys ever and one of the best at changing directions of the ball. Up there with Djokovic for me... his serve was a LOT better as well. Dimitrov, to me, will get better and better though.
 

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
I'd say dimitrov's level now is equal if not greater than prime hewitt. Roddick on the quick old US open courts was amazing - i think he would have given the young crop a good hiding there

I'd say that's a bold statement. If not flat out wrong. After all, Hewitt did beat Sampras in a USO final and won 2 majors in total plus 2 YEC when the final was best of 5. Dimitrov hasn't even come close to any of that. You could make an argument perhaps about just the general evolution of sports over time, but I still don't know that that explains everything.
 
Last edited:

Mayonnaise

Banned
i'd have to say at least equal to then. He smoked murray and should have gone 5 with novak. Young hewitt was beating OLD sampras on fast grass mind you. I don't want to take anything away from that, but it is worth noting that pete was past his prime. No shame in losing to Dj on grass, when he is playing well on it he is an amazing returner (the best ever IMO) with very good movement and penetrating flat groundies (at times)

Did you watch the semifinal? Djokovic was atrocious.
 

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
i'd have to say at least equal to then. He smoked murray and should have gone 5 with novak. Young hewitt was beating OLD sampras on fast grass mind you. I don't want to take anything away from that, but it is worth noting that pete was past his prime. No shame in losing to Dj on grass, when he is playing well on it he is an amazing returner (the best ever IMO) with very good movement and penetrating flat groundies (at times)

It is true that he smoked Murray, but I highly doubt that will happen consistently from now on. At least not until Murray declines a bit more. And it really is his own fault that he never went 5 with Novak. Both of them played a pretty bad match tbh, but I think Djokovic was worse than Dimitrov. I don't think I can remember a match (at least since 2011) where he played so badly. Dimitrov was mentally fragile in that match, and it's not a new thing for him either. If there was one very important thing going for Hewitt back then it was that he had the goods between his ears.
 
Last edited:

SpicyCurry1990

Hall of Fame
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).

So how far can we take this? I posted a thread similar to this regarding Murray's #4 season in 2011 and #3 season in 2012 actually being stronger than either of Hewitt's #1 seasons (which are often used as a major basis to say Hewitt is greater inspite of having 7 less Masters titles and 3 less slam Finals).
 

Blocker

Professional
This is a ridiculous thread. Is this all about preparing yourself for when Nadal overtakes Federer’s 17? So suddenly YE #1 is important to Federer fans is it?

Let me put my spin on it. At the stroke of midnight on 1 January, the race to number 1 is reset, albeit the rolling rankings stay intact. But who cares about the rolling rankings? They don’t hand out the world champion trophy to a mid-year number 1, only to the year end number 1.

Once reset, everybody on the ATP tour knows the system that will be in place to finish number 1 in the world in the upcoming season. The system and its rules may change from era to era and sometimes even from year to year, but one thing always stays the same…every player is given notice in advance of the changes and what will be required to win the upcoming season-long world championship. Everybody knows the path that will lead you to the top of the mountain. The top of the mountain only has room for one person. If you get to stand there, you've deserved it.

Now as for which YE #1 is more impressive…who cares? You can’t compare mid-90s to mid-2000s, everything is different. All you can say is that on 6 occasions, Sampras was crowned world champion…he literally BEAT THE FIELD, the entire field, 6 times. On 5 occasions, Federer was crowned world champion…he literally beat the field, the entire field, 5 times, which is one time less. 6 > 5 and that is the only stat that matters.

It does not matter about comparison of opponents, it does not matter about titles won or homogenisation of courts, it does not even matter about how competitive the year was or how much you won the year by. All that matters is that you finished higher than everyone else and got to stand on top of the mountain. All you can do is win the year that is presented to you. Whether you win by 100 points or 10,000 points, who cares….you won the year….you beat everyone else on the planet over a season long campaign that takes into account all variables and factors.
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
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.

No, we assume that the field is equally strong in all eras. Because everyone play against the competition that it is available to him. In other words, against everything entire world has to offer.

You think Rafa is that good? Or is it maybe Fed not being that dominant that makes Rafa and Nole look much better? I think it's Fed not being that dominant past 2010.

The only reason some eras look stronger and weaker is how much dominant champions let them win or not, while in reality the field is the same it's only a matter of how good top guy is and how much he can stop them from winning.

So, things will always look like this : Someone who is the most dominant will make his field look weaker.
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
This is a ridiculous thread. Is this all about preparing yourself for when Nadal overtakes Federer’s 17? So suddenly YE #1 is important to Federer fans is it?

Let me put my spin on it. At the stroke of midnight on 1 January, the race to number 1 is reset, albeit the rolling rankings stay intact. But who cares about the rolling rankings? They don’t hand out the world champion trophy to a mid-year number 1, only to the year end number 1.

Once reset, everybody on the ATP tour knows the system that will be in place to finish number 1 in the world in the upcoming season. The system and its rules may change from era to era and sometimes even from year to year, but one thing always stays the same…every player is given notice in advance of the changes and what will be required to win the upcoming season-long world championship. Everybody knows the path that will lead you to the top of the mountain. The top of the mountain only has room for one person. If you get to stand there, you've deserved it.

Now as for which YE #1 is more impressive…who cares? You can’t compare mid-90s to mid-2000s, everything is different. All you can say is that on 6 occasions, Sampras was crowned world champion…he literally BEAT THE FIELD, the entire field, 6 times. On 5 occasions, Federer was crowned world champion…he literally beat the field, the entire field, 5 times, which is one time less. 6 > 5 and that is the only stat that matters.

It does not matter about comparison of opponents, it does not matter about titles won or homogenisation of courts, it does not even matter about how competitive the year was or how much you won the year by. All that matters is that you finished higher than everyone else and got to stand on top of the mountain. All you can do is win the year that is presented to you. Whether you win by 100 points or 10,000 points, who cares….you won the year….you beat everyone else on the planet over a season long campaign that takes into account all variables and factors.

I can't agree with this. The level of dominance matters. Yes a guy with 2 millions or a guy with 999 millions are both multiple millionaires. I don't like your simplistic way of looking at things. It's like calling a person who is 11 years old and 19 years old both teenagers. We know it's not the same.

I agree with homogenization though. We don't know if Sampras was worse due to him being a worse player or because of surface variety making it harder.
We will never know this. Surface changes makes it harder to compare across eras.

We have problems even comparing achievements from Nadal and Federer, because Fed won in much more dimensional era too.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Yeah - Sampras did what it took to be #1 in his era and Federer did what it took to be #1 in his era. Pete was able to do it that one extra time than Federer so kudos to him.

Federer has a lot of things over Sampras but he'll never have 6 straight YE #1's. It's a big record to hold for sure. I rate YE #1 finishes higher than slams.
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
Yeah - Sampras did what it took to be #1 in his era and Federer did what it took to be #1 in his era. Pete was able to do it that one extra time than Federer so kudos to him.

Federer has a lot of things over Sampras but he'll never have 6 straight YE #1's. It's a big record to hold for sure. I rate YE #1 finishes higher than slams.

Yeah, I agree. Federer has been more dominant nr.1. But maybe that has to do with homogenization making it a bit easier to dominate. So we can't hold this against Pete.

Actually Pete's 6 straight YE #1 is one of the most impressive tennis records.
 

mightyrick

Legend
No, we assume that the field is equally strong in all eras. Because everyone play against the competition that it is available to him. In other words, against everything entire world has to offer.

You think Rafa is that good? Or is it maybe Fed not being that dominant that makes Rafa and Nole look much better? I think it's Fed not being that dominant past 2010.

The only reason some eras look stronger and weaker is how much dominant champions let them win or not, while in reality the field is the same it's only a matter of how good top guy is and how much he can stop them from winning.

So, things will always look like this : Someone who is the most dominant will make his field look weaker.

jg, you aren't being consistent in your logic. A dominant player wins. That is what we can be sure of. However, the "degree of dominance" stuff makes no sense.

Do you really believe that Djokovic's win over Federer is somehow less dominant because he took five sets? Or that Djokovic's win would have been more dominant and impressive had he played Raonic instead and straight-setted him?

"Degree of dominance" is a useless measure.
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
jg, you aren't being consistent in your logic. A dominant player wins. That is what we can be sure of. However, the "degree of dominance" stuff makes no sense.

Do you really believe that Djokovic's win over Federer is somehow less dominant because he took five sets? Or that Djokovic's win would have been more dominant and impressive had he played Raonic instead and straight-setted him?

"Degree of dominance" is a useless measure.

So you equate winning with being dominant? Dominance is not just that you win, but how often you win and by how much.

Yes, I believe winning in close 5 sets is less dominant than totally obliterating your opponent in finals.

The same as there are different degrees of multimillionaires. Also when you are nr.1 you can be less dominant by leading the field by 100 points or more dominant by leading by 5000 points.

You can win a tournament by not losing a lest and be more dominant.

There is a reason why Fed is more dominant on grass than Pete, while they both have 7 titles. More sets won, more tournaments won.

So clearly there are different degrees of dominance. It's simple why do you have problems with this?
 

mightyrick

Legend
So you equate winning with being dominant? Dominance is not just that you win, but how often you win and by how much.

Yes, I believe winning in close 5 sets is less dominant than totally obliterating your opponent in finals.

The same as there are different degrees of multimillionaires. Also when you are nr.1 you can be less dominant by leading the field by 100 points or more dominant by leading by 5000 points.

You can win a tournament by not losing a lest and be more dominant.

There is a reason why Fed is more dominant on grass than Pete, while they both have 7 titles. More sets won, more tournaments won.

So clearly there are different degrees of dominance. It's simple why do you have problems with this?

"Degree of dominance" is not a real term. The real term for what you are talking about is "margin of victory". Well, if you truly believe that the measure of a tennis player is their margin of victory then we can agree to disagree.

You believe that a five-set win against Nadal in 2007 Wimbledon was a worse performance for Federer than straight-setting Roddick at Wimbledon in 2005.

We'll agree to disagree. Enjoy that metric.
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
"Degree of dominance" is not a real term. The real term for what you are talking about is "margin of victory". Well, if you truly believe that the measure of a tennis player is their margin of victory then we can agree to disagree.

You believe that a five-set win against Nadal in 2007 Wimbledon was a worse performance for Federer than straight-setting Roddick at Wimbledon in 2005.

We'll agree to disagree. Enjoy that metric.

Not, I'm not saying that the measure of a tennis player is their margin of victory. I'm saying that degree of dominance in a tournament is the same as the margin of victory. If not, why do people say what was the most dominant performance in a match or in a tournament? So, this is what people mean.

Yes, I would say Fed was more dominant vs Roddck than vs Nadal. Are you saying he was equally dominant?
 

mightyrick

Legend
Not, I'm not saying that the measure of a tennis player is their margin of victory. I'm saying that degree of dominance in a tournament is the same as the margin of victory. If not, why do people say what was the most dominant performance in a match or in a tournament? So, this is what people mean.

Yes, I would say Fed was more dominant vs Roddick than vs Nadal. Are you saying he was equally dominant?

This is all such nonsense. Answer this question.

Do you believe it is a greater accomplishment for Federer to defeat Roddick in straight-sets or Nadal in 5 sets?

Answer that.
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
This is all such nonsense. Answer this question.

Do you believe it is a greater accomplishment for Federer to defeat Roddick in straight-sets or Nadal in 5 sets?

Answer that.

Roddick. Because vs Rafa it was a lot of luck involved. But Roddick didn't have a chance, so it was pure skill.

For you it's Rafa? How is lucking out better than owning someone?
 

DRII

G.O.A.T.
funny how the OP (and many of his brethren) can all of a sudden make subjective and qualitative judgments when it comes to YE#1s; but of course such discerning is off the table when it comes to levels/quality of competition at different times :rolleyes:
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
funny how the OP (and many of his brethren) can all of a sudden make subjective and qualitative judgments when it comes to YE#1s; but of course such discerning is off the table when it comes to levels/quality of competition at different times :rolleyes:

Most don't disagree with 'discerning', many just think your assessment is wrong.
 

DRII

G.O.A.T.
Most don't disagree with 'discerning', many just think your assessment is wrong.

oh really :rolleyes:

curtosey of your comrade jg...: "No, we assume that the field is equally strong in all eras. Because everyone play against the competition that it is available to him. In other words, against everything entire world has to offer"

you've said similar, as have many other 'robust' Federer fans including the op!

you all know what the real deal is...
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
oh really :rolleyes:

curtosey of your comrade jg...: "No, we assume that the field is equally strong in all eras. Because everyone play against the competition that it is available to him. In other words, against everything entire world has to offer"

you've said similar, as have many other 'robust' Federer fans including the op!

you all know what the real deal is...

You're such a miserable tit. Never seen a light hearted post from you :lol:

jg trolls for fun and is not many or most. So that's your first point debunked.

And when have I said 'similar'? I've said I don't think 08-10 was stronger than 04-07.

I know enough to know I'm not some objective authority like you think you are.
 

DRII

G.O.A.T.
You're such a miserable tit. Never seen a light hearted post from you :lol:

jg trolls for fun and is not many or most. So that's your first point debunked.

And when have I said 'similar'? I've said I don't think 08-10 was stronger than 04-07.

I know enough to know I'm not some objective authority like you think you are.

well then you're not paying attention!

'objective authority' on subjective criteria :confused:

you would pose such a cognitively dissonant concept :rolleyes:
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
funny how the OP (and many of his brethren) can all of a sudden make subjective and qualitative judgments when it comes to YE#1s; but of course such discerning is off the table when it comes to levels/quality of competition at different times :rolleyes:

That's not the same. Fed was clearly more dominant nr.1. That is 100% objective. We can demonstrate this by numbers.

While weak/strong eras is very subjective. I have to assume that all eras are equal, otherwise I would go crazy. Besides how can anyone prove if Pete dominated because he was so good or because Agassi wasn't as good as Rafa?

But Sampras lost, cuz he sucked on clay. Period. Nothing to do with surfaces. Agassi won career slam, so homogenization is not an excuse for Sampras losing so many points on clay and being less dominant.
 

mightyrick

Legend
That's not the same. Fed was clearly more dominant nr.1. That is 100% objective. We can demonstrate this by numbers.

While weak/strong eras is very subjective. I have to assume that all eras are equal, otherwise I would go crazy. Besides how can anyone prove if Pete dominated because he was so good or because Agassi wasn't as good as Rafa?

Actually the thing that makes you go crazy is that your logic doesn't work out -- and you know it. Your last statement above is the entire point. You cannot prove (either way) what contributes to a margin of victory. So you have to just take a victory as a victory.

Your logic is incredibly flawed. On one hand, you treat all opponents (of Federer) as if they are the exact same skill level. You also treat Federer's effort as being completely the same against all opponents. It's nonsense.

You cannot logically claim that all eras are equal and in the same breath and then say that the top player(s) within that era can be more dominant than others. That is completely contradictory.

You are only trolling, it is obvious.
 
Top