Who was the number 2 player of this decade

timnz

Legend
Its clear that Federer is the number 1 player (5 times year end number 1 - 2009 should be assured).

But who is number 2? The temptation is to always think of the current player in the situation - Nadal. The other player in discussion is Lleyton Hewitt.

The question is - should we rank players by decade on number of Majors won or weeks at number 1 or year end number 1 rankings?

Number of Slams + Masters Cups
-------------------------------
Nadal won the second most number of Grand Slams of the Decade - 6 + zero masters Cups (yes he could win in 2009 - so I am prepared to go back and change this if that is the case)

Hewitt won 2 Grand Slams + 2 Masters Cups

Year ends being number 1
-------------------------
Nadal was number 1 year end for 1 year - 2008

Lleyton Hewitt was twice year end number 1 - 2001 & 2002.

Weeks being number 1
----------------------
Nadal weeks at number 1 was 46, Hewitt's was 80 weeks.


My own view is that Nadal was the number 2 player of the decade because I rate Grand Slam wins above anything else. However, looking at the above information - Hewitt should definitely be in the discussion.
 
Last edited:

Shaolin

Talk Tennis Guru
Easily Nadal. Hewitt just snuck in and did well in the short span between Sampras and Federer. He was quickly figured out and then overpowered. Nadal has done a lot more and for longer.
 
Nadal easily. GS wins + MS wins trumps Hewitt, and Rafa has 13-7 h2h w the #1 of this decade, while Hewitt has been Fed's duck since 2004.
 

Blinkism

Legend
The decade, technically speaking, should be 2001-2010 (as there never was a year 0, so this decade doesn't start with 2000, but rather 2001).

So, there's still another full season to play in the decade.

So far, though, it's been Nadal.
 

edmondsm

Legend
How come Hewitt gets mentioned but not Agassi. 3 slams, 2 finals, all while being an old ass mofo.

Having said that, hmmmm, I'll go with Nadal. He's been ranked #2 more then anybody this decade.
 

TheFifthSet

Legend
Rafael Nadal Parera, Clay court/slow grass extraordinaire.

Followed by (in no order) Nomadic NoD, Hewitt, Roddick, Ferrero, Safin, Agassi, Guga . . . . .
 
Last edited:
How come Hewitt gets mentioned but not Agassi. 3 slams, 2 finals, all while being an old ass mofo.

Having said that, hmmmm, I'll go with Nadal. He's been ranked #2 more then anybody this decade.

It is pointless to mention either Hewitt or Agassi as neither have half a claim. It is Nadal by a landslide. It is pointless to mention anyone else in a discussion about the #2 of the decade. The only question is who is the #3 of this decade.

As for why Hewitt would be mentioned and Agassi not in the silly scenario either is mentioned at all, Hewitts two year end #1s are atleast one edge he has over Nadal, whereas Agassi has no possible edge this decade compared to Nadal. Of course it is still a silly basis but atleast it is one small thing.
 

timnz

Legend
Weeks at number one

It is pointless to mention either Hewitt or Agassi as neither have half a claim. It is Nadal by a landslide. It is pointless to mention anyone else in a discussion about the #2 of the decade. The only question is who is the #3 of this decade.

As for why Hewitt would be mentioned and Agassi not in the silly scenario either is mentioned at all, Hewitts two year end #1s are atleast one edge he has over Nadal, whereas Agassi has no possible edge this decade compared to Nadal. Of course it is still a silly basis but atleast it is one small thing.

Also Hewitts 80 weeks at number one versus 46 weeks for Nadal. Again, I go with Nadal - but Hewitt's in the discussion.

But who then is number 3? You'd have to pick Hewitt over Agassi, Guga or Safin. (The other 3 or 2 Grand Slam winners this decade). Reason being that the others didn't have as many year end number ones this decade or as many weeks this decade as number 1.
 

jelle v

Hall of Fame
This decade is 2001-2010? Did I miss something? This decade is 2000-2009 (including 2009) if I am not mistaking.. :-?

Anyway, for me the #2 of this decade is Nadal by miles.. I don't even see how there can be any debate about this. If it weren't for Nadal, Federer would have 23 or 24 Grand Slams by now. Federer and Nadal were the only two relevant players on tour for a while, untill Djokovic and Murray started to get a little success.
 

edmondsm

Legend
It is pointless to mention either Hewitt or Agassi as neither have half a claim. It is Nadal by a landslide. It is pointless to mention anyone else in a discussion about the #2 of the decade. The only question is who is the #3 of this decade.

As for why Hewitt would be mentioned and Agassi not in the silly scenario either is mentioned at all, Hewitts two year end #1s are atleast one edge he has over Nadal, whereas Agassi has no possible edge this decade compared to Nadal. Of course it is still a silly basis but atleast it is one small thing.

I thought that Nadal being the answer had already been made clear. I wasn't saying that Agassi had any claim over him, I was merely saying that I thought he deserved to be in the discussion if Hewitt was. I just think Agassi deserves brownie points for winning slams amongst all those youngsters.
 

drakulie

Talk Tennis Guru
Being that Blake has a winning record against, Nadal>>> I'll vote for him as the clear number 2.
 

boredone3456

G.O.A.T.
This decade is 2001-2010? Did I miss something? This decade is 2000-2009 (including 2009) if I am not mistaking.. :-?

Anyway, for me the #2 of this decade is Nadal by miles.. I don't even see how there can be any debate about this. If it weren't for Nadal, Federer would have 23 or 24 Grand Slams by now. Federer and Nadal were the only two relevant players on tour for a while, untill Djokovic and Murray started to get a little success.

Since there was no year Zero the first decade went from 1-10...so this decade technically would go from 2001-2010.

As for the rest I agree, the only edge Hewitt has over Nadal is the time spent as number 1, but Hewitt didn't have the competition to be the number 1 player Nadal did...Nadal had to get it/maintain it from Fed...much harder than the people Hewitt had to get it from and maintain it against.
 

JoshDragon

Hall of Fame
Being that Blake has a winning record against, Nadal>>> I'll vote for him as the clear number 2.

I think you're right, but then again Nadal, has a winning record against Roger and Roger has a winning head-to-head against Blake, so I guess that means that Nadal is really the best player of the decade, followed by Roger.
 

r2473

G.O.A.T.
Serena Williams.

17 total slams 2001 - present. 1 Olympic title. Career Golden Slam

Singles (10 slam titles):

Australian Open: (2003, 2005, 2007, 2009)
French Open: (2002)
Wimbledon: (2002, 2003, 2009)
US Open: (2002, 2008)

Doubles (7 slam titles; 1 Olympic Title):

Australian Open: (2001, 2003, 2009)
Wimbledon: (2002, 2008, 2009)
US Open: (2009)
Olympic Games: Gold medal (2008)

serena-espn-the-magazine-1009.jpg
 

vbranis

Professional
Remember that Agassi was also #1 this decade and won 2 Slams + 6 Masters. Hewitt won 2 Slams and only 2 Masters (4 total if you count his 2 Yr. End Chmps). Both had 2 Slam runner-ups. Overall in this decade:

1.Federer
2.Nadal
3.Agassi
4.Hewitt
 
Last edited:

stapler

Professional
Let me first say, I don't know where the people spouting the idea that the decade is 2001-2010, but it's not. This decade extends from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2009. But back to the subject at hand.

I agree with the others in their belief that Nadal is the clear #2 for this decade. And call me crazy, but I feel that Djokovic has played well enough in the past to earn himself the chance to be considered #3 for the decade. He is the only contender for #3-4 (I would consider Agassi, Safin, Hewitt, maybe Guga all other possibilities for these spots) to have won big titles (masters, Slams, master's cups) while the #1 and #2 for this decade were in full throttle, save a couple of masters titles by Safin in 2004, still before Nadal came into the scene). Plus he has managed to capture at least one of each of them, though, by using this logic, his tour final title wouldn't mean as much, because the #2 player of the decade wasn't even a contestant for that.

All I'm saying, is that looking at titles is a bit unfair to see how well a player was playing comparatively. You have to take into account the field they were playing against, which I feel Novak's accomplishments were done in the most difficult setting out of the other #3 contenders.
 

ubermeyer

Hall of Fame
Serena Williams.

17 total slams 2001 - present. 1 Olympic title. Career Golden Slam

Singles (10 slam titles):

Australian Open: (2003, 2005, 2007, 2009)
French Open: (2002)
Wimbledon: (2002, 2003, 2009)
US Open: (2002, 2008)

Doubles (7 slam titles; 1 Olympic Title):

Australian Open: (2001, 2003, 2009)
Wimbledon: (2002, 2008, 2009)
US Open: (2009)
Olympic Games: Gold medal (2008)

yes, cause we all know serena could beat nadal for sure and if she entered the men's slams she'd do better.

(hint: the OP was talking about the men's #2 player).

Let me first say, I don't know where the people spouting the idea that the decade is 2001-2010, but it's not. This decade extends from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2009. But back to the subject at hand.

agreed... who said 2001-2010?? lolol that's dumb
 
Stapler is correct above as to how a decade is defined. See technical definition below from Wiki:

"A decade is a period of ten years. The word is derived from the late Latin decas, from Greek decas, from deca. The other words for spans of years also come from Latin: lustrum (5 years), century (100 years), millennium (1000 years). The term usually refers to a period of ten years starting at a multiple of ten. For example, "the 1950s" refers to 1950 through to 1959 (inclusive). In English, "decade" can also be used to specify any period of ten years. For example, "During his last decade, Mozart explored chromatic harmony to a degree rare at the time"".

Having said that, I think it's CLEARLY Nadal, behind Federer in years 2000-2009. With that customary understanding of what is a "decade", Nadal may be positioning himself to be number one in this NEXT decade, 2010-2019, because he may very well amass a very impressive number of slams if he is able to even sustain his play at a high level until say 2014 or so. That's asking a lot, but it's definitely very possible. Now, if he is able to RAISE his level of play, OR play at this level he has sustained past 2014, then he could overtake Federer as the guy with the most number of grand slams. 10 more grand slam wins over say the next 6 years (2010-2015) is doable for him as that would mean 4 of 6 years averaging 2 slam wins, and then 2 years at 1 slam apiece, which gets him 10 more GS wins.
 
Remember that Agassi was also #1 this decade and won 2 Slams + 6 Masters. Hewitt won 2 Slams and only 2 Masters (4 total if you count his 2 Yr. End Chmps). Both had 2 Slam runner-ups. Overall in this decade:

1.Federer
2.Nadal
3.Agassi
4.Hewitt

The year end Championships is clearly bigger than a regular Masters. It is between the Slams and the regular Masters. I am not sure who to go with for #3 this decade between Agassi and Hewitt. However I probably would go with Hewitt since he was clearly considered the best player in the World from late 2001-mid 2003, which Agassi never was at any point this decade (other than early 2000 by some). Yeah the field was really weak around then but he took full advantage of it so you have to give him kudos for that. Agassi was still playing really well around then and could have taken that title too but had matchup problems with Hewit for awhile during that time. Of course career wise Agassi is on another planet from Hewitt. This decade alone Nadal is on another planet from both Agassi and Hewitt. Nadal is closer to Federer than Agassi or Hewitt his decade should be considered to Nadal.
 

ubermeyer

Hall of Fame
Stapler is correct above as to how a decade is defined. See technical definition below from Wiki:

"A decade is a period of ten years. The word is derived from the late Latin decas, from Greek decas, from deca. The other words for spans of years also come from Latin: lustrum (5 years), century (100 years), millennium (1000 years). The term usually refers to a period of ten years starting at a multiple of ten. For example, "the 1950s" refers to 1950 through to 1959 (inclusive).

yes i know... I was agreeing with him :confused:
 

Blinkism

Legend
agreed... who said 2001-2010?? lolol that's dumb

I did.

My apologies!! :oops:

I was trying to be a smart ass!

Technically, though, there was never a year 0, so every decade begins like 1991-2000, 2001-2010

I shouldn't have brought that up, though, as it's irrelevant. So, let's consider this decade 2000-2009

In which case, who is the #5 best player of the decade?

Is it Safin or is it Sampras? Both have 2 slams and 2 slam finals.

Does Safin get the edge for beating Sampras this decade and having more Masters? Or does Sampras get the edge for winning Wimbledon this decade?

Again, sorry for the 2001-2010 fiasco :)
 

vbranis

Professional
If you count 2000, then Agassi would have 3 Slams. So IMO that makes him as the clear #3 for the decade.
 
If you count 2000, then Agassi would have 3 Slams. So IMO that makes him as the clear #3 for the decade.

Not when all 3 at are the same slam venue, especialy when someone else has won both Wimbledon and the U.S Open- the two biggest events (in addition to been year end #1 two years in a row and year end Champion both years also). If Agassi had 3 slam wins at 3 different slams I would probably agree but with all 3 at the Australian Open, still the least prestigious slam to many to boot, that doesnt make it cut and dry at all.
 

pame

Hall of Fame
This decade is 2001-2010? Did I miss something? This decade is 2000-2009 (including 2009) if I am not mistaking.. :-?

Anyway, for me the #2 of this decade is Nadal by miles.. I don't even see how there can be any debate about this. If it weren't for Nadal, Federer would have 23 or 24 Grand Slams by now. Federer and Nadal were the only two relevant players on tour for a while, untill Djokovic and Murray started to get a little success.

Wrong! If you were correct we'd count year 0 - year 9, but A.D. begins with Anno Domini 1, not Anno Domini 0 :)

It is true that you can determine the reference of a decade within its 10-year meaning, so you could just as eaily define 1955-1964 as a decade, but in strict calendar terms, if you define every ten year period starting from the beginning of A.D. as a decade, then it's year 1-10 up the line to 2001-2010
 
Last edited:

ubermeyer

Hall of Fame
Wrong! If you were correct we'd count year 0 - year 9, but A.D. begins with Anno Domini 1, not Anno Domini 0 :)

wrong. there was an AD 0.

I did.

My apologies!! :oops:

I was trying to be a smart ass!

Technically, though, there was never a year 0, so every decade begins like 1991-2000, 2001-2010

I shouldn't have brought that up, though, as it's irrelevant. So, let's consider this decade 2000-2009

In which case, who is the #5 best player of the decade?

Is it Safin or is it Sampras? Both have 2 slams and 2 slam finals.

Does Safin get the edge for beating Sampras this decade and having more Masters? Or does Sampras get the edge for winning Wimbledon this decade?

Again, sorry for the 2001-2010 fiasco :)

i forgive you. but actually there was a year 0
 

pame

Hall of Fame
wrong. there was an AD 0.



i forgive you. but actually there was a year 0

I take it you're defying all algebraic conclusions? Is it not true that a number line, which is what a timeline is, only has a zero MOMENT, and even then the concept of a "moment," meaning "a brief interval of time" is itself incorrect, because zero has NO value.
 

Baikalic

Semi-Pro
wrong. there was an AD 0.



i forgive you. but actually there was a year 0

I actually didn't know which was correct and was curious to find out.

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_0

"Year zero is not used in the widely used Gregorian calendar, nor in its predecessor, the Julian calendar. Under those systems, the year 1 BC is followed by AD 1"

So if you use the modern calendar system (Gregorian), AD 0 does not exist, and pame and Blinkism are right!
 

ubermeyer

Hall of Fame
I actually didn't know which was correct and was curious to find out.

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_0

"Year zero is not used in the widely used Gregorian calendar, nor in its predecessor, the Julian calendar. Under those systems, the year 1 BC is followed by AD 1"

So if you use the modern calendar system (Gregorian), AD 0 does not exist, and pame and Blinkism are right!

oh ok fine i was wrong

psh, but who uses the GREGORIAN or JULIAN calendars??? dag nab these newfangled technologies!
 

timnz

Legend
What is clear

Is that in terms of rating people see Grand Slam tournament wins as being more important than weeks being number 1 &/or number of Year end number 1 spots (since Hewitt has superior statistics to Nadal in those last 2 criteria).

Which is absolutely fine.

Its interesting what criteria people use to assess a players career.

Note: I do agree about the point that the year end championships being between a Grand Slam tournament and a regular Masters event.
 
Top