Who was your 2016 #1: Murray or Djokovic?

SpinToWin

Talk Tennis Guru
In terms of trading years, I'm quite sure neither would. Obviously, it isn't always easy to just completely divorce the accomplishments of their context, namely: Djokovic's quest for the Career Slam (and also four on the bounce) and Murray's quest to finally be ranked the #1 player, which he then further cemented by securing YE#1 by directly defeating his chief rival in the last tournament of the year. However, really I was just thinking strictly about who deserved to be #1 more in the first place given their tournament results for the year, regardless of if Djokovic completed a Career Slam or whatnot. I think that even if we were to say, for the sake of argument, that the Olympics isn't on the level of a Slam, it's quite reasonable to suggest that the combination of that and the YEC is equal to a Slam. In other words, even by a worst case scenario, Murray was hardly undeserving of being crowned YE#1. It's just that, as great as Murray's year was, I wonder if Djokovic's was even better. Of course, in reality it was not, because Murray clinched the YE#1 regardless of what I think about it. I dunno about you guys, but cracking YE#1 is a huge deal and probably bigger than winning a single Slam; although various permutations can change one's opinion on that kind of thing, such as if X player has won a Slam in the first place. What's obvious is that because we know the stories and paths of these players, we have a slightly different appreciation of what they have achieved than if they had done it in a vacuum, same career numbers and all. With Murray toiling at such a high level for so long behind the Trifecta of tennis, it feels absolutely and utterly well earnt and deserved. We know his path and as such, despite the obvious discrepancy between the Slam wins, the fanbases have been quite unified in honouring Murray's accomplishment and the Novak fanbase has been quite classy about it - kudos for that.
I get where you're coming from, but it really depends on the criteria, of which there can be many.

A player could win all the slams and the WTF, but nothing else and thus be number 2 versus somebody who performed well in all tournaments. I suppose the closest real life example we have is Wozniacki...

In the end I don't think there are real/consistent criteria behind most individuals' assessments in such a matter, rather there are implicit ideas within the indicidual, which he is unaware of, that lead him to his conclusion. The reasoning only is a precept in order to justify the intuitive conclusion in a way...
 

sarmpas

Hall of Fame
I've never considered the YE#1 to be the 'best' player of the year so the OP's question has little relevance to me. As it is Murray or any other player attaining the YE#1 ranking is rightfully the YE#1 as determined by the scoring system in place.
 

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
In terms of trading years, I'm quite sure neither would. Obviously, it isn't always easy to just completely divorce the accomplishments of their context, namely: Djokovic's quest for the Career Slam (and also four on the bounce) and Murray's quest to finally be ranked the #1 player, which he then further cemented by securing YE#1 by directly defeating his chief rival in the last tournament of the year. However, really I was just thinking strictly about who deserved to be #1 more in the first place given their tournament results for the year, regardless of if Djokovic completed a Career Slam or whatnot. I think that even if we were to say, for the sake of argument, that the Olympics isn't on the level of a Slam, it's quite reasonable to suggest that the combination of that and the YEC is equal to a Slam. In other words, even by a worst case scenario, Murray was hardly undeserving of being crowned YE#1. It's just that, as great as Murray's year was, I wonder if Djokovic's was even better. Of course, in reality it was not, because Murray clinched the YE#1 regardless of what I think about it. I dunno about you guys, but cracking YE#1 is a huge deal and probably bigger than winning a single Slam; although various permutations can change one's opinion on that kind of thing, such as if X player has won a Slam in the first place. What's obvious is that because we know the stories and paths of these players, we have a slightly different appreciation of what they have achieved than if they had done it in a vacuum, same career numbers and all. With Murray toiling at such a high level for so long behind the Trifecta of tennis, it feels absolutely and utterly well earnt and deserved. We know his path and as such, despite the obvious discrepancy between the Slam wins, the fanbases have been quite unified in honouring Murray's accomplishment and the Novak fanbase has been quite classy about it - kudos for that.
Yeah, I agree to a large extent really. I particularly agree with your idea that cracking YE#1 is an accomplishment on the level of winning a slam even if it is achieved in a different way as far as the question of peak or consistency goes. And that goes for any player, not just Murray because we know the story of his career.

Being able to call yourself the best in the world at your profession is a big deal to me, and Murray gets to do that now. I also think that if any 1 slam winner could have a more successful year than a 2 slam winner (and finish #1) it would be how Murray achieved it over Djokovic. Winning the Olympic Gold and the WTF to "make up" (for lack of a better term) for a 1 slam difference. Finishing strong, and perhaps I'm opening an archaic kettle of fish here, but winning the extra prestigious Wimbledon as well.

It's more for sentimental than actual value at this point, yes, but I still look at who won Wimbledon in a given year and think to myself "If I could pick any one slam to win in my career that plays out in my dreams which one would it be?" And the answer always comes back "Wimbledon." I know, I know. Others may have different answers and all the slams are equal these days, but I can't help thinking that way sometimes. Maybe it's the Fed bias talking, I don't know.
 
How many moral slams did Nadal win this time? Is he in contention?

I'll just say that it's a travesty the ITF awarded the top spot to Djokovic in 2013 when Nadal won 2 slams, beating Djokovic along the way in both. I know it's not the exact same scenario, but hopefully this answers your question.
 

merwy

G.O.A.T.
It's very difficult to make a case against Murray here. He has accumulated more ranking points and on top of that has won the OG (where Djokovic lost in R1).

ETA: -NN- ? Are you..?
 

xFedal

Legend
Laying it out - I think you have to include runner-ups as particularly slam runner-ups are an achievement in themselves (lesser than winning, but still an achievement):

Murray 9 tournaments won (including Wimbledon, WTF, Olympics and 3 Masters 1000) + 4 runner-ups (Australian Open, French Open and 2 Masters 1000)

Djokovic 7 tournaments won (including Australian Open, French Open and 4 Masters 1000) + 3 runner-ups (US Open, WTF and 1 Masters 1000)

It was basically very close - which is reflected in the ATP points. My belief is that one could argue that a WTF plus an Olympics games combined is at least as good as a slam. On top of that 2 more tournament wins and 2 slam runner-ups vs 1 slam runner-up. Murray has the edge for 2016.
2/0 SLAM h2h!!! Has not been taken into Consideration here!!!
 

xFedal

Legend
Yeah, I agree to a large extent really. I particularly agree with your idea that cracking YE#1 is an accomplishment on the level of winning a slam even if it is achieved in a different way as far as the question of peak or consistency goes. And that goes for any player, not just Murray because we know the story of his career.

Being able to call yourself the best in the world at your profession is a big deal to me, and Murray gets to do that now. I also think that if any 1 slam winner could have a more successful year than a 2 slam winner (and finish #1) it would be how Murray achieved it over Djokovic. Winning the Olympic Gold and the WTF to "make up" (for lack of a better term) for a 1 slam difference. Finishing strong, and perhaps I'm opening an archaic kettle of fish here, but winning the extra prestigious Wimbledon as well.

It's more for sentimental than actual value at this point, yes, but I still look at who won Wimbledon in a given year and think to myself "If I could pick any one slam to win in my career that plays out in my dreams which one would it be?" And the answer always comes back "Wimbledon." I know, I know. Others may have different answers and all the slams are equal these days, but I can't help thinking that way sometimes. Maybe it's the Fed bias talking, I don't know.
Have you taken into Account slams/ slam h2h/ yearly h2h/ masters? .... Murray became No.1 due to his atp 500 tournies and Novak due to lack of them !!!
 

timnz

Legend
Not just for the year but I think in general when assessing careers that using a Slam runner-up metric is something we could go to more. I consider Murray a much greater player already than someone who has "only" won three Majors. It's dayum difficult to reach 11 Grand Slam Finals. His opponents in them were typically Federer or Djokovic. Good luck with that. Andy Murray has been prolific and very consistent. It would be good to see Djokovic continue the promise he showed in the Doha final and see that Djokovic go up against a fully grooved Murray. Yeah, I know that the rivalry for most people is quite dull, but I've really enjoyed it in recent times.

I think Murray is close to being in league with the likes of Wilander and Edberg. This will likely be an unpopular view given the large discrepancy in their Slam tallies, but I think Murray is headed there, which is much further than I thought he'd go since his back surgery.

Well, the dream of course would be for Federer to win consecutive Calendar Slams. I don't rate his chances highly at all for the upcoming AO.
Glad to hear you aren't amongst the group who think it is a superior performance to lose in the first round of a Slam than being a slam runner-up (because it doesn't impact your slam finals percentage to lose in the first round). My belief is that making a slam final is a better performance than losing in the first round. (I know it sounds crazy to even mention this - but it needs to be pointed out constantly here - people who think that Lendl would have been better to lose the 11 slam tournaments he lost in the final in round 1 instead - after all he would then be sitting on a 100% finals winning performance 8-0 !)

I am going to get a lot of stick for this, but in terms of ATP weighted points tally - Murray is already ahead of both Wilander and Edberg (not Becker though).

For ease I have reduced the weighting points down by a factor of 1000 eg Slams are worth 2 instead of their ATP 2000.

Scale is: (SV x 2) + (SEFNL x 1.5) + (SEFOL x 1.3) + (SEFRUNL x 1) + (SRU x 1.2) + (TOP9 x 1) + (TOP9RU x 0.60) + (SEFRUOL x 0.80) + (OSG x 0) + (SSF x 0.72) + (SEFSFNL x 0.60) + (500S x 0.50)

Becker = (6 x 2) + ((1 + 1) x 1.5)) + (3 x 1.3) + ((4 + 1) x 1) + (4 x 1.2) + (13 x 1) + (8 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (0 x 0) + (8 x 0.72) + ((2 - 1) x 0.60) + (9 x 0.50)= 57.36

Murray = (3 x 2) + (1 x 1.5) + (0 x 1.3) + (0 x 1) + (8 x 1.2) + (14 x 1) + (7 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (2 x 0) + (9 x 0.72) + (1 x 0.60) + (9 x 0.50) = 46.88

Edberg = (6 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + ((2 - 1) x 1) + (5 x 1.2) + (8 x 1) + (12 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (0 x 0) + (8 x 0.72) + ((2 - 1) x 0.60) + (8 x 0.50) = 45.86

Wilander = (7 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (0 x 1.3) + (0 x 1) + (4 x 1.2) + (8 x 1) + (7 x 0.60) + (1 x 0.80) + (0 x 0) + (3 x 0.72) + (0 x 0.60) + (8 x 0.50) = 37.96

Everything that in today's terms you can earn 500 points and above per event is counted. That is:

  • Slam Victories (SV) 2000 ATP points
  • Slam Runner-ups (SRU) 1200 ATP points
  • Slam Semi-finals (SSF) 720 ATP points
  • Season end final victories with no loss before the final (WTF, WCT Finals * & Grand Slam Cup *) (SEFNL) 1500 ATP points
  • Season end final victories with one loss before the final (WTF, WCT Finals * & Grand Slam Cup *) (SEFOL) 1300 ATP points
  • Season end final runner-ups with no loss before the final (WTF, WCT Finals * & Grand Slam Cup *) (SEFRUNL) 1000 ATP points
  • Season end final runner-ups with one loss before the final (WTF, WCT Finals * & Grand Slam Cup *) (SEFRUOL) 800 ATP points
  • Season end final semi-finals with no loss before the semi-final (WTF, WCT Finals * & Grand Slam Cup *) (SEFSFNL) ATP 600 points
  • Masters 1000 equivalent victories (we will call (Top 9)) ATP 1000 points
  • Masters 1000 equivalent runner-ups (TOP9RU) ATP 600 points
  • Olympic Gold Metal Singles (OSG) ATP 0 points **
  • 500 Series equivalents (500S) ATP 500 points
from:

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...ng-system-using-current-atp-weighting.539099/
 
If it was football, first half Djokovic was leading 4-0, Murray came back to make 4-3 and it just with a late goal in the final of the final tournament for the year made it 4-4.
 

shankster

Professional
Would rather have Djokovic's year (2 slams culminating in a Non-Calendar Year GS) plus more Masters.

BUT :
The fact that 1) Murray managed to outperform him on the points table DESPITE not getting ANY points for his Olympics win (he lost out on 750 well deserved points) AND 2) managed to beat Djokovic against all odds in a straight shootout for the #1 slot in the WTF final despite coming into the final in a heavily disadvantaged situation at one of Djokovic's holy grails where he hadn't lost a knockout match since time immemorial certainly makes him a worthy holder of the # 1 slot.

So yeah, Murray thoroughly deserved the No. 1 ranking. But if you ask me who is the best player in the world (usually it'd be the one ranked highest but not in this instance) i.e. the player everyone would want to avoid, I'd still say its Djokovic. Certainly as a Rafa fan, I'd much rather he be drawn into Murray's half than Djokovic's (not that he'd get far enough to meet either of them anyway but still just speaking hypothetically).

So, my final conclusion is Murray is a well deserved holder of the #1 ranking but Djokovic is still the best player in the world, still the man to beat. If that makes any sense.....
 
Would rather have Djokovic's year (2 slams culminating in a Non-Calendar Year GS) plus more Masters.

So, my final conclusion is Murray is a well deserved holder of the #1 ranking but Djokovic is still the best player in the world, still the man to beat. If that makes any sense.....
I'm a Murray fan, but would have to agree with you there.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
It was nice gift from Djokovic that's for sure. Whatever his top priorities for 2016 were, finishing #1 wasn't one of them!
It wasn't a gift. Nole fought hard to regain the #1 but lost to the better player that year. Ending the year #1 wasn't his top priority but it's very important to him.
 

Urkezi

Semi-Pro
I am going to get a lot of stick for this, but in terms of ATP weighted points tally - Murray is already ahead of both Wilander and Edberg (not Becker though).
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...ng-system-using-current-atp-weighting.539099/
And here comes the first stick :)

No, seriously, I read your thread and it's great work, kudos. I more or less agree with your rankings of ATG's, however the problem seems to be there is not enough common sense included. For instance, Lendl at no. 2 and Nole at no. 3 are borderline acceptable, especially Ivan who I hated ardently, but had to acknowledge he was indeed a great player. However, it simply doesn't add up when you put Murray ahead of Edberg - who I admittedly am a huge fan of and therefore extremely biased. But still, hear me out.

Now, I even bet that you won't find anyone but a few Murray fans to go along with that. And even though Murray has a very accomplished career, I simply can't put him ahead of Stefan who has twice as many slam wins and two End year no.1's as well as 72 weeks there. Andy has more Slam finals, but only has 3 titles more overall! That simply does not compute with me, so there either must be something wrong or unfair with your formula or it doesn't work at all, imho.

Looking at your calculation it's hard to what, but it might be the Masters 1000. Looking at Stefan's seasons he played 6 Masters in 1990, 7 in 91 and 5 in 92. There is not a season he played more than 7, and I am not sure what happens before 1990. But just for fun try allocating less points to them and see what happens. In any case, don't stop until Stefan is well ahead of Andy :)
 
Not just for the year but I think in general when assessing careers that using a Slam runner-up metric is something we could go to more. I consider Murray a much greater player already than someone who has "only" won three Majors. It's dayum difficult to reach 11 Grand Slam Finals. His opponents in them were typically Federer or Djokovic. Good luck with that. Andy Murray has been prolific and very consistent. It would be good to see Djokovic continue the promise he showed in the Doha final and see that Djokovic go up against a fully grooved Murray. Yeah, I know that the rivalry for most people is quite dull, but I've really enjoyed it in recent times.

I think Murray is close to being in league with the likes of Wilander and Edberg. This will likely be an unpopular view given the large discrepancy in their Slam tallies, but I think Murray is headed there, which is much further than I thought he'd go since his back surgery.

Well, the dream of course would be for Federer to win consecutive Calendar Slams. I don't rate his chances highly at all for the upcoming AO.
If the Olympic games were worth points like they were in 2012, Murray would have been even more clearly #1.
How big are the Olympics?
This question is almost impossible to answer. I suspect that in the future, tennis gold at the Olympics will be even greater in value than we think it is now. People may look back at 2016, and say, well obviously Murray was #1.

Another question is, how important is yearend #1? Well it is a lot rarer than slam titles. There have been something like 50 different slam singles winners since the computer era (1973) and only 17 yearend #1's - roughly a third as many. So the yearend #1 is arguably a bigger accomplishment than a slam. Looking further, only 26 men have made it computer #1 at any time (example, Rafter - 1 week), so just getting to #1 is roughly half as a frequent as a new slam winner.

On the other hand, achieving a career slam and even tougher, a non-calendar year slam is so rare, only 3 men have done it (and only two in the open era).
But that doesn't occupy a whole year so my vote probably goes with Murray. More tournaments, better winning percentage, more ATP points, more money.
___

Is Murray greater than Wilander and Edberg? (and lets' throw Wawrinka in while we're at it)

That's an interesting question:
Yearend #1: Edberg 2, Wilander 1, Murray 1, Wawrinka 0
Slams: Wilander 7, Edberg 6, Murray 3, Wawrinka 3
Olympics: Murray 2, Edberg 0.5, Wawrinka doubles, Wilander 0
WTF: Edberg 1, Murray 1, Wilander 0, Wawrinka 0
1000's: Murray 14, Edberg 8, Wilander 8, Wawrinka 1
Total Tournament wins: Murray 44, Edberg 41, Wilander 33, Wawrinka 15

Wawrinka is virtually last in all the categories, so he clearly is not in the same league as the rest. Murray leads in 3.5 of these categories, Edberg in 1.5, Wilander in 1.

Let's say we give points for first-second-third-fourth = 4-3-2-1 for each of the six categories, but double-weight the slams (8-6-4-2)
Edberg 4+6+3+4+3+3 = 23 pts
Murray 3+4+4+4+4+4 = 23 pts
Wilander 3+8+1+2+3+2 = 19 pts
Wawrinka 1+4+2+2+1+1 = 11 pts

This is a total crap system I just made up on the spot... but I think it does show how close Edberg, Murray, and Wilander are in key accomplishments.
 

D.Nalby12

G.O.A.T.
From Open: An Autobiography by Andre Agassi:

" 'I couldn't care less. Pete is number one, no matter what some computer says. Pete won two Slams this year and he won our showdown in New York. Besides, I still don't give a rat's ass about being number one; would have been nice, wasn't my goal.' Then again, beating Pete wasn't my goal either, but losing to him has caused me to plummit into a bottomless gloom. Every day I tell myself to stop thinking about it..." -

Agassi said this to Brad Gilbert, who wanted Agassi to try and secure YE#1 for 1995 through injury. Clearly, Agassi's loss to Sampras in the 1995 US Open sent him into a tailspin and his psychological profile was nothing short of calamitous, yet his sentiment is striking. It got me thinking (I already was anyway) about who the best player of 2016 was: the guy who accrued more ranking points or the guy who won the extra Slam, beating his chief rival in both Slam finals. To Murray's credit, he won the final "showdown" in the World Tour Finals, with both players being chronically aware of what was on the line, but it's difficult for me to ignore the fact that Djokovic bested Murray in finals for his AO and RG triumphs.

On balance, although I do not wish to take away Murray's prestigious accolade, I do consider Djokovic to be the best player of 2016, and, in a sense, the true number one player for the season. In the end, it just remi
 
Is Murray greater than Wilander and Edberg? (and lets' throw Wawrinka in while we're at it)

That's an interesting question:
Yearend #1: Edberg 2, Wilander 1, Murray 1, Wawrinka 0
Slams: Wilander 7, Edberg 6, Murray 3, Wawrinka 3
Olympics: Murray 2, Edberg 0.5, Wawrinka doubles, Wilander 0
WTF: Edberg 1, Murray 1, Wilander 0, Wawrinka 0
1000's: Murray 14, Edberg 8, Wilander 8, Wawrinka 1
Total Tournament wins: Murray 44, Edberg 41, Wilander 33, Wawrinka 15

Wawrinka is virtually last in all the categories, so he clearly is not in the same league as the rest. Murray leads in 3.5 of these categories, Edberg in 1.5, Wilander in 1.

Let's say we give points for first-second-third-fourth = 4-3-2-1 for each of the six categories, but double-weight the slams (8-6-4-2)
Edberg 4+6+3+4+3+3 = 23 pts
Murray 3+4+4+4+4+4 = 23 pts
Wilander 3+8+1+2+3+2 = 19 pts
Wawrinka 1+4+2+2+1+1 = 11 pts



I don't think Wawrinka is there. You would have to include a few others if you include him. As for Murray, I would say 2 more slams and he is legitimately in that bracket. Masters, though relevant, are difficult to compare through eras due to participation. The Olympics has only started becoming a big tournament over the last 3 events and certainly wasn't sought after when Edberg and Wilander played. Having said that I do believe Murray scores well on big tournaments won = 3 slams + 1 WTF + 2 Olympics + 14 Masters = 20. Those from past eras would have a different allocation of big titles won which don't necessarily come from masters tournaments.
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
If the Olympic games were worth points like they were in 2012, Murray would have been even more clearly #1.
How big are the Olympics?
This question is almost impossible to answer. I suspect that in the future, tennis gold at the Olympics will be even greater in value than we think it is now. People may look back at 2016, and say, well obviously Murray was #1.
A more interesting question would be: who would the best player have been in 2017 if Djokovic had won the final WTF match...

Possibly we would have had another dispute between the ATP and the ITF...
 

MCallanan

Semi-Pro
Strong argument could be made for either man and that's why year end number one came down to the very last match of the season. Albeit had the ATP still distributed points for the Olympics and Davis Cup the way they did in seasons past that wouldn't have been the case.
 

timnz

Legend
And here comes the first stick :)

No, seriously, I read your thread and it's great work, kudos. I more or less agree with your rankings of ATG's, however the problem seems to be there is not enough common sense included. For instance, Lendl at no. 2 and Nole at no. 3 are borderline acceptable, especially Ivan who I hated ardently, but had to acknowledge he was indeed a great player. However, it simply doesn't add up when you put Murray ahead of Edberg - who I admittedly am a huge fan of and therefore extremely biased. But still, hear me out.

Now, I even bet that you won't find anyone but a few Murray fans to go along with that. And even though Murray has a very accomplished career, I simply can't put him ahead of Stefan who has twice as many slam wins and two End year no.1's as well as 72 weeks there. Andy has more Slam finals, but only has 3 titles more overall! That simply does not compute with me, so there either must be something wrong or unfair with your formula or it doesn't work at all, imho.

Looking at your calculation it's hard to what, but it might be the Masters 1000. Looking at Stefan's seasons he played 6 Masters in 1990, 7 in 91 and 5 in 92. There is not a season he played more than 7, and I am not sure what happens before 1990. But just for fun try allocating less points to them and see what happens. In any case, don't stop until Stefan is well ahead of Andy :)
thanks for your reply-) Re non-compulsory masters 1000 years, that is why I included 500 series - so that at least some of the similar tournaments got represented. It wouldn't make a lot of difference to Edbergs score because he didn't win a lot of either of them relatively.

the system is simply, weighted at current atp weighting, the 500 level achievements and higher of the top open era players. I think you would agree that we shouldn't tweet the results to achieve predetermined outcomes. I was surprised at Lendl's score and Murray's but it perhaps reveals that we have an inherent slam wins bias rather than looking at total careers sometimes. Thanks for your comments
 

ollinger

G.O.A.T.
January tennis is like September basketball or April baseball -- it tells you more about who had a better time while on vacation than who the better player is. So I tend to downgrade a bit the AO and place more emphasis on what happened a little later in the year. That, dear ones, leads us to Murray.
 
D

Deleted member 743561

Guest
This late-season tear by Murray was for the ages. I guess Fed still has a mathematical chance this year. But he's been there many times before. Can last season's stunning conclusion be topped in terms of sheer sporting impossibility?
 

aditya123

Hall of Fame
You're right of course but something tells me the next time there are discussions about who's had the better career out of Djokovic and Nadal, important things like the WTF, Masters 1000s and overall consistency will go straight out the window. ;)
Now they are tied in masters titles ;);)
 

Jackuar

Hall of Fame
For me, Novak was the one who started high and then faded away; and Murray was one who worked his a $ $ off to wrestle back the goodies. Murray for me.
 
Top