How will Djokovic perform against the young generation in 2023?

[Moxie]

I'll let El Dude reply to this himself obviously but, regarding the bolded, no matter how many times you keep trying to tell people claiming faulty science or unscientific bs as I called it that this is our opinions, it's NOT our opinions, it's FACTUAL. The media said people like me would be dead. Well, guess what, I'm not....

Nobody said you were in the category to be dead. Jeepers, the DRAMA around here.

 

[Front242]

Sorry I have to interrupt your run-on sentences. As I have said before, your opinion about Covid and the vaccine for it don't really matter. Public health policies are and were what they are and were. And we are not privy to what Novak was told and by whom before he went to Australia this past January, but as @Kieran points out, a simple google search could have told him he was in the wrong on his supposed "medical exemption." He clearly has access to lawyers, but he chose to go on a wing and likely corrupt prayer, that he'd just be let in because he was Novak. Even you have said that's no way to treat world #1, but why should he be treated differently? In the end, he wasn't.

That's fine, if it's what you believe. But if you're going to back his choice, then you have to understand it comes with consequences, as he seems to, now.

I'm well aware his choice to not get vaccinated had consequences and was merely pointing out the obvious that this is why Alcaraz ended up number 1. I really had no intention of bringing covid into it much but it seems it was necessary because a lot of people are defending Alcaraz for no reason when it's plain as day obvious why he became number 1.

This is a nonsensical point. Tennis players run a lot...side-to-side, back-to-front, in a stop/start motion that is perilous to joints and ligaments. Sure, Rafa has put a lot of miles on, but blaming his playing style for his injuries is not for you to say. You're no sports medicine doctor. Plus, how much has Juan Martin del Potro been blamed for his own injury woes? No, everyone just feels sorry for him. Why? Because he's no longer a threat to anyone's legacy.

What does not being a sports medicine doctor have to do with anything? I have eyes, anyone knows running a lot day after day is hard on the joints. It can also be bad luck. Del Potro is 6' 6". It's no secret that taller athletes are more susceptible to injury. His last injury was indeed bad luck. A slip at Wimbledon that ended up ending his career. I feel much more sorry obviously for Del Potro or anyone who had an injury riddled career ended early over the guy you're defending who is still playing and at a high level.

Again...you say they should have tested, and then you declare tests useless. You've contradicted yourself. You're sure of your version of the science but I am not.

I haven't contradicted anything. Yes, the PCR test is useless but make it fair and test them all with the same useless test instead of letting vaxxed riddled players go untested and telling the unvaxxed players they simply can't play at all when (A) they might not have covid at all and (B) should be allowed to play after showing a negative test and NO players should be allowed play without a negative test. Unfair treatment in life needs to stop.

This is just a word and gripe salad. Now you're conflating support for Ukraine with faith in boosters? Does that mean that I should assume that you're all-in on Putin because you're against the Covid vaccine? The world is not that binary in its opinions. I think you need to get a grip.

No, I'm not pro Putin at all, but I'm also not an idiot who believes this was unprovoked either. The more the media keep bringing up the so called "unprovoked attack on Ukraine" the more the people who aren't clueless know it was clearly provoked. Not justifying it at all but it WAS NOT unprovoked. And yes, go read posts on any social media platform and the same people who pray to Pfizer every night often have a Ukrainian flag as their avatar. This is no coincidence, it's how these people are wired.

 

[Front242]

Nobody said you were in the category to be dead. Jeepers, the DRAMA around here.

Actually they did. There are ton of links online where many government officials, so called health experts in Big Pharma's back pockets and just plain, lying corrupt scum were telling people you're much more likely to end up in hospital or die without getting vaccinated just so they could get their Big Pharma kickbacks/commissions. No regard for people's health whatsoever or they'd instead be promoting healthy lifestyles, vitamin supplementation, exercise, weight loss, not smoking etc. They look pretty stupid now when the stats are the other way round regarding those in hospital or dying...but they don't care and will keep going this way. They got their $$$ and they can never have enough.

 

[Jelenafan]

The fact remains that as of now the US does not allow unvaccinated noncitizens to enter the country. Novak cannot enter the 2 Masters in the spring, Indian Wells and Miami, and unless things change, cannot enter the Cincinnati Masters or the USO in the late summer/early spring. That is 4 tournaments with 5000 points up for grabs.

Also I believe that Novak Djokovic is the only singles player in the ATP top 250 not vaccinated. ( Did Tennys Sandgren ever take the stab?) If he chooses to play what tournaments are available to him, the other 3 Majors & 5 Masters ( doubt China Shanghai will be played) , he can get plenty of points with very little to defend & get to # 1.

Or not.

Alcaraz # 1 ranking has no asterisk as far as I’m concerned.

 

[Moxie]

The fact remains that as of now the US does not allow unvaccinated noncitizens to enter the country. Novak cannot enter the 2 Masters in the spring, Indian Wells and Miami, and unless things change, cannot enter the Cincinnati Masters or the USO in the late summer/early spring. That is 4 tournaments with 5000 points up for grabs.

Also I believe that Novak Djokovic is the only singles player in the ATP top 250 not vaccinated. ( Did Tennys Sandgren ever take the stab?) If he chooses to play what tournaments are available to him, the other 3 Majors & 5 Masters ( doubt China Shanghai will be played) , he can get plenty of points with very little to defend & get to # 1.

Or not.

Alcaraz # 1 ranking has no asterisk as far as I’m concerned.

Good point about Shanghai. Unlikely.

As to the unvaccinated players, they remain the same 3, and Sandgren, for what it's worth, is ranked #265. And Hughes-Herbert is ranked #252 in doubles.

3 men's tennis players who missed tournaments due to vaccine mandates

Tennis has undergone a massive shift in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, with the sport making rapid adjustments wherever possible to keep going.

www.sportskeeda.com

It also remains to be seen if Canada changes their policy.

Agreed...why should there be an asterisk on Alcaraz's #1? Do I remember that Fed fans insisted there should be no asterisk on Roger's RG title? Then where do we begin and where do we stop with selling short someone's accomplishment, given what was in front of them?

 

[Front242]

Good point about Shanghai. Unlikely.

As to the unvaccinated players, they remain the same 3, and Sandgren, for what it's worth, is ranked #265. And Hughes-Herbert is ranked #252 in doubles.

3 men's tennis players who missed tournaments due to vaccine mandates

Tennis has undergone a massive shift in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, with the sport making rapid adjustments wherever possible to keep going.

www.sportskeeda.com

It also remains to be seen if Canada changes their policy.

Agreed...why should there be an asterisk on Alcaraz's #1? Do I remember that Fed fans insisted there should be no asterisk on Roger's RG title? Then where do we begin and where do we stop with selling short someone's accomplishment, given what was in front of them?

What sort of nonsense whataboutery is this ? Nadal played and lost. Djokovic wasn't even allowed to play. There is absolutely ZERO comparison whatsoever.

 

[Moxie]

I'm well aware his choice to not get vaccinated had consequences and was merely pointing out the obvious that this is why Alcaraz ended up number 1. I really had no intention of bringing covid into it much but it seems it was necessary because a lot of people are defending Alcaraz for no reason when it's plain as day obvious why he became number 1.

Dude, you brought the covid thing to this thread, so don't act like that happened by accident. And you could have mentioned it and moved on, but instead it was full of your opinions and editorializing about it. You have an agenda where that is concerned, so stop being coy about that. (Also why did you hijack this with BOLD that I can't get rid of?)

What does not being a sports medicine doctor have to do with anything? I have eyes, anyone knows running a lot day after day is hard on the joints. It can also be bad luck. Del Potro is 6' 6". It's no secret that taller athletes are more susceptible to injury. His last injury was indeed bad luck. A slip at Wimbledon that ended up ending his career. I feel much more sorry obviously for Del Potro or anyone who had an injury riddled career ended early over the guy you're defending who is still playing and at a high level.

Injuries are injuries. Either you sympathize with them and don't blame them on the athlete, or you do.

I haven't contradicted anything. Yes, the PCR test is useless but make it fair and test them all with the same useless test instead of letting vaxxed riddled players go untested and telling the unvaxxed players they simply can't play at all when (A) they might not have covid at all and (B) should be allowed to play after showing a negative test and NO players should be allowed play without a negative test. Unfair treatment in life needs to stop.

If you don't believe in the test, it's ridiculous to suggest they use it. Be consistent. Also, tournaments DID rely on testing and vaccination and other preventions, though the protocols were not consistent, IIRC.

No, I'm not pro Putin at all, but I'm also not an idiot who believes this was unprovoked either. The more the media keep bringing up the so called "unprovoked attack on Ukraine" the more the people who aren't clueless know it was clearly provoked. Not justifying it at all but it WAS NOT unprovoked. And yes, go read posts on any social media platform and the same people who pray to Pfizer every night often have a Ukrainian flag as their avatar. This is no coincidence, it's how these people are wired.

Interesting POV.

 

[El Dude]

I don't think it is a matter of whether or not Alcaraz's #1 deserves an asterisk, or that he's undeserving. I think the point is merely that he was helped by Novak's status--his inability to play half of the big tournaments (regardless of why). If that weren't the case, it is highly unlikely that Alcaraz would be #1.

I cited Elo, which to me proves my point: Alcaraz's 2200 Elo, while very good, is equivalent to the average of a #5ish player over the course of the Open Era, and I believe is the lowest Elo by a YE #1 -- or at least close to it.

 

[Front242]

I don't think it is a matter of whether or not Alcaraz's #1 deserves an asterisk, or that he's undeserving. I think the point is merely that he was helped by Novak's status--his inability to play half of the big tournaments (regardless of why). If that weren't the case, it is highly unlikely that Alcaraz would be #1.

I cited Elo, which to me proves my point: Alcaraz's 2200 Elo, while very good, is equivalent to the average of a #5ish player over the course of the Open Era, and I believe is the lowest Elo by a YE #1 -- or at least close to it.

Yup, I like the guy and he's literally a highlight reel of cool shots and clearly very, very good but he won the jackpot with the number 1 ranking.

 

[El Dude]

To be clear, this is your opinion about those policies, and the science, vis-a-vis Covid. As to Wimbledon, I think most around here agree that the choice to keep Russians out was useless and an over-step. The ATP/WTA decision to withdraw points was an effort by players' councils to force Wimbledon's hand...and it didn't work. We have all said, I think, that it was a weird year for rankings, for many reasons.

Well, it turns out that the vaxxed can transmit the virus, so why mandate it? That's a bad policy based on poor science -- that is, Big Pharma's "recommendations" based on their studies (or lack thereof, such as the fact that they never tested whether or not the vaccine stopped transmission, but sold it as doing so). The lockdown, in general, was based on bad policy (and science), which has been talked about before. Look into the Great Barrington Declaration for a still very mainstream approach, but one that "real science" would have followed if the pandemic and lockdowns was actually based on science and not other agendas. Oh, and one that Fauci and his cabal actively censored. Instead we got Fauci saying, "I AM THE SCIENCE!"

First of all, I think you make this argument in your own favor. We didn't say "if only Rafa were healthy...." We're saying that no one makes provisions for alternate realities when Rafa has been absent due to injury. Read back. This is what Kieran is arguing, and @rafanoy1992 has pointed out in the past. Trying to put an asterisk (I know you didn't say that) presumes a lot on Novak's performance, had he played a full schedule.

Yes, Rafa's absence later in the year were due to forces beyond his control. Novak, on the other hand, made his choices, and he said so.

I didn't bring up Rafa, someone else did. I'm saying it doesn't equate. Rafa usually performs poorly in the second half, and/or is worn down. Novak was kept out of tournaments because of politics. Why even equate the two?

And it isn't presuming a lot on Novak to assume that he could have picked up a measly 2000 points from two Slams and four Masters. That's a total 8000 possible points...2000 is just two Slam SFs and one Masters final, or two Slam QFs, a Masters title and a couple Masters SFs. And all of that would be under-performing on Novak's part...from 2020-22, he's reached the final of 7 of the last 9 Slams he's played and the SF or better of 7 of the 9 Masters. Just taking his recent par performance, let's say he played both Slams and three of the four Masters, that's easily 3,000 points without winning anything.

Again, this is your opinion, and it is your choice to state it so dramatically. (Jab in the arm v. bullet to the head? Seriously?) The rules of admission were established. You may not agree with them, but that is a separate issue. Everyone else (nearly) conformed to the rules. Disagreeing with the rules doesn't change them. It's still a choice, whereas injury is not.

I'm being hyperbolic, but for many it isn't far from that. Whether you like it or not, the non-vax-vax was/is an experimental treatment, and it turns out one that wasn't adequately tested, and seemingly harmful for many. When you add in the fact that Novak is one of the fittest people in the world, it made zero sense for him to take it. They were unjust rules, established for reasons that had little (if anything) to do with health or science.

 

[El Dude]

One more thing about the #1. It is hardly unheard of for the #1 player by the ATP rankings not to be the best player. They usually match up, but it happens frequently enough that they don't align.

We have Roger and Rafa in 2017. Roger was clearly the better player, but entirely skipped clay season and played a light schedule overall, playing only 12 tournaments including just four Masters. But he won 7 of 12 tournaments he was in, and his 2444 YE Elo was the highest on tour, over Novak at 2418 and way above Andy (2353) and ATP #1 Raf (2350). Rafa was actually fourth in Elo; he played 50% more tournaments than Roger (18 to 12), and four of those six tournaments were Masters...and he still won one fewer titles than Roger (6). It was a clear case of quantity over quality, and the gap in ATP points was only 1000...which could have been easily made up by Roger playing three or four more tournaments. This is not to say that Rafa didn't deserve the #1 - he did earn the points and had an excellent year - but that he wasn't the best player that year.

Then there's Andy vs. Novak in 2016, which is closer, imo, especially when you consider the narrative of Andy's epic finale, and how he literally tore the #1 from Novak's grasp. But Novak had a slightly higher Elo, and also won 2 Slams to Andy's 1. But Andy's finish alone makes his #1 ranking worthwhile, imo.

We can go back through history - some instances in the 70s and 80s involving Connors, Borg, Mac, Lendl. And other years in which the #1 Elo player wasn't #1 via ATP, such as Agassi in 1995 or Lendl in 1982 or Borg in 1977. And then there are years where the top player by Elo would have been #5 in a stronger era.

I'm not saying that Elo should replace the ATP rankings, but that both should be considered. And more to the point: Alcaraz won the ATP point rankings, but wasn't the best player. Rafa was better, and so was Novak. Again, this doesn't mean that Alcaraz didn't deserve it, just that he was--at best--the third best player on tour in 2022.

 

[Fiero425]

Good point about Shanghai. Unlikely.

As to the unvaccinated players, they remain the same 3, and Sandgren, for what it's worth, is ranked #265. And Hughes-Herbert is ranked #252 in doubles.

3 men's tennis players who missed tournaments due to vaccine mandates

Tennis has undergone a massive shift in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, with the sport making rapid adjustments wherever possible to keep going.

www.sportskeeda.com

It also remains to be seen if Canada changes their policy.

Agreed...why should there be an asterisk on Alcaraz's #1? Do I remember that Fed fans insisted there should be no asterisk on Roger's RG title? Then where do we begin and where do we stop with selling short someone's accomplishment, given what was in front of them?

With my memory, there are plenty of majors that deserve to have an asterisk posted behind the names of the eventual winners going back to Vilas taking the 1977 USO when Borg had to withdraw due to a shoulder injury! Vilas couldn't beat Borg if half asleep & on Coke! More recent, it's beginning to stack up on one another due to the selfishness of the Big 3 not allowing too many major events to fall outside their possession! Skipping the biggie of Nadal being upset by Soderling in '09, Thiem only got his USO due to Novak being DQ'd at the 2020 USO! If Nadal was so great he should have won his 2nd AO before Nole was barred from playing last season! He had his chances in 2017 & 2018 when Novak was 'walkabout/injured!" We make commentary like this because it's true; "a what if" can definitely be declared due to how the Big 3 have owned the tour for almost 20 years! Going to BO3 for Masters 1000 & the YEC also helped to extend their careers and facilitated their winning ways!

 

[El Dude]

With my memory, there are plenty of majors that deserve to have an asterisk posted behind the names of the eventual winners going back to Vilas taking the 1977 USO when Borg had to withdraw due to a shoulder injury! Vilas couldn't beat Borg if half asleep & on Coke! More recent, it's beginning to stack up on one another due to the selfishness of the Big 3 not allowing too many major events to fall outside their possession! Skipping the biggie of Nadal being upset by Soderling in '09, Thiem only got his USO due to Novak being DQ'd at the 2020 USO! If Nadal was so great he should have won his 2nd AO before Nole was barred from playing last season! He had his chances in 2017 & 2018 when Novak was 'walkabout/injured!" We make commentary like this because it's true; "a what if" can definitely be declared due to how the Big 3 have owned the tour for almost 20 years!

Yes, all true - but this is just the nature of the sport. Not all Slam titles are created equally. I'll be the first to admit that some of Roger's early titles were relatively easy, or at least compared to, say, his 2017 AO. Novak and Rafa also have their "easy Slams."

But me, the cake is taken by Johan Kriek, whose two Slams were both the AO at its weakest. 1981 was still a 64-player tournament. Kriek didn't even phase a top 10 player in either tournament, I believe, and beat Steve Denton--a guy who never made it into the top 10 at any point in his career--in both finals.

The worst Slam final player was undoubtedly John Marks, who lost to Guillermo Vilas in one of the two 1978 Australian Opens. But at least Marks defeated some good players to to get there, including an aged Arthur Ashe. But Marks' best ATP ranking was #60, and his best Elo was 1872, and his highest Elo rank #79.

According to Ultimate Tennis Statistics, here's a list of the easiest Grand Slam titles:

Ultimate Tennis Statistics - Easiest Grand Slam Title

Easiest Grand Slam Title at Ultimate Tennis Statistics

www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com

Kriek's two AOs are 6th and 9th. Bill Bowrey's AO in 1968 was 1st, but that wasn't Open Era...so the Open Era easiest was the AO in 1972. Actually, the AO in 1968-70 the top 11 easiest. The lone absence was the 1969 AO...Laver had to beat Roy Emerson, Fred Stolle, Tony Roche, and Andres Gimeno.

Roger's easiest Slam, according to that page, was the 2006 AO (#20)..the one he faced Baghdatis in the final, and before him, Tommy Haas, Nikolay Davydenko, and Nicolas Kiefer in the 4R, QF, and SF. So some solid players, no true elite ones. Novak's easiest was the 2021 WImbledon (#30), where he beat Berrettini in the final, and before him Shapovalov, Fucsovics, and Garin, in reverse order. For Rafa, it is the 2017 US Open (#37), when he beat Kevin Anerson in the final, and before him, Del Potro, Rublev, and Dolgopolov.

Stan Wawrinka's three Slams are #1, #2, and #5 hardest, according to that metric. The Legend of Stanimal!

 

[El Dude]

The hardest title of any during the Open Era, according to UTS, was the 1971 Tennis Champions Classic, won by Rod Laver. It was an "alt final" - and involved a round robin of nine of the top players. Laver played THIRTEEN best-of-five matches, won all of them, and against guys like Ashe, Emerson, Okker, Ralston, Roshe, Rosewall, and Newcombe. Grueling.

That tournament only last two years, and Laver won both. The 1970 version was the third hardest, with the Dallas WCT 2nd between the two. McEnroe won that, beating Borg, Connors, and John Alexander.

 

[Fiero425]

Yes, all true - but this is just the nature of the sport. Not all Slam titles are created equally. I'll be the first to admit that some of Roger's early titles were relatively easy, or at least compared to, say, his 2017 AO. Novak and Rafa also have their "easy Slams."

But me, the cake is taken by Johan Kriek, whose two Slams were both the AO at its weakest. 1981 was still a 64-player tournament. Kriek didn't even phase a top 10 player in either tournament, I believe, and beat Steve Denton--a guy who never made it into the top 10 at any point in his career--in both finals.

The worst Slam final player was undoubtedly John Marks, who lost to Guillermo Vilas in one of the two 1978 Australian Opens. But at least Marks defeated some good players to to get there, including an aged Arthur Ashe. But Marks' best ATP ranking was #60, and his best Elo was 1872, and his highest Elo rank #79.

According to Ultimate Tennis Statistics, here's a list of the easiest Grand Slam titles:

Ultimate Tennis Statistics - Easiest Grand Slam Title

Easiest Grand Slam Title at Ultimate Tennis Statistics

www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com

Kriek's two AOs are 6th and 9th. Bill Bowrey's AO in 1968 was 1st, but that wasn't Open Era...so the Open Era easiest was the AO in 1972. Actually, the AO in 1968-70 the top 11 easiest. The lone absence was the 1969 AO...Laver had to beat Roy Emerson, Fred Stolle, Tony Roche, and Andres Gimeno.

Roger's easiest Slam, according to that page, was the 2006 AO (#20)..the one he faced Baghdatis in the final, and before him, Tommy Haas, Nikolay Davydenko, and Nicolas Kiefer in the 4R, QF, and SF. So some solid players, no true elite ones. Novak's easiest was the 2021 WImbledon (#30), where he beat Berrettini in the final, and before him Shapovalov, Fucsovics, and Garin, in reverse order. For Rafa, it is the 2017 US Open (#37), when he beat Kevin Anerson in the final, and before him, Del Potro, Rublev, and Dolgopolov.

Stan Wawrinka's three Slams are #1, #2, and #5 hardest, according to that metric. The Legend of Stanimal!

I've had to muse about the physio of past generations and I mentioned you could have a beer belly and still be in the top 20 a few eras ago! Denton had a beer belly, but most of his success occurred in doubles IIRC! He's a beast now!

 

[Front242]

Dude, you brought the covid thing to this thread, so don't act like that happened by accident. And you could have mentioned it and moved on, but instead it was full of your opinions and editorializing about it. You have an agenda where that is concerned, so stop being coy about that. (Also why did you hijack this with BOLD that I can't get rid of?)

Think I'll use purple this time. Once again, it was not my opinions. It does not stop transmission, this is a fact and because of this fact he should never have been excluded from playing. How is this my agenda ? The agenda was with the dopes who excluded him from playing.

Injuries are injuries. Either you sympathize with them and don't blame them on the athlete, or you do.

I sympathize with any injured athlete but a career ending injury is the worst kind. You're harping on about a guy with the slam record and still playing elite level tennis as if I should feel sorry for him which is kinda weird.

If you don't believe in the test, it's ridiculous to suggest they use it. Be consistent. Also, tournaments DID rely on testing and vaccination and other preventions, though the protocols were not consistent, IIRC.

I'm being consistent, the tournaments weren't. Since the vaccines don't work they should be testing everyone daily. They weren't and were actually relying on honesty for players to tell them they tested positive. Testing AND vaccinations? So you at least finally admitted the so called vaccines don't work. A good way to end 2022. Kudos. If it worked there'd be no need for testing. But then if it worked there'd be no need for masks or social distancing either so, yeah, clearly it doesn't work.

Interesting POV.

Big time. There's another NPC who supports the current thing born every minute.

 

[Moxie]

Well, it turns out that the vaxxed can transmit the virus, so why mandate it? That's a bad policy based on poor science -- that is, Big Pharma's "recommendations" based on their studies (or lack thereof, such as the fact that they never tested whether or not the vaccine stopped transmission, but sold it as doing so). The lockdown, in general, was based on bad policy (and science), which has been talked about before. Look into the Great Barrington Declaration for a still very mainstream approach, but one that "real science" would have followed if the pandemic and lockdowns was actually based on science and not other agendas. Oh, and one that Fauci and his cabal actively censored. Instead we got Fauci saying, "I AM THE SCIENCE!"

I'm not going to reexamine this here, but it doesn't matter how much you think you're right...what matters was national policies. I don't see why you don't get that or Front doesn't. Give over...it's not about your opinion, or what is right, in your opinion. It's about what actually WAS, right? National policy. Done.

I didn't bring up Rafa, someone else did. I'm saying it doesn't equate. Rafa usually performs poorly in the second half, and/or is worn down. Novak was kept out of tournaments because of politics. Why even equate the two?

I don`t think that's what I or anyone else was equating. It's not about the end of the year. It's about being able to participate in Majors, most especially, and if injury or choice to abdicate were equivalent.

And it isn't presuming a lot on Novak to assume that he could have picked up a measly 2000 points from two Slams and four Masters.

A "measly" 2000 points?

That's a total 8000 possible points...2000 is just two Slam SFs and one Masters final, or two Slam QFs, a Masters title and a couple Masters SFs. And all of that would be under-performing on Novak's part...from 2020-22, he's reached the final of 7 of the last 9 Slams he's played and the SF or better of 7 of the 9 Masters. Just taking his recent par performance, let's say he played both Slams and three of the four Masters, that's easily 3,000 points without winning anything.

Everyone can do the math. Not everyone is willing to presume on results. Since you like ELO so much, and you're a stats guy, you know about the Butterfly Effect in chaos theory. If you change one thing, you change everything. It doesn't even take the fluttering of a butterfly's wing to know that, if Novak had played many other tournaments, the whole of the year might have been different, including his, and what you think about it.

I'm being hyperbolic, but for many it isn't far from that. Whether you like it or not, the non-vax-vax was/is an experimental treatment, and it turns out one that wasn't adequately tested, and seemingly harmful for many. When you add in the fact that Novak is one of the fittest people in the world, it made zero sense for him to take it. They were unjust rules, established for reasons that had little (if anything) to do with health or science.

I don't agree with you on the vaccine, and that's just me. Doesn't matter a "hill of beans" as Rick and Ilsa said in "Casablanca." The rules were the rules. And you and Front can have your opinions, but they are still just opinions.

 

[El Dude]

I'm not going to reexamine this here, but it doesn't matter how much you think you're right...what matters was national policies. I don't see why you don't get that or Front doesn't. Give over...it's not about your opinion, or what is right, in your opinion. It's about what actually WAS, right? National policy. Done.

I don`t think that's what I or anyone else was equating. It's not about the end of the year. It's about being able to participate in Majors, most especially, and if injury or choice to abdicate were equivalent.

A "measly" 2000 points?

Everyone can do the math. Not everyone is willing to presume on results. Since you like ELO so much, and you're a stats guy, you know about the Butterfly Effect in chaos theory. If you change one thing, you change everything. It doesn't even take the fluttering of a butterfly's wing to know that, if Novak had played many other tournaments, the whole of the year might have been different, including his, and what you think about it.

I don't agree with you on the vaccine, and that's just me. Doesn't matter a "hill of beans" as Rick and Ilsa said in "Casablanca." The rules were the rules. And you and Front can have your opinions, but they are still just opinions.

What does any of that have to do with whether or not Novak would have been #1, if allowed to play? Covid and policies aside, we're talking about two missed Slams and four missed finals -- a potential of 8,000 points. And yes, in that context--and for a player of Novak's caliber--2,000 is "measly." There are few seasons in which you can find a combination of two Slams and Masters in Novak's career that total less than 2,000 points, and none in the last few years.

To say that Novak wouldn't have easily made up the 2,000 point difference--not to mention potentially have beaten Alcaraz in some of the tournaments he won--is to complete ignore the reality of who Novak is as a player now, and over the last few years - even in his post-peak level.

This isn't a slight on Alcaraz. It is just stating the obvious: Novak is (or was in 2022) still the better player. Maybe that will change in 2023, but it wasn't the case in 2022.

 

[Moxie]

What does any of that have to do with whether or not Novak would have been #1, if allowed to play? Covid and policies aside, we're talking about two missed Slams and four missed finals -- a potential of 8,000 points. And yes, in that context--and for a player of Novak's caliber--2,000 is "measly." There are few seasons in which you can find a combination of two Slams and Masters in Novak's career that total less than 2,000 points, and none in the last few years.

To say that Novak wouldn't have easily made up the 2,000 point difference--not to mention potentially have beaten Alcaraz in some of the tournaments he won--is to complete ignore the reality of who Novak is as a player now, and over the last few years - even in his post-peak level.

This isn't a slight on Alcaraz. It is just stating the obvious: Novak is (or was in 2022) still the better player. Maybe that will change in 2023, but it wasn't the case in 2022.

I'm the one that reminded you of the 2000 points Novak didn't get from Wimbledon. But I'm still going to say that you can't say what he would have done, if/but/whatever. You're talking about a serious portion of the calendar as a fantasy,

 

[Kieran]

Think I'll use purple this time.