Ridicolous stat that may be never repeated

Lew II

Hall of Fame
Seasons with 19+ wins over top10:

Djokovic 6 --> 2015 (31), 2012 (24), 2013 (24), 2011 (21), 2016 (21), 2014 (19)
McEnroe 1 --> 1984 (26)
Nadal 1 --> 2013 (24)
Lendl 1 --> 1985 (22)
Borg 1 --> 1979 (20)
Federer 1 --> 2006 (19)

Djokovic alone has more seasons than all other players combined.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
Seasons with 19+ wins over top10:

Djokovic 6 --> 2015 (31), 2012 (24), 2013 (24), 2011 (21), 2016 (21), 2014 (19)
McEnroe 1 --> 1984 (26)
Nadal 1 --> 2013 (24)
Lendl 1 --> 1985 (22)
Borg 1 --> 1979 (20)
Federer 1 --> 2006 (19)

Djokovic alone has more seasons than all other players combined.
You're forgetting Laver from 1969-1971. He had 3 seasons of 24 or more top 10 wins. Still, a crazy stat from Djokovic. Djokovic has 35 more top 10 wins than Nadal and only 17 less than Federer, although he's been on tour 6 years less. This is one stat he will lead over everyone else at the end of his career.
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
You're forgetting Laver from 1969-1971. He had 3 seasons of 24 or more top 10 wins. Still, a crazy stat from Djokovic. Djokovic has 35 more top 10 wins than Nadal and only 17 less than Federer, although he's been on tour 6 years less. This is one stat he will lead over everyone else at the end of his career.
The ATP ranking didn't exist in 1969-1971.
 

StANDAA

Legend
make it a nice round number like 20 and it just means Novak did it 5 times rather than 6, nobody else did it more then once, and Federer drops off the list entirely
why does this stat even prove

Federer had many more successful years with less top ten wins than some of the Djokovic’s years listed, and in the end, that’s what really counts, the results.
 
Last edited:

JackGates

Hall of Fame
I agree with most here.

19 is a poor cutoff.

20 is a better cutoff, making Djokovic 5-0 vs Fed in 20 top 10 wins seasons.
What does this have to do with Fed? Does every Djokovic stat need to be compared to Fed, is Fed a god to you or something?
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
Well, Lew can, then what does he mean when he says Nole is better, he means better career, that's the only thing we can measure, what else could better mean?
I can't speak for Lew but from what I have seen, he thinks Djokovic is the best and mostly seems invested to prove Djokovic had the tougher competition over Federer. Even though the stats are interesting, this still falls in line with his strong opinions.
 

JackGates

Hall of Fame
I can't speak for Lew but from what I have seen, he thinks Djokovic is the best and mostly seems invested to prove Djokovic had the tougher competition over Federer. Even though the stats are interesting, this still falls in line with his strong opinions.
Well, if Djokovic was too dominant, doesn't this prove his competition was weaker since they weren't able to challenge him?
 

JackGates

Hall of Fame
Someone could argue that in defense but then weren't they both really dominant, Federer even more so?
That's the problem, you can manipulate numbers to say whatever you want. I can say, hey Fed did much better at majors versus Stan and Murray than even Djokovic himself, so this invalidates weak era theory. I can say what ever I want, depends which opponents I use and what matchups or how I define peak and prime.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
That's the problem, you can manipulate numbers to say whatever you want. I can say, hey Fed did much better at majors versus Stan and Murray than even Djokovic himself, so this invalidates weak era theory. I can say what ever I want, depends which opponents I use and what matchups or how I define peak and prime.
You can manipulate things to prove a point. This much is true. The pendulum swings both ways in this argument.
 

ReeceSachs

Hall of Fame
I can't speak for Lew but from what I have seen, he thinks Djokovic is the best and mostly seems invested to prove Djokovic had the tougher competition over Federer. Even though the stats are interesting, this still falls in line with his strong opinions.
This.
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
2011-16 Djokovic beat 130 top10, which is more than what all other players in the Open Era, except four of them (Federer, Naral, Lendl, Connors), did during their whole career.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NFN

JackGates

Hall of Fame
2011-16 Djokovic beat 130 top10, which is more than what all other players in the Open Era did during their whole career except Federer, Nadal, Lendl and Connors.
But ATP hasn't done peer reviewed studies, so all stats mean nothing to me. It's just fun for us fans, but they don't prove anything, they weren't obtained in a scientific way.
 

JackGates

Hall of Fame
That Djokovic... he's pretty good.
Who knew right? I guess most of us never knew that till finally Lew opened our eyes. I guess a guy with 16 majors is a pretty good player, what a shock, I need to evaluate my entire belief system and my life now.
 

ollinger

G.O.A.T.
Made by an official association?
let's not be grandiose, the ATP is essentially a trade union. Prior to 1972 rankings were done by voting of tennis journalists. Probably more valid than the current system which is the quintessence of arbitrariness (does a win at a slam really tell you that player is four times the player that a 500-winner is?? I don't think so. Mark Twain nailed it about statistics.)
 
let's not be grandiose, the ATP is essentially a trade union. Prior to 1972 rankings were done by voting of tennis journalists. Probably more valid than the current system which is the quintessence of arbitrariness (does a win at a slam really tell you that player is four times the player that a 500-winner is?? I don't think so. Mark Twain nailed it about statistics.)
The gap between winning a Slam and winning a 500 should, in my opinion, be greater than four times, not less. Rankings don't measure the level a player is at - that can't be done. They measure what a player has achieved. A Slam is many times weightier an accomplishment than a 500. I would like Slams to be worth six or eight times what 500s are worth.
 

JackGates

Hall of Fame
The gap between winning a Slam and winning a 500 should, in my opinion, be greater than four times, not less. Rankings don't measure the level a player is at - that can't be done. They measure what a player has achieved. A Slam is many times weightier an accomplishment than a 500. I would like Slams to be worth six or eight times what 500s are worth.
Why? Slams favour mental toughness and stamina more, so they are biased towards those. In 500 you only need pure technical skills to win. 500 shows who the real master is. That's why Nadal to me is impressive on clay, due to his masters, not his RG titles. Because in masters Rafa doesn't have mental edge or fitness edge over Fed on clay.
 

Incognito

Legend
Consecutive years of winning at least 1 major:

Nadal - 10 years
Federer - 8 years
Sampras - 8 years

Djokovic - 6 years


Wow! way to go Fedalpras. Djokovic would have to win at least 1 major until 2025 to reach sampras and Federer’s level.:eek:
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
let's not be grandiose, the ATP is essentially a trade union. Prior to 1972 rankings were done by voting of tennis journalists. Probably more valid than the current system which is the quintessence of arbitrariness (does a win at a slam really tell you that player is four times the player that a 500-winner is?? I don't think so. Mark Twain nailed it about statistics.)
There's actually a limit in minor tournaments. Only the best 5 results at 500/250 count.
 

clout

Hall of Fame
I’m surprised Federer has never had more than 20+ top 10 wins in a season. I also thought Nadal would have more, but damn that’s crazy from djokovci
 
Top