Revisiting the 2009 HC ranking—a close call from another thread

[Neptune]

Using the ATP ranking system, which is determined by points, ensures fairness and transparency.

2009 Overall Ranking
1 Fed 10,550
2 Rafa 9,205
3 Nole 8,310
4 Murray 7,030
5 DelPo 6,785

2009 HC Ranking
1 Nole 6,200
2 Rafa 5,925
3 Murray 5,150
4 Fed 5,100
5 DelPo 4,655

extra HC stats:
vs top5
DelPo 7-5
Murray 5-3
Nole 5-4
Fed 4-6
Rafa 2-4

vs top10
Murray 13-3
Nole 12-8
DelPo 9-6
Fed 9-9
Rafa 6-10

 

[Neptune]

Rafa exits the tour finals with a 0-3 record, failing to secure a single set.

 

[The Blond Blur]

 

[TheFifthSet]

If Djokovic were offered a trade, he would take Delpo’s and Nadal’s HC results from that year in a heartbeat, and walk away feeing like a bandit…their spectacular slam wins can’t be overridden by a few extra Top 5/10 wins in Masters events.

 

[Kralingen]

Not sure you can be the best player of 2009 (or any year) without winning a Slam.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Not sure you can be the best player of 2009 (or any year) without winning a Slam.

Its only on HC, so yes you can Djokovic 2014

 

[RS]

Its only on HC, so yes you can Djokovic 2014

That might be one of the few exceptions. Djokovic had 3 HC masters and a YEC to make up somewhat for the lack of slam.

 

[Hitman]

It can be a few players, but Djokovic is not one of them.

 

[nolefam_2024]

It can be a few players, but Djokovic is not one of them.

Hahaha lol true

 

[Neptune]

Sure, let's disregard the ATP ranking system and opt for various subjective rankings. Perhaps that's the essence of all the debates on TTW.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Sure, let's disregard the ATP ranking system and opt for various subjective rankings. Perhaps that's the essence of all the debates on TTW.

wrong

 

[The Blond Blur]

Lol imagine trying to argue with a straight face that Joker has a case for best HC player in 09 when he didn’t even make the F of any of the 3 biggest HC events and only won 1 MS1000

HC GS titles:

RAFA: 1
Delpo: 1
Ol’ Rog: 0
MurrayGOAT: 0
Joker: 0

HC GS F:

Ol’ Rog: 2
RAFA: 1
Delpo: 1
MurrayGOAT: 0
Joker: 0

HC GS SF:
RAFA: 2
Ol’ Rog: 2
Delpo: 1
Joker: 1
MurrayGOAT: 0

YEC:

Davy:1
Delpo: 0
RAFA: 0
Ol’ Rog: 0
MurrayGOAT: 0
Joker: 0

MS1000 titles:

MurrayGOAT: 2
RAFA: 1
Ol’ Rog: 1
Joker: 1
Davy: 1
Delpo: 0

RAFA, Delpo, Ol’ Rog, Davy, and MurrayGOAT were all more successful when it mattered that year.

 

[Martin J]

You could find a case for Djoko to be the best player under the roof in 2009, but that's about it. I do think his 2009 indoors season is a bit underrated (or overlooked) as he entered the YEC as imo, by far, the best indoors player that year having won Basel (beat Federer in the finals), the Paris Masters (defeated Nadal and Soderling) previously and was the only player to beat Davydenko at WTF (lacked a bit of luck to reach the SF).

But overall on HC? Don't think he has a case to be even in top 5 that year.

 

[Neptune]

Lol imagine trying to argue with a straight face

HC points 6200>5925
Just like Rafa has 45 points and is ranked #672 right now, ATP system does not care whether the points come from a Slam match or an ATP250 event.

 

[NatF]

Djokovic fans giving us exhibit #10,001 of stats without context.

 

[The Blond Blur]

HC points 6200>5925
Just like Rafa has 45 points and is ranked #672 right now, ATP system does not care whether the points come from a Slam match or an ATP250 event.

No, what people don’t care about is how many points you rack up if you don’t have the hardware to go with it. 5 players won more big events on HC in 09.

 

[Neptune]

No, what people don’t care about is how many points you rack up if you don’t have the hardware to go with it. 5 players won more big events on HC in 09.

Doesn't matter slam 3-1 or 3-0.
Alcaraz or Med only need one (actual 5 or 10) more point than Nole for 2023 to rank #1.

Djokovic concedes YE Number 1 ranking to Alcaraz

Out of Beijing, Shanghai, Vienna/Basel.

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

 

[tennis_pro]

Fed isn't even in the top 3 and he was 2 sets away from winning both the AO and USO lol.

Anyway, what an insane season 2009 was. I will never see anything like it ever again.

 

[Neptune]

Fed isn't even in the top 3 and he was 2 sets away from winning both the AO and USO lol.

Anyway, what an insane season 2009 was. I will never see anything like it ever again.

Someone with a 2-4 record against the top 5 and a 6-10 record against the top 10 can still achieve significant success – the magic of draws is truly admirable.

 

[tennis_pro]

Someone with a 2-4 record against the top 5 and a 6-10 record against the top 10 can still achieve significant success – the magic of draws is truly admirable.

Yep, that's called focusing on only the important tournaments. Fed was insanely hard to beat in the Slams + prep tournaments like Madrid or Cincinnati.

 

[The Blond Blur]

Doesn't matter slam 3-1 or 3-0.
Alcaraz or Med only need one (actual 5 or 10) more point than Nole for 2023 to rank #1.

Djokovic concedes YE Number 1 ranking to Alcaraz

Out of Beijing, Shanghai, Vienna/Basel.

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

YE#1 is determined by how many points you accumulated through the entire year. Determining who the best player was on a particular surface is determined by who won the biggest events on that surface. Again, Joker didn’t even make the F of either HC GS or the YEC in fact he only made 1 SF out of those 3 events. Anyone can go Andre Bweh Rublev mode and win a couple of 500s while going deep enough in bigger events to rack up the most points on HC.

 

[Neptune]

YE#1 is determined by how many points you accumulated through the entire year. Determining who the best player was on a particular surface is determined by who won the biggest events on that surface. Again, Joker didn’t even make the F of either HC GS or the YEC in fact he only made 1 SF out of those 3 events. Anyone can go Andre Bweh Rublev mode and win a couple of 500s while going deep enough in bigger events to rack up the most points on HC.

Overall YE#1 is determined by how many points you accumulated through the entire year.
HC YE#1 is determined by how many points you accumulated on HC through the entire year.
How challenging is it to grasp?

 

[The Blond Blur]

Overall YE#1 is determined by how many points you accumulated through the entire year.
HC YE#1 is determined by how many points you accumulated on HC through the entire year.
How challenging is it to grasp?

No one cares if you rack up a ton of points with nothing to show for it. How challenging is that for you to grasp? Getting 3rd or 4th place in a bunch of events is irrelevant.

 

[nolefam_2024]

YE#1 is determined by how many points you accumulated through the entire year. Determining who the best player was on a particular surface is determined by who won the biggest events on that surface. Again, Joker didn’t even make the F of either HC GS or the YEC in fact he only made 1 SF out of those 3 events. Anyone can go Andre Bweh Rublev mode and win a couple of 500s while going deep enough in bigger events to rack up the most points on HC.

Ironically this guy would be crying if alcaraz won ye number 1 after Nole won 3 slams

 

[The Blond Blur]

Ironically this guy would be crying if alcaraz won ye number 1 after Nole won 3 slams

He’s already crying now over something that happened 14 years ago lol. But yeah if Tiny Carl finished #1 while Joker won 3 schlems no one would care. Most people still would pick Joker’s 2016 results over Murray’s.

 

[Neptune]

He’s already crying now over something that happened 14 years ago lol. But yeah if Tiny Carl finished #1 while Joker won 3 schlems no one would care. Most people still would pick Joker’s 2016 results over Murray’s.

The ATP ranking system has been well-developed and transparent for a considerable time. While one may not necessarily like it, it's something that needs to be accepted and lived with.

 

[nolefam_2024]

We accept the ranking and reject this conclusion.

It doesn't matter if Nole isn't even in a final of any of the three big ATP tournaments on hc.

 

[Neptune]

We accept the ranking and reject this conclusion.

It doesn't matter if Nole isn't even in a final of any of the three big ATP tournaments on hc.

Please re-read thread title and OP.

 

[The Blond Blur]

The ATP ranking system has been well-developed and transparent for a considerable time. While one may not necessarily like it, it's something that needs to be accepted and lived with.

The ATP doesn’t have a surface ranking system. Otherwise if they did they’d actually use it for each part of the season.

The only thing that needs to be accepted here is that Joker was the 6th best HC player in 09.

 

[Hitman]

Fed isn't even in the top 3 and he was 2 sets away from winning both the AO and USO lol.

Anyway, what an insane season 2009 was. I will never see anything like it ever again.

Yeah that 2009 season was simply God tier as far as overall depth was concerned. Insane from start to finish, and so many highlights and talking points.

 

[nolefam_2024]

A ranking system can be flawed. But sometimes it takes extreme examples for the shortcomings to be put in front.

ATP hard courts don't have their own ranking. We don't have adjusted HC seedings for AO or USO like we used to have for Wimbledon before. So in real rankings, Fed was number 1 , Rafa number 2 and Djokovic number 3.

Now - Rafa won 2 big titles on hc. Australian Open and Indian Wells. He lost in finals of Shanghai and Rotterdam as well. These are big results.

Fed just won 1 title in Cincinnati. He lost 3 finals in Basel to Djokovic, in Australian Open and US Open.
Nadal's results of 1 Slam and 1 SF is better than Federer's results of 2 finals. Never be a bridesmaid if you can.

Djokovic won 4 titles. He was very good. Won Paris masters, Basel, Beijing and Dubai. He also lost in Miami and Cincinnati masters. Now there can be a debate about Federer and Djokovic who played better. But at slams, where it counts, it just showed that Fed went ahead in both tournaments. Even in ATP finals, Federer went ahead.

But how can Djokovic be better than Fed if Murray was better than Djokovic himself? He won 2 masters and 1 more title. But Murray crapped out in Both slams.

Daveydenko has pretty weak claim where he won 2/3 post USO tournaments. Its post USO, the titles matter but many a times they have weak winners like Jack Sock.

Finally we have Delpo who won 3 titles. He beat Federer who had beaten Djokovic. He won a slam and 2 titles.

I would think Rafa has 2 big titles, and he went ahead in slams ahead of Delpo so definitely he is the best.
Fed might be second. Delpo was good but Fed was great in AO final. Just behind Rafa.
Delpo third.

Doesn't matter who is outside top 3.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Yeah that 2009 season was simply God tier as far as overall depth was concerned. Insane from start to finish, and so many highlights and talking points.

Is this really depth if a great player gets injured? Defending champ Djokovic retires from Australia? Wouldn't it be better if Fedkovic played in semis and winner faced Rafa in final ?

Rafa and Roger played great on hc but they met only twice in whole year, only 1 time in Australia. Wouldn't it be better if both were playing well at the same time? Fed was snoozing between AO and Madrid and Rafa was doing the same from RG to USO.

So when big 3 are not playing well, there will always be "Depth". I don't want such depth. The matches among big 3 are great for tennis.

 

[Hitman]

Is this really depth if a great player gets injured? Defending champ Djokovic retires from Australia? Wouldn't it be better if Fedkovic played in semis and winner faced Rafa in final ?

Rafa and Roger played great on hc but they met only twice in whole year, only 1 time in Australia. Wouldn't it be better if both were playing well at the same time? Fed was snoozing between AO and Madrid and Rafa was doing the same from RG to USO.

So when big 3 are not playing well, there will always be "Depth". I don't want such depth. The matches among big 3 are great for tennis.

Djokovic wasn't injured at AO 2009, he was suffering from heat exhaustion. Believe me, I was NOT happy with Djokovic going out in that manner, especially when he had come in strong after winning YEC a few weeks earlier.

The beauty of 2009 was that was not all about the big 3, it was about the whole field. The amount of players that stepped up over that season was mindboggling.

From Verdasco, to Soderling, to Haas, to Del Potro, to Davydenko and so on.

Tennis shouldn't just be about 3 players. What made the 80s and early 90s so good was that there were so many players playing at an insane level. 2009 is like a tribute to those eras.

 

[Third Serve]

It’s still Fed, Ned, Delpo, Davydenko, Murray, and Djokovic for me. You can put Ned over Fed and maybe bump Davy down a spot and I’d be okay with that, but the list is true in this respect: Djokovic was not anywhere near the top spot.

How could he, given his underperformance in both of the Slams as well as the YEC? Sure, he made it deep in several Masters and won a few sub-Masters tournaments (including Basel which I think was a very solid win) to pad the points tally a bit but that does not make up for losing to Roddick at the AO with heatstroke and getting clubbed in straights by Fed at the US Open.

But sure, surviving a tough three-setter against Monfils in the least prestigious Masters tournament of the season is the pinnacle of hard court achievement in 2009. Bravo Djokovic!

Ranking points are fun and all but their primary purpose is to determine seeding for future tournaments. No one seriously thinks a Slam is actually worth two Masters, though if you went by the ranking points, you would lead to a different conclusion. The point difference between the two is reduced so as not to completely lock out Masters champs from favorable seeding in Slams and other big tournaments, and it incentivizes players to actually participate in Masters.

Of course, Wikipedia Warriors are notable for leaving out important context like this so the analysis (or lack thereof) demonstrated in this thread should not come as a surprise.

(If I sound annoyed it’s because I am)

 

[nolefam_2024]

It’s still Fed, Ned, Delpo, Davydenko, Murray, and Djokovic for me. You can put Ned over Fed and maybe bump Davy down a spot and I’d be okay with that, but the list is true in this respect: Djokovic was not anywhere near the top spot.

How could he, given his underperformance in both of the Slams as well as the YEC? Sure, he made it deep in several Masters and won a few sub-Masters tournaments (including Basel which I think was a very solid win) to pad the points tally a bit but that does not make up for losing to Roddick at the AO with heatstroke and getting clubbed in straights by Fed at the US Open.

But sure, surviving a tough three-setter against Monfils in the least prestigious Masters tournament of the season is the pinnacle of hard court achievement in 2009. Bravo Djokovic!

Ranking points are fun and all but their primary purpose is to determine seeding for future tournaments. No one seriously thinks a Slam is actually worth two Masters, though if you went by the ranking points, you would lead to a different conclusion. The point difference between the two is reduced so as not to completely lock out Masters champs from favorable seeding in Slams and other big tournaments, and it incentivizes players to actually participate in Masters.

Of course, Wikipedia Warriors are notable for leaving out important context like this so the analysis (or lack thereof) demonstrated in this thread should not come as a surprise.

(If I sound annoyed it’s because I am)

2009 and 2010 Djokovic got a humbling lesson. By 2007 and 2008 he was very successful. Most successful 21 year old apart from Rafa in 2000s. I don't think Hewitt is anywhere close to him.

 

[fedfan24]

Djokovic was fairly consistent that year but his best win was over Federer at Basel. Nadal won the epic b2b SF/F in Australia, same for Delpo at USO. Federer destroyed the field pre final at both HC slams and lost in 5 at both. Those are top 3.

 

[Third Serve]

While we’re on the topic, Basel 2009 final was a solid (if streaky) match. One of many great ones from that year.

Disappointed in Fed’s FH performance here but other than that, not bad at all!

 

[Silentchimera]

Lol imagine trying to argue with a straight face that Joker has a case for best HC player in 09 when he didn’t even make the F of any of the 3 biggest HC events and only won 1 MS1000

HC GS titles:

RAFA: 1
Delpo: 1
Ol’ Rog: 0
MurrayGOAT: 0
Joker: 0

HC GS F:

Ol’ Rog: 2
RAFA: 1
Delpo: 1
MurrayGOAT: 0
Joker: 0

HC GS SF:
RAFA: 2
Ol’ Rog: 2
Delpo: 1
Joker: 1
MurrayGOAT: 0

YEC:

Davy:1
Delpo: 0
RAFA: 0
Ol’ Rog: 0
MurrayGOAT: 0
Joker: 0

MS1000 titles:

MurrayGOAT: 2
RAFA: 1
Ol’ Rog: 1
Joker: 1
Davy: 1
Delpo: 0

RAFA, Delpo, Ol’ Rog, Davy, and MurrayGOAT were all more successful when it mattered that year.

Thank you for providing us with the stats that actually matter.

 

[Hitman]

While we’re on the topic, Basel 2009 final was a solid (if streaky) match. One of many great ones from that year.

Disappointed in Fed’s FH performance here but other than that, not bad at all!

I was watching this match back two months ago. Djokovic had a nice little run towards the end of 2009 with back to back titles.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Fed isn't even in the top 3 and he was 2 sets away from winning both the AO and USO lol.

Anyway, what an insane season 2009 was. I will never see anything like it ever again.

Tennis was so epic back then lol

 

[The Guru]

I think what's not being discussed in this thread is what we mean by the best. If it's most accomplished then we just add it up. But if it's whose aggregate level do we think would win the most matches against the most opponents I think that's a far more interesting question. I think it's Nadal for the peak but it's Fed across the season.

 

[MichaelNadal]

I think what's not being discussed in this thread is what we mean by the best. If it's most accomplished then we just add it up. But if it's whose aggregate level do we think would win the most matches against the most opponents I think that's a far more interesting question. I think it's Nadal for the peak but it's Fed across the season.

 

[metsman]

Not sure you can be the best player of 2009 (or any year) without winning a Slam.

or by beating Raomug to win the slam.

 

[metsman]

While we’re on the topic, Basel 2009 final was a solid (if streaky) match. One of many great ones from that year.

Disappointed in Fed’s FH performance here but other than that, not bad at all!

TA has federer at 19/39 W/UFE, I imagine that is up there for Federer's worst ratio on a fast indoor court in his prime, especially given that his serve was half decent with 7 aces. 05 TMC F wasn't quite so bad (and that's saying something considering he was clearly hampered for almost 60% of that match, couldn't serve for most of it), only 13 WTF SF disasterclass seems to compare (17/37 with 6 aces), but that was a much slower court, and Federer was so much better as a player in 2009 that it makes it even more inexplicable.

Federer's 2009 performances vs Djokovic were quite the duality. Played two of his best matches of the season, and then garbage in the three losses.

 

[Mazz Retic]

A ranking system can be flawed. But sometimes it takes extreme examples for the shortcomings to be put in front.

ATP hard courts don't have their own ranking. We don't have adjusted HC seedings for AO or USO like we used to have for Wimbledon before. So in real rankings, Fed was number 1 , Rafa number 2 and Djokovic number 3.

Now - Rafa won 2 big titles on hc. Australian Open and Indian Wells. He lost in finals of Shanghai and Rotterdam as well. These are big results.

Fed just won 1 title in Cincinnati. He lost 3 finals in Basel to Djokovic, in Australian Open and US Open.
Nadal's results of 1 Slam and 1 SF is better than Federer's results of 2 finals. Never be a bridesmaid if you can.

Djokovic won 4 titles. He was very good. Won Paris masters, Basel, Beijing and Dubai. He also lost in Miami and Cincinnati masters. Now there can be a debate about Federer and Djokovic who played better. But at slams, where it counts, it just showed that Fed went ahead in both tournaments. Even in ATP finals, Federer went ahead.

But how can Djokovic be better than Fed if Murray was better than Djokovic himself? He won 2 masters and 1 more title. But Murray crapped out in Both slams.

Daveydenko has pretty weak claim where he won 2/3 post USO tournaments. Its post USO, the titles matter but many a times they have weak winners like Jack Sock.

Finally we have Delpo who won 3 titles. He beat Federer who had beaten Djokovic. He won a slam and 2 titles.

I would think Rafa has 2 big titles, and he went ahead in slams ahead of Delpo so definitely he is the best.
Fed might be second. Delpo was good but Fed was great in AO final. Just behind Rafa.
Delpo third.

Doesn't matter who is outside top 3.

But as another thread posted, who cares about making the finals it’s the titles that matter. With only 1 non slam hc title how could Federer be the second or third best hc player that year? Djokovic would have an argument over him despite worse showings at the slams.