Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil
Talk Tennis Guru
Monika is the original Hungarian and Serbian spelling, Monica is the Americanized version.
Novak's 17 consecutive finals in Grand Slams/Year End/ATP Masters 1000 is insane
- Thread starter McEnroeisanartist
- Start date
Levi_Ackerman
Legend
Fair enough.
nolefam_2024
Bionic Poster
Wikipedia is monitored by people for the changes they make. It tries to be as correct as possible. True it can't be perfect. But it does have most things accurately. And if not, you can always see the citations below and refute them. If you have that much time.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Wikipedia has a dedicated community who make sure the information is accurate as possible. I trust it for a lot of things. But I find certain elements less than satisfactory. For example on pre-open era players pages it groups Amateur, Pro and Open Majors together which irks me...
Absolutely. Someone with common sense.
ArcspacE
G.O.A.T.
His streak is continuous - from the tournaments he ENTERED and PARTICIPATED - he reached 17 consecutive finals
NatF
Bionic Poster
That's not what the OP said though. He called it consecutive finals...
nolefam_2024
Bionic Poster
58 posts. at least 50 about how it is not consecutive. Typical TTW.
ArcspacE
G.O.A.T.
And he was correct in that
NatF
Bionic Poster
Nope.
consecutive
kənˈsɛkjʊtɪv/
adjective
- 1.
following each other continuously.
How could he make 17 consecutive finals at Slam/YEC/Masters level when he missed one of the tournaments in the sequence? Fallacious appeals to an imaginary authority aside.
I'm done with this now. Either way what's been accomplished is to quote the OP, "insane".
ArcspacE
G.O.A.T.
He made the finals for all tournaments entered.
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
Sure, there is a difference. In one case you TRY, in the other you SKIP.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Not disputing that. I just don't like the broad use of the word consecutive. Federer skipped 4 tournaments in his 11 streak, that's massive. No way that counts IMO.
Feel free to disagree. It's too silly and minor a topic to get into any further at this point.
Chanwan
G.O.A.T.
I'm actually with @NatF on this (quite silly) discussion.
Let's make the case more extreme. Player X, let's call him Kyrgios, plays and wins Wimbledon 2016-2018, takes a five year sabbatical and wins again from 2023-2026.
Did he win seven straight/consecutive Wimbledons? Not at all. Did he win every single one he competed in? Indeed he did. Which is impressive as well, but it's a different achievement.
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
Tastes Great
Consecutive tournaments entered.
Less Filling
All possible tournaments on schedule.
(Another OCD debate.)
Consecutive tournaments entered.
Less Filling
All possible tournaments on schedule.
(Another OCD debate.
)
Levi_Ackerman
Legend
So, why then did you make this statement first place:
If you agree that Rafa did not make 5 straight Wimbledon finals, why did you ask this seemingly rhetorical question:Are you telling me Rafa didn't make 5 straight Wimbledon finals???
Were you being sarcastic?Are you telling me Rafa didn't make 5 straight Wimbledon finals???
Here's the original conversation between you and @NatF:
@NatF said:
To which you (@Chanwan) rebutted:
Are you telling me Rafa didn't make 5 straight Wimbledon finals???
And now, you're telling me that you agree with NatF - i.e. that skipping a tournament should break the streak. So, why then did you ask:
That question implies that regardless of him having skipped Wimbledon 2009, you believe Rafa made 5 straight Wimbledon finals - insofar as he competed in them.Are you telling me Rafa didn't make 5 straight Wimbledon finals???
Last edited:
Levi_Ackerman
Legend
Okay, your posts makes no sense in relation to mine whatsoever. You've answered a question I haven't asked. You've provided information I wasn't after.
AceSalvo
Legend
You were asking for consistency on the topic of consecutive finals, right? The info I presented sheds light to the fact the Nadal DID NOT make 5 consecutive Wimbledon finals and a lot of people should start to take note of that, including the OP.
nolefam_2024
Bionic Poster
Nadal made 5 consecutive finals in slams from RG11 to RG12. If someone has made that into Wimby finals in this thread, not fault of Wikipedia.
xan
Hall of Fame
straight=/=consecutive
No I don't subscribe to this theory...can see the logic though (also could be suggested allows additional rest etc)...I'm happy to applaud Novak on 17 straight, think it absolutely highlights his current dominance...just in case there weren't already enough indicators!
But then you totally redeem yourself with description of Madrid...still don't agree with rest of comment but hey since we're pulling out the lawyers lets just say we've reached a modus vivendi.
TheMaestro1990
Hall of Fame
Federer won all of his matches in Grand Slams in 2006 and 2007 expect one. The only loss came against a prime Nadal on clay. So I don't actually see how he would have been stopped with the 2015 competition. I mean, of course he could have been, but I doubt it. There's quite a difference between claygoating Nadal and Wawrinka even if Wawrinka's performance was a great one.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
I wasn't just referring to the competition but also external factors such as illness and injury. I just don't think it's meant to be that we ever see another male player achieve the CYGS.
Druss
Hall of Fame
You're mis-informed here buddy. It's like for example take Federer's 65 match streak on grass: that's from tournaments entered/matches played, skipping a tourney in between is not going to affect a streak. Nadal never entered Wimbledon 2009, therefore his streak there remains intact.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Nope. Yours is an apples to oranges comparison. You're comparing consecutive finals at a series of events reached to matches won in a row. For matches won in a row you can't lose unless you play - ergo if you didn't play you don't lose and the streak is intact. However you can be in a consecutive final if you don't play. Hence the streak is broken. How can you say Djokovic has been in 17 consecutive finals at the Slam/YEC/Masters level when Madrid featured Nadal and Murray...
Russeljones
Talk Tennis Guru
It's a made-up stat. What about my consecutive days without eating meatballs?
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
uscwang
Hall of Fame
Impressive records. Surprisingly, Nadal's streak happened in 2011 ...
I am the Greatest!
Professional
Are you telling me Rafa didn't make 5 straight Wimbledon finals???
Yep, he didn't. He only got three (3) straight, even if you ask anyone. He didn't show up in 2009, so that's not 'straight'.
I am the Greatest!
Professional
It cannot be counted as 'consecutive' because he missed a tournament. That's how it goes in computing. If in one year, they have 20 tournaments, you reached 4 consecutive, then you skipped one, and then reach another 5 consecutive, your run cannot and WILL NEVER be called 9 straight/consecutive because you missed or skipped a tournament. So it's like, Win-Win-Win-Win-Missed-Win-Win-Win-Win-Win. Does it look like straight wins to you? If you break the cycle, it stops there. Deal with it, and those desperate fans should stop making ******** records to fuel your/their delusions further.
I am the Greatest!
Professional
It's very stupid if someone doesn't know what 'consecutive' means.
con·sec·u·tive
kənˈsekyədiv/
adjective
- following continuously.
"five consecutive months of serious decline"
synonyms: successive, succeeding, following, in succession, running, in a row, one after the other, back-to-back, continuous, straight, uninterrupted
"share prices fell for three consecutive days"- in unbroken or logical sequence.
- GRAMMAR
expressing consequence or result.
"a consecutive clause"
Stop the ignorance.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
This thread wasn't actually created by a Djokovic fan. Seriously though, are you honestly saying that reaching 17 consecutive finals from tournaments he's entered with just one skipped isn't an impressive record? Come on now.
ArcspacE
G.O.A.T.
Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil
Talk Tennis Guru
Whenever he participated in a tournament, he played that last match. You can look strictly like you do right there, but it is a fact that he was in a final of every tournament he played. Skipping and being eliminated is not the same.
This thread was started by a Fed fan. Next time wait a bit before calling others desperate.
I am the Greatest!
Professional
Exactly. It doesn't matter if he/she is a Federer or Djokovic fan. It should be factual.
Not disputing the record of Djokovic - the 12 'straight'. It was impressive. I think, the phrasing should be, 17 finals entered/won, take the consecutive out. Really, it's kind of tiring to see these kind of threads.
I am the Greatest!
Professional
If that's your definition of owned, then I won't argue with you.
I am the Greatest!
Professional
Federer or Djokovic fan, regardless. The record that Novak have is 12, not 17. I'll argue what I don't see fit.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Novak right now is the benchmark of consistency. A shame for that eye problem of his at Dubai. Would have loved to see how long that streak would have kept going.
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
@NatF is absolutely right on this, and those who "can't believe" he doesn't agree with them simply don't know how to make distinctions carefully enough. (It's a common problem on the thread and in life generally). These two things are NOT the same:
1. Player X has not lost prior to the final in his last 17 tournaments,
and
2. Player X has made the final of the last 17 tournaments.
If we were referring to item 1, we would rightly measure by the player.
But as the OP referred to item 2, we must (must) measure all tournaments, whether the player competed or not.
Djokovic has not made the final of 17 consecutive events. He has made the final of 17 consecutive events that he played.
1. Player X has not lost prior to the final in his last 17 tournaments,
and
2. Player X has made the final of the last 17 tournaments.
If we were referring to item 1, we would rightly measure by the player.
But as the OP referred to item 2, we must (must) measure all tournaments, whether the player competed or not.
Djokovic has not made the final of 17 consecutive events. He has made the final of 17 consecutive events that he played.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Hit the nail on the head. Not surprising how militant people are being though...
So Djokovic doesn't hold the record because he skipped Madrid last year.
Actually what I'm saying would put Federer's best streak last behind Nadal and Djokovic. Not everyone is a raging fanboy like yourself
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
Just call it a streak of consecutive finals over non-consecutive tournaments.
The finals are consecutive insofar as each final is followed by another final in the player's tournament results (non-participation doesn't yield a result); every time he played, he reached the final. Hence, Djokovic made 17 consecutive finals over non-consecutive tournaments.
Just like Federer once won 24 finals consecutively: the finals themselves were not consecutive, nor were the tournaments, but the wins were; every time he reached the final, he won.
The finals are consecutive insofar as each final is followed by another final in the player's tournament results (non-participation doesn't yield a result); every time he played, he reached the final. Hence, Djokovic made 17 consecutive finals over non-consecutive tournaments.
Just like Federer once won 24 finals consecutively: the finals themselves were not consecutive, nor were the tournaments, but the wins were; every time he reached the final, he won.
I am the Greatest!
Professional
It's incredibly impressive, I have no arguments with that. Djokovic is indeed a monster. No issues with that though, he's really that good.
Similar threads
