Why is Djokovic the one getting ''punished'' for the one slam a year thing?

[eliars]

This is to do with his dominance more than him arguably winning more Majors than the others.

Him winning 11 Slams and doing the channel Slam 3 years in a row is what puts him above the rest, imo.

Also, going by the wiki list (it's pretty much agreed that computer rankings in some years was bogus) Borg has 4 YE#1. His retirement throws a wrench in the system of #1 or winning Majors because it opened up the field.. or maybe he'd have been considered the best player in the world for 5/6/7 years.

But that's exactly the point why the #1 ranking shouldn't be used to measure greatness. It's a system, that is based on collecting points, not winning actual tournaments.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Him winning 11 Slams and doing the channel Slam 3 years in a row is what puts him above the rest, imo.




But that's exactly the point why the #1 ranking shouldn't be used to measure greatness. It's a system, that is based on collecting points, not winning actual tournaments.

I've explained myself on this. The link I provided you is what I go by for now until I learn further by reading more books. The current system is working IMO so I'm happy to follow the computer rankings for the recent years.

At the time, Borg was considered the greatest (ever) despite not having the record at Majors because he dominated Wimbledon and outdid Fred Perry's 3 in a row—at the time it was given far more importance than it's given even now. How the perception has changed in hindsight is down to the constantly wavering goalposts of greatness.

 

[Russeljones]

Players' preferences are indeed important, but there being a causality between the organization's valuation of tournaments and the players' valuation of tournaments, need not be overlooked.

My point was that this alignment has not always been in place.

 

[NatF]

Yes. I seem to remember some thread in TT where Rosewall was given 4 or so years at #1 but an awful lot of historians who were offered leading questions by Laverlickers managed to—over the course of years—whittle down Rosewall at the expense of maximising Laver. So it's hard to know what to believe.

You should send me a visitor message with the titles of all the books you've read so far, so I can follow suit. Or just do it here or in the thread I made in FPPT about good books.

Laverlickers :lol:

At the very least I would consider Laver #1 from 1964 to 1970. I think the way he dominated Rosewall, won more tournaments, won the biggest event (Wembley) as well as another pro 'major' the US Pro in 1964, seals him as the best player that year. Most ranking systems across time would rank him a head I believe.

In 1961 it depends whether you view the h2h tours as more important than majors. I think evidence suggests it might have been.

Books I've read;

- Ken Rosewall: Twenty Years at the Top
- The Game My 40 Years in Tennis
- Fireside Book of Tennis
- Bud Collins History of Tennis: An Authoritative Encyclopedia and Record Book
- THE HISTORY OF PROFESSIONAL TENNIS

Probably less than you were expecting. The other one I might get is Vine's autobiography.

 

[SpinToWin]

W

Winning tournaments here means winning Slams. That is already exceptionally complicated. After that, it's about winning the next tier of tournaments such as the YEC's or the 1000's, at which point things become almost impossible.

Being the best player in the world is important. Nobody is going to be the best player in the world for maybe 8 years (Pancho Gonzales) and not win a bunch of hugely important and prestigious tournaments, and yet we know him to have only won 2 "Slam" events. Two.

Being #1 is a representation of greatness. Theoretically it can coincide with being outdone by somebody who is lower ranked in the men's game but when is the last time that happened...

It's a reliable indicator.

To be the best player over the course of a season is a huge achievement.

This is the most respectable list I've found for determining the best player of each year:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_number_1_male_tennis_player_rankings

I disagree with you in this case because you defaulted to all time comparisons, which are inherently less accurate than comparisons within eras/generations. Rating Djokovic's achievements in the context of his contemporaries makes more sense/gives a more accurate representation of his achievements relative to the field that actually is relevant to him and you cannot deny that Djokovic has unusual few multi slam seasons relative to how many years he was a major favourite at most slams in comparison to Nadal or even Fed. Nadal has more multi slam seasons while having less years where he was a major favourite at most slams, that is the main difference between the two. Also, it's not like it's Nadal's fault that he stumbled from dominant Federer on 2/3 surfaces into dominant Djokovic on 2/3 surfaces. Djokovic has no excuse really on the other hand. If he really was so dominant as some of his fans want to make us believe, he would have had at least 1 more multi slam season after 2011 by now

(Forgive my brevity and lack of structure, I'm writing from my phone in the train... I'll explain my points better later on if necessary)

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Laverlickers :lol:

At the very least I would consider Laver #1 from 1964 to 1970. I think the way he dominated Rosewall, won more tournaments, won the biggest event (Wembley) as well as another pro 'major' the US Pro in 1964, seals him as the best player that year. Most ranking systems across time would rank him a head I believe.

In 1961 it depends whether you view the h2h tours as more important than majors. I think evidence suggests it might have been.

Books I've read;

- Ken Rosewall: Twenty Years at the Top
- The Game My 40 Years in Tennis
- Fireside Book of Tennis
- Bud Collins History of Tennis: An Authoritative Encyclopedia and Record Book
- THE HISTORY OF PROFESSIONAL TENNIS

Probably less than you were expecting. The other one I might get is Vine's autobiography.

I predicted 4 books. You've read 5. Congratulations. :lol:

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

I disagree with you in this case because you defaulted to all time comparisons, which are inherently less accurate than comparisons within eras/generations. Rating Djokovic's achievements in the context of his contemporaries makes more sense/gives a more accurate representation of his achievements relative to the field that actually is relevant to him and you cannot deny that Djokovic has unusual few multi slam seasons relative to how many years he was a major favourite at most slams in comparison to Nadal or even Fed. Nadal has more multi slam seasons while having less years where he was a major favourite at most slams, that is the main difference between the two. Also, it's not like it's Nadal's fault that he stumbled from dominant Federer on 2/3 surfaces into dominant Djokovic on 2/3 surfaces. Djokovic has no excuse really on the other hand. If he really was so dominant as some of his fans want to make us believe, he would have had at least 1 more multi slam season after 2011 by now.

I disagree with absolutely none of this.

As already stated, demonstrations of dominance are important for many as a display of greatness. Djokovic is punished for having not so many dominant seasons through having less Slams. That is all established. However, his achievements in ending the year as #1 remain valuable. Him ending 2012 as the #1 and winning 1 Slam is in my view much greater than him not ending 2012 as the #1 but still winning 1 Slam. Nadal achieved the #1 rank in his early 20s. He's had his chances to be better than Djokovic in being the best in the world and we give him bonus points for dominance, but you get no bonus weeks at #1 for being dominant. Nadal simply is not as consistent as Djokovic in his participation on the tour, which he is now being punished for in being overtaken by Djokovic for #1 accolades.

The all-time comparisons were to demonstrate how even in its crudest form, #1 statistics (as has been decided by a combination of experts and computer systems) is actually a better indication than "Slams". Ideally, we'd find out exactly which tournaments should be considered Majors for each and every year in tennis history. Still though, being "the best" by being considered to be the best in the world is very important. The tour behind the Majors is not invisible, though Majors will tend to govern who the best in a year is. In split years such as 2012 and 2014, #1 is determined by events other than the Majors.

Majors are the most important. But #1 is very important. That's probably how I'll always see it.

 

[RF-18]

W

I disagree with you in this case because you defaulted to all time comparisons, which are inherently less accurate than comparisons within eras/generations. Rating Djokovic's achievements in the context of his contemporaries makes more sense/gives a more accurate representation of his achievements relative to the field that actually is relevant to him and you cannot deny that Djokovic has unusual few multi slam seasons relative to how many years he was a major favourite at most slams in comparison to Nadal or even Fed. Nadal has more multi slam seasons while having less years where he was a major favourite at most slams, that is the main difference between the two. Also, it's not like it's Nadal's fault that he stumbled from dominant Federer on 2/3 surfaces into dominant Djokovic on 2/3 surfaces. Djokovic has no excuse really on the other hand. If he really was so dominant as some of his fans want to make us believe, he would have had at least 1 more multi slam season after 2011 by now

(Forgive my brevity and lack of structure, I'm writing from my phone in the train... I'll explain my points better later on if necessary)

His weeks at number one speaks for themselves, and year ends aswell (142 and 3 since 2011, so not dominant). Also 5 consecutive seasons winning atleast one slam or more.

16 masters titles since 2011. Has also racked up the most masters titles since 2009.

Three consecutive WTFs titles.

ITF champion 4 straight seasons. Has won 2 of the three latest slams. 7 out of 17 latest slams.

I really don't buy these one slam year thing excuses. His numbers all-round speaks for themselves. I find it very desperate to always bringing up this one slam thing when in reality Djokovic has done almost everything to be considered dominant.

If people are gonna decide whether a player is dominant or not based on 4 tournaments, then that's a pity for our sport.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

No.

Slams = one type of Major.

Majors = more than just Slams.

But what would the other majors be?

All I can think of are the Pro Slams from yesteryear (which Laver won all of in 1967 I believe).

The WTF is not a major, so what am I missing?

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

But what would the other majors be?

All I can think of are the Pro Slams from yesteryear (which Laver won all of in 1967 I believe).

The WTF is not a major, so what am I missing?

For example, the WCT Finals was considered a major in the early '70s, for certain. We scratch it from history now because it's not an ATP event.

 

[Djokovic2011]

The AO 2009 F is my favourite Nadal match, even though I was (and am) gutted by the result.
Djokovic would have lost that 3:0 to either player IMO and I'm not joking.
Both of them were in absolutely scary form.

Also I loved Montreal 2013.
My favourite non-Federer Masters match.
It was glorious from start to finish.

Just to confirm: are you saying that 2009 Djokovic would have lost in straights to Fedal or any version of Djokovic? I'm starting to think you've never even seen Novak play at the AO before. :?

 

[Djokovic2011]

Firstly ,remove the djokovic mask from your face and wear the real one ...
Your idol has been resting all year to add +1 at the coming french open ,and get closer to 17 .. All the best to Him .
Meanwhile djokovic has been fighting at all tournaments ,following rules, for past 4 years and will again stand across the net at coming french open versus nadal like all these years ...
Win or lose ,he has earned respect..
At every masters 1000 or slams or wtf , you need to defeat djokovic to win the trophy , Only federer has had such consistency in 03-07..

Boom! Preach that gospel maratha.

 

[SpinToWin]

I disagree with absolutely none of this.

As already stated, demonstrations of dominance are important for many as a display of greatness. Djokovic is punished for having not so many dominant seasons through having less Slams. That is all established. However, his achievements in ending the year as #1 remain valuable. Him ending 2012 as the #1 and winning 1 Slam is in my view much greater than him not ending 2012 as the #1 but still winning 1 Slam. Nadal achieved the #1 rank in his early 20s. He's had his chances to be better than Djokovic in being the best in the world and we give him bonus points for dominance, but you get no bonus weeks at #1 for being dominant. Nadal simply is not as consistent as Djokovic in his participation on the tour, which he is now being punished for in being overtaken by Djokovic for #1 accolades.

The all-time comparisons were to demonstrate how even in its crudest form, #1 statistics (as has been decided by a combination of experts and computer systems) is actually a better indication than "Slams". Ideally, we'd find out exactly which tournaments should be considered Majors for each and every year in tennis history. Still though, being "the best" by being considered to be the best in the world is very important. The tour behind the Majors is not invisible, though Majors will tend to govern who the best in a year is. In split years such as 2012 and 2014, #1 is determined by events other than the Majors.

Majors are the most important. But #1 is very important. That's probably how I'll always see it.

Ahh now I see. The only question that remains for me is whether we can rate all YE #1s and week at #1 the same. Can and should we perhaps differentiate between times where this stat is achieved with a large margin and other times when it's very close? Does competition play a part in this as well?

interesting food for thought IMO.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Ahh now I see. The only question that remains for me is whether we can rate all YE #1s and week at #1 the same. Can and should we perhaps differentiate between times where this stat is achieved with a large margin and other times when it's very close? Does competition play a part in this as well?

interesting food for thought IMO.

If a player is not #1 by much then typically they've already been punished by the fact they've probably won less majors. Competition does play a part and needs to be looked into from era to era IMO.

As a fundamental base, I ask myself two questions: how many majors and how much time spent at #1. After that we look deeper, as it goes without saying that both can be impacted by level of competition.

 

[NatF]

Which do you favor weeks at #1 or years at #1?

 

[SpinToWin]

Which do you favor weeks at #1 or years at #1?

I am guessing that you are referring to N_N but I will also give my opinion on the matter, I favor weeks at number 1.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Which do you favor weeks at #1 or years at #1?

Years, because we can trace it through tennis history. Weeks is tricky beyond a certain point and is only reliable to use since a certain point in the Open Era. Besides, tennis is structured around a yearly season. It's one thing to reach #1 but to end the year as #1 and prove your superiority over the course of a season is important IMV. Ideally, I wish we could have full statistics for both, but we can only really get a full understanding for years at #1—which as I said makes inherent sense anyway according to the structure of the tennis tour and the tennis season.

Similarly, I'd view a CYGS as a superior achievement to 4 in a row across seasons. It's not some huge slam dunk though as it is for many others, to the extent that I'd see 5 in a row across seasons as being superior to the CYGS.

 

[pc1]

Which do you favor weeks at #1 or years at #1?

To me years at number one is more important. Let's use the example that we have two teams battling for first place in their division in a 100 game schedule and they place one game a day. Team 1 loses its first game but wins the next 97 games. Team 2 wins their first 98 games. Team 2 then loses its last two games and finishes with a record of 98-2. Team 1 wins its last two for a record of 99-1.

Team 2 is in first place or tied for 99 days. Team 1 is in first place for 1 day.

At the end Team 1 however is in first and that's more important.

Week's at number one is somewhat important but the end result to me is the big thing.

So in this case Sampras being number one all those consecutive years is extremely impressive.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

To me years at number one is more important. Let's use the example that we have two teams battling for first place in their division in a 100 game schedule and they place one game a day. Team 1 loses its first game but wins the next 97 games. Team 2 wins their first 98 games. Team 2 then loses its last two games and finishes with a record of 98-2. Team 1 wins its last two for a record of 99-1.

Team 2 is in first place or tied for 99 days. Team 1 is in first place for 1 day.

At the end Team 1 however is in first and that's more important.

Week's at number one is somewhat important but the end result to me is the big thing.

So in this case Sampras being number one all those consecutive years is extremely impressive.

That's actually a very illustrative analogy.

 

[cc0509]

That is not the point for christ sake. Stop coming up with your own stories and read the OP.

Listen, don't get crabby just because you may not like the answers some non-fanboy Djokovic posters are coming up with. It is very simple. Djokovic has one multi-slam winning season and Nadal has three. despite the fact that both have more seasons where they have won one slam.This poster summed it up very well:

Yes, I think this is spot on. I'll add that Djokovic is the only 3x or more Open Era Player of the Year with just a single multi-slam season, so the critique is more pointed because in many ways he's clearly past the group of greats with 0 or 1 multislam seasons to their names (Agassi, Becker, Edberg, Wilander). Meanwhile, on the top end of the spectrum, you have:

Federer - 5x PoY, 5x multislam season (astounding)

Sampras - 6x PoY, 4x multislam season

Borg - 3x (or 4x, depending on where you stand on 1977) PoY, 3x multislam season

Nadal - 3x PoY, 3x multislam season

Connors - 3x PoY, 2x multislam season

McEnroe - 3x PoY, 2x multislam season

Lendl - 3x PoY, 2x multislam season

Djokovic - 3x PoY, 1x multislam season

I think he'll win one more (at least) this year though, and that'll be that.

If you can't understand the argument in favor of Nadal after reading a post like the one above, I have nothing else to say to you on this topic. A kindergarten student could see the logic but you can't?

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Just to confirm: are you saying that 2009 Djokovic would have lost in straights to Fedal or any version of Djokovic? I'm starting to think you've never even seen Novak play at the AO before. :?

For some reason I felt you would eventually reply to this. :lol:

I've seen Djokovic play live at the AO many times, including 2011.
I was most impressed by what I saw then, and still am to this year.

But sadly, I did not see that match in 2009.
That's some of the highest level tennis I've ever seen from both sides of the net at once, at least in the first four sets.

I don't think that when Federer or Nadal are playing like that, there is much Djokovic can hurt them with.
That kind of match is how they've earned Tier 1 status.
They've both beaten 2011-present Djokovic in slams playing worse than they were there.

Maybe 3:0 is hyperbole, but I doubt it would go five against either of them, however Djokovic was feeling/playing.

The court was slightly faster then too, mind.

Edit: 2011 Novak might have fared better, but other versions aren't winning IMO.

 

[RF-18]

Years, because we can trace it through tennis history. Weeks is tricky beyond a certain point and is only reliable to use since a certain point in the Open Era. Besides, tennis is structured around a yearly season. It's one thing to reach #1 but to end the year as #1 and prove your superiority over the course of a season is important IMV. Ideally, I wish we could have full statistics for both, but we can only really get a full understanding for years at #1—which as I said makes inherent sense anyway according to the structure of the tennis tour and the tennis season.

Similarly, I'd view a CYGS as a superior achievement to 4 in a row across seasons. It's not some huge slam dunk though as it is for many others, to the extent that I'd see 5 in a row across seasons as being superior to the CYGS.

What if the #1 was #1 for the most part of the year, but loses the first place in the last month or two to the #2 guy?

 

[NatF]

I am guessing that you are referring to N_N but I will also give my opinion on the matter, I favor weeks at number 1.

I disagree, for the reasons stated below.

Years, because we can trace it through tennis history. Weeks is tricky beyond a certain point and is only reliable to use since a certain point in the Open Era. Besides, tennis is structured around a yearly season. It's one thing to reach #1 but to end the year as #1 and prove your superiority over the course of a season is important IMV. Ideally, I wish we could have full statistics for both, but we can only really get a full understanding for years at #1—which as I said makes inherent sense anyway according to the structure of the tennis tour and the tennis season.

Similarly, I'd view a CYGS as a superior achievement to 4 in a row across seasons. It's not some huge slam dunk though as it is for many others, to the extent that I'd see 5 in a row across seasons as being superior to the CYGS.

To me years at number one is more important. Let's use the example that we have two teams battling for first place in their division in a 100 game schedule and they place one game a day. Team 1 loses its first game but wins the next 97 games. Team 2 wins their first 98 games. Team 2 then loses its last two games and finishes with a record of 98-2. Team 1 wins its last two for a record of 99-1.

Team 2 is in first place or tied for 99 days. Team 1 is in first place for 1 day.

At the end Team 1 however is in first and that's more important.

Week's at number one is somewhat important but the end result to me is the big thing.

So in this case Sampras being number one all those consecutive years is extremely impressive.

I agree with the above. Being #1 at the end of the year is IMO the greatest achievement potentially above slams.I do however view consecutive weeks in high regard, unbroken stretches at the top are a real mark of dominance.

Sampras being #1 for so long is impressive, though I think his #1 finish in 1998 is arguably the weakest ever.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Typically yes it's a good indicator but even if in outliers I'm not going to suddenly not care about #1. Djokovic was clearly the #1 in 2012 and 2014 yet only won 1 Slam in each year. OK, they were not dominant years and he is punished for that (in that we'd speak more glowingly about him if they were multi-slam years) but it takes nothing—nothing—away from his being the best of the bunch in both those years. It's a huge two feathers in the cap for Djokovic. I rate 2012 as the strongest year in recent history, and Djokovic won the war in that year. Only looking at big titles is dishonest. Djokovic was rightly rewarded for his more consistent superiority throughout the year. The #1 rank tells us more than just who won the biggest titles and offers the rightful respect to the rest of the tour that exists behind the "Majors".. rather than treating them as invisible and irrelevant. In 2012, Djokovic won a Major AND was the best player in the world.

Seriously Nathaniel, why can't everyone else be like you? TTW and the world as a whole would be a much better place to live in.

 

[SpinToWin]

I can critique the YE#1 similarly to how you guys critique the weeks at number 1. A player could reach #1 for the end of the year by a small margin and then fall off the ranking again. Weeks at number 1 shows consistent dominance more so than YE#1s IMO.

I guess it depends on the perspective one takes though, as I can certainly see your point. Looking at both statistics in combination yields the most objective results I suppose.

 

[Djokovic2011]

For some reason I felt you would eventually reply to this.

I've seen Djokovic play live at the AO many times, including 2011.
I was most impressed by what I saw then, and still am to this year.

But sadly, I did not see that match in 2009.
That's some of the highest level tennis I've ever seen from both sides of the net at once, at least in the first four sets.

I don't think that when Federer or Nadal are playing like that, there is much Djokovic can hurt them with.
That kind of match is how they've earned Tier 1 status.
They've both beaten 2011-present Djokovic in slams playing worse than they were there.

Lol, just because they're both tier 1 players doesn't mean they'd win the match in straights. And yes, they've both beaten Djokovic in slams from 2011 but not at the AO. Big difference. IMO Djokovic 2.0 would take either player out at their very peak there.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

I can critique the YE#1 similarly to how you guys critique the weeks at number 1. A player could reach #1 for the end of the year by a small margin and then fall off the ranking again. Weeks at number 1 shows consistent dominance more so than YE#1s IMO.

I guess it depends on the perspective one takes though, as I can certainly see your point. Looking at both statistics in combination yields the most objective results I suppose.

Yep. The problem is coming up with those statistics for most of tennis history. I think both should be considered providing the data is available for the players in question, at which point the question would be: with what weighting?

If a player gets it by a small margin at the end, I'm presuming there would have been quite the back and forth action between year-end ranked players #1 and #2, in which case weeks has to be considered to at least compensate for #2's inability to actually end the year at #1.

Seriously Nathaniel, why can't everyone else be like you? TTW and the world as a whole would be a much better place to live in.

I appreciate your kind words just not sure how to respond to it but it takes all types and I'm happy to provide mine, lol. Debate yields progress.

 

[RF-18]

Listen, don't get crabby just because you may not like the answers some non-fanboy Djokovic posters are coming up with. It is very simple. Djokovic has one multi-slam winning season and Nadal has three. despite the fact that both have more seasons where they have won one slam.This poster summed it up very well

Sorry for sounding crabby but then I guess we have to disagree about the multi-thing. I don't believe that's why.

 

[NatF]

I can critique the YE#1 similarly to how you guys critique the weeks at number 1. A player could reach #1 for the end of the year by a small margin and then fall off the ranking again. Weeks at number 1 shows consistent dominance more so than YE#1s IMO.

I guess it depends on the perspective one takes though, as I can certainly see your point. Looking at both statistics in combination yields the most objective results I suppose.

Tennis has a season, it's not a continuous all year grind (though it perhaps comes close). You get the props for finishing the year strongly, it doesn't matter who was in the lead in the middle - the player #1 at the end of the year had the best season.

Weeks at #1 have their place. But the ranking system development means it's meaningless when looking at players going back the decades. Years at #1 has precedence in all manner of sports and is directly comparable throughout tennis history.

 

[SpinToWin]

Yep. The problem is coming up with those statistics for most of tennis history. I think both should be considered providing the data is available for the players in question, at which point the question would be: with what weighting?

If a player gets it by a small margin at the end, I'm presuming there would have been quite the back and forth action between year-end ranked players #1 and #2, in which case weeks has to be considered to at least compensate for #2's inability to actually end the year at #1.

And I agree with this if we're speaking all time (which I find a questionable practice to begin with, because eras are just so hard to compare in every way).

If we isolate the comparisons to more recent years where the weeks at number 1 are a reliable stat, I find that to work pretty well.

If we do manage to get that statistics forum formed on here, we could make it a big collaborative effort to carry on the weighting for certain tournaments so that there is a fair, linear value of ATP points throughout time, allowing us to form relatively reliable weeks at number 1 stats and making comparisons between eras more easy. This is too much work for one person though, which is why it would have to be a joint effort.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Lol, just because they're both tier 1 players doesn't mean they'd win the match in straights. And yes, they've both beaten Djokovic in slams from 2011 but not at the AO. Big difference. IMO Djokovic 2.0 would take either player out at their very peak there.

"Is there anything you think Djokovic 2.0 can't do, Djokovic2011?" :? :lol:

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

I don't like Nadal's chances against Djokovic at the AO. Djokovic slaughters Nadal in their H2H on slower HC. I guess peak Federer would have a better chance, but Djokovic also slaughters Federer generally on slower HC, just that less of their primes/peaks/whatever have coincided.

 

[RF-18]

"Is there anything you think Djokovic 2.0 can't do, Djokovic2011?" :? :lol:

Don't start anything with him now. It will be questions for 2 pages and many oneliners.

NatF, STW and NN has a good discussion right now. Interesting.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Typically yes it's a good indicator but even if in outliers I'm not going to suddenly not care about #1. Djokovic was clearly the #1 in 2012 and 2014 yet only won 1 Slam in each year. OK, they were not dominant years and he is punished for that (in that we'd speak more glowingly about him if they were multi-slam years) but it takes nothing—nothing—away from his being the best of the bunch in both those years. It's a huge two feathers in the cap for Djokovic. I rate 2012 as the strongest year in recent history, and Djokovic won the war in that year. Only looking at big titles is dishonest. Djokovic was rightly rewarded for his more consistent superiority throughout the year. The #1 rank tells us more than just who won the biggest titles and offers the rightful respect to the rest of the tour that exists behind the "Majors".. rather than treating them as invisible and irrelevant. In 2012, Djokovic won a Major AND was the best player in the world.

The #1 ranking tells us by definition who has been most successful over the preceding year, based on points.
I don't think it is perfect, because you can attain a very high ranking without actually winning titles (just being SF or RU all the time).

Nadal's ranking is lousy at the moment for who he is as a player, but look, he (arguably) had a better year last year than Federer because he won a slam.
As a Fed fan, I would have preferred the slam.

So #1 is important, but I don't think we can look at it alone, because even though it hasn't happened much as of yet, #1 and success in winning tournaments don't necessarily go hand in hand.
But it's a very useful way of making non-slam tournaments count more, yes, and for this reason the #1 ranking gives us a different set of information which is highly useful for determining how good a player has been in the year as a whole, in all tournaments.

Basically, it measures consistency in all tournaments.

Also, as for 2012, I think the best player was the All England Single-handed Men's Champion of the World, as I do every year.
Whoever wins that wins, IMO.

If I could choose between:

A: Wimbledon

B: Any of the other slams + WTF + YE #1

I'd pick A every time, I think it means that much, I really do.

 

[NatF]

I don't like Nadal's chances against Djokovic at the AO. Djokovic slaughters Nadal in their H2H on slower HC. I guess peak Federer would have a better chance, but Djokovic also slaughters Federer generally on slower HC, just that less of their primes/peaks/whatever have coincided.

It's a bad match up for Nadal on slow HC. Federer has the firepower to hit through Djokovic on slow HC at his peak, plus he used the slice more back then.

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

is it this mythical injuryland the nadal has often talked about ?

looks great, although the mushrooms don't appear properly aligned as they should.
(did rosol mess with them again ?)

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

And I agree with this if we're speaking all time (which I find a questionable practice to begin with, because eras are just so hard to compare in every way).

If we isolate the comparisons to more recent years where the weeks at number 1 are a reliable stat, I find that to work pretty well.

If we do manage to get that statistics forum formed on here, we could make it a big collaborative effort to carry on the weighting for certain tournaments so that there is a fair, linear value of ATP points throughout time, allowing us to form relatively reliable weeks at number 1 stats and making comparisons between eras more easy. This is too much work for one person though, which is why it would have to be a joint effort.

This is exactly the sort of stuff I want to see happen. But more people need to actually express their views in the TT Social Groups thread in TW Questions/Comments section, otherwise a new potential sub forum being created is never going to happen. Please read my latest views there BTW because I believe the selling point should be much more than it being just a stats forum (another big forum already has one).

 

[MichaelNadal]

Don't start anything with him now. It will be questions for 2 pages and many oneliners.

NatF, STW and NN has a good discussion right now. Interesting.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

The #1 ranking tells us by definition who has been most successful over the preceding year, based on points.
I don't think it is perfect, because you can attain a very high ranking without actually winning titles (just being SF or RU all the time).

Nadal's ranking is lousy at the moment for who he is as a player, but look, he (arguably) had a better year last year than Federer because he won a slam.
As a Fed fan, I would have preferred the slam.

So #1 is important, but I don't think we can look at it alone, because even though it hasn't happened much as of yet, #1 and success in winning tournaments don't necessarily go hand in hand.
But it's a very useful way of making non-slam tournaments count more, yes, and for this reason the #1 ranking gives us a different set of information which is highly useful for determining how good a player has been in the year as a whole, in all tournaments.

Basically, it measures consistency in all tournaments.

Also, as for 2012, I think the best player was the All England Single-handed Men's Champion of the World, as I do every year.
Whoever wins that wins, IMO.

If I could choose between:

A: Wimbledon

B: Any of the other slams + WTF + YE #1

I'd pick A every time, I think it means that much, I really do.

I think if the 2012 season happened in say 1980 (maybe earlier), the experts might have declared that Federer and not Djokovic is the Player of the Year... but not in 2012. It isn't as it was.


Anyway, your summary is concise and succinct as per usual.

 

[SpinToWin]

Tennis has a season, it's not a continuous all year grind (though it perhaps comes close). You get the props for finishing the year strongly, it doesn't matter who was in the lead in the middle - the player #1 at the end of the year had the best season.

Weeks at #1 have their place. But the ranking system development means it's meaningless when looking at players going back the decades. Years at #1 has precedence in all manner of sports and is directly comparable throughout tennis history.

Should we value a guy who manages to get to YE#1 by playing an insane amount of tournaments and then being burnt out for a long time and never reaching the same level again (perhaps due to injury/overuse) over a guy who is consistently at the top of the game and just barely misses the YE#1 (perhaps even with a few weeks at #1)?

Similarly, does a guy with 4 YE#1s but with much less weeks at number 1 than another guy who has only 3 YE#1s have a better record?

YE#1 alone does not satisfy me as a statistic. Weeks at number 1 does not lose its value just because the ATP failed to measure this record/statistic (accurately) early on. Ideally, I would like to have the weeks at number 1 for the whole of the Open Era measured again and corrected to equal standards, so that this statistic becomes comparable throughout time. The YE#1 statistic also would gain relevance/meaning that way, as it can be expressed in a good context. Pre Open Era is where comparisons just fall apart really.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

"Is there anything you think Djokovic 2.0 can't do, Djokovic2011?" :? :lol:

Well he can win one set off Federer on Fed's worst surface (RG 2011), but anything else seems to be within the realms of possibility depending on who you ask. :lol:

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Should we value a guy who manages to get to YE#1 by playing an insane amount of tournaments and then being burnt out for a long time and never reaching the same level again (perhaps due to injury/overuse) over a guy who is consistently at the top of the game and just barely misses the YE#1 (perhaps even with a few weeks at #1)?

Similarly, does a guy with 4 YE#1s but with much less weeks at number 1 than another guy who has only 3 YE#1s have a better record?

YE#1 alone does not satisfy me as a statistic. Weeks at number 1 does not lose its value just because the ATP failed to measure this record/statistic (accurately) early on. Ideally, I would like to have the weeks at number 1 for the whole of the Open Era measured again and corrected to equal standards, so that this statistic becomes comparable throughout time. The YE#1 statistic also would gain relevance/meaning that way, as it can be expressed in a good context. Pre Open Era is where comparisons just fall apart really.

We value that guy, but less than we might have done had he gone about his business more sensibly. He would have achieved a big goal.. but at huge a huge expense. It will open up space for the guy who just misses out to maybe achieve as much or more than he would have done had the other guy not been such a muppet. I see your general point though, which is that we must treat this topic with care and the devil can still be in the detail regardless of a big picture and bottom line approach.

The first thing is to create a consistent basis for comparison through history—which I honestly believe can be done in a reasonable and fair way—to measure accomplishments. We can measure the accomplishments without necessarily comparing eras. We can at least determine more or less what was achieved. Some will take it further because some of us are twisted muckers (such as myself).

 

[Djokovic2011]

"Is there anything you think Djokovic 2.0 can't do, Djokovic2011?" :? :lol:

At his very best at the AO? Nope, not really. But I just know it would kill you to concede that Djokovic is better at one of the slams than Nadal.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

I think if the 2012 season happened in say 1980 (maybe earlier), the experts might have declared that Federer and not Djokovic is the Player of the Year... but not in 2012. It isn't as it was.

I agree.
The Wimbledon thing is my personal view, I don't expect the ATP or ITF to reflect that, even if I would be happy for them to do so.

But yeah, I like the #1 ranking as a metric for greatness, as it also basically tells you how long a player was the best in the world for (well, at least "best" in terms of points, which isn't perfect as I said before).
But you can then say that whoever has been the best for the longest should be the best overall.
Seems reasonable to me, anyway.

Anyway, your summary is concise and succinct as per usual.

I'm fortunate to be blessed with the ability to write concisely, as I'm far too lazy to write any other way.

 

[MichaelNadal]

At his very best at the AO? Nope, not really. But I just know it would kill you to concede that Djokovic is better at one of the slams than Nadal.

Lmao, then you're wrong. Because he is better than Nadal at the AO brah. But he barely beat him in 2012, and he was in Nadal's head. Nadal of 09 would have had more of a chance Nothing "kills" me about tennis, it's your job to change your sheets after matches or threaten to leave the board because you can't handle tough losses. As sensitive as as a peach you are.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

At his very best at the AO? Nope, not really. But I just know it would kill you to concede that Djokovic is better at one of the slams than Nadal.

Fed'd get him. :twisted:
I'd put solid money on it.

I wouldn't write off Nadal either.

Anyone else would get beaten I am sure, but those two particular gentlemen are forces of nature.

 

[MichaelNadal]

I just can't see Djokovic playing a better match against Nadal than Fed/Versasco in 09. They threw not only the kitchen sink, but the entire neighborhood at Nadal and he soaked it all up and won with energy to spare.

Don't start anything with him now. It will be questions for 2 pages and many oneliners.

NatF, STW and NN has a good discussion right now. Interesting.

:lol: you were right, he has insecurity issues and just MUST bite the hook.

 

[NatF]

Should we value a guy who manages to get to YE#1 by playing an insane amount of tournaments and then being burnt out for a long time and never reaching the same level again (perhaps due to injury/overuse) over a guy who is consistently at the top of the game and just barely misses the YE#1 (perhaps even with a few weeks at #1)?

Similarly, does a guy with 4 YE#1s but with much less weeks at number 1 than another guy who has only 3 YE#1s have a better record?

I believe it should be done on a case by case basis. Obviously the guy who burns out will miss out on slam wins that the second player might then win to boost his resume.

On your second example, it again depends. But in general 4 YE #1's > 3 YE #1's. This is only in general, likewise I consider McEnroe > Agassi even just going by slams.

YE#1 alone does not satisfy me as a statistic. Weeks at number 1 does not lose its value just because the ATP failed to measure this record/statistic (accurately) early on. Ideally, I would like to have the weeks at number 1 for the whole of the Open Era measured again and corrected to equal standards, so that this statistic becomes comparable throughout time. The YE#1 statistic also would gain relevance/meaning that way, as it can be expressed in a good context. Pre Open Era is where comparisons just fall apart really.

That would be extremely difficult. Don't mistake my viewpoint from being something I apply in all circumstances. It's my general view that finishing the year at #1 is more important than an unspecified number of weeks at #1. The details and nuances will vary case to case.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Well he can win one set off Federer on Fed's worst surface (RG 2011), but anything else seems to be within the realms of possibility depending on who you ask. :lol:

What does their match at RG in 2011 have to do with a hypothetical peak vs peak match at the AO?

 

[Djokovic2011]

Fed'd get him. :twisted:
I'd put solid money on it.

I wouldn't write off Nadal either.

Anyone else would get beaten I am sure, but those two particular gentlemen are forces of nature.

Yep, Fed would get him good and proper. The last two times Fedovic have met at the AO have convinced me of that.