Dil Dil India Posted July 6, 2014 Share Posted July 6, 2014 I am not taking anything away from Federer' date=' he was incredibly consistent. He is consistent even now in beating the lesser players, much better than Nadal in that department. But comparing weeks at #1 you do have to consider the competition.[/quote'] Consider it and it still doesn't explain that level of disparity. Look you add up Djo and Nadal's tally and they still fall short by about 60 weeks. If that is not dominance, I don't know what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zep1706 Posted July 6, 2014 Author Share Posted July 6, 2014 And that invalidates a bloke with 300 plus weeks and 17 titles, how? How is it relevant at all? It's like saying he has 5 end of year titles and Nadal has none out of the blue. And 8 is only for Lendl but Djo 'with 7 is already a great player'. Interesting. I am not saying Lendl was not a great player, he was. :haha: All I am saying that you can reach 270 weeks even without winning a lot of slams if your competition is not doing better than you. I don't know what you are arguing about. Since 2011 till now, check the difference in point between the #1 player and #2. It has always been very close. One slip up and it's gone. That is why the competition is tougher than it was before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zep1706 Posted July 6, 2014 Author Share Posted July 6, 2014 Consider it and it still doesn't explain that level of disparity. Look you add up Djo and Nadal's tally and they still fall short by about 60 weeks. If that is not dominance' date=' I don't know what it is.[/quote'] Novak and Nadal re not done yet. In fact they will most likely be 1 and 2 for the next couple of years. If you combine #1 and #2, Nadal has spent more weeks than anyone else indicating he has been one of the top players longer than anyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dil Dil India Posted July 6, 2014 Share Posted July 6, 2014 Jeez, now we should combine 1 and 2 -_-. Yes Novak and Rafa are not done yet but I don't think they will cross 330 combined when they hang up their boots and the point will still stand! I genuinely hope I am wrong but both of them seem to be tapering off a bit and I really don't see them ageing as well as a certain bloke..not with their style of play...it takes too much out of their bodies. I just hope Djo gets a career slam before he retires. Regarding the other post, if there is not a lot of competition you should be winning more slams surely? Of course the way rankings are decided in tennis places a lot of importance on non slam events as well....anyway let us see what the US Open brings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vvvslaxman Posted July 6, 2014 Share Posted July 6, 2014 Complement or not you were factually incorrect. Nadal right from the young age was good on grass. He played the semi final at the boys championship in 2002' date=' his first appearance at the age of 16. Next year he competed in the pro circuit became the youngest player since Borris Becker to reach third round at Wimbledon. Did not play in 2004 due to a foot injury and played the final from 2006-2011. Just because he was poor in the last two year ( I don't consider this year as poor as IMO he played well enough), does not make him poor on grass in general. His grass records are still second only to Federer in the last 10 years.[/quote'] That can be attributed to the difference in class between him and the next. Not because he is great in grass. He is far superior clay player than grass court player much like Fedex a far superior grass cout player than Clay court player. Not sure what the confusion is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zep1706 Posted July 6, 2014 Author Share Posted July 6, 2014 Jeez, now we should combine 1 and 2 -_-. Yes Novak and Rafa are not done yet but I don't think they will cross 330 combined when they hang up their boots and the point will still stand! I genuinely hope I am wrong but both of them seem to be tapering off a bit and I really don't see them ageing as well as a certain bloke..not with their style of play...it takes too much out of their bodies. I just hope Djo gets a career slam before he retires. Regarding the other post, if there is not a lot of competition you should be winning more slams surely? Of course the way rankings are decided in tennis places a lot of importance on non slam events as well....anyway let us see what the US Open brings. Let me give you the detailed explanation of how competition is tougher for both Novak and Rafa: Nadal now holds 2 slams, 1 slam final, 1 4th round. He has 3 masters 1000 titles, 2 finals in masters 1000, final of WTF, couple of ATP 500 and 250s. In any era beginning from the 1990s I can assure you that he would be #1 player right now by a fair margin. You go back and do the math. Sampras hardly won any master 1000 (11 total in his career compared to 27 of Nadal), always bummed out of the FO early. But depending on the rest of the slams, where he never had 3 in a year, He remained year end #1 for 6 consecutive years. Do you get it now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zep1706 Posted July 6, 2014 Author Share Posted July 6, 2014 That can be attributed to the difference in class between him and the next. Not because he is great in grass. He is far superior clay player than grass court player much like Fedex a far superior grass cout player than Clay court player. Not sure what the confusion is. Well that's obvious. But Nadal's results at Wimbledon are comparable to some of the greats on grass, namely Edberg, Becker, McEnroe etc and he still has years left in him. So i would call him very good on grass and if he wins one more Wimbledon even great. Obviously not as great as Sampras or Federer or Borg. But his 2 Wimbledon titles are not out of the ordinary. He is good enough to win 2 of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adi B Posted July 6, 2014 Share Posted July 6, 2014 really disappointed today but happy that fed gave a great fight in the 4th set . this match reminds me of fed vs rafa aus open final and fed-murray aus open semi,in both matches fed was almost out but gave his all to take the game to the fifth set only to lose eventually. congrats djokovic,he was determined to win this and he said that after the match. off to USO now but i dont have any hopes from fed there,hopefully stan does well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zep1706 Posted July 6, 2014 Author Share Posted July 6, 2014 By the way nice to see Federer himself endorsing my views about the claims of slow grass courts finally, which took momentum as soon as Nadal beat Federer in 2008. He said exactly what I have been saying here for the last year or so. N8yN7f6gHbE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted July 6, 2014 Share Posted July 6, 2014 Let me give you the detailed explanation of how competition is tougher for both Novak and Rafa: Nadal now holds 2 slams, 1 slam final, 1 4th round. He has 3 masters 1000 titles, 2 finals in masters 1000, final of WTF, couple of ATP 500 and 250s. In any era beginning from the 1990s I can assure you that he would be #1 player right now by a fair margin. You go back and do the math. Sampras hardly won any master 1000 (11 total in his career compared to 27 of Nadal), always bummed out of the FO early. But depending on the rest of the slams, where he never had 3 in a year, He remained year end #1 for 6 consecutive years. Do you get it now? The points awarded to slams and other tournaments have changed vastly with time, in the 90s, the slams were worth a lot more in points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted July 6, 2014 Share Posted July 6, 2014 Really? Nadal has 5 straight Wimbledon finals from 2006-2011 (didn't play in 2009). That can't be fluke. He played incredibly well against the so called "peak" Federer in 2007 and 2008. His knees did not allow him to play freely in 2012 and 2013. This year he just ran into a beast serving bombs after playing through a tough draw already. On grass that can happen to anybody. Even Federer has faced such opposition. 2010 (Falla, Berdych), 2011 (Tsonga), 2012 (Benneateu), 2013 (Stakhovsky). It is the nature of the surface. You are being grossly unfair to Nadal. Nadal probably has the second best net game after Federer among the top players and he had incredible movement on grass till 2011. It isnt a fluke but wimbledon has become a lot easier for claycourters since the court has slowed down, particularly in the first week when weak servers and non-volleyers found it practically impossible to advance to the 2nd week. If Nadal played in the era of grass court specialists, he'd most likely not have more than a SF appearance to show for his efforts at wimbledon. Nadal's net game is nowhere as good as Cilic, Raonic, Dimitrov, though he is better than Djokovic at the net. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted July 6, 2014 Share Posted July 6, 2014 The main competition for #1 rank is from Novak and with 7 slams and 2 year end #1 (possibly 3 this year) he is definitely a great player already and will probably end up getting 10+ slams making him a tier 1 great. Both he and Nadal have had to fight it out among themselves for the #1 rank. Murray is not a factor there, i agree but that hardly matters. The bottom line is it is much harder to sustain the #1 rank now. You blink and it's gone. You are being chased at all times. I don't see how anyone can disagree with that. There is no subtle trolling. That is the truth. I don't know if Nadal would have been able to show similar dominance in 2004-2007, probably not considering his injury breaks. But I am sure as hell that had Federer competed against a prime Djokovic and near prime Nadal (any version since 2008) he would not have won 11 out of 12 non clay slams in that period. That is one of the reasons why I started liking Nadal in the first place, because he was the only one who had what it takes to compete and win against Federer. The rest of the field was just not good enough, both game wise and mentally. So a lot do depend on the competition. Both Nadal ad Djokovic have had to go through better competition to achieve whatever they have. I have no doubt about that. If Federer, Nadal and Djokovic were all the same age, started around the same time, I'd say nadal would've finished with 10-12 slams, Fed with 13-14 and Djokovic with 7-8. Federer at his peak is easily better than Nadal at his peak on all surfaces except clay, where there hasnt been anyone better than Nadal ever. As for those who argue that Federer has beaten lesser opponents, well federer has beaten more world#1s at grand slams than anyone else. Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Agassi are all top 5 players for virtually any era at their peaks and all former world #1s. So much for not having much competition- Federer's peak had more former world #1s than today, where its been a 2 horse race for the last 3 years or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 Oh and those of you who argue that Federer's era was easy, consider this: Federer's GS total isnt just astonishing, its astonishing also because he won his first slam at the age of 22, at a stage when most greats have 2-3 under their belt (Becker & Borg lead this category IIRC). And Federer himself admitted that he was not very motivated at a young age. Part of that is probably because the Sampras-Agassi-Kuerten-Rafter-Kafelnikov era went later than most would think, into the 2002-ish period and no new player had reallys tamped himself on the scene. Hewitt, Safin- they both had an amazing year but didnt throw in great follow-up year or two. It took federer to get serious about tennis for that era to have a clear-cut winner emerge and its interesting to consider that if Federer had been surrounded by other high achiever precious talents like Djokovic & Nadal, he might easily have become serious sooner. So this whole 'Federer wouldnt have more slams if he was contemporary to Nadal/Djokovic' is just nonsense. Federer at his peak was mindblowing- most pf his shots easily had 10% more power. he might not have won 12 of 13 non clay slams in a row but he most likely would've won 8 or 9. Also, to put it in perspective here, I dont think Novak played particularly great. he was tenacious, had a mini choke when he was leading but settled down and came back to win it. Old Federer would've annihilated him and so would Roddick of 2009 or Ivanisevic of 2001 and several others. This was not a super high quality performance from Djokovic, it was more of a A- performace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zep1706 Posted July 7, 2014 Author Share Posted July 7, 2014 Point system till 2008: Grand slam winner= 1000, TMC (current WTF)= 750 (maximum), ATP masters series (master 1000 now)= 500 Basically they doubled the points from 2009, keeping the relative weightage same. Now let's look at 2005: Federer: 2 slam titles, 1 final, 1 semi final, 4 masters series wins, no finals. TMC final. Let's see the year end ranking, 1. Federer 6725 2. 19 year old Nadal 4765 :hysterical: 3. Roddick 3085 :haha: 2. Hewitt 2490 So Federer was easily the number 1 by twice the ranking points of his so called rivals like Roddick and Hewitt. Even a 19 year old Nadal was better than those guys by just winning on clay. Right now Nadal has nearly as many points as Federer did at that time but he is still second. This proves that it is much harder to remain number 1 now as the competition is tougher. You can't put a spin on real stats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 Point system till 2008: Grand slam winner= 1000, TMC (current WTF)= 750 (maximum), ATP masters series (master 1000 now)= 500 Basically they doubled the points from 2009, keeping the relative weightage same. Now let's look at 2005: Federer: 2 slam titles, 1 final, 1 semi final, 4 masters series wins, no finals. TMC final. Let's see the year end ranking, 1. Federer 6725 2. 19 year old Nadal 4765 :hysterical: 3. Roddick 3085 :haha: 2. Hewitt 2490 So Federer was easily the number 1 by twice the ranking points of his so called rivals like Roddick and Hewitt. Even a 19 year old Nadal was better than those guys by just winning on clay. Right now Nadal has nearly as many points as Federer did at that time but he is still second. This proves that it is much harder to remain number 1 now as the competition is tougher. You can't put a spin on real stats. 1. You are disingeneous. Your example was about the Sampras era where Sampras never won 3 slams in a year and still won #1 races by a country mile. The response to THAT was the fact that GS used to weigh a lot more back then. 2. I don't see that point spread being any different if we had a 23-24 year old Djokovic in the mix- he'd probably slot in where Roddick was, as he at his best is not really good enough to compate with Federer on Grass or Hard court and with Nadal on clay. He would've sniped a GS or two from Roger at most in that five-six year period of his dominance but he may not have either. 3. It is not that much harder to be #1 today either since instead of having a 2000+ point difference between #1, 2 and 3, we just have a 5000+ point difference between 2 and the rest. So basically it is still pretty one sided, with just one more contender to #1 added on, with 2 instead of 1 guy beating the rest of the field into pulp. Sure, it makes it harder for one of those two guys to be #1 but its only marginally harder than being just the one guy. Its not like this is the era of Becker, Edberg, Lendl, Wilander where any of the 4 could finish #1 any given season or even the Agassi-Sampras-Bruguera-Becker era of the mid 90s when #1 was still contested by 3-4 players midway through the season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zep1706 Posted July 7, 2014 Author Share Posted July 7, 2014 Current ranking: 1. Djokovic 13130, dividing that by 2= 6565 2. Nadal 12670, dividing that by 2 = 6335 In 2005: 1. Federer 6725 3. Roddick 3085 Any sane person can see which era is competitive, a competition between two great players (Nadal and Djokovic) or competition between a one slam wonder like Roddick and a great player (Federer). This is not even up to any debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zep1706 Posted July 7, 2014 Author Share Posted July 7, 2014 Djokovic has always been good enough to compete with any version of Federer on hard courts. A 20 year old Djokovic (3 years before his prime) beat the mythical "peak" Federer in 2007 Montreal final and gave him one heck of a fight in the US open final following that, but choked on the big moments. A few months later he did not repeat that mistake and beat Federer at Australian Open. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zep1706 Posted July 7, 2014 Author Share Posted July 7, 2014 In the 1990s the point system was not vastly different. The weightage was still pretty much the same. The GS winners received 750 points and super 9( today's ATP 1000) winners got 370-400 points depending on the prize money. So no difference at all. People should do their homework before making a fool out of themselves again and again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 In the 1990s the point system was not vastly different. The weightage was still pretty much the same. The GS winners received 750 points and super 9( today's ATP 1000) winners got 370-400 points depending on the prize money. So no difference at all. People should do their homework before making a fool out of themselves again and again. Sigh. Idiots should know that points being differently weighed made the decisive difference. 90s 2 gs equals 3.5-4 atp next tier as opposed to simple 2:1 ratio today along with proliferation of masters 1000 tourneys as opposed to the 90s mean that gs results counted more back then. The vast differences in surfaces and their specialization ( clay vs grass and a full grass season being there) meant that you realistically had competitive edge in atmost 5-6 ATP '1000s' level tourneys as opposed to today's era of being a baseline good mover/server = potential benefits in all 10 ATP 1000s level tourneys. Which all in all translates to more weight being accorded to GS results. This is precisely why #1s were as comfortably ahead of the rest by winning 1 GS and being finalist in another and doing well in the ATP super 9 levels in the 90s-early 2000s as they are today being #1 by 2 wins and 2 SFs in all four slams today. As my initial assessment was. But I dont expect kids with minimal comprehension of tennis to analyze the results. Sent from my GT-S5830D using Tapatalk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 Current ranking: 1. Djokovic 13130, dividing that by 2= 6565 2. Nadal 12670, dividing that by 2 = 6335 In 2005: 1. Federer 6725 3. Roddick 3085 Any sane person can see which era is competitive, a competition between two great players (Nadal and Djokovic) or competition between a one slam wonder like Roddick and a great player (Federer). This is not even up to any debate. 2 great players and 20 other almosts is hardly much different than greatest and 20 other poo. If ypu had 3 or 4 bonafide contenders today, you'd have a case. But its not. Sent from my GT-S5830D using Tapatalk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now