What does this list say?

[RF-18]

So I came across this list, wich we all can agree, is the determining factor for greatness.

It was one interesting fact I acknowledged here, and that is that Djokovic, in majority of each and one criteria, is above all except Federer and Lendl.

What to make of this? Is it irrelevent? I have given one point to the one who is above in each criteria. If they are likewise, like djokovic and connors in slams, then no point to either.

12-11 vs Nadal
6-12 vs Lendl
1-21 vs federer
10-9 vs Connors
11-10 vs Sampras
13-6 vs Borg
12-7 vs Mcenroe
10-6 vs Agassi

Most GS titles
1. Roger Federer 17(career slam)
2. Pete Sampras 14
= Rafael Nadal 14(career slam)
4. Björn Borg 11
5. Jimmy Connors 8
= Ivan Lendl 8
= Andre Agassi 8(career slam)
= Novak Djokovic 8
9. John McEnroe 7
= Mats Wilander 7
11. Stefan Edberg 6
= Boris Becker 6

GS finals
1. Roger Federer 25*
2. Rafael Nadal 20*
3. Ivan Lendl 19
4. Pete Sampras 18
5. Björn Borg 16
6. Jimmy Connors 15
= Andre Agassi 15
=8. Novak Djokovic 15
9. John McEnroe 11
= Mats Wilander 11
= Stefan Edberg 11


Consecutive GS finals
1. Roger Federer 10*
2. Roger Federer 8
3. Rafael Nadal 5*
4. Andre Agassi 4
= Rod Laver 4
= Novak Djokovic 4*
7. Jimmy Connors 3
= Andy Murray 3*
= Björn Borg 3
= Björn Borg 3
= Björn Borg 3
= Ivan Lendl 3
= John McEnroe 3
= Ivan Lendl 3
= Ivan Lendl 3
= Mats Wilander 3
= Jim Courier 3
= Jim Courier 3
= Pete Sampras 3
= Rafael Nadal 3*


GS semi-finals
1. Roger Federer 36*
2. Jimmy Connors 31
3. Ivan Lendl 28
4. Andre Agassi 26
5. Novak Djokovic 25
6. Pete Sampras 23
7. Rafael Nadal 23*
8. John McEnroe 19
= Stefan Edberg 19
9. Boris Becker 18
10. Björn Borg 17


Consecutive GS semi-finals
1. Roger Federer 23
2. Novak Djokovic 14
3. Ivan Lendl 10
4. Ivan Lendl 6
= Nadal 6
6. Novak Djokovic 5
= Andy Murray 5
= Boris Becker 5
9. Roger Federer 4
= Rod Laver 4
= Tony Roche 4
= John McEnroe 4
= Andre Agassi 4
= Jim Courer 4
= Nadal 4


GS quarter-finals
1. Roger Federer 43*
2. Jimmy Connors 41
3. Agassi 36
4. Ivan Lendl 34
5. Pete Sampras 29
= Novak Djokovic 31*
7. Rafael Nadal 28*
8. John McEnroe 26
= Stefan Edberg 26
9. Boris Becker 23
10. Björn Borg 21

Consecutive GS quarter-finals
1. Roger Federer 36
2. Novak Djokovic 23*
3. Ivan Lendl 14
= Andy Murray 14
5. Rafael Nadal 11
6. Pete Sampras 10
7. Ivan Lendl 7
= Mats Wilander 7
9. Andre Agassi 6
= Rafael Nadal 6

All Four Slams Per Year
Rod Laver 1969

Three Slams Per Year
Jimmy Connors 1974
Mats Wilander 1988
Roger Federer 2004
Roger Federer 2006
Roger Federer 2007
Rafael Nadal 2010
Novak Djokovic 2011


All Four Finals Per Year
Roger Federer 2006
Roger Federer 2007
Roger Federer 2009
Rod Laver 1969

All Four Semi-finals Per Year
Rod Laver 1969
Ivan Lendl 1987
Roger Federer 2005
Roger Federer 2006
Roger Federer 2007
Roger Federer 2008
Roger Federer 2009
Rafael Nadal 2008
Novak Djokovic 2011
Novak Djokovic 2012
Novak Djokovic 2013
Andy Murray 2011

Most consecutive matches won at one Grand Slam event:
1. Björn Borg (Wimbledon), 41
2. Roger Federer (Wimbledon), 40(41 if count the walk-over in 2007)
= Roger Federer (US Open), 40
4. Rafael Nadal (French Open), 35
5. Pete Sampras (Wimbledon), 31


Most Grand Slam match wins
1. Roger Federer 281*
2. Jimmy Connors 233
3. Andre Agassi 224
4. Ivan Lendl 222
5. Pete Sampras 204

Other Stuff:

Year-End Championships
1. Roger Federer 6
2. Ivan Lendl 5
= Pete Sampras 5
4. Novak Djokovic 4
5. Ilie Nastase 3
= John McEnroe 3
= Boris Becker 3


Most Year-End Championship finals
1. Federer 9*
= Ivan Lendl 9
3. Boris Becker 6
= Pete Sampras 6
5. Ilie Nastase 4
= Bjorn Borg 4
= John McEnroe 4
= Andre Agassi 4
= Novak Djokovic 4
= Lleyton Hewitt 3

Most Weeks at #1
1. Roger Federer 302
2. Pete Sampras 286
3. Ivan Lendl 270
4. Jimmy Connors 268
5. John McEnroe 170
6. Rafael Nadal 141
7. Novak Djokovic 135
8. Björn Borg 109
9. Andre Agassi 101
10. Lleyton Hewitt 80


Consecutive Weeks at #1
1. Roger Federer (1) 237
2. Jimmy Connors (1) 160
3. Ivan Lendl (1) 157
4. Pete Sampras (1) 102
5. Jimmy Connors (2) 84
6. Pete Sampras (2) 82
7. Ivan Lendl (2) 80
8. Lleyton Hewitt (1) 75
9. John McEnroe (1) 58
10. Rafael Nadal (1) 56

Year End #1
1. Sampras 6
2. Federer 5
= Connors 5
4. McEnroe 4
= Lendl 4
6. Nadal 3
= Novak Djokovic 3

Highest Season Winning Percentage
1. John McEnroe (1984) .965 82–3
2. Jimmy Connors (1974) .959 93–4
3. Roger Federer (2005) .953 81–4
4. Roger Federer (2006) .948 92–5
5. Björn Borg (1979) .933 84–6
6. Roger Federer (2004) .925 74–6
= Ivan Lendl (1986) .925 74–6
8. Ivan Lendl (1985) .923 84–7
9. Ivan Lendl (1982) .922 106–9
10. Björn Borg (1980) .921 70–6
= Novak Djokovic (2011) 0.921 70-6
12. Ivan Lendl (1989) .919 79-7
13. Rafael Nadal (2013) .915 75-7
14. Ivan Lendl (1987) .914 74-7

Most ATP Titles
1. Jimmy Connors 109
2. Ivan Lendl 94
3. Roger Federer 83
4. John McEnroe 77
5. Björn Borg 64
= Pete Sampras 64
= Rafael Nadal 64
8. Guillermo Vilas 62
9. Andre Agassi 60
10. Boris Becker 49

Most match wins versus top 10
1. Federer 183*
2. Lendl 143
3. Djokovic 130*
4. Nadal 129*
5. Sampras 124
6. Connors 121
7. Becker 113
8. Agassi 107
9. McEnroe 105
10. Edberg 98



Most Master Series or equivalent win
1. Rafael Nadal 27
2. Roger Federer 23
3. Ivan Lendl 22
4. Novak Djokovic 20
5. John McEnroe 19
6. Andre Agassi 17
= Jimmny Connors 17
8. Bjorn Borg 15
9. Boris Becker 13
10. Pete Sampras 11

Consecutive Match Win Streak
1. Björn Borg 49 1978
2. Björn Borg 48 1979–80
3. Guillermo Vilas 46 1977
4. Ivan Lendl 44 1981–82
5. Novak Djokovic 43 2010–11
6. John McEnroe 42 1984
7. Roger Federer 41 2006–07
8. Thomas Muster 35 1995
= Roger Federer 35 2005
10.Jimmy Connors 33 1974

 

[Mustard]

Consecutive Match Win Streak
1. Björn Borg 49 1978
2. Björn Borg 48 1979–80
3. Guillermo Vilas 46 1977
4. Ivan Lendl 44 1981–82
5. Novak Djokovic 43 2010–11
6. John McEnroe 42 1984
7. Roger Federer 41 2006–07
8. Thomas Muster 35 1995
= Roger Federer 35 2005
10.Jimmy Connors 33 1974[/I]

TMF really needs to change this. Borg cannot have such winning streaks when there's walkover losses amongst them. Walkover losses end any consecutive winning streaks, even though they don't count on win-loss records nor head-to-heads.

 

[RF-18]

TMF really needs to change this. Borg cannot have such winning streaks when there's walkover losses amongst them. Walkover losses end any consecutive winning streaks, even though they don't count on win-loss records nor head-to-heads.

Is it like that? but a walk-over still counts as a clean win?

 

[Mustard]

Is it like that? but a walk-over still counts as a clean win?

Walkovers don't count on win-loss records nor head-to-head records. But if a player is on a consecutive match winning streak of some kind, a walkover loss ends the streak. So, if Nadal had pulled out of the 2007 Monte Carlo final against Federer before the match started, Nadal's consecutive match winning streak on clay would have ended at 66 matches.

 

[Inanimate_object]

This is the most random arbitrary points system I have seen yet.

 

[RF-18]

This is the most random arbitrary points system I have seen yet.

I think it's relevant. Tells us who has been most consistent over all relevant AT-records.

 

[vanioMan]

I think it's relevant. Tells us who has been most consistent over all relevant AT-records.

Consistency is different than greatness.

Slam QFs and SFs mean nothing. Slam wins do. Unless, of course, your favourite is far behind in those, in which case one tries to skew the facts and "clutch at straws" like consecutive QFs, SFs and etc.

 

[Inanimate_object]

I think it's relevant. Tells us who has been most consistent over all relevant AT-records.

Doesn't say anything at all. You're comparing records broken, and record placements as if breaking records is some zero-sum competition. Moreover, most of your records are double dipping redundant, and otherwise incomparable to each other! Why would you afford one point for "Most GS Finals" and the same point for "Most Match wins versus top 10" ?

This is just another play on numbers that has no legitimacy at all! Come on, this is silly.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Consistency is different than greatness.

Slam QFs and SFs mean nothing. Slam wins do. Unless, of course, your favourite is far behind in those, in which case one tries to skew the facts and "clutch at straws" like consecutive QFs, SFs and etc.

Consistency is different but it's also very important and something many people, myself included, value a lot. It sounds like you're one of the "if you don't win a Slam you may as well lose in the 1st round" posters on here vanioMan. :|

 

[The Green Mile]

Consistency is different than greatness.

Slam QFs and SFs mean nothing. Slam wins do. Unless, of course, your favourite is far behind in those, in which case one tries to skew the facts and "clutch at straws" like consecutive QFs, SFs and etc.

I like to think that consistency is a measurement of greatness.

 

[vanioMan]

Consistency is different but it's also very important and something many people value a lot. It sounds like you're one of the "if you don't win a Slam you may as well lose in the 1st round" posters on here vanioMan. :|

I'm one of the people who look at wins/titles first. You cannot put the same level of importance on consecutive Slam QFs and number of GS won. It's retarted.

I like to think that consistency is a measurement of greatness.

To an extect, yes. But there is winning a Slam for 10 straight years consistency and reaching XX straight SFs consistency.

 

[Djokovic2011]

I'm one of the people who look at wins/titles first. You cannot put the same level of importance on consecutive Slam QFs and number of GS won. It's retarted.



To an extect, yes. But there is winning a Slam for 10 straight years consistency and reaching XX straight SFs consistency.

Both types of consistency are just as important as the other.

 

[RF-18]

Doesn't say anything at all. You're comparing records broken, and record placements as if breaking records is some zero-sum competition. Moreover, most of your records are double dipping redundant, and otherwise incomparable to each other! Why would you afford one point for "Most GS Finals" and the same point for "Most Match wins versus top 10" ?

This is just another play on numbers that has no legitimacy at all! Come on, this is silly.

This is not about what is valued more and I'm not saying they are all equal.

 

[Inanimate_object]

This is not about what is valued more and I'm not saying they are all equal.

Yes you are. That's why being higher in any criteria awards the same points. This is nonsense. Numerically, you are assuming, all these criteria have the same value, or else what is the point of tallying numbers?

 

[vanioMan]

Both types of consistency are just as important as the other.

That's like saying "I make 30 grand a year, it's about the same as making 40 grand a year".

Winning > QF/SF etc.
Winner's trophy > runner up > everything else.

 

[Djokovic2011]

That's like saying "I make 30 grand a year, it's about the same as making 40 grand a year".

Winning > QF/SF etc.
Winner's trophy > runner up > everything else.

If you value winning and consistency, compiling a list such as the one in this thread makes perfect sense.

 

[RF-18]

Yes you are. That's why being higher in any criteria awards the same points. This is nonsense. Numerically, you are assuming, all these criteria have the same value, or else what is the point of tallying numbers?

He is above most of the top, top ATGs in the list. He is 27 years old only.

Its an indication of that he is on the same lvl as them already and there is plenty more to come.

I thought the list was interesting, and worth posting to show already the greatness of Novak wich many hasn't understood quite yet.

 

[Sysyphus]

Consistency is different than greatness.

Slam QFs and SFs mean nothing. Slam wins do. Unless, of course, your favourite is far behind in those, in which case one tries to skew the facts and "clutch at straws" like consecutive QFs, SFs and etc.

Depends on what you value, does it nawt? That's a subjective judgement.

Of course, most put primacy on slam wins, but I, for one, still rank impressive semi-final streaks very highly as it says something about a particular kind of versatility and consistency that isn't captured in other forms of streaks. It seems quite a few others do to, but whether one is for or against weighing such streaks a fair bit is largely dependent on bias.

 

[RF-18]

Consistency is different than greatness.

Slam QFs and SFs mean nothing. Slam wins do. Unless, of course, your favourite is far behind in those, in which case one tries to skew the facts and "clutch at straws" like consecutive QFs, SFs and etc.

They mean alot more than you think. You don't understand the achievement, wich is a pity.

 

[heninfan99]

this list confirms that Lendl is better than Mac.

 

[RF-18]

this list confirms that Lendl is better than Mac.

Greater you mean?

But yes. I dont know who has said mac is grwgreater than lendl though. Lendl is very underrated in ATGs discussion. He is better than 8 slams, alot better. Wich we see here.

 

[vanioMan]

He is above most of the top, top ATGs in the list. He is 27 years old only.

Its an indication of that he is on the same lvl as them already and there is plenty more to come.

I thought the list was interesting, and worth posting to show already the greatness of Novak wich many hasn't understood quite yet.

Most of the people have understood Novak's greatness long ago. It's just guys like you who obsess over it and try to shove it down in the posters' throat at least once a day.

Sensible posters know exactly where Novak stand - at Tier 2. No need to try making him greater than he is or not as great as he is.

They mean alot more than you think. You don't understand the achievement, wich is a pity.

They mean a lot less than actual wins than you think.

 

[Sysyphus]

Most of the people have understood Novak's greatness long ago. It's just guys like you who obsess over it and try to shove it down in the posters' throat at least once a day.

Sensible posters know exactly where Novak stand - at Tier 2. No need to try making him greater than he is or not as great as he is.



They mean a lot less than actual wins than you think.

Where did you get this information about the delimitation of tiers?

 

[RF-18]

Most of the people have understood Novak's greatness long ago. It's just guys like you who obsess over it and try to shove it down in the posters' throat at least once a day.

Sensible posters know exactly where Novak stand - at Tier 2. No need to try making him greater than he is or not as great as he is.

They mean a lot less than actual wins than you think.

I don't expect more from you.

You are a biased supporter who sees everything in the wrong way. I post a list, that hasn't disrespected anyone and it is about an active player you aren't a fan of.

If it was someone else who posted this, not a fan of novak, you would have less of a problem. You just have a problem cause I posted it.

And Im a long time fan of fed. Me praising novak like this, and not just praising fed, but also giving some space to other guys than fed, should be respected. You are so stuffed in nadal you can't see past it and starts insulting others cause it isn't always in nadals favour. You are a funny guy.

 

[vanioMan]

I don't expect more from you.

You are a biased supporter who sees everything in the wrong way. I post a list, that hasn't disrespected anyone and it is about an active player you aren't a fan of.

If it was someone else who posted this, not a fan of novak, you wouldn't have a problem. You just have a problem cause I posted it.

And Im a long time fan of fed. Me praising novak like this, and not just praising fed, but also giving some space to other guys than fed, should be respected. You are so stuffed in nadal you can't see past it and starts insulting others cause it isn't always in nadals favour. You are a funny guy.

Once again, there is never a mention about Nadal in my posts. There is, however, in yours.

So who is stuffed in Nadal?

 

[RF-18]

My condolences to you.

Get well soon.

And thats that. You took your seat finally!

 

[Djokovic2011]

And thats that. You took your seat finally!

MN will be here soon telling you to take several. :wink:

 

[vanioMan]

MN will be here soon telling you to take several. :wink:

I doubt it.

 

[ledwix]

Consistency is different than greatness.

Slam QFs and SFs mean nothing. Slam wins do. Unless, of course, your favourite is far behind in those, in which case one tries to skew the facts and "clutch at straws" like consecutive QFs, SFs and etc.

Consistency factors into the top ranking enough that it is another measure of greatness, just not the only one. It also indicates the likelihood of many future opportunities.

To say that outside of a win, nothing matters, is to say that the #1 ranking means nothing to players or to the aura that they carry. And that is a lol statement!

 

[Russeljones]

One thing's for sure. If a thread mentions greatness, it will float here.

 

[TMF]

Consecutive Match Win Streak
1. Björn Borg 49 1978
2. Björn Borg 48 1979–80
3. Guillermo Vilas 46 1977
4. Ivan Lendl 44 1981–82
5. Novak Djokovic 43 2010–11
6. John McEnroe 42 1984
7. Roger Federer 41 2006–07
8. Thomas Muster 35 1995
= Roger Federer 35 2005
10.Jimmy Connors 33 1974

TMF really needs to change this. Borg cannot have such winning streaks when there's walkover losses amongst them. Walkover losses end any consecutive winning streaks, even though they don't count on win-loss records nor head-to-heads.

If the streak in 1978 stop at the walker, then removing his 14 wins at the Las Vegas Indoor, Davis Cup or the Milan WCT would yield at 35 instead of 49.

In 1979-80, his streak didn't include 7 wins in Davis Cup, Swiss Indoors, so he end up with 41 instead of 48. So which is it? Do we include them or not?


Going by what I've stated, it has Vilas as the record holder at 46 consecutive wins.

Consecutive Match Win Streak
1. Guillermo Vilas 46 1977
2. Ivan Lendl 44 1981–82
3. Novak Djokovic 43 2010–11
4. John McEnroe 42 1984
5. Roger Federer 41 2006–07
= Björn Borg 41 1979–80
7. Björn Borg 35 1978
= Thomas Muster 35 1995
= Roger Federer 35 2005
10.Jimmy Connors 33 1974

 

[SpinToWin]

Considering that this topic has been discussed to death and that people (of opposing fanbases) have never come to an agreement, especially not on what makes a player great, the first sentence of the thread already is wrong.

So I came across this list, wich we all can agree, is the determining factor for greatness.

Again, greatness is not an unambiguous term and people will twist its definition to suit their preferences, so it is impossible to come to a unanimous answer.

 

[Mustard]

If the streak in 1978 stop at the walker, then removing his 14 wins at the Las Vegas Indoor, Davis Cup or the Milan WCT would yield at 35 instead of 49.

In 1979-80, his streak didn't include 7 wins in Davis Cup, Swiss Indoors, so he end up with 41 instead of 48. So which is it? Do we include them or not?


Going by what I've stated, it has Vilas as the record holder at 46 consecutive wins.

Consecutive Match Win Streak
1. Guillermo Vilas 46 1977
2. Ivan Lendl 44 1981–82
3. Novak Djokovic 43 2010–11
4. John McEnroe 42 1984
5. Roger Federer 41 2006–07
= Björn Borg 41 1979–80
7. Björn Borg 35 1978
= Thomas Muster 35 1995
= Roger Federer 35 2005
10.Jimmy Connors 33 1974

That should be it. Although, it's hard to know with the ATP's records of old tournaments, like Connors in 1974, for example. Even Vilas in 1977 has some doubts, with rumours of tournaments missing when Vilas was winning time after time in the second half of the year.

 

[Megafanoftennis100]

It says that Djokovic is overrated and will never be as great as Jannik Sinner

 

[xFedal]

NOLEGOAT DECLINED A LOT NOW.