Another Look at Most Dominant Player

[GameSetAndMath]

Guys, let's not get off-topic too much. This thread is about 2017 Wimbledon talk not who is the most dominant player from X year to Y year...

Besides, I feel like there a lot of threads for those discussions already

You are right, but we could not find the old thread to bump up and discuss in it and so we are doing it in some place.

 

[Ricardo]

#faltadeeducación

haha good to see you Nadal lovers going at it......meow meow meow

 

[brokenshoelace]

I understand you feel that Rafa is the only dominant player in 2013. However, that is not a universal consensus. The 2013 World Champion award (AKA, Player of the Year Award) given by ITF, was actually given to Novak, despite Rafa finishing YE #1. If it is unequivocal to everyone, like you feel in your mind, that Rafa is the most dominant player, ITF would not have given the award to Novak. Very rarely, the player of the year is different from the player who finished as YE #1. At the very least, you must concede that even though you personally feel that Rafa is THE most dominant player in 2013, that is not necessarily how the others feel (here I am not talking just about posters in the forum).

And everyone commented that the ITF award was a joke. And this is some seriously flawed logic because it implies that the award you mentioned is given to the most dominant player. Clearly, the fact that it wasn't given to Nadal in 2013 proves that it isn't always the case, rather than prove that Nadal wasn't the most dominant.

In fact, the ITF itself, when asked about the issue, justified it by talking about consistency, and said it was mainly due to Novak having played in all the slams whereas Nadal missed the beginning of the year.

Much more importantly though, the results speak for themselves. Nadal dominated both hard courts and clay (and I'm talking about EXTREME dominance, Not just a few tournament wins here an there). That alone is a significant portion of the season.

 

[kskate2]

I found the old TF thread, bumped it and merged it w/ the new one.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I found the old TF thread, bumped it and merged it w/ the new one.

Thanks.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

And everyone commented that the ITF award was a joke. And this is some seriously flawed logic because it implies that the award you mentioned is given to the most dominant player. Clearly, the fact that it wasn't given to Nadal in 2013 proves that it isn't always the case, rather than prove that Nadal wasn't the most dominant.

In fact, the ITF itself, when asked about the issue, justified it by talking about consistency, and said it was mainly due to Novak having played in all the slams whereas Nadal missed the beginning of the year.

First of all it is not a single person deciding it. A committee of tennis professionals (former players, journalists) etc vote on it. The fact that
a majority of them voted for Novak should mean something, even if you disagree with their decision. At the very least it means that things are not as cut and dry as you think they are. If everybody feels without any doubt that Rafa was the best player in 2013, it would not have happened.

Much more importantly though, the results speak for themselves. Nadal dominated both hard courts and clay (and I'm talking about EXTREME dominance, Not just a few tournament wins here an there). That alone is a significant portion of the season.

Sure, Rafa dominated the clay season (after losing to Novak at MC) and swept the NA HC season. But, Rafa sucked in grass exiting in R1. Also, Rafa faded away at the end when Novak swept through Shanghai, Paris and WTF (not to mention AO at the beginning of the year). As I already said, I personally would give the year to Rafa, if I am forced to choose only one player (primarily because Rafa beat him on two important occasions). However, I could certainly see why other folks may feel differently, as the difference was very narrow.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Bump!

 

[Moxie]

Did you have a particular thought about why to bump this thread now? Nadal on clay?

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Did you have a particular thought about why to bump this thread now? Nadal on clay?

No no. BS started yet another GOAT thread recently. In that thread he mentioned that a player's level of dominance when they are at peak has to be the primary criteria for GOATness. The article in the OP of this thread is basically written with essentially the same point of view and so I mentioned it in the other thread and bumped this one up to give newbies a chance to read the nice article in the OP.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

A Bump again.

 

[Moxie]

Why?

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Why?

You keep asking why. People rehash the same arguments. In the new thread on GOAT, see the arguments that tented makes saying that the longevity actually hurts a player's stat as their win-loss record will go down.

As the article in the OP of this thread points out, the best way to compare different players is to compare the stats during their dominant period. Whoever was more dominant in their dominant period is the most dominant player.

The article in the OP is very nice and worth reading again.

 

[Moxie]

You keep asking why. People rehash the same arguments. In the new thread on GOAT, see the arguments that tented makes saying that the longevity actually hurts a player's stat as their win-loss record will go down.

As the article in the OP of this thread points out, the best way to compare different players is to compare the stats during their dominant period. Whoever was more dominant in their dominant period is the most dominant player.

The article in the OP is very nice and worth reading again.

That's why I asked. Thanks.

 

[El Dude]

Good article. A couple things to note - that is, what has changed in the five years since it was written.

In that first chart, Roger, Rafa, and Novak are now way out ahead of everyone else. I won't re-create the chart, but here are the total ATP points:
1. Federer 66115
2. Djokovic 52385
3. Nadal 51495
4. Sampras 40385
5. Connors 40380
6. Lendl 39845
7. Agassi 37675
8. Borg 30925
9. McEnroe 28760
10. Edberg 28525
11. Murray 27970
12. Becker 26525
13. Wilander 25025
etc.

Next, let's update the ATP points per Slam chart.

1. Borg 1145
2. Laver 1057
3. Nadal 936
4. Djokovic 935
5. Federer 882

Borg and Laver keep their top spots; Rafa and Roger have both dropped as they've aged, and Novak has risen. Andy Murray at 583 has slipped ahead of Becker, Edberg and Wilander, and is just behind Agassi.

Skipping down to the "Top Streaks" chart, Novak now has--by far--the best streak, at 25 Slams in a row in which he didn't miss consecutive finals, from the 2010 US Open to the 2016 US Open. But that streak still averages lower than the top four at 1397 ATP points her Slam.

 

[Moxie]

Good article. A couple things to note - that is, what has changed in the five years since it was written.

In that first chart, Roger, Rafa, and Novak are now way out ahead of everyone else. I won't re-create the chart, but here are the total ATP points:
1. Federer 66115
2. Djokovic 52385
3. Nadal 51495
4. Sampras 40385
5. Connors 40380
6. Lendl 39845
7. Agassi 37675
8. Borg 30925
9. McEnroe 28760
10. Edberg 28525
11. Murray 27970
12. Becker 26525
13. Wilander 25025
etc.

Next, let's update the ATP points per Slam chart.

1. Borg 1145
2. Laver 1057
3. Nadal 936
4. Djokovic 935
5. Federer 882

Borg and Laver keep their top spots; Rafa and Roger have both dropped as they've aged, and Novak has risen. Andy Murray at 583 has slipped ahead of Becker, Edberg and Wilander, and is just behind Agassi.

Skipping down to the "Top Streaks" chart, Novak now has--by far--the best streak, at 25 Slams in a row in which he didn't miss consecutive finals, from the 2010 US Open to the 2016 US Open. But that streak still averages lower than the top four at 1397 ATP points her Slam.

Is it my math, or wasn't Novak's streak 19 Slam finals in a row? By my count, he's only been in 24 total finals, so that can't be right. Not to start all over again, but so you're saying that Novak has a great streak of however many (19, by my count,) Slam finals in a row? 24 finals, 15 won. Nadal has been in 25 finals, with 17 won. I think we risk getting lost in the weeds of the numbers, while losing the greater narrative. And I know folks like "dominance," but they play it how they want to. Here I'm also with Darth. Either you won, or you didn't. Nadal has a higher win percentage at Majors than either Novak or Roger. Sampras has the highest, I think. Every time we play this numbers game, someone is choosing how to rate which numbers. Don't forget that.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Is it my math, or wasn't Novak's streak 19 Slam finals in a row? By my count, he's only been in 24 total finals, so that can't be right. Not to start all over again, but so you're saying that Novak has a great streak of however many (19, by my count,) Slam finals in a row? 24 finals, 15 won. Nadal has been in 25 finals, with 17 won. I think we risk getting lost in the weeds of the numbers, while losing the greater narrative. And I know folks like "dominance," but they play it how they want to. Here I'm also with Darth. Either you won, or you didn't. Nadal has a higher win percentage at Majors than either Novak or Roger. Sampras has the highest, I think. Every time we play this numbers game, someone is choosing how to rate which numbers. Don't forget that.

Read OP again. The streak must be continuous. Also, it is ok to goof of once, but you must resurrect immediately in the next slam.
A streak should be a continuous sequence of either wins or final appearance with possible gaps of length 1 in between. That is one should not have two slams in a row in which one did not reach the finals during the streak.

It is not just a blind count of how many GS's won and how many lost.

 

[Moxie]

Read OP again. The streak must be continuous. Also, it is ok to goof of once, but you must resurrect immediately in the next slam.
A streak should be a continuous sequence of either wins or final appearance with possible gaps of length 1 in between. That is one should not have two slams in a row in which one did not reach the finals during the streak.

It is not just a blind count of how many GS's won and how many lost.

I really can't be bothered. You're talking about streaks, but not streaks of wins. Right? This is my point. These streaks of "also-ran" serve Roger and Novak very well, and Rafa less well, because he played in fewer Majors and otherwise big tournaments, due to injury. But when he did play, he's won more often. Massively more over Roger in Majors, and still creditably well against Novak in Majors.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I really can't be bothered. You're talking about streaks, but not streaks of wins. Right? This is my point. These streaks of "also-ran" serve Roger and Novak very well, and Rafa less well, because he played in fewer Majors and otherwise big tournaments, due to injury. But when he did play, he's won more often. Massively more over Roger in Majors, and still creditably well against Novak in Majors.

Dominance means being a major force for a considerable length of time, except for occasional hick-ups. That is the basis of the OP and with which most normal people would agree. Just waking up in May winning an RG every year, does not amount to dominance. If Ralph has so much injury issues, how come he rarely gets injured during RG.

To be considered a dominant player, you got to rule the world for a considerable length of time, which Ralph never did.

 

[Moxie]

Dominance means being a major force for a considerable length of time, except for occasional hick-ups. That is the basis of the OP and with which most normal people would agree. Just waking up in May winning an RG every year, does not amount to dominance. If Ralph has so much injury issues, how come he rarely gets injured during RG.

To be considered a dominant player, you got to rule the world for a considerable length of time, which Ralph never did.

Surely you understand the concept of focusing on the part of the year that means the most to you, which even Roger has done. Ralph starts every year optimistically, I'd say, but does use up a lot of energy at the front-end. Certainly he doesn't "wake up in May." I would also say that "normal people" would say that Rafa's career has been hemmed in by Roger dominating when he was a youngster, and Novak getting a lot of time in when he was rather older, and both have the advantage of his injury times.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Surely you understand the concept of focusing on the part of the year that means the most to you, which even Roger has done. Ralph starts every year optimistically, I'd say, but does use up a lot of energy at the front-end. Certainly he doesn't "wake up in May." I would also say that "normal people" would say that Rafa's career has been hemmed in by Roger dominating when he was a youngster, and Novak getting a lot of time in when he was rather older, and both have the advantage of his injury times.

Agreed, when Ralph was young, Roger dominated. When Ralph was old, Novak (who is almost the same age as Ralph) dominated. Net result is that Rafa never dominated. We are on the same page. No disagreements.