What exactly was the rationale behind ITF declaring Nole as world champion for 2013?

[The Green Mile]

No this is not a half reference to a poster with elegant threads .

What makes you think peak Safin owns peak Federer?

If we have a faster car, doesn't that car also have higher peak speed? It doesn't make sense to me, why slower car would have higher top speed.

I mean if Fed average owns Safin average, why wouldn't peak Fed own peak Safin too?

Anyway, I stand by my logic. A car who wins most races also has higher peak speed.

I was kidding ; I don't even think that was Fed at his peak. Anyways, I don't like to get into who's peak performance is greater arguments, sorry!

 

[jg153040]

2008 Federer on grass>>>>>2014 Federer on grass. Berdych is the one that took Federer out in 2010, so you can't fault Nadal there, especially when he may have beaten Roger again.

And Lol@ TMF's gif. Very appropriate response to a hypocritical troll. Twisting facts? :lol:! As rich as a slice of Pineapple Upside Down Cheesecake from Chico.

That's why I said maybe on grass. I didn't say 100%. Maybe means, I'm open for discussions.

I know Rafa has 2 more W finals than Nole, but he also lost 3 times in a row to lesser guys and was always in trouble early weeks on grass.

Right now, they are about even in my book. But, I suspect Nole will do more on grass.

 

[Chico]

Can you honestly say that Djokovic would not swap his results with Nadal?

Of course not. Why would he? Being injured and missing half of the season, getting embarrassing loss at Wimbledon of all places, undeserving win at RG with help from Pascal Maria, and most importantly getting much less prize money. No tennis pro would do that, not just Novak.

 

[jg153040]

I was kidding ; I don't even think that was Fed at his peak. Anyways, I don't like to get into who's peak performance is greater arguments, sorry!

Yeah, I thought you were kidding, but a lot of people are actually serious about peak owning peak.

I also think peak vs peak is stupid argument. Because it doesn't make sense.

If someone had greater peak, that means he would also have to have greater average level. So, if that were the case, his results would show.

It's crazy. Slower car has higher top speed?

This is like the talent argument. Safin has more talent, he just doesn't use it.
I have a faster car, I just never drive at full speed in races .

And that's why those arguments are silly.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Of course not. Why would he? Being injured and missing half of the season, getting embarrassing loss at Wimbledon of all places, undeserving win at RG with help from Pascal Maria, and most importantly getting much less prize money. No tennis pro would do that, not just Novak.

What? :-?

Nadal - $70,704,129
Djokovic - $65,419,345

Also;

YTD prize money:
Djokovic - $7,270,675
Nadal - $6,066,446

Considering Nadal hasn't played a match since Wimbledon and Djokovic has been playing consistently, I'd say the difference isn't that much, even for the year.

 

[Chico]

What? :-?

Nadal - $70,704,129
Djokovic - $65,419,345

Also;

YTD prize money:
Djokovic - $7,270,675
Nadal - $6,066,446

Considering Nadal hasn't played a match since Wimbledon and Djokovic has been playing consistently, I'd say the difference isn't that much, even for the year.

Not talking about the whole career.
I was talking about 2013, but difference in 2014 is telling enough.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Of course not. Why would he? Being injured and missing half of the season, getting embarrassing loss at Wimbledon of all places, undeserving win at RG with help from Pascal Maria, and most importantly getting much less prize money. No tennis pro would do that, not just Novak.

To say this is biased would be an understatement. You've truly out-done yourself. :lol:

 

[jg153040]

To say this is biased would be an understatement. You've truly out-done yourself. :lol:

Let's forget about others. You seem pretty objective most of the time. Even you have to admit, that 2013 was pretty damn close.

Only a few points decided it really. If Nole won fifth set at RG, it would be 2 vs 1 majors and Nole would have year end nr.1.

So, it's not like Rafa was light years ahead. And skipping AO and losing 1st round at W is pretty big deal. That is doing nothing at half the majors. So, they were pretty close, Rafa edged Nole by a mouse tail.

 

[Feather]

Of course not. Why would he? Being injured and missing half of the season, getting embarrassing loss at Wimbledon of all places, undeserving win at RG with help from Pascal Maria, and most importantly getting much less prize money. No tennis pro would do that, not just Novak.

:shock:

pure nonsense

 

[MichaelNadal]

Let's forget about others. You seem pretty objective most of the time. Even you have to admit, that 2013 was pretty damn close.

Only a few points decided it really. If Nole won fifth set at RG, it would be 2 vs 1 majors and Nole would have year end nr.1.

So, it's not like Rafa was light years ahead. And skipping AO and losing 1st round at W is pretty big deal. That is doing nothing at half the majors. So, they were pretty close, Rafa edged Nole by a mouse tail.

Of course it was close, but that has nothing to do with Djokovic preferring his year over Nadal's, which almost no one (but Chico) would.

:shock:

pure nonsense

I know, at this point, I don't even think he's serious.

 

[jg153040]

Of course it was close, but that has nothing to do with Djokovic preferring his year over Nadal's, which almost no one (but Chico) would.



I know, at this point, I don't even think he's serious.

I don't know, for Nadal trading with Nole is pretty good deal.

It gives Rafa WTF title + 2 career slams.

13 majors + 2 career slams + WTF title
vs
14 majors + 1 career slam + no WTF title.

I mean, it's not that obvious.

 

[MichaelNadal]

I don't know, for Nadal trading with Nole is pretty good deal.

It gives Rafa WTF title + 2 career slams.

13 majors + 2 career slams + WTF title
vs
14 majors + 1 career slam + no WTF title.

I mean, it's not that obvious.

Sure it is. He doesn't need to win the AO twice, any more than Federer needs to win the FO twice, any more than Djokovic needs to win the FO more than once. Nadal would not trade his year, neither would almost anyone. Nadal being crap indoors doesn't really change that fact because the WTF isn't a slam. (and I value the WTF). I'd love to see Nadal finally win the thing, but I'm not about to trade it for a US Open title.

 

[Chico]

I don't know, for Nadal trading with Nole is pretty good deal.

It gives Rafa WTF title + 2 career slams.

13 majors + 2 career slams + WTF title
vs
14 majors + 1 career slam + no WTF title.

I mean, it's not that obvious.

Of course. Only the most biased person would claim otherwise.

I could also say that it is obvious that Nadal would trade Novak in a heartbeat.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Of course. Only the most biased person would claim otherwise.

I could also say that it is obvious that Nadal would trade Novak in a heartbeat.

Of course, I'm sure he'd rather have 13 slams right now, with either still 1 US Open title, or losing his FO crown and Novak having won the FO :lol: you may as well be naked you're so exposed. And seriously, you should stop using the word bias. You clearly don't know what it means. Nadal winning the US Open is what made his year as impressive as it was and why it got held in the esteem it did. Had he lost and won the WTF, it would have made me happy (because he sorely needs one) let's admit it, but his year would NOT be seen as impressive as it was.

 

[Chico]

Also have to add that is it not true what some here clam that it is only me who think Novak had better 2013 than Nadal. Officials and experts from ITF clearly 100% agree with me.

So I really can't understand why some here think that Nadal had better 2013 and accuse me of being biased, when ITF agrees with me.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Also have to add that is it not true what some here clam that it is only me who think Novak had better 2013 than Nadal. Officials and experts from ITF clearly 100% agree with me.

So I really can't understand why some here think that Nadal had better 2013 and accuse me of being biased, when ITF agrees with me.

http://www.**************.org/Editor/Img/Rafael-Nadal-img15827_668.jpg


I wonder what Novak was doing at this moment. Eating Nachos? :lol: Have several seats.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

He was probably planning on how he would mutilate Nadal in in the final or something...

 

[MichaelNadal]

He was probably planning on how he would mutilate Nadal in in the final or something...

Then he did a great job, credit where it's due one thing he didn't do, was end 2013 year #1, or win more than 1 slam.

 

[jg153040]

Also have to add that is it not true what some here clam that it is only me who think Novak had better 2013 than Nadal. Officials and experts from ITF clearly 100% agree with me.

So I really can't understand why some here think that Nadal had better 2013 and accuse me of being biased, when ITF agrees with me.

I think you are usually pretty crazy, but you do have a point here, lol.

It's not your fault, ITF started this. And some people can't accept that some experts can't ignore that Rafa did nothing in half the majors.

But some of your other points are completely nutty.

 

[La_Para]

What? :-?

Nadal - $70,704,129
Djokovic - $65,419,345

Also;

YTD prize money:
Djokovic - $7,270,675
Nadal - $6,066,446

Considering Nadal hasn't played a match since Wimbledon and Djokovic has been playing consistently, I'd say the difference isn't that much, even for the year.

The bolded always amazes me. This is prize money we're talking about isn't it?
Can somebody explain to me how Djokovic has less slams, masters,etc. than Nadal but has nearly the same amount of prize money?

If it was endorsements I could understand, but I'd expect Nadal to have far more prize money than Djokovic, considering that he's won far more. Or is it possible they award more prize money now then they used to?

 

[The Green Mile]

The bolded always amazes me. This is prize money we're talking about isn't it?
Can somebody explain to me how Djokovic has less slams, masters,etc. than Nadal but has nearly the same amount of prize money?

If it was endorsements I could understand, but I'd expect Nadal to have far more prize money than Djokovic, considering that he's won far more. Or is it possible they award more prize money now then they used to?

Your last sentence is true. Fed would be well into the 100s of millions if he got paid the same as now, 10 years ago...

 

[jg153040]

The bolded always amazes me. This is prize money we're talking about isn't it?
Can somebody explain to me how Djokovic has less slams, masters,etc. than Nadal but has nearly the same amount of prize money?

If it was endorsements I could understand, but I'd expect Nadal to have far more prize money than Djokovic, considering that he's won far more. Or is it possible they award more prize money now then they used to?

Because you get prize money for going deep too. Yes, Rafa won more big matches last years, but Nole was way more consistent last years than Rafa.

Nole didn't have early slam losses or skipping slams. He also did better at masters and WTF.

 

[The Green Mile]

^^Yeah, this too...

 

[DRII]

Yeah, I thought you were kidding, but a lot of people are actually serious about peak owning peak.

I also think peak vs peak is stupid argument. Because it doesn't make sense.

If someone had greater peak, that means he would also have to have greater average level. So, if that were the case, his results would show.

It's crazy. Slower car has higher top speed?

This is like the talent argument. Safin has more talent, he just doesn't use it.
I have a faster car, I just never drive at full speed in races .

And that's why those arguments are silly.

such naive arguments from you

guess you never heard of idioms/fables such as the tortoise and the hare or 'the race is not given to the swift'.

even if you have heard of them, i doubt you would properly decipher their meanings.

time to grow up kid...

 

[jg153040]

such naive arguments from you

guess you never heard of idioms/fables such as the tortoise and the hare or 'the race is not given to the swift'.

even if you have heard of them, i doubt you would properly decipher their meanings.

time to grow up kid...

guess you never heard of sarcasm.

 

[booson]

The bolded always amazes me. This is prize money we're talking about isn't it?
Can somebody explain to me how Djokovic has less slams, masters,etc. than Nadal but has nearly the same amount of prize money?

If it was endorsements I could understand, but I'd expect Nadal to have far more prize money than Djokovic, considering that he's won far more. Or is it possible they award more prize money now then they used to?

Endorsements are not considered in the prize money. The number would be significantly bigger with that included. The similar prize money, despite less titles for Djokovic, means something simple. He has been more consistent in bigger tournaments.

 

[SpicyCurry1990]

The great battle of the two lists....which one will prevail...

Lets think about that, the one that considers all of tennis history in a debate about the greatest of ALL time or the one that decides to conveniently ignore every player ranked above Federer in every category?

Open era prevail over pre-open.
:wink:

Lol except my list is OVER ALL not just pre-open era. It considers ALL ERAS when considering the greatest of ALL TIME . Your list considers just one era and then you extrapolate from that its reasonable to categorize Federer as the Greatest of ALL TIME when none of his records hold up in an ALL TIME list.

But my previous wasn't directing at Nadal or Sampras fans, but to a Nole fan who's biased against Federer.

LMAO is this a joke?

I just posted a list from an article titled "OVER ALL TENNIS RECORDS" which shows Federer is not #1 in any of the categories that you tout him to be in.

Then you post a list that like I said ignores 1/2 of Tennis history in order to prop up Federer as the GOAT.

Lets consider which one is the biased source:lol:

Only on clay.

Non clay Nole leads in h2h and slam count.

So, it wouldn't be wrong to say, peak Nole owns peak Rafa on HC and indoor.

Maybe even on grass. I mean Nole owned Rafa at W final. Also Nole's 2 wins are way more impressive. Beating Fed+Rafa vs beating Fed+Berdych.

Some reasonable objectivity from the Fed fanbase, refreshing to see.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Except actually comparing the players (not the numbers) as a whole is the best idea when using numbers from the weak, pre open era time period which was filled with 40-year-old men. Clearly a lack of diversity in age, residence and mobility.

 

[Goosehead]

^^it was not filled up with 40yr old men. :shock:

 

[conway]

I don't know, for Nadal trading with Nole is pretty good deal.

It gives Rafa WTF title + 2 career slams.

13 majors + 2 career slams + WTF title
vs
14 majors + 1 career slam + no WTF title.

I mean, it's not that obvious.

He wouldn't have 2 career slams, as he now would have only 1 U.S Open title. Had Nadal's 2nd slam been Wimbledon instead of the U.S Open, and thus your proposed scenario been true I might consider your suggestion, but that isn't the case.

As it is a WTF title is not nearly important enough for Nadal to want to give up a 3rd multi slam year, a 3rd clear #1 year, and trade a 2nd U.S Open for a 2nd least prestigious Australian Open (not to mention the other minor points like taking fewer masters, losing 1 of his few 10+ tournament title years).

By contrast Djokovic would trade his year for Nadal's in a heartbeat. The elusive RG title, rather than going almost 3 years between non Australian Open titles having a 2nd year winning multiple non Australian Open titles with only a year break in between, a 3rd straight year as the #1 rather than dropping back to #2 after two years on top, changing his embarrassing U.S Open final record in a big way, etc...

 

[clayqueen]

Who knows. They picked Myskina as ITF player of the year once too. They are mostly a clown award, so I doubt any logic is involved. Kind of like Sports Illustrated or ESPY awards.

That's it. Makes sense.

 

[Federer302]

Djokovic won 24 Grand Slam Matches
Nadal won 14

10 is quite a big difference

Maybe that was the reason. (Not that I agree)

 

[coloskier]

ITF subtracts 10 points for every butt pick.

 

[bullfan]

Of course. Only the most biased person would claim otherwise.

I could also say that it is obvious that Nadal would trade Novak in a heartbeat.

What a funny post!

Chico, that's simply hysterical!

 

[TennisEnvy]

The truth is you're comparing apples and oranges here. It's not like both of them played the same tour that year. Djokovic played the entire year and had excellent results WHILE playing a full calendar year. Nadal took a vacation. Part of the ATP is the grind. Nadal did not participate in this grind. He would not have won 2 slams that year had he done so, no he took a vacation. Case close, Djokovic was the true player of the YEAR, because he played the ENTIRE YEAR. Nadal did not.

 

[bullfan]

The truth is you're comparing apples and oranges here. It's not like both of them played the same tour that year. Djokovic played the entire year and had excellent results WHILE playing a full calendar year. Nadal took a vacation. Part of the ATP is the grind. Nadal did not participate in this grind. He would not have won 2 slams that year had he done so, no he took a vacation. Case close, Djokovic was the true player of the YEAR, because he played the ENTIRE YEAR. Nadal did not.

2013

Nadal. 75-7
Noval. 74-9.

Sorry, That doesn't wash.... But, nice try.....

Nadal compressed all but 1 match into much less of the year, hence he played with more intensity and compact of a schedule.

 

[TennisEnvy]

2013

Nadal. 75-7
Noval. 74-9.

Sorry, That doesn't wash.... But, nice try.....

Nadal compressed all but 1 match into much less of the year, hence he played with more intensity and compact of a schedule.

The most important events in tennis are slams.
2013 Slam match wins:
Nadal 14
Djokovic 24

Washes quite well I'd say

 

[Djokovic2011]

The truth is you're comparing apples and oranges here. It's not like both of them played the same tour that year. Djokovic played the entire year and had excellent results WHILE playing a full calendar year. Nadal took a vacation. Part of the ATP is the grind. Nadal did not participate in this grind. He would not have won 2 slams that year had he done so, no he took a vacation. Case close, Djokovic was the true player of the YEAR, because he played the ENTIRE YEAR. Nadal did not.

I have to say there's a lot in this post I agree with.

 

[bullfan]

The most important events in tennis are slams.
2013 Slam match wins:
Nadal 14
Djokovic 24

Washes quite well I'd say

2 Grand Slams wins trumps 1 Grand Slam win....

Ps I notice you changed the argument because your original post didn't hold water.

 

[Djokovic2011]

2 Grand Slams wins trumps 1 Grand Slam win....

Ps I notice you changed the argument because your original post didn't hold water.

SLAMS.AREN'T.EVERYTHING!!! :roll:

 

[bullfan]

SLAMS.AREN'T.EVERYTHING!!! :roll:

I know. Yet Nadal won in that department as well..... That was mentioned by the person, who 5 minutes before said otherwise, and changed tactics....

You are eye rolling the wrong person...

 

[Magnetite]

Sure. Give Djokovic an award, that's fine. He's a great player and had a good year. Nadal was obviously the best player in 2013, but why not give Djokovic the runner up prize?

 

[TennisEnvy]

2 Grand Slams wins trumps 1 Grand Slam win....

Ps I notice you changed the argument because your original post didn't hold water.

Normally yes 2 slams > 1, but not when you skip a part of the season whilst everyone else is grinding away and playing through injuries. It's actually that, which does not hold water --> Nadal being granted player of the year when he clearly did not play for the whole year. Contradiction.

Ummm, I didn't change anything. I was talking about slams of course. After all slams are most important events, ITF is the organization body of slams and ITF agrees with me sonny. Sorry to burst your bubble.

 

[Djokovic2011]

I know. Yet Nadal won in that department as well..... That was mentioned by the person, who 5 minutes before said otherwise, and changed tactics....

You are eye rolling the wrong person...

If the ITF gives the award for overall consistency then how on earth can you dispute that Nole wasn't worthy of it?

 

[bullfan]

Normally yes 2 slams > 1, but not when you skip a part of the season whilst everyone else is grinding away and playing through injuries. It's actually that, which does not hold water --> Nadal being granted player of the year when he clearly did not play for the whole year. Contradiction.

Ummm, I didn't change anything. I was talking about slams of course. After all slams are most important events, ITF is the organization body of slams and ITF agrees with me sonny. Sorry to burst your bubble.

No, you mentioned the year, and not it's all about Grand Slams. And if it is, it's about who wins the most.

The ITF had a different criteria, but Nadal was the player of the year.

 

[bullfan]

If the ITF gives the award for overall consistency then how on earth can you dispute that Nole wasn't worthy of it?

The ITF award is what it is, but that doesn't make Novak player of the year.

Everyone knows, and Novak has acknowledged that Nadal had the best 2013. Even Novak disagreed with ITF over who was player of the year.

 

[Djokovic2011]

The ITF award is what it is, but that doesn't make Novak player of the year.

Everyone knows, and Novak has acknowledged that Nadal had the best 2013. Even Novak disagreed with ITF over who was player of the year.

I agree that Nadal had the better year overall but if we're talking about consistency in the Slams then Djokovic> Nadal by some distance given that the latter didn't play AO and lost in the 1st round at Wimbledon.

 

[bullfan]

I agree that Nadal had the better year overall but if we're talking about consistency in the Slams then Djokovic> Nadal by some distance given that the latter didn't play AO and lost in the 1st round at Wimbledon.

Nadal won 66% versus 25% of the slams he entered vs what Novak won.

Nice consolation prize for Novak!

 

[smoledman]

Nadal won 66% versus 25% of the slams he entered vs what Novak won.

Nice consolation prize for Novak!

Are you *********? How does it feel to live vicariously through another man?

 

[Noelan]

Normally yes 2 slams > 1, but not when you skip a part of the season whilst everyone else is grinding away and playing through injuries. It's actually that, which does not hold water --> Nadal being granted player of the year when he clearly did not play for the whole year. Contradiction.

Ummm, I didn't change anything. I was talking about slams of course. After all slams are most important events, ITF is the organization body of slams and ITF agrees with me sonny. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Add to that DC matches ,Novak played all the ties for Serbia in 2013(Slams and DC are ITFs events), won all his singles matches.
Is this realy that hard to undarstand?:?