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

Lew II

Legend
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
 
Last edited:

Lew II

Legend
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.
 
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.
 

beard

Hall of Fame
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...
 
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.
 

blablavla

Hall of Fame
Try publishing scientific paper using eye test, and explain editors and reviewers your agenda :giggle:
try having a peer review in an attempt to publish a scientific paper based on cherry picked and irrelevant bunch of random numbers
 
Last edited:

blablavla

Hall of Fame
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?
 

travlerajm

G.O.A.T.
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.
 

RelentlessAttack

Hall of Fame
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.
 

Username_

Hall of Fame
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

G.O.A.T.
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.
 

beard

Hall of Fame
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

Hall of Fame
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

G.O.A.T.
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.
 
Top