Players that reached their best ranking: 2003-07 vs 2008-15

[Lew II]

Players that reached their best ranking (top5):

2003-07:

#1 Hewitt
#1 Agassi
#1 Ferrero
#1 Roddick
#1 Federer
#3 Coria
#3 Nalbandian
#3 Davydenko
#3 Ljubicic
#4 Henman
#4 Blake
#5 Schuettler
#5 Gaudio
#5 Robredo
#5 Gonzalez

15 players in 5 years --> 3 players per year

2008-15:

#1 Federer
#1 Nadal
#1 Djokovic
#3 Ferrer
#3 Wawrinka
#4 Soderling
#4 Nishikori
#4 Berdych
#5 Tsonga

9 players in 8 years --> 1.1 players per year

 

[Breakpointerer]

what it tells us?

 

[mahesh69a]

Interesting - in both time periods, no one stopped at rank #2, if they reached #2, they went on to get to #1?

 

[Breakpointerer]

15 players in 5 years --> 5 players per year

3

 

[beard]

what it tells us?

2003-2007 ATP was WTA like

 

[Lew II]

In 2016-19:

#1 big four
#3 stan
#3 delpo
#3 cilic
#3 zverev
#3 dimitrov
#3 raonic
#4 nishikori
#4 medvedev
#5 anderson
#5 tsitsipas

14 players in 4 years --> 3.5 per year

The younger of them Zverev, Medvedev, Tsitsipas will probably reach a higher b.r. later, but even excluding them it would be 11 in 4 years (2.75 per year) so a similar level of inconsistency to pre-2008.

 

[Tennis is evolving]

Hewitt, Agassi and Henman didn't reach their best ranking for the first time in 2003-2007.

Also list "the Big 4" separately.

 

[Tennis is evolving]

2003-2007 ATP was WTA like

No that's today.

 

[Gazelle]

So not many good players from 2008-15.

 

[beard]

No that's today.

Sorry, you are wrong, and evidence for 2003-2007 is in OP.
Have you any evidence for your claim?

 

[Tennis is evolving]

Sorry, you are wrong, and evidence for 2003-2007 is in OP.
Have you any evidence for your claim?

I already refuted that "evidence". And yeah actually watching tennis.

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

Interesting - in both time periods, no one stopped at rank #2, if they reached #2, they went on to get to #1?

Well yes no one born after Novak has been #2

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

5 years vs 8 years

 

[Lew II]

Hewitt, Agassi and Henman didn't reach their best ranking for the first time in 2003-2007.

Also list "the Big 4" separately.

I didn't write that.

 

[beard]

I already refuted that "evidence". And yeah actually watching tennis.

So you use just eye test... Somehow I knew it's the case...

 

[Tennis is evolving]

I didn't write that.

You did. You said players that reached their best ranking when you know Agassi became number 1 in 1995, Hewitt in 2001 and Henman became number 4 in 2002. You also listed the "Big 4" as a collective group in order to give the illusion the difference is greater than it really is.

Federer also needs to be excluded from the second list.

 

[Tennis is evolving]

So you use just eye test... Somehow I knew it's the case...

Numbers don't tell the whole story.

 

[beard]

Numbers don't tell the whole story.

Try publishing scientific paper using eye test, and explain editors and reviewers your agenda

 

[Tennis is evolving]

Try publishing scientific paper using eye test, and explain editors and reviewers your agenda

Bad analogy. Tennis isn't a science, it's a sport and it shouldn't be treated as such.

Really it's just confirmation bias on your part anyway.

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

Try publishing scientific paper using eye test, and explain editors and reviewers your agenda

Like irrelevant and misleading stats are any better. If anything, they are generally more dangerous. See anti-vax etc.

 

[Gazelle]

Try publishing scientific paper using eye test, and explain editors and reviewers your agenda

Will still be easier than this statistical rubbish that has to pass for science.

 

[beard]

Bad analogy. Tennis isn't a science, it's a sport and it shouldn't be treated as such.

Really it's just confirmation bias on your part anyway.

Everything is science, just to inform you

 

[Tennis is evolving]

Everything is science, just to inform you

Two athletes hitting a ball to each other can't be considered a science to me. What's there to discover?

 

[beard]

Like irrelevant and misleading stats are any better. If anything, they are generally more dangerous. See anti-vax etc.

It's irrelevant to you, not to me or many others... This data is fact, which clearly show 2003-07 was WTA like, just put Federer instead of Serena...

 

[Tennis is evolving]

It's irrelevant to you, not to me or many others... This data is fact, which clearly show 2003-07 was WTA like, just put Federer instead of Serena...

It's not factual when it's misleading or dishonest.

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

It's irrelevant to you, not to me or many others... This data is fact, which clearly show 2003-07 was WTA like, just put Federer instead of Serena...

The stat is a fact but the interpretation of 'what it tells us' is not. The conclusions are not necessarily tied to the premise, which suggests the argument is potentially invalid. Is it a strong field decking eachother or a crap field decking eachother? How would you determine that? Is parity among peers indicative of less depth or more? It's all relative and implicit. Sure, I watch the tennis to see what I think, which is not objective at all, but at least I don't pretend to know the answers to these questions.

 

[beard]

Two athletes hitting a ball to each other can't be considered a science to me. What's there to discover?

But athletes produce data which can be scientifically processed... Modern science is basically statistic...

 

[beard]

It's not factual when it's misleading or dishonest.

Facts are facts....

 

[Tennis is evolving]

Facts are facts....

So if I said I knew who shot JFK when I didn't it's a fact?

 

[beard]

So if I said I knew who shot JFK when I didn't it's a fact?

No because I can't check if you really know... You can easily check Lews data if you think it's wrong... One of main postulates of science is that everyone can check results...

 

[blablavla]

what it tells us?

what do you want it to tell us?
on the menu:
- strong era
- weak era
- Djokovic is GOAT

 

[blablavla]

Interesting - in both time periods, no one stopped at rank #2, if they reached #2, they went on to get to #1?

they were disqualified from ATP Tour.

 

[blablavla]

So you use just eye test... Somehow I knew it's the case...

that is at least a mile better than Wonderland test, Alice.

 

[blablavla]

Try publishing scientific paper using eye test, and explain editors and reviewers your agenda

try having a peer review in an attempt to publish a scientific paper based on cherry picked and irrelevant bunch of random numbers

 

[blablavla]

Players that reached their best ranking (top5):

2003-07:

#1 Hewitt
#1 Agassi
#1 Ferrero
#1 Roddick
#1 Federer
#3 Coria
#3 Nalbandian
#3 Davydenko
#3 Ljubicic
#4 Henman
#4 Blake
#5 Schuettler
#5 Gaudio
#5 Robredo
#5 Gonzalez

15 players in 5 years --> 3 players per year

2008-15:

#1 Federer
#1 Nadal
#1 Djokovic
#3 Ferrer
#3 Wawrinka
#4 Soderling
#4 Nishikori
#4 Berdych
#5 Tsonga

9 players in 8 years --> 1.1 players per year

@Lew II
1. why 2003 - 2007
2. why 2008 - 2015
3. what about past periods of time say: 1998 - 2002, 1993 - 1997, 1988 - 1992, 1983 - 1987, etc., so we could see which one fits into history, and which one is the outlier?

 

[blablavla]

So if I said I knew who shot JFK when I didn't it's a fact?

no, but if you said Djokovic is GOAT, that would be a fact in Wonderland.

 

[travlerajm]

You did. You said players that reached their best ranking when you know Agassi became number 1 in 1995, Hewitt in 2001 and Henman became number 4 in 2002. You also listed the "Big 4" as a collective group in order to give the illusion the difference is greater than it really is.

Federer also needs to be excluded from the second list.

His thread. His rules. It doesn’t matter whether they also reached their top ranking at another time.

 

[travlerajm]

try having a peer review in an attempt to publish a scientific paper based on cheery picked and irrelevant bunch of random numbers

It happens all the time.

 

[RelentlessAttack]

No because I can't check if you really know... You can easily check Lews data if you think it's wrong... One of main postulates of science is that everyone can check results...

As the guy above said, it’s mostly just confirmation bias. If you can look at a stat and say, great given this framing this proves the weak era and I can say great given my framing it proves the strong era, the stat is not useful in isolation. The numbers are evidence, but your conclusions are not “science”. Science is a process, a mechanism for finding knowledge, and nothing posted here on TTW meets the criteria. Science is not not an authority or repository of knowledge that you can appeal to.

 

[Phoenix1983]

what it tells us?

Hahaha...this is exactly what I think whenever Lew posts a thread like this.

I would love it if he and the late 5555 had replied to each other.

 

[Phoenix1983]

Facts are facts....

In some communist countries, 99.9% of voters voted for the ruling party. Does that mean that 99.9% of people support them?

 

[Third Serve]

what it tells us?

Just looked at 5555's posts. Man, he must have been a real piece of work.

 

[Username_]

Hahaha...this is exactly what I think whenever Lew posts a thread like this.

I would love it if he and the late 5555 had replied to each other.

5555 was posts were a little entertaining in underlining and bolding in his choice of words. Lew as a successor of 5555 is as good as the next gen is to the big 3

Surprised you were around when 5555 was. Hardly recall your posts back when he was alive on here

 

[Phoenix1983]

5555 was posts were a little entertaining in underlining and bolding in his choice of words. Lew as a successor of 5555 is as good as the next gen is to the big 3

Surprised you were around when 5555 was. Hardly recall your posts back when he was alive on here

I joined in 2012, same year as you.

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

Just looked at 5555's posts. Man, he must have been a real piece of work.

You have lost the argument.

 

[beard]

As the guy above said, it’s mostly just confirmation bias. If you can look at a stat and say, great given this framing this proves the weak era and I can say great given my framing it proves the strong era, the stat is not useful in isolation. The numbers are evidence, but your conclusions are not “science”. Science is a process, a mechanism for finding knowledge, and nothing posted here on TTW meets the criteria. Science is not not an authority or repository of knowledge that you can appeal to.

You are completely right, but we will leave reviewers to decide if methodology and results are good... My point was that data is good, facts...

 

[beard]

In some communist countries, 99.9% of voters voted for the ruling party. Does that mean that 99.9% of people support them?

I don't understand what that has to with the fact that numbers in opening post are facts... You can discuss those numbers the way you want, and I can agree or disagree... You are welcome to disagree with my interpretation od data...

 

[Phoenix1983]

I don't understand what that has to with the fact that numbers in opening post are facts... You can discuss those numbers the way you want, and I can agree or disagree... You are welcome to disagree with my interpretation od data...

You said facts are facts, but some numbers are not facts.

 

[King No1e]

Interesting - in both time periods, no one stopped at rank #2, if they reached #2, they went on to get to #1?

For starters, no one outside the Big 4 cracked the top 2 since 2005

 

[beard]

You said facts are facts, but some numbers are not facts.

I understand, but I said that in context of op...