They only included OG for Murray!
They don't show it when comparing the Big 3 because it impacts on Roger and Novak and they don't want Rafa to overshadow them.Hmm, interesting they include Olympic Singles Gold
ATP been ignoring that up until now.
Just realised that.Yeah, maybe because in their world the Olympics of 2008 didn't happen between the years of 2010 to 2019?
Hmm, interesting they include Olympic Singles Gold
ATP been ignoring that up until now.
Why is Rafa shown 4th when he beats Roger and Andy in every category?
I don't know, its strange. But I didn't make it.Why is Rafa shown 4th when he beats Roger and Andy in every category?
Why is Rafa shown 4th when he beats Roger and Andy in every category?
It’s alphabetical from left to right. D, F, M, N, W.
I don't know, its strange. But I didn't make it.
Good observations from you! Dream crusherIt’s alphabetical from left to right. D, F, M, N, W.
That's probably it. There is also a possibility (lesser though) that they're ordering it by ATP Finals titles won.It’s alphabetical from left to right. D, F, M, N, W.
@BringBackSVInteresting that they include years at #1 but not weeks at #1. Further proof that years at #1 are more important than weeks at #1.
Correct, but is that meaningful? He was clearly second in the 00s, despite starting halfway through, and clearly second in the 10s. Not bad.So Nadal officially never had his own decade.
Decades start any year. So Nadal was the best player of the 2005-2014 decade, or even more clearly of the 2006-2015 decade.So Nadal officially never had his own decade.
That doesn't make sense on a league table.It’s alphabetical from left to right. D, F, M, N, W.
Or 2008-2017Decades start any year. So Nadal was the best player of the 2005-2014 decade, or even more clearly of the 2006-2015 decade.
Obviously! I was going to post something to that question, but you did it better.It’s alphabetical from left to right. D, F, M, N, W.
Correct, but is that meaningful? He was clearly second in the 00s, despite starting halfway through, and clearly second in the 10s. Not bad.
They just couldn’t have found a better picture for Murray, eh?
he looks like a Scottish warrior!They just couldn’t have found a better picture for Murray, eh?
I can certainly see that. It's great to be the top player of the decade, but it's not a prerequisite to be one in order to be the mythical GOAT.This reminds me of a debate on Laver/Rosewall in the Former section years back.
Obviously Nadal has substantial time at #1 himself anyway but being #2 for so damn long when #1's have come and gone should be worth something as well.
I can certainly see that. It's great to be the top player of the decade, but it's not a prerequisite to be one in order to be the mythical GOAT.
It will be interesting to see if (especially) Djokovic achieves enough in the early part of the 20s to end up as one of the Top 5 or so of the coming debate.
I assume he would have been about top 6-7 for the 2000s, but haven't spent much time looking at stats: Fed, Rafa, Agassi (?), Hewitt and Roddick might all be ahead?? There may be a case for anther player or two, I guess.
...forgot about Guga, thought about Safin, but yes, we agree on the main point here.Fed, Nadal, Agassi, Kuerten, Hewitt, Roddick, Safin would all be ahead of Djokovic in the 00's IMO.
And yes overall achievements matter more than being the best of the decade.
I’m 100% sure Rafa doesn’t lose any cred for that! That’s “stat” non ATG would cherish. Rafa is beyond all that winning slams in teens, 20s and 30s.I can certainly see that. It's great to be the top player of the decade, but it's not a prerequisite to be one in order to be the mythical GOAT.
It will be interesting to see if (especially) Djokovic achieves enough in the early part of the 20s to end up as one of the Top 5 or so of the coming debate.
I assume he would have been about top 6-7 for the 2000s, but haven't spent much time looking at stats: Fed, Rafa, Agassi (?), Hewitt and Roddick might all be ahead?? There may be a case for anther player or two, I guess.
he looks like a Scottish warrior!
I like to picture of Murray. Looks like it was taken between MMA workouts.They just couldn’t have found a better picture for Murray, eh?
Fed, Nadal, Agassi, Kuerten, Hewitt, Roddick, Safin would all be ahead of Djokovic in the 00's IMO.
And yes overall achievements matter more than being the best of the decade.
I don’t think they’re ordered from best to worst. I think it’s just a random selection.Why is Rafa shown 4th when he beats Roger and Andy in every category?
Pistol Pete says, Hello!
thanks for the giggles.It's not that big of a deal, but it makes no sense to show the Top 5 (of course, they would be the Top 5) and then position them alphabetically.
If Cilic made it, I guess it would be C, D, F, M, N.
Actually, I was being serious: for some unknown reason, they arranged them alphabetically, which makes no sense in this context So yes, both Cilic and Delpo come before "Djokovic", right?thanks for the giggles.
Federer in a slow motion fall already of 10+ years,
Decades start any year. So Nadal was the best player of the 2005-2014 decade, or even more clearly of the 2006-2015 decade.
He would have been with Nadal's competitionSo the so-called GOAT has not been YE #1 in a decade!