SpinToWin
Talk Tennis Guru
I get where you're coming from, but it really depends on the criteria, of which there can be many.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.
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...