Is Djokovic dominating in a weak era?

[Front242]

Obsi: "What about Federer? Would say there was a period during his domination that you would call a "weak era"?"
El Dude: "Overall it was relatively weak"

It appears the mental retardation is actually all yours, buddy. Btw, I've quoted it properly for you here. He did not say it was relatively weak apart from 2004 and disagreed with you completely regarding your claim that 2011-2016 was stronger competition than 2004-2009 if you actually reviewed his comments below next to the span of years. None of the years below have been graded as highly in the Djokovic "era" which incidentally can't really be an era since he won just 1 slam in each of 2012 and 2013.

Obsi Wrote: (Yesterday 12:17 PM)

Front242 Wrote:
Only an imbecile would consider this a strong era.


Only an idiot would consider 2004-2006 a strong era.

Front242 Wrote:
Guess that makes El Dude, the site's best blogger/statistics expert an idiot so if you read the posts above.

2005 (strong)
2006-09 (somewhat strong)
2011-13 (moderate)
2010 (slightly weak)
2014-15 (weak)
2004 (quite weak)

^ That's El Dude's synopsis above.

You are a bigger idiot than I thought

08-Apr-2016 02:52 PM Obsi Wrote:
"What about Federer? Would say there was a period during his domination that you would call a "weak era"? " http://www.tennisfrontier.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=4699&pid=226978#pid226978

08-Apr-2016 04:44 PM El Dude Wrote:
"Overall it was relatively weak"
http://www.tennisfrontier.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=4699&pid=226992#pid226992

You can decide for yourself what El Dude meant 'cos he said 2 different things. The fact that you didn't even cop that makes you the bigger idiot I'm afraid. The overall synopsis of the years of Federer's domination was posted above, dumba$$, but here it is again for your Ray Charles viewing.

2005 (strong)
2006-09 (somewhat strong)
2011-13 (moderate)
2010 (slightly weak)
2014-15 (weak)
2004 (quite weak)

Only 2004 was classed as quite weak and the rest was considered stronger than any of Djokovic's. Now go to back to whacking off to photos of Novak with his top off.

 

[El Dude]

Just to clarify, I used one metric: I looked at the top 20 and gave each player a point total based upon their ten best title wins to get a sense of their peak value. For instance, Roger, Rafa, and Novak all had 100 as a Slam gives 10 points and they have 10+ Slams each. Agassi got 89, as his ten best are 8 Slams (10 pts each), a WTF (5 pts) and a Masters (4 pts); a player like Nalbandian got 21 (WTF 5, two Masters 4 each, one ATP 250, 2 pts, and 6 ATP 250s, 1 pt each). You get the basic idea.

What I didn't do (yet) is adjust for where they were in their career, so it gave 2006 and 2013 Roger the same value, or considers 2004-05 Agassi to be as good as he ever was, which is clearly not very accurate. So I'd at least like to have a % modifier of some kind, that adjusts for if a player is pre-peak, post-peak, or an off or injured year.

But that one metric did result in what you posted above, Front, and I don't think is completely worthless. At some point in the next week or two I will try to advance the metric a bit so as to be a bit more accurate.

 

[Front242]

Definitely not worthless, El Dude considering the hardcore Djokovic fans consider this current "era" tougher because it has Federer, Nadal and Murray in it so likewise they're assuming all 3 are as good as ever which is 100% nonsense as we can all see. Nadal and Murray can't even beat Djokovic anymore and Federer is almost 35.

Look forward to seeing the metric enhanced a bit btw and always enjoy reading your stats.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Definitely not worthless, El Dude considering the hardcore Djokovic fans consider this current "era" tougher because it has Federer, Nadal and Murray in it so likewise they're assuming all 3 are as good as ever which is 100% nonsense as we can all see. Nadal and Murray can't even beat Djokovic anymore and Federer is almost 35.

Look forward to seeing the metric enhanced a bit btw and always enjoy reading your stats.

Front.. this "ERA" is pretty bias for Djoker if you base it on 2014 to present..

Let's look at the numbers of 2008-2010 of Rafa Nadal.. would that era assume to be weak because Rafa dominated that time when Fed was still in his 20's, Murray and Djoker had been on tour for aleast 5 years in the top 5

 

[the AntiPusher]

Definitely not worthless, El Dude considering the hardcore Djokovic fans consider this current "era" tougher because it has Federer, Nadal and Murray in it so likewise they're assuming all 3 are as good as ever which is 100% nonsense as we can all see. Nadal and Murray can't even beat Djokovic anymore and Federer is almost 35.

Look forward to seeing the metric enhanced a bit btw and always enjoy reading your stats.

Nadal and Murray can't even beat Djokovic anymore

Are you saying that only Stan, Federer, Jiri Vesley are the only players that can defeat Novak? If that is true, Are you saying that those 3 players are better than Nadal and Murray at this point in their careers

 

[Obsi]

You can decide for yourself what El Dude meant 'cos he said 2 different things. The fact that you didn't even cop that makes you the bigger idiot I'm afraid. The overall synopsis of the years of Federer's domination was posted above, dumba$$, but here it is again for your Ray Charles viewing.

2005 (strong)
2006-09 (somewhat strong)
2011-13 (moderate)
2010 (slightly weak)
2014-15 (weak)
2004 (quite weak)

Only 2004 was classed as quite weak and the rest was considered stronger than any of Djokovic's. Now go to back to whacking off to photos of Novak with his top off.

I've never seen a person with more profound intellectual disability than you. In 1959 Kramer established a tournament points system to decide the best players in the world. According to that model the ranking was as follows: 1 Hoad, 2 Gonzales, 3 Rosewall, 4 Sedgman, 5 Trabert, 6 Anderson, 7 Segura, 8 Cooper. However, Kramer also made another ranking which was based on judgment beyond what statistics can show: 1 Gonzales, 2 Sedgman, 3 Rosewall, 4 Hoad, 5 Trabert, 6 Segura, 7 Cooper, 8 Anderson. Do you understand why I mentioned this?

El Dude: "Overall it was relatively weak"

 

[Front242]

Obsi give it a rest 'cos no one gives a sh1t.