Players of the decade by ATP

RaulRamirez

Legend
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.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Correct, but is that meaningful? He was clearly second in the 00s, despite starting halfway through, and clearly second in the 10s. Not bad.
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.
 

RaulRamirez

Legend
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.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
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.
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.
 

RaulRamirez

Legend
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.
...forgot about Guga, thought about Safin, but yes, we agree on the main point here.
 

TheGhostOfAgassi

Talk Tennis Guru
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.
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.
 

DSH

G.O.A.T.
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.

Pistol
Pete says, Hello!
:D

 
N

Nole14_15NoPressure

Guest
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.
thanks for the giggles.
 
Top