YE1 doesnt equal domination of the season.

[The_Mental_Giant]

For example despite of Djokovic earning YE#1 in 2012 I dont think it was dominated by him , It was the only truly big 4 year where he earned barely more points than the other players..


Lets check their results..


Murray: won USO and olympic gold medal, wimbledon finalist.

Federer: won wimbledon, 3m1000, silver medal, wtf finalist, SF in australia and RG.

Djoko: Won Ao, wtf, 3 m1000, RG and Uso finalist,SF in Wimbledon

Nadal:Won Rg, 2 m1000, AO finalist

For me to call it domination you need to win 2 Slams in a season.

So nole barely outperformed the other big 4 but didnt dominate at all that year.

Multiple slam winner is the true dominator of the yeat, Lets say rafa fins USO this year, no matter if Nole ends up as #1 by the end of the season It will be tje spaniard who will be remembered as the better player, any thoughts ?

 

[Carsomyr]

I'm not sure if anyone has ever equated YE #1 with domination. It just means you were the best, either by a huge or tiny margin. Sometimes, YE #1 doesn't even reflect who was the best; 1978, 1989 as examples.

2012 was close, and would have been even more mired if Fed or Murray had won the WTF. But Djokovic did. He was the best player, and ended the year ranked as such.

 

[Logic]

IMO, which of two players has had the better achievements in a season is determined by:

1. Whoever won the most majors
2. If 1 is tied, whoever is YE#1
3. If neither is YE#1, whoever won WTF
4. If neither won WTF, whoever reached the most major finals
5. If 4 is tied, whoever won the most Masters 1000
6. If 5 is tied, whoever has the higher ranking

Note: Criterion 6 can only come into play if neither is YE#1 (since YE#1 accounted for by Criterion 2). The reason I place the value of rankings so low if neither player is YE#1 is that #1 is the only ranking with a prize.

 

[Russeljones]

People really need to stop basing things on a single match or a single season. It's really embarrassing.

 

[jg153040]

Of course it doesn't. Did anyone claim it did?

 

[zam88]

So if a dude won all 9 masters 1000's and the WTF and a a few 500's

But got knocked out of every slam in the QF or before.. but was #1

And dude #2 won RG and Wimbledon but got knocked out in the first round of every other tournament he played in that year.

Then Dude #2 > Dude #1 ?

 

[The_Mental_Giant]

Slams matter the most .. if you disnt win at least two slams you did t dominate the year.. unless you make ridiculous achievements outside slams like winning 4/5 m1000 and wtf. Otherwise it will be even, let alone if someone's else manages to win 2 slams.. despite not ending as #1

 

[The_Mental_Giant]

So if a dude won all 9 masters 1000's and the WTF and a a few 500's

But got knocked out of every slam in the QF or before.. but was #1

And dude #2 won RG and Wimbledon but got knocked out in the first round of every other tournament he played in that year.

Then Dude #2 > Dude #1 ?

Yes. Slams separate legends from good player... let alone 2>0


For some reason that player wasnt able to win in the bigger stages of tennis, nobody tank at slams. Now you could make a case for 1 slam>2 slams in the case player 1 achieved insane things outside slams such as 5+ m1000, wtf, etc, and even there would be a dispute, some people would still favor the guy with 2 slams... after all goatness is measure by slams won as first requeriment, no ?

 

[The_Mental_Giant]

Of course it doesn't. Did anyone claim it did?

Djoko fans always do, they claim nole dominated 2012. And they get ****ed if you suggest the serb hasnt been able to dominate tenni ps asides 2011.

 

[Carsomyr]

So if a dude won all 9 masters 1000's and the WTF and a a few 500's

But got knocked out of every slam in the QF or before.. but was #1

And dude #2 won RG and Wimbledon but got knocked out in the first round of every other tournament he played in that year.

Then Dude #2 > Dude #1 ?

A situation similar to this would be extremely rare, but not entirely unprecedented; Laver is considered co (sometimes outright) #1 of 1970 despite his poor results in the two Slam events he played that year due to his domination of other prestigious events at the time.

The majors are the benchmark of the sport, dwarfing all other events in terms of prestige. But the other events aren't meaningless in any sense of the word.

 

[conway]

I agree. In the last 20 years these would be the dominant #1s of the year IMO:

1993 Sampras
1994 Sampras
1997 Sampras
2004 Fed
2005 Fed
2006 Fed
2007 Fed
2008 Nadal
2010 Nadal
2011 Djokovic
2013 Nadal
Ones that could be borderline would be Sampras 1995, Agassi 1995, Federer 2009.

Djokovic was the deserving #1 in 2012 but in no way a dominant one. This year remains to be seen, but it seems likely he will fall into this same category again.

 

[The_Mental_Giant]

I agree. In the last 20 years these would be the dominant #1s of the year IMO:

1993 Sampras
1994 Sampras
1997 Sampras
2004 Fed
2005 Fed
2006 Fed
2007 Fed
2008 Nadal
2010 Nadal
2011 Djokovic
2013 Djokovic

Ones that could be borderline would be Sampras 1995, Agassi 1995, Federer 2009.

Djokovic was the deserving #1 in 2012 but in no way a dominant one. This year remains to be seen, but it seems likely he will fall into this same category again.

Nadal clearly dominated 2013, 2 slams , 5 m1000 anf WTF final arent enough ? Certainly better than anything nole achieved.. If thats the case federer didnt dominate 2005 neither sampras dominated any year in his career.

 

[conway]

Sorry that was a typo. I meant Nadal for 2013.

 

[The_Mental_Giant]

People really need to stop basing things on a single match or a single season. It's really embarrassing.

Single matches can decide careers and greatness,Imagine If federer managed to win wimbledon this year, everybody would be saying how federer legacy wont be matched ever.. and how Nole is done winning slams.... and it was a close 5 setter match... so yes, depending on what single match we are talking about.. thay can decide a whole season.

 

[Carsomyr]

I agree. In the last 20 years these would be the dominant #1s of the year IMO:

1993 Sampras
1994 Sampras
1997 Sampras
2004 Fed
2005 Fed
2006 Fed
2007 Fed
2008 Nadal
2010 Nadal
2011 Djokovic
2013 Nadal
Ones that could be borderline would be Sampras 1995, Agassi 1995, Federer 2009.

Djokovic was the deserving #1 in 2012 but in no way a dominant one. This year remains to be seen, but it seems likely he will fall into this same category again.

Did you mean Agassi 1999? And I think Fed's 2009 is pretty dominant. Not a lot of titles, but 4 major finals, channel Slam, and wins in Madrid and Cincy.

 

[Petrus]

Fed>nadal
stop arguing

 

[The_Mental_Giant]

Fed>nadal
stop arguing

What ? Going a little off topic no ? Probably a bitter nole fan.


And Fed is done in terms of domination and probably winning slams.. lets compare them in 4/5 years more when everything is said and done.

 

[TMF]

I agree. In the last 20 years these would be the dominant #1s of the year IMO:

1993 Sampras
1994 Sampras
1997 Sampras
2004 Fed
2005 Fed
2006 Fed
2007 Fed
2008 Nadal
2010 Nadal
2011 Djokovic
2013 Nadal
Ones that could be borderline would be Sampras 1995, Agassi 1995, Federer 2009.

Djokovic was the deserving #1 in 2012 but in no way a dominant one. This year remains to be seen, but it seems likely he will fall into this same category again.

Federer 2009 should be included. He won 2 slams and made all 4 slam finals.

 

[SpicyCurry1990]

Nadal clearly dominated 2013, 2 slams , 5 m1000 anf WTF final arent enough ? Certainly better than anything nole achieved.. If thats the case federer didnt dominate 2005 neither sampras dominated any year in his career.

So Nadal literally winning ZERO matches in the other two slams versus Nole reaching 2 other Slam F + 1 SF in addition to his slam win + WTF win don't factor into the equation?

You said yourself slam performance should matter most. In slams Nadal accumulated 4000 points and Nole 5120.

W-W-1R-NP
vs
W-F-F-SF

is almost as extreme of a discrepancy as you can get in a 2>1 situation, only way it could be worse is if Djok made the extra final, but he did lose that SF to the champion putting up a far better fight than the finalist did and only had a SF result due to drawing Nadal early at RG.

The ranking points shown Djokovic more ahead of Federer in 2012 than Nadal was ahead of Nole in 2013, and no one outscored him in slams like Djok did to Nadal in 2013.

The 2nd slam in conjunction with the 5>3 Masters titles make Nadal the deserving #1 for 2013, just as Nole was the deserving #1 in 2012. But I fail to see how Nadal in 2013 was "dominating" compared to Nole in 2012. You can't ignore the 0 wins at Wimbledon and AO and just say 2>1 = dominant. Neither were dominant years.

Djoko fans always do, they claim nole dominated 2012. And they get ****ed if you suggest the serb hasnt been able to dominate tenni ps asides 2011.

Who says that? The only thing any reasonable one says is that he was indisputably the best that year, which he was and its ridiculous to suggest otherwise. Doesn't mean he dominated.

Its YOU and other Nadal fans who are getting ****ed when people suggest HIS 2013 wasn't dominant because we don't ignore the results of 2/4 slams like you would like to.

 

[The_Mental_Giant]

So Nadal literally winning ZERO matches in the other two slams versus Nole reaching 2 other Slam F + 1 SF in addition to his slam win + WTF win don't factor into the equation?

You said yourself slam performance should matter most. In slams Nadal accumulated 4000 points and Nole 5120.

W-W-1R-NP
vs
W-F-F-SF

is almost as extreme of a discrepancy as you can get in a 2>1 situation, only way it could be worse is if Djok made the extra final, but he did lose that SF to the champion putting up a far better fight than the finalist did and only had a SF result due to drawing Nadal early at RG.

The ranking points shown Djokovic more ahead of Federer in 2012 than Nadal was ahead of Nole in 2013, and no one outscored him in slams like Djok did to Nadal in 2013.

The 2nd slam in conjunction with the 5>3 Masters titles make Nadal the deserving #1 for 2013, just as Nole was the deserving #1 in 2012. But I fail to see how Nadal in 2013 was "dominating" compared to Nole in 2012. You can't ignore the 0 wins at Wimbledon and AO and just say 2>1 = dominant. Neither were dominant years.



Who says that? The only thing any reasonable one says is that he was indisputably the best that year, which he was and its ridiculous to suggest otherwise. Doesn't mean he dominated.

Its YOU and other Nadal fans who are getting ****ed when people suggest his 2013 wasn't dominant because we don't ignore the results of 2/4 slams like you would like to.

Rafa not only won 2 slams but also leaded the m1000 rafa winning 5 master tournaments out of 9. And even if he didnt win as much in last tournaments of the he managed to rech final in wtf.


So he was the best as slams, best at m1000 anf second best at wtf. Nole was second best at slams and m1000 and best in wtf.


Rafa also won m1000 in slow hc, fast hc and clay, including the USo swing, canada-cinci-USo which wasnt achieved since 2013. Consistence ia being the best one more often and rafa clearly leads thia department, no matter how nole fans dislike it.


In goat race borg is well above lendl, despite lendl making more finals, what real matter are tittles, runner up are the consolation prize and useful for statics and streaks.


Nadal was dominant winning 2/4 slams.. and he confirmed that outaide slams winning 5/9 m1000 , so you have no arguments to suggest anything else, no matter how well did nole tje 2 slams+ 5 m1000 combo (including USo hc swing) is a too strong argument.

 

[SpicyCurry1990]

IMO, which of two players has had the better achievements in a season is determined by:

1. Whoever won the most majors
2. If 1 is tied, whoever is YE#1
3. If neither is YE#1, whoever won WTF
4. If neither won WTF, whoever reached the most major finals
5. If 4 is tied, whoever won the most Masters 1000
6. If 5 is tied, whoever has the higher ranking

Note: Criterion 6 can only come into play if neither is YE#1 (since YE#1 accounted for by Criterion 2). The reason I place the value of rankings so low if neither player is YE#1 is that #1 is the only ranking with a prize.

Player A wins
9 Masters titles
1 Slam
1 WTF
4 500 titles
1 250 title
3 Slam Finals
92-3 season record

Player B wins
2 Slams
0 other matches
14-19 season record

By your logic Player B had the better year, does that make sense?

 

[Mustard]

It's ridiculous that anyone can seriously claim that Djokovic had a better year in the majors in 2013 than Nadal. The reality is that winning 2 majors trumps general consistency in the majors. It's the same reason why Sampras had a better year than Agassi in the majors in 1995. It would be ridiculous to say that Agassi had a better year in the majors in 1995 just because Sampras lost in the first round of the French Open while Agassi got to at least the quarter finals in all 4 majors that year.

 

[The_Mental_Giant]

It's ridiculous that anyone can seriously claim that Djokovic had a better year in the majors in 2013 than Nadal. The reality is that winning 2 majors trumps general consistency in the majors. It's the same reason why Sampras had a better year than Agassi in the majors in 1995. It would be ridiculous to say that Agassi had a better year in the majors in 1995 just because Sampras lost in the first round of the French Open while Agassi got to at least the quarter finals in all 4 majors that year.

and not only that he won 5/9 M1000, SO he even confirmed his domination outside the slams (for those who disagree to only look at the slams..)

 

[jg153040]

and not only that he won 5/9 M1000, SO he even confirmed his domination outside the slams (for those who disagree to only look at the slams..)

People don't realize how close they were that year.

One match only made a difference. If Nole won that RG semi, which was close, he would have 2 majors vs 1 major and year end nr.1.

It's crazy. And Nole was break up in the fifth. It's crazy how close things are in tennis sometimes.

Just a few big points can make such a difference.

 

[conway]

Nadal won more slams, more Masters, and more tournaments than anyone else in 2013. That is easily dominant. Only a Nadal hater or Djokotrd would suggest otherwise.

 

[Anti-Fedal]

For example despite of Djokovic earning YE#1 in 2012 I dont think it was dominated by him , It was the only truly big 4 year where he earned barely more points than the other players..


Lets check their results..


Murray: won USO and olympic gold medal, wimbledon finalist.

Federer: won wimbledon, 3m1000, silver medal, wtf finalist, SF in australia and RG.

Djoko: Won Ao, wtf, 3 m1000, RG and Uso finalist,SF in Wimbledon

Nadal:Won Rg, 2 m1000, AO finalist

For me to call it domination you need to win 2 Slams in a season.

So nole barely outperformed the other big 4 but didnt dominate at all that year.

Multiple slam winner is the true dominator of the yeat, Lets say rafa fins USO this year, no matter if Nole ends up as #1 by the end of the season It will be tje spaniard who will be remembered as the better player, any thoughts ?

Djokovic was the best player in 2012, that's all that matters.

 

[conway]

I actually think Federer was the best player, but Djokovic was able to produce the best stats so deserved the #1 ranking. Federer made a bad mistake to skip Canada where Djokovic gained 1000 easy points by winning over a weenie draw and field, as it started the swing of points back in Djokovic's favor. You look at how Federer played at Wimbledon and Cincinnati, it was the best tennis anyone played that year by a long ways.

 

[Carsomyr]

I actually think Federer was the best player, but Djokovic was able to produce the best stats so deserved the #1 ranking. Federer made a bad mistake to skip Canada where Djokovic gained 1000 easy points by winning over a weenie draw and field, as it started the swing of points back in Djokovic's favor. You look at how Federer played at Wimbledon and Cincinnati, it was the best tennis anyone played that year by a long ways.

Federer played a ton of tennis up to the point of Toronto, with a hugely draining match against Delpo in the Olympics. I think he was a little fried by that point, so his Canadian withdrawal was totally understandable, especially at his age.

 

[SpicyCurry1990]

Rafa not only won 2 slams but also leaded the m1000 rafa winning 5 master tournaments out of 9. And even if he didnt win as much in last tournaments of the he managed to rech final in wtf.


So he was the best as slams, best at m1000 anf second best at wtf. Nole was second best at slams and m1000 and best in wtf.


Rafa also won m1000 in slow hc, fast hc and clay, including the USo swing, canada-cinci-USo which wasnt achieved since 2013. Consistence ia being the best one more often and rafa clearly leads thia department, no matter how nole fans dislike it.


In goat race borg is well above lendl, despite lendl making more finals, what real matter are tittles, runner up are the consolation prize and useful for statics and streaks.


Nadal was dominant winning 2/4 slams.. and he confirmed that outaide slams winning 5/9 m1000 , so you have no arguments to suggest anything else, no matter how well did nole tje 2 slams+ 5 m1000 combo (including USo hc swing) is a too strong argument.

You would have a point if I was trying to argue that Nole deserves the split YE #1 that the ITF awarded him, but thats not what I am saying. Rafa fully deserves an undisputed #1 that year the same way Nole deserves in for 2012.

However, being outscored by Nole by 1000+ points in slams, losing to him in the WTF, winning 0 matches in slams outside of his 2 wins, and only finishing a sparse 800 points in front of Nole in the YE rankings (less than Nole's edge over Fed in 2012), classify it as not dominant the same as Nole's 2012.

Dominant means there no real areas to poke holes in. When you are outscored in the 4 slams by over 1000 points, that is a hole. Not a big enough one to dispute #1 legitimacy, but big enough to indicate its not dominant.

 

[Anti-Fedal]

I actually think Federer was the best player, but Djokovic was able to produce the best stats so deserved the #1 ranking. Federer made a bad mistake to skip Canada where Djokovic gained 1000 easy points by winning over a weenie draw and field, as it started the swing of points back in Djokovic's favor. You look at how Federer played at Wimbledon and Cincinnati, it was the best tennis anyone played that year by a long ways.

3-2 H2H for Novak that year gives him the edge.

 

[conway]

3-2 H2H for Novak that year gives him the edge.

I don't think it does since Nadal was up on Federer in head to head in 2005 and 2006 for instance. Like I said I acknowledge Djokovic deserved the #1 ranking for 2012 (although in no way dominant) since he had the best stats overall. However I feel Federer was really the best player that year, and I am far from a Federer fan. Just look at a match like the Cincinnati final and how badly Federer ripped Djokovic up, and his more impressive tournaments that year. It was beyond what anyone else produced.

 

[SpicyCurry1990]

It's ridiculous that anyone can seriously claim that Djokovic had a better year in the majors in 2013 than Nadal. The reality is that winning 2 majors trumps general consistency in the majors. It's the same reason why Sampras had a better year than Agassi in the majors in 1995. It would be ridiculous to say that Agassi had a better year in the majors in 1995 just because Sampras lost in the first round of the French Open while Agassi got to at least the quarter finals in all 4 majors that year.

Uh no thats not even close to the same:

1995
Agassi - W F SF QF = 2000 + 1200 + 720 + 360 = 4280
Sampras - W W F 1st = 2000 + 2000 + 1200 + 10 = 5210

2013
Djokovic - W F F SF = 2000 + 1200 + 1200 + 720 = 5120
Nadal - W W 1st NP = 2000 + 2000 + 10 + 0 = 4010

So Sampras in 1995 won 2 majors vs Agassi's 1 AND
accumulated 930 more points in general consistency than Agassi.

Whereas in 2013, Nole accumulated 1110 more points in general consistency
than Nadal, while Nadal won 2 majors vs Nole's 1.

Are you seriously suggesting that someone saying:

W W F 1st < W F SF QF
is the same as
W W 1st 0 < W F F SF

?

 

[conway]

Who cares about points when everyone knows the points often don't reflect merit down to a T. Lets say you evaluate someones career, by the points 2 slam runner ups would be preferred to 1 slam title and everyone knows that is bogus. Or 2 regular Masters titles would be worth 1 slam title, again bogus. Nobody would rather Djokovic's slam results of 2013 than Nadal. That Nadal ended the year clearly #1 in points in 2013 despite being credited with less slam points than Djokovic (despite that NOBODY would rather Djokovic's slam performance) just makes it even more obvious how clearly ahead he is that year.

 

[SpicyCurry1990]

I actually think Federer was the best player, but Djokovic was able to produce the best stats so deserved the #1 ranking. Federer made a bad mistake to skip Canada where Djokovic gained 1000 easy points by winning over a weenie draw and field, as it started the swing of points back in Djokovic's favor. You look at how Federer played at Wimbledon and Cincinnati, it was the best tennis anyone played that year by a long ways.

Ya Federer at Cincy was a long ways better than Djoko at AO winning the match many called the greatest ever after a 5 hour SF 2 days before vs Murray's highest career AO level

 

[conway]

Ya Federer at Cincy was a long ways better than Djoko at AO winning the match many called the greatest ever after a 5 hour SF 2 days before vs Murray's highest career AO level

The Australian Open was just a big grindfest between Nadal and Djokovic. Nadal didn't play even close to his best and still would have won if he didn't choke at the end. Djokovic didn't really play his best either, and also choked away the match at the end of the 4th set. Most overrated match in recent memory. The semi between Djokovic and Murray was better quality than the final. Federer in Cincinnati and Wimbledon was better than the tennis any of the three produced all year though. If you have eyes you would know that.

PS- as overrated as the 2012 Australian Open final is, nobody has ever called it the greatest ever. The 2008 and 2007 Wimbledon finals are far more highly regarded by everyone.

 

[SpicyCurry1990]

Who cares about points when everyone knows the points often don't reflect merit down to a T. Lets say you evaluate someones career, by the points 2 slam runner ups would be preferred to 1 slam title and everyone knows that is bogus. Or 2 regular Masters titles would be worth 1 slam title, again bogus. Nobody would rather Djokovic's slam results of 2013 than Nadal. That Nadal ended the year clearly #1 in points in 2013 despite being credited with less slam points than Djokovic (despite that NOBODY would rather Djokovic's slam performance) just makes it even more obvious how clearly ahead he is that year.

Career evaluations should not be done by the same as single season metrics. In the confines of a season the points are there for a reason to balance both dominance and consistency. In the confines of a career, dominance is more important, but for a single season both are relevant.

Just because one would rather have 1 Slam > 9 Masters doesn't mean when you evaluate who had a better season between someone who won 1 slam and 0 other matches or someone who had 1 Slam RU + 9 Masters titles, you automatically gravitate towards the slam.

YE #1 is a different metric than slams. You get credit for your slam edge in that debate. There is already a perfectly logical and objective system in place to rate seasons and to go against them based on biased fan agendas to determine what is dominant and what isn't and instead go an arbitrary feel metric makes little sense.

 

[The_Mental_Giant]

Career evaluations should not be done by the same as single season metrics. In the confines of a season the points are there for a reason to balance both dominance and consistency. In the confines of a year dominance is more important, but for a single season both are relevant.

Just because one would rather have 1 Slam > 9 Masters doesn't mean when you evaluate who had a better season between someone who won 1 slam and 0 other matches or someone who had 1 Slam RU + 9 Masters titles, you automatically gravitate towards the slam.

YE #1 is a different metric than slams. You get credit for your slam edge in that debate. There is already a perfectly logical and objective system in place to rate seasons and to go against them based on biased fan agendas to determine what is dominant and what isn't and instead go an arbitrary feel metric makes little sense.

SO you rather dont win anything but earn from runner ups? I'm sure titles is what matter the most..

Thats why tennis careers are evaluated by the titles and not by the performance..

 

[conway]

Career evaluations should not be done by the same as single season metrics. In the confines of a season the points are there for a reason to balance both dominance and consistency. In the confines of a year dominance is more important, but for a single season both are relevant.

Just because one would rather have 1 Slam > 9 Masters doesn't mean when you evaluate who had a better season between someone who won 1 slam and 0 other matches or someone who had 1 Slam RU + 9 Masters titles, you automatically gravitate towards the slam.

YE #1 is a different metric than slams. You get credit for your slam edge in that debate. There is already a perfectly logical and objective system in place to rate seasons and to go against them based on biased fan agendas to determine what is dominant and what isn't and instead go an arbitrary feel metric makes little sense.

And even in points Nadal was clearly #1 and took over #1 with only 6 months of tennis vs Djokovic who has 12 months at that point (due to Nadal missing the last 5 months of 2012 and first 2 months of 2013). Nadal also led the ATP race from the end of March onwards. So there you have it, points rule, Nadal obviously dominant in 2013 according to your beloved points. Djokovic who lost #1 for a large chunk of time in the middle of 2012, and didnt take over the Race lead for good until September, obviously not.

It is obvious you are a blind over the top Djokovic fanboy so you are going on my ignore list, not worth my time.

 

[SpicyCurry1990]

The Australian Open was just a big grindfest between Nadal and Djokovic. Nadal didn't play even close to his best and still would have won if he didn't choke at the end. Djokovic didn't really play his best either, and also choked away the match at the end of the 4th set. Most overrated match in recent memory. The semi between Djokovic and Murray was better quality than the final. Federer in Cincinnati and Wimbledon was better than the tennis any of the three produced all year though. If you have eyes you would know that.

PS- as overrated as the 2012 Australian Open final is, nobody has ever called it the greatest ever. The 2008 and 2007 Wimbledon finals are far more highly regarded by everyone.

Many people have said it was the greatest match of all time including several analysts. Pure BS you are spewing saying they are FAR more highly regarded by EVERYONE.

I have no issue with people rating Wimb 08 > AO 12, its a matter of preference but to say Fed at Cincy 12 was displaying higher levels is just BS. You just have a bias towards attacking tennis. Rafa himself said he was playing the best hard court match of his career after that loss.

Also nice job giving credit there, "if he didn't choke, he would have won" I love that kind of logic.

 

[The_Mental_Giant]

Djokovic was the best player in 2012, that's all that matters.

He was mathematically the best, but he didnt make any big difference witht he rest of the top 4, he was by no means dominant.

Djokovic has never been a dominant player outside of 2011, although he has been the most consistent reaching later stages in 2011-2012 and 2014 (although not at slams this year).

 

[SpicyCurry1990]

And even in points Nadal was clearly #1 and took over #1 with only 6 months of tennis vs Djokovic who has 12 months at that point (due to Nadal missing the last 5 months of 2012 and first 2 months of 2013). Nadal also led the ATP race from the end of March onwards. So there you have it, points rule, Nadal obviously dominant in 2013 according to your beloved points. Djokovic who lost #1 for a large chunk of time in the middle of 2012, and didnt take over the Race lead for good until September, obviously not.

It is obvious you are a blind over the top Djokovic fanboy so you are going on my ignore list, not worth my time.

No, this is the exact opposite of what I am saying. In 2013 Nadal finished #1 by less points than Djokovic did over Federer in 2012. Nadal also earned less points in slams in 2013 than Djokovic did by a VAST margin (the biggest events). As such neither year was dominant. Why do you keep acting like I am saying Djokovic deserved to be co-#1, that is not what I am saying. Perhaps try to actually understand my points instead of espousing BS.

 

[SpicyCurry1990]

He was mathematically the best, but he didnt make any big difference witht he rest of the top 4, he was by no means dominant.

He made a bigger difference over the #2 in 2012 than Rafa had over the #2 in 2013. What is your response to that?

We have a metric in place BY the governing body of the Tour for the SOLE purpose of evaluating how dominant a player are in a given year over the field.

Should we use that or go based on The_Mental_Giant's biased preferences?

 

[The_Mental_Giant]

He made a bigger difference over the #2 in 2012 than Rafa had over the #2 in 2013. What is your response to that?

We have a metric in place BY the governing body of the Tour for the SOLE purpose of evaluating how dominant a player are in a given year over the field.

Should we use that or go based on The_Mental_Giant's biased preferences?

My response is 2 slams and 5 m1000 (and he even skiped the first slam)is much superior than anything achieved by anyone else in 2013

in 2012 nole achievements are nothing to brag about.

Murray won 1 slam, gold medal
Federer 1 slam, 3 m1000
Nadal 1 slam
Djokovic 1 slam 3 m1000, yec.


So no, he didnt make a big differnce against the field.

and read well the thread for the god sake, If I was talking strictly about points there wouldnt be the need to make this thread.

Its about achievements and winning titles. IMagine if rafa wins RG, USO and WTF this year, and still nole ends up at 1, which is mathematically possible, would that mean that nole was the player of the year? dont make me laugh.

2 slams beat 1 slam, and you have do achieve hell a lot to compared to the other player (outside the slams) to ever change that

 

[SpicyCurry1990]

My response is 2 slams and 5 m1000 (and he even skiped the first slam)is much superior than anything achieved by anyone else in 2013

in 2012 nole achievements are nothing to brag about.

Murray won 1 slam, gold medal
Federer 1 slam, 3 m1000
Nadal 1 slam
Djokovic 1 slam 3 m1000, yec.


So no, he didnt make a big differnce against the field.

and read well the thread for the god sake, If I was talking strictly about points there wouldnt be the need to make this thread.

Its about achievements and winning titles. IMagine if rafa wins RG, USO and WTF this year, and still nole ends up at 1, which is mathematically possible, would that mean that nole was the player of the year? dont make me laugh.

2 slams beat 1 slam, and you have do achieve hell a lot to compared to the other player (outside the slams) to ever change that

So again it boils down to your biased preferences rather than the objective values ascribe to the various events by the tour's own governing body.

The ATP says for a given year all you need to achieve more than 2 slams with 1 slam is to reach 2 additional slam Finals.

In terms of valuing career achievements there IS no objective measure developed by anyone because no sanctioning body rates careers, so fans are forced to come up with their own metrics based on general feel.

For a single season, we have those metrics in place to compare dominance, so its best to use those instead of just espousing X titles are impossible to overcome.

Would you really rate Wawrinka as a DOMINANT season this year if he wins the USO?

And you ended your thread by asking for thoughts. My thoughts are better to use the system developed with weights to account for this rather than YOUR biased personal weights.

Edit: Also your butthurt arguing has proven my point pretty well hasn't it? You claimed that all Djokovic fans get ****ed when you say their 2012 was not dominant. I instead agreed with your position that it wasn't and countered to say its in fact the Nadal fans who get ****ed when you say their 2013 was not dominant (despite backed objective quantifiable data) and what did you do? Get ****ed lol. Its in fact YOU who does not acknowledge there is a perfectly logical and viable reason to say Rafa did not dominate in 2013. He did nothing for the first 3 months or last 3 months of the season besides reach 1 Final and then bombed out in round 1 at the biggest tournament of the year.

 

[The_Mental_Giant]

So again it boils down to your biased preferences rather than the objective values ascribe to the various events by the tour's own governing body.

The ATP says for a given year all you need to achieve more than 2 slams with 1 slam is to reach 2 additional slam Finals.

In terms of valuing career achievements there IS no objective measure developed by anyone because no sanctioning body rates careers, so fans are forced to come up with their own metrics based on general feel.

For a single season, we have those metrics in place to compare dominance, so its best to use those instead of just espousing X titles are impossible to overcome.

Would you really rate Wawrinka as a DOMINANT season this year if he wins the USO?

Edit: And you ended your thread by asking for thoughts. My thoughts are better to use the system developed with weights to account for this rather than YOUR biased personal weights.

Well it might be somewhat biased but most people would agree with me. Dont you think nole would take rather 2 Slams than 1 slam+ YE1 ??

Slams are the greatest tournament ever, and for the same reason Borg is rated above the likes of Lendl, no matter if Ivan won more tournaments, second tier titles and more slam runner ups, grand slams are the ultimate breakdown for greatness and dominanse.

QF/SF/F Streaks only show consistence.. what really matters are the titles.

and nobody cares about dominating more months, the most important in calendar year is to dominate the 4 months span going from early may to early september, where 3/4 slams are played.

 

[eldanger25]

2013 was a pretty dominant year for Nadal. Don't really need to go any further than multislam season plus YE #1 plus double digit titles plus 5 MS 1000 shields plus 90+ winning percentage.

The fact that he did it while missing 1 of the 4 biggest events of the year - and a major points grab for the best guys - is even more impressive. I think he wound up with 13K points or so at the end of the year out of 17.5K or so available based on the tournaments he played. While Novak earned about 12K ranking points out of 20K available based on what he played.

Great #2 season though for Novak last year - he was just unreal in January and October/November.

Anyway, there've been plenty of great non-dominant YE #1 seasons. As has been said in prior discussions of this issue, every YE #1 had moments in the season where he had to earn the distinction. I think Novak turning back Murray and Federer in fall 2012 was tremendous, and I love and appreciate Kuerten's performance at the 2000 YEC to clinch his lone YE #1 just about as much as any of Roger or Rafa or Pete's dominant seasons.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Djoko fans always do, they claim nole dominated 2012. And they get ****ed if you suggest the serb hasnt been able to dominate tenni ps asides 2011.

I've never heard even the most ardent Djokovic fan claim that he dominated 2012. Not sure where you got that from.

 

[SpicyCurry1990]

2013 was a pretty dominant year for Nadal. Don't really need to go any further than multislam season plus YE #1 plus double digit titles plus 5 MS 1000 shields plus 90+ winning percentage.

The fact that he did it while missing 1 of the 4 biggest events of the year - and a major points grab for the best guys - is even more impressive. I think he wound up with 13K points or so at the end of the year out of 17.5K or so available based on the tournaments he played. While Novak earned about 12K ranking points out of 20K available based on what he played.

Why is skipping an event a positive, especially a slam? We have had this discussion before on valuation of different tournament performances for a year vs a career and I thought we had a fairly similar consensus on that.

How can we say 13K vs 11K in 2012 by Djokovic vs Federer was not dominant, but 13K vs 12K in 2013 by Nadal vs Djokovic was?

Nadal skipping the early part of the season is what gave him the energy to dominate the middle part so much without wearing down and then he wore down and did little the second part of the season. We are rating how dominant a player was for the whole season right? In that aspect why does "available points in regards to tournaments played" matter. Consistent appearances and health play into dominance too, not just wins at slams.

I can't really ascribe a dominance metric to 0 match wins in 2 slams.

Great #2 season though for Novak last year - he was just unreal in January and October/November.

Anyway, there've been plenty of great non-dominant YE #1 seasons. As has been said in prior discussions of this issue, every YE #1 had moments in the season where he had to earn the distinction. I think Novak turning back Murray and Federer in fall 2012 was tremendous, and I love and appreciate Kuerten's performance at the 2000 YEC to clinch his lone YE #1 just about as much as any of Roger or Rafa or Pete's dominant seasons.

Agreed on all of this and the fact that his #2 season was so highly reputed should mean something shouldn't it? Nadal's #1 season was nowhere near one of the best #1s ever, and so if Nole's #2 was one of the top #2 seasons ever, how can we say Nadal was dominant?

PS: Nice to see you around again, been a while

 

[SpicyCurry1990]

Well it might be somewhat biased but most people would agree with me. Dont you think nole would take rather 2 Slams than 1 slam+ YE1 ??

What a player would rather have doesn't make it a more dominant season. Like I said I think a player would take 1 Slam and 0 titles the rest of the season over 9 Masters + 4 Slam RUs but the later is clearly the better season.

Slams are the greatest tournament ever, and for the same reason Borg is rated above the likes of Lendl, no matter if Ivan won more tournaments, second tier titles and more slam runner ups, grand slams are the ultimate breakdown for greatness and dominanse.

QF/SF/F Streaks only show consistence.. what really matters are the titles.

and nobody cares about dominating more months, the most important in calendar year is to dominate the 4 months span going from early may to early september, where 3/4 slams are played.

I already addressed rating careers vs rating seasons considering one has an objective metric in place and one doesn't. Did you really just ignore all of that and just espouse this same rhetoric again?

Like I said, would you rate Wawrinka as having had a dominant season in 2014 if he wins the USO based on the 2 slams alone? You didn't answer this.

Or what if say in 2005 when Fed was going 81-4, if Safin had played the USO and beat Federer sending him to 80-5, but leaving the slams as Nadal - 1, Fed - 1, Safin - 2, not only would Safin surpass Fed for #1 in your estimation then, but that 1 win would make him a dominant #1?

 

[Djokovic2011]

Haha, Spicy's evaluation of the 2005 season between Federer and Safin is what you call a GOAT post. Can't wait to see how The Mental Giant responds to that. :lol: