Another Look at Most Dominant Player

[El Dude]

Haha, that's a lot of work @GameSetAndMath ;-). But I did run the numbers for the Big Four and might put together a chart at some point. Roger is obviously still in first (62,235), but Novak (45,125) and Rafa (44,315) have moved into 2nd and 3rd place. Andy (27,555) has moved ahead of Becker. So the updated rankings:
1. Federer
2. Djokovic
3. Nadal
4. Sampras
5. Connors
6. Lendl
7. Agassi
8. Borg
9. McEnroe
10. Edberg
11. Murray
12. Becker
13. Wilander
etc...

 

[brokenshoelace]

Re: Novak's dominance, there seems to be a bit of a revisionist history with regards to the 2013 season. After Nadal skipped the Australian Open and following his comeback, he absolutely dominated the tour and it wasn't even close. Just because the race to #1 was tight at the end of the year due to Nadal having skipped the first couple of months and the entirety of the second half of 2012 doesn't mean Djokovic was in contention to being the most dominant player in 2013 when you actually look at what happened. Nadal came back, won a couple of South American clay court titles, won Indian Wells, skipped Miami, won Madrid, Rome, Roland Garros, Montreal, Cinci and the US Open. That's 2 majors and 5 masters 1000 events in the span of 6 months. During that time, he beat Novak in 3 out of their 4 meetings, which included both their matches at a Grand Slam. Additionally, Nadal went undefeated on hard courts during that stretch. The summer he had was unreal.

I bring this up because once again, while I think Novak was on average, the best player in the world between 2011-2014, and certainly between 2011-2017, I don't agree with the notion of grouping every season from 2011 and 2017 as one dominant run for Djokovic.

The blog linked by GSM raises some very good points and I really like the way things are laid out, but I believe it's unfair to compare an era in which there were multiple dominant players to an era like Roger's 04-07 run, in which nobody else was even close.

 

[Jelenafan]

Revisonist, bias, downplay, anomaly, unfair, etc, etc, etc.

I think for all the fans of the players (myself included) in these discussions, it's like the patients in an insane asylum lamenting the mental state of their roommates.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Re: Novak's dominance, there seems to be a bit of a revisionist history with regards to the 2013 season. After Nadal skipped the Australian Open and following his comeback, he absolutely dominated the tour and it wasn't even close. Just because the race to #1 was tight at the end of the year due to Nadal having skipped the first couple of months and the entirety of the second half of 2012 doesn't mean Djokovic was in contention to being the most dominant player in 2013 when you actually look at what happened. Nadal came back, won a couple of South American clay court titles, won Indian Wells, skipped Miami, won Madrid, Rome, Roland Garros, Montreal, Cinci and the US Open. That's 2 majors and 5 masters 1000 events in the span of 6 months. During that time, he beat Novak in 3 out of their 4 meetings, which included both their matches at a Grand Slam. Additionally, Nadal went undefeated on hard courts during that stretch. The summer he had was unreal.

I bring this up because once again, while I think Novak was on average, the best player in the world between 2011-2014, and certainly between 2011-2017, I don't agree with the notion of grouping every season from 2011 and 2017 as one dominant run for Djokovic.

The blog linked by GSM raises some very good points and I really like the way things are laid out, but I believe it's unfair to compare an era in which there were multiple dominant players to an era like Roger's 04-07 run, in which nobody else was even close.

Nobody is doing revisionist history here. What you are failing to understand is that in the same period multiple players can be dominant. In 2013, Novak won AO, reached the finals of both Wimbledon and USO and also reached the SF at RG (this is a de facto final considering he was playing Rafa). So, for all practical purposes, Novak won one GS and a finalist in all other three. On the other hand Rafa won two, lost in 1R in one, did not play another one. Further he won WTF, three masters.

Despite Rafa finishing the year as #1, the ITF gave the player of the year award to Novak in 2013 due to his performance in slams. Normally the player of the year award goes to the same player as the one who is YE#1 in that year. There are only few exceptions. 2013 was one of them.

While definitely 2013 Rafa was more dominant than 2013 Nole, 2013 Nole was also a dominant player. In that year, no one else was also dominant. You have to let go of the notion that there can be only one dominant player at a time.

Rafa missing the second half of 2012 will not affect his race points in 2013 at all and so your mention of that is irrelevant as well.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Nobody is doing revisionist history here. What you are failing to understand is that in the same period multiple players can be dominant. In 2013, Novak won AO, reached the finals of both Wimbledon and USO and also reached the SF at RG (this is a de facto final considering he was playing Rafa). So, for all practical purposes, Novak won one GS and a finalist in all other three. On the other hand Rafa won two, lost in 1R in one, did not play another one. Further he won WTF, three masters.

Despite Rafa finishing the year as #1, the ITF gave the player of the year award to Novak in 2013 due to his performance in slams. Normally the player of the year award goes to the same player as the one who is YE#1 in that year. There are only few exceptions. 2013 was one of them.

While definitely 2013 Rafa was more dominant than 2013 Nole, 2013 Nole was also a dominant player. In that year, no one else was also dominant. You have to let go of the notion that there can be only one dominant player at a time.

Rafa missing the second half of 2012 will not affect his race points in 2013 at all and so your mention of that is irrelevant as well.

I'm not "failing" to understand anything since the point is hardly some revolutionary complex theory. What I am saying is that, when Federer dominated in 04-07, nobody else was even close. It was dominance unlike anything we've ever seen (which I'm assuming is what you were alluding to when you said his dominance was more "dominant" than Novak).

As such, it is totally flawed to compare it to an era in which multiple players dominated. In other words, if you're going to say Novak dominated from 2011 and 2016 because even though other players dominated as well, you can still be dominant while having someone more dominant than you (which for my money is extremely debatable), then I'll just as easily claim that Roger's dominance was from 2004 to 2010. Yes, Nadal was more dominant between 2008-2010, but Roger dominated as well (using your logic). Roger won a slam in 2008, reached two other finals, won 2 slams in 2009 and reached two other finals (and finished as world number 1), and won a slam in 2010.

So why are we ending Roger's dominance at the 2007 mark? I'll give you 2010 since he didn't do much after winning the AO, but surely you'd have to include 2008 and 2009 in there.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I'm not "failing" to understand anything since the point is hardly some revolutionary complex theory. What I am saying is that, when Federer dominated in 04-07, nobody else was even close. It was dominance unlike anything we've ever seen (which I'm assuming is what you were alluding to when you said his dominance was more "dominant" than Novak).

As such, it is totally flawed to compare it to an era in which multiple players dominated. In other words, if you're going to say Novak dominated from 2011 and 2016 because even though other players dominated as well, you can still be dominant while having someone more dominant than you (which for my money is extremely debatable), then I'll just as easily claim that Roger's dominance was from 2004 to 2010. Yes, Nadal was more dominant between 2008-2010, but Roger dominated as well (using your logic). Roger won a slam in 2008, reached two other finals, won 2 slams in 2009 and reached two other finals (and finished as world number 1), and won a slam in 2010.

So why are we ending Roger's dominance at the 2007 mark? I'll give you 2010 since he didn't do much after winning the AO, but surely you'd have to include 2008 and 2009 in there.

1. Yes, Fed's dominance was way too much and we have never seen anything like that before. That is
exactly what I alluded.

2. Technically as per the blogger's definition of dominant stretch, Fed's dominant stretch is from 2015 Wimbledon
to 2010 AO, a span of 19 Slams. But, Novak's dominance is from 2011 AO to 2016 AO, a span of 24 slams.
That is why I said, Novak's dominant stretch was longer, but Fed's dominance during his stretch was definitely
greater than Novak's dominance during his stretch.

3. It is very clear that you are fixated on the notion that there can only be one dominant player in an year.
On the contrary the blogger's metric of dominant stretch is formulated in such a way that it can even
possibly three dominant players at the same time, while not requiring even one dominant player at
any time. However, the formulation prevents four or more players being dominant at the same time,
as it is crazy.

We could combine the two metrics of length of dominant stretch and the level of dominance into one metric by multiplying
them together. But, I don't have time right now to do so. But, I will attempt to do so soon. For example, if some one's stretch
is say 20 slams and he won 60% of max possible points in GSs during that stretch, then his figure will be 12. On the other hand
if someone else had a dominant stretch of only 16 slams, but he won 90% of max possible points in GSs during that stretch,
then his figure would 14.4 and this is better than the previous guy's performance.

 

[brokenshoelace]

1. Yes, Fed's dominance was way too much and we have never seen anything like that before. That is
exactly what I alluded.

2. Technically as per the blogger's definition of dominant stretch, Fed's dominant stretch is from 2015 Wimbledon
to 2010 AO, a span of 19 Slams. But, Novak's dominance is from 2011 AO to 2016 AO, a span of 24 slams.
That is why I said, Novak's dominant stretch was longer, but Fed's dominance during his stretch was definitely
greater than Novak's dominance during his stretch.

3. It is very clear that you are fixated on the notion that there can only be one dominant player in an year.
On the contrary the blogger's metric of dominant stretch is formulated in such a way that it can even
possibly three dominant players at the same time, while not requiring even one dominant player at
any time. However, the formulation prevents four or more players being dominant at the same time,
as it is crazy.

We could combine the two metrics of length of dominant stretch and the level of dominance into one metric by multiplying
them together. But, I don't have time right now to do so. But, I will attempt to do so soon. For example, if some one's stretch
is say 20 slams and he won 60% of max possible points in GSs during that stretch, then his figure will be 12. On the other hand
if someone else had a dominant stretch of only 16 slams, but he won 90% of max possible points in GSs during that stretch,
then his figure would 14.4 and this is better than the previous guy's performance.

No, I do think there can be more than one dominant player in a year. I just don't think we've really seen that lately. In 2013, I wouldn't say Novak was dominant. He was consistent, yes. Successful, sure. But not dominant, no.

The other guy won more slams, more masters events, actually dominated (and soundly) a decent stretch of the season, and led their h2h meetings.

 

[Moxie]

No, I do think there can be more than one dominant player in a year. I just don't think we've really seen that lately. In 2013, I wouldn't say Novak was dominant. He was consistent, yes. Successful, sure. But not dominant, no.

The other guy won more slams, more masters events, actually dominated (and soundly) a decent stretch of the season, and led their h2h meetings.

You don't think 2016 was divided (rather neatly) in two between 2 dominant players, with Murray edging at the end? @El Dude had a good way of laying out the overlaps above, which I quote:

It really depends upon how granular you want to be, because I think it is meaningful to look at different degrees of dominance. For instance, Novak's huge dominance in 2015 vs. his lesser dominance in 2012, when Roger, Andy, and Rafa were closer to him.

"Anyhow, there's always a sliding scale depending upon what time frame you're looking at, which sometimes overlap. For example, we can say that Roger was the overall most dominant player from 2004-09, Rafa from 2008-13, and Novak from 2011-16, even though Rafa was more dominant than Roger in 2008, Roger than Rafa in 2009 and Novak than Rafa in 2011, Rafa than Novak in 2013 and Andy than Novak in 2016."

I think we'd already settled that the "dominance question" of late is not uncomplicated.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

No, I do think there can be more than one dominant player in a year. I just don't think we've really seen that lately. In 2013, I wouldn't say Novak was dominant. He was consistent, yes. Successful, sure. But not dominant, no.

The other guy won more slams, more masters events, actually dominated (and soundly) a decent stretch of the season, and led their h2h meetings.

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).

 

[Carol]

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).

Why the ITF gave the award 2013 to Novak? some logic explanation?

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Why the ITF gave the award 2013 to Novak? some logic explanation?

Player of the year award is given by ITF. The winner is decided by a subjective vote of a committee and not by a formula.
However, ITF voters primarily go by performance in ITF events which are GSs, Olympics and DC. 2013 is not an Olympic year.

Novak's results at four GSs in order: W, SF, F, F (5120 points total)
Rafa's results at four GSs in order: ---, W, 1R, W (4010 points total).

Novak was leading Rafa by more than 1000 points in the amount of points earned at GSs, which is the primary criteria for ITF.
Also, Novak reaching DC finals would have acted as an additional bonus.

ITF does not put too much stock into ATP events. Even though Rafa won five masters events, Novak also won three masters and WTF thus making it almost comparable in the big events of AP as well. That is why the race for YE#1 was so tight that year.

 

[Moxie]

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).

Did Broken say that Rafa was the only dominant player in 2013? I don't think so, though I'll let him say different, and defend that. I think we all remember 2013 as being a hotly contested year. Novak won the AO, then Rafa came back from injury and stormed across the season. Essentially bragging rights came down to the USO final, which Nadal won. (Depending on that outcome, one was going to have 2 Majors, the other 1.) Novak had a rather better post-USO and won the YEC, while Rafa got the YE#1. I think perhaps the ITF gave the award to Djokovic due to short-term memory, though they would say better results at ITF events, (at one of which Nadal was absent.) In any case, it was a year in which Nadal mainly dominated, and including Djokovic in most of the moments when it matter. Nadal should get the nod, but Djokovic was well in there. However, I'll cite an old poster and Djokovic fan at the end of that year: he would have traded the YEC for one of those Majors losses to Nadal. I think that says it all.

 

[Carol]

Player of the year award is given by ITF. The winner is decided by a subjective vote of a committee and not by a formula.
However, ITF voters primarily go by performance in ITF events which are GSs, Olympics and DC. 2013 is not an Olympic year.

Novak's results at four GSs in order: W, SF, F, F (5120 points total)
Rafa's results at four GSs in order: ---, W, 1R, W (4010 points total).

Novak was leading Rafa by more than 1000 points in the amount of points earned at GSs, which is the primary criteria for ITF.
Also, Novak reaching DC finals would have acted as an additional bonus.

ITF does not put too much stock into ATP events. Even though Rafa won five masters events, Novak also won three masters and WTF thus making it almost comparable in the big events of AP as well. That is why the race for YE#1 was so tight that year.

So winning more GS and MS wasn't enough to win that £%*^ award? incredible

 

[Moxie]

So winning more GS and MS wasn't enough to win that £%*^ award? incredible

Point being that Rafa was penalized by them for missing the AO. Had nothing to do with ATP events. It's a decision they should be embarrassed by, in retrospect. They chose the player most consistent in their events over the superior player of the year.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Did Broken say that Rafa was the only dominant player in 2013? I don't think so, though I'll let him say different, and defend that. I think we all remember 2013 as being a hotly contested year. Novak won the AO, then Rafa came back from injury and stormed across the season. Essentially bragging rights came down to the USO final, which Nadal won. (Depending on that outcome, one was going to have 2 Majors, the other 1.) Novak had a rather better post-USO and won the YEC, while Rafa got the YE#1. I think perhaps the ITF gave the award to Djokovic due to short-term memory, though they would say better results at ITF events, (at one of which Nadal was absent.) In any case, it was a year in which Nadal mainly dominated, and including Djokovic in most of the moments when it matter. Nadal should get the nod, but Djokovic was well in there. However, I'll cite an old poster and Djokovic fan at the end of that year: he would have traded the YEC for one of those Majors losses to Nadal. I think that says it all.

See, Broken's post #192. He is very clear that according to him Rafa is the only dominant player in 2013.

 

[Carol]

Point being that Rafa was penalized by them for missing the AO. Had nothing to do with ATP events. It's a decision they should be embarrassed by, in retrospect. They chose the player most consistent in their events over the superior player of the year.

But he withdrawn due to a stomach virus, I can't believe he was penalized.....what a kind of award is that? :cuckoo:
Then we could say tha Novak was more consistent playing all the tournaments but not domining

 

[Moxie]

See, Broken's post #192. He is very clear that according to him Rafa is the only dominant player in 2013.

No, he said that Novak wasn't dominant. I don't disagree with that. Read my post, and go back to the subtler arguments before the two of you decided to butt heads in ways that don't even make total sense. Novak was very strong that year, #1 most of it, but it was Rafa who took the tour by storm for the majority of that year. I agree that, if you were to pick a dominant player that year, it should be Nadal. But I thought we were understanding that you could have a "second most dominant" player, or some such title. In 2013, Rafa dominated, but Djokovic loomed large. In 2008, Nadal dominated, but Roger loomed. In 2011, Djokovic dominated, but Nadal kept close in the same way. This is the overlapping that El Dude was trying to describe, I think, and which I agree with.

 

[DarthFed]

2013 was actually pretty close between Rafa and Nole. Rafa won the extra slam and the 2 biggest meetings of the year so he does get the nod for most dominant but GSM's point about it being close is legit. Nole won 3 MS and 1 YEC which is better than 5 MS events IMO (regardless of what points say). The overall H2H was 3-3 that year though again Nadal won the 2 biggest meetings.

Not sure how I feel about saying 2 players were dominant unless each won 2 slams but that's just a difference in opinion.

 

[DarthFed]

No, he said that Novak wasn't dominant. I don't disagree with that. Read my post, and go back to the subtler arguments before the two of you decided to butt heads in ways that don't even make total sense. Novak was very strong that year, #1 most of it, but it was Rafa who took the tour by storm for the majority of that year. I agree that, if you were to pick a dominant player that year, it should be Nadal. But I thought we were understanding that you could have a "second most dominant" player, or some such title. In 2013, Rafa dominated, but Djokovic loomed large. In 2008, Nadal dominated, but Roger loomed. In 2011, Djokovic dominated, but Nadal kept close in the same way. This is the overlapping that El Dude was trying to describe, I think, and which I agree with.

I seriously hope you aren't comparing Nole's level of dominance in 2011 to Rafa of 2008 or 2013. Rafa did not loom large in 2011, it was 0-6 and Rafa won 1 slam and an MS event that Nole didn't play and pretty much nothing else that year.

 

[Moxie]

I seriously hope you aren't comparing Nole's level of dominance in 2011 to Rafa of 2008 or 2013. Rafa did not loom large in 2011, it was 0-6 and Rafa won 1 slam and an MS event that Nole didn't play and pretty much nothing else that year.

Not at all. We're talking also about someone looming as the other player to beat, and in 2011, the only one beating Nadal, basically, was Novak. I don't dispute that 2011 is one of Novak's dominating years.