Novak Djokovic - the player of the decade

[Mastoor]

You love these things in advance. I intend to do a similar table but only in December twenty twenty when the decade actually finishes. Yolita, whom some of you may remember, has done this counting since 1.1.2010 so she wouldn't be told by semi-literate tennis fans that she is skewing numbers in Nole's favour:

 

[Nadalfan2013]

Well Federer would be something like 2000-2010, Nadal would be something like 2005-2015, Novak would be something like 2010-2020. Big deal.

Nadal is the only one with the Career Golden Slam and La Undecima, the 2 biggest accomplishments.

 

[Moxie]

It's astonishing the number of ways that stats can be sliced. Surely Novak has great stats for the decade...because it really depends when you start counting, now, doesn't it? Nole was the straggler at the early part of Fedal. I'm not impressed when people make the numbers work to their advantage. What actually has happened between the 3 of them is rather evident.

 

[Mastoor]

It's astonishing the number of ways that stats can be sliced. Surely Novak has great stats for the decade...because it really depends when you start counting, now, doesn't it? Nole was the straggler at the early part of Fedal. I'm not impressed when people make the numbers work to their advantage. What actually has happened between the 3 of them is rather evident.

No, Moxie, on the contrary. Yolita did this in such a way to "suit" Rafa or more precisely in such a way to show Nole's decade less dominant than it actually was. She has done this by including 2010 which was Rafa's year. Proper way would be to start from 1 January 2011, but then Nole's decade would be even more dominant. That's so far though, because the decade hasn't finished and who knows, remaining 8 slams are up for grabs, perhaps Rafa wins them all.

 

[mrzz]

I remember that @obsi three or four years ago "predicted" that Djokovic would be the player of the decade. He was, well, a very passionate fan, but it seems he was spot on.

As @Moxie said, you can slice data in a lot of ways. But in this particular case -- given that this is the "official" decade, it has some meaning, like the "team of seventies" and things like that.

But, wait, Federer can still win the next 8 majors...

[edit] P.S. @Mastoor, just noticed that the data above includes 2010...

 

[El Dude]

Top Three Players by Decade:

2010s Djokovic, Nadal, Federer
2000s: Federer, Nadal, Agassi
1990s: Sampras, Agassi, Courier
1980s: Lendl, McEnroe, Wilander
1970s: Borg, Connors, Newcombe
1960s: Laver, Rosewall, Emerson
1950s: Gonzales, Rosewall, Trabert/Hoad/etc
etc

The point being, sure, Novak is the best of the 2010s, but Nadal is second best of two decades, which is mightily impressive in its own right, and Roger is best of one, third best of another, which is also impressive.

And of course looking at decades is rather artificial, as Moxie said.

 

[Jelenafan]

The decade of 1985-1995 would include Stefan Edberg....

 

[Moxie]

No, Moxie, on the contrary. Yolita did this in such a way to "suit" Rafa or more precisely in such a way to show Nole's decade less dominant than it actually was. She has done this by including 2010 which was Rafa's year. Proper way would be to start from 1 January 2011, but then Nole's decade would be even more dominant. That's so far though, because the decade hasn't finished and who knows, remaining 8 slams are up for grabs, perhaps Rafa wins them all.

But why pick a date and cut off all that happened before it, if not to highlight one career and diminish others? Tennis is an individual sport, not a team sport, so I don't think you get to talk about decades. Players turn pro and retire all the time. The landscape changes in increments, not groups of 5 or 10 years. There is nothing magical, in tennis, about a calendar decade.

 

[Mastoor]

But why pick a date and cut off all that happened before it, if not to highlight one career and diminish others? Tennis is an individual sport, not a team sport, so I don't think you get to talk about decades. Players turn pro and retire all the time. The landscape changes in increments, not groups of 5 or 10 years. There is nothing magical, in tennis, about a calendar decade.

That's one of the things they do in tennis. They have a player of the decade from 19 century to this day. (And they also start decades this, wrong way, with years that end with zero)

 

[Mastoor]

Top Three Players by Decade:

2010s Djokovic, Nadal, Federer
2000s: Federer, Nadal, Agassi
1990s: Sampras, Agassi, Courier
1980s: Lendl, McEnroe, Wilander
1970s: Borg, Connors, Newcombe
1960s: Laver, Rosewall, Emerson
1950s: Gonzales, Rosewall, Trabert/Hoad/etc
etc

The point being, sure, Novak is the best of the 2010s, but Nadal is second best of two decades, which is mightily impressive in its own right, and Roger is best of one, third best of another, which is also impressive.

And of course looking at decades is rather artificial, as Moxie said.

There was a discussion in a Serbian website what would happen when Big 3 finish their carriers and prevailing opinion was that even Nole will finish most accomplished overall, they will dilute the fact and will go with 3 equal greatest players, instead of saying Nole's the greatest. This post really looks like that what they said.

 

[Moxie]

That's one of the things they do in tennis. They have a player of the decade from 19 century to this day. (And they also start decades this, wrong way, with years that end with zero)

Show me one example of where any reputable journalist or tennis site has decided to pick players by "decade." I'd be interested to see how much that holds up, if it even exists.

 

[Mastoor]

Show me one example of where any reputable journalist or tennis site has decided to pick players by "decade." I'd be interested to see how much that holds up, if it even exists.

There's on wikipedia

 

[Moxie]

There was a discussion in a Serbian website what would happen when Big 3 finish their carriers and prevailing opinion was that even Nole will finish most accomplished overall, they will dilute the fact and will go with 3 equal greatest players, instead of saying Nole's the greatest. This post really looks like that what they said.

This is classic Djokovic fan chip-on-the-shoulder. Firstly, let's face it: there are 3 all-time greats playing at the same time. Djokovic should be happy to be in the conversation. He was nowhere in it before 2011. Secondly, in order to finish most accomplished overall, he's going to have to win 7 more Majors, at a minimum. That's a hall of fame career right there, and he's already 31. The chances of that are not good. So, let's say he finishes somewhere in the mix with Roger and Rafa, which is most likely. Well, yes, there will be a big discussion about the 3 of them. Is that so hard to understand? However, should he surpass Roger and Rafa in Majors, I think he'd get the kudos. Don't you? The rest of his resume would put him there. So why the pre-emptive sour-grapes?

 

[Moxie]

There's on wikipedia

If you want me to see it you should link it. I'm not interested in looking it up.

 

[Mastoor]

If you want me to see it you should link it. I'm not interested in looking it up.

I won't bother .

 

[Moxie]

I won't bother .

Then I'm going to assume it doesn't exist.

 

[El Dude]

There was a discussion in a Serbian website what would happen when Big 3 finish their carriers and prevailing opinion was that even Nole will finish most accomplished overall, they will dilute the fact and will go with 3 equal greatest players, instead of saying Nole's the greatest. This post really looks like that what they said.

I'm confused.

 

[monfed]

faker has done better than dull

 

[DarthFed]

But why pick a date and cut off all that happened before it, if not to highlight one career and diminish others? Tennis is an individual sport, not a team sport, so I don't think you get to talk about decades. Players turn pro and retire all the time. The landscape changes in increments, not groups of 5 or 10 years. There is nothing magical, in tennis, about a calendar decade.

It's a common thing in most sports, there might not be tons of articles but you'll often hear in sports that such and such is the player of the decade, new millennium, etc

 

[El Dude]

Moxie’s just insecure because Novak’s back in the rearview, with the label “objects closer than they appear.”