Novak's Place Among the All-Time Greats

[Mile]

As McEnroe stated, Djoker is 5th and i agree. Behind Laver, Fedal, Sampras...

Also Djoker mentioned yesterday, his goal is to pass Sampras and Nadal in number of GSs. Which i think is very likely.

And...historic 16.000 + points have some value too.

 

[El Dude]

And...historic 16.000 + points have some value too.

Not really, considering that the current point structure only goes back to 2009. I mean, Roger had a better year than pretty much anyone in 2006--better than Novak's 2011 or 2015--and he only had a bit more than 8,000 points. To really make the ATP points meaningful historically then you'd have to retroactively change everything before, and then Novak's 2015 wouldn't be the only season with 16k.

 

[Mile]

And...historic 16.000 + points have some value too.

Not really, considering that the current point structure only goes back to 2009. I mean, Roger had a better year than pretty much anyone in 2006--better than Novak's 2011 or 2015--and he only had a bit more than 8,000 points. To really make the ATP points meaningful historically then you'd have to retroactively change everything before, and then Novak's 2015 wouldn't be the only season with 16k.

I was wondering if he can pass 17.000 points, i know he lost one of Asian titles last year, so he can near 17.000 by wining. That would be something.

 

[Didi]

And...historic 16.000 + points have some value too.

Not really, considering that the current point structure only goes back to 2009. I mean, Roger had a better year than pretty much anyone in 2006--better than Novak's 2011 or 2015--and he only had a bit more than 8,000 points. To really make the ATP points meaningful historically then you'd have to retroactively change everything before, and then Novak's 2015 wouldn't be the only season with 16k.

It is actually possible to compare Novak's 2015 with Roger's 2006 at least on the surface because basically what the ATP decided to do from 2009 onwards was to award the double amount of points for each event. However, that only applies to the winners total. When you go to their official website and then to Fed's profil (try the search button), you can then click to the category "activity" right next to "overview" and choose his player activity for 2006 to see how many points he was awarded for each event.

For example he was awarded 750 points for winning the YEC undefeated whereas nowadays since 2009 you get 1500 points for that feat. Roger was awarded with 1000 points for winning a slam, 500 for a masters and 250 for winning an event like Basel. There are small differences though. For making a masters final you got 350 points which isn't exactly the half of today's 600 you receive. Likewise the runner-up of a grand slam tournament received 70 % of the winners total. Those were 700 points back then but today you just get 60 % (1200) instead of doubling it to 1400.

Making a slam semifinal was worth 450 points and thus 45 % of the winners total whereas since 2009 you just get 36 % (720) from the winners total of 2000. There are also differences in distribution for 250s and Davis Cup but I am too lazy a bast'ad and have too much to do at work right now to name them. :snicker Back then the smaller tournaments also weren't divided into 500s and 250s. Winning Halle was worth 225 points, whereas winning future 500s such as Basel, Dubai and Tokyo was worth 250, with a runner-up spot being awarded with 210.

So while there are some less significant differences I think it's still comparable. Roger's final total of 2006 was 8370 points which basically (more or less) would be today's equivalent of roughly 16000 - 16500 points due to the changes to the distribution of rounds leading up to the finals and the runner-up totals itself. Novak is currently at 12785 in the race for London. If he defends all his points until the end, he would finish the season with 16145 points which is his current score in the perpetually running 52 weeks world rankings. +/- something he might lose due to Davis Cup but that's rather peanuts.

 

[Obsi]

Not really, considering that the current point structure only goes back to 2009. I mean, Roger had a better year than pretty much anyone in 2006--better than Novak's 2011 or 2015--and he only had a bit more than 8,000 points. To really make the ATP points meaningful historically then you'd have to retroactively change everything before, and then Novak's 2015 wouldn't be the only season with 16k.

Even if you use the current point structure, Federer never reached 16K in his career. The most he got is 15,745 in 2006.

 

[herios]

I am not predicting anything at this point. Just enjoying the ride and hoping it lasts as long as possible

 

[golds girl]

I think this article is timely and apropos in this thread.
I'm primarily a Rafa fan but everything stated in this article is true.
I'll also post in General ATP News as well.
Thoughts?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/14/magazine/why-cant-novak-djokovic-get-some-respect.html?_r=0

 

[El Dude]

Not really, considering that the current point structure only goes back to 2009. I mean, Roger had a better year than pretty much anyone in 2006--better than Novak's 2011 or 2015--and he only had a bit more than 8,000 points. To really make the ATP points meaningful historically then you'd have to retroactively change everything before, and then Novak's 2015 wouldn't be the only season with 16k.

Even if you use the current point structure, Federer never reached 16K in his career. The most he got is 15,745 in 2006.

That's a bit different than what Didi came to, but when I tried to calculate I came to 15710. Of course Roger missed two Masters that year, which is significant lost points.

But from what I gather, if Novak wins two of the remaining big three tournaments and does well in the third, he could pass Roger's total. It will be close!

I wonder what Rod Laver's 1969 would be in today's point totals. Here, I'll do a quick calculation...

4x2000 = 8000 for Slams

He won 18 titles total, so 14 not at Slams. The current ATP point system uses 8 Masters and 6 other tournaments, so 14 total. It is hard to say which of those 14 non-Slams were equivalent to a Masters, ATP 500, or ATP 250, and of course I don't know what his results were at the tournaments he didn't win. But let's say he won the equivalent of 4 Masters, 3 ATP 500, and the rest were ATP 250, so we'll count 5. On other titles, he could get an additional 6750, to bring his total 14750.

That still doesn't include year-end championships or non-wins at Masters - so five tournaments unaccounted for. I don't think there was a year-end championship tournament until 1970 and all we can do is guess his results. Let's be moderate and give him an average of 300 points each. 5 x 300 - 1500, which when added to 14750 gets us to 16250.

Anyhow, there's some conjecture in there but I think its safe to say that Laver's 1969 was over 16,000.

 

[Mile]

I saw 2006 Fed won 3 GS, 4 Masters and Year end Tour Finals.

Djoker is now on same, 3 GS, 4 Masters. So wining one more master and YE would get him in front of Feds 2006 clearly.

 

[herios]

I saw 2006 Fed won 3 GS, 4 Masters and Year end Tour Finals.

Djoker is now on same, 3 GS, 4 Masters. So wining one more master and YE would get him in front of Feds 2006 clearly.

No doubt about that.

 

[Riotbeard]

I think this article is timely and apropos in this thread.
I'm primarily a Rafa fan but everything stated in this article is true.
I'll also post in General ATP News as well.
Thoughts?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/14/magazine/why-cant-novak-djokovic-get-some-respect.html?_r=0

Thanks for posting. I certainly agree with all that is said. I also think Djokovic is sometimes criticized for trying too hard, when on another level he is just a legitimately goofy guy, who likes being silly. His personality off court isn't sauve like Fed or sheepish like Rafa, he seems to like to be silly.

 

[DarthFed]

Roger also went 92-5 which dwarves Djokovic's record this year. It'd be pretty debatable unless Djoker sweeps the remaining tournaments.

 

[El Dude]

I think this article is timely and apropos in this thread.
I'm primarily a Rafa fan but everything stated in this article is true.
I'll also post in General ATP News as well.
Thoughts?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/14/magazine/why-cant-novak-djokovic-get-some-respect.html?_r=0

He gets respect among knowledge fans, like on this board. There is no one here, as far as I can tell, who doesn't recognize that he is by far the best player on tour (except maybe one ardent Rafa admirer whose name I won't mention :snicker).

I'd say that Novak has been the best player on tour since 2011, so the last five years. Maybe the article is right and beating Roger in the 2010 US Open Semifinal signaled that rise, or at least saw him surpass Roger. Yes, Rafa had that great 2013, but they were rather close.

But I think the #1 rankings since Roger's rise tells the story well enough, 2004-15.

Federer
Federer
Federer
Federer
Nadal
Federer
Nadal
Djokovic
Djokovic
Nadal
Djokovic
Djokovic

Clearly Novak has been "The Man" over the last half decade.

I almost don't want to say this outloud at the risky of angering my fellow Fedfans, but I think there's a valid argument that Novak Djokovic, right now, is the best tennis player who has ever lived. If we subscribe to the view that sports gradually get better, that today's greatest athletes are slightly better than they were in the past (think of Olympic records gradually and continually being broken), then Novak--through edging past Rafa and Roger holds the crown.

That said, I still think that both Roger and Rafa were better players at their very best, but that a major component of Novak's greatness is that his "floor" is so high - not unlike an Ivan Lendl. Meaning, an off day for Novak is still better than all but a few players on tour. Consider who he has lost to this year: Wawrinka once, Federer twice, Murray once, and Karlovic once. That's only one non-elite player that he's lost to, and a player who when he's serving well can beat anyone in a best-of-three.

Either way, people on this board--including myself--are talking about Novak as being one of the ten greatest players of all time right now, with a chance of being one of the four or five best before he's through - and a legitimate chance of passing Nadal, and a small but noteworthy chance of passing Roger. That's not dis-respecting him.

 

[El Dude]

But that article is also, even mainly, about personalities. People by and large like Roger's modest, calm demeanor. Novak has settled own somewhat, but many (including myself) found the tear-ripping and air-thrusting a bit annoying. But there's no denying that Novak is a class act. He is, along with Roger, the best loser among the great players.

I imagine that in a few years, when Roger and Rafa have retired and Novak is the aging great, he will get more than his share of respect. Think in 3-4 years when even if Roger and Rafa are still around, they won't be in Slam finals, but Novak could be the aging great still battling the young guys.

 

[Riotbeard]

But that article is also, even mainly, about personalities. People by and large like Roger's modest, calm demeanor. Novak has settled own somewhat, but many (including myself) found the tear-ripping and air-thrusting a bit annoying. But there's no denying that Novak is a class act. He is, along with Roger, the best loser among the great players.

I imagine that in a few years, when Roger and Rafa have retired and Novak is the aging great, he will get more than his share of respect. Think in 3-4 years when even if Roger and Rafa are still around, they won't be in Slam finals, but Novak could be the aging great still battling the young guys.

Agree with everything except the notion that Roger is modest. The guy has definitely grown on me in his dotage, and I genuinely have come to like him, but he, in no way, carries himself as someone who has a low opinion of himself.

 

[golds girl]

Does Roger respect Novak as a great champion?
Legit question, no snark.

 

[DarthFed]

^ Yes, he's said so for years now. I don't ever get the sense they are best buds but this is not 2008-2010 either.

 

[Riotbeard]

^ Yes, he's said so for years now. I don't ever get the sense they are best buds but this is not 2008-2010 either.

Yeah, I think there's mutual respect, but maybe not friendship (although I would guess they are friendly in general). You can't imagine Novak doing the mickey mouse thing to Roger during an interview like he did with Rafa at the USO this year.

 

[El Dude]

Agree with everything except the notion that Roger is modest. The guy has definitely grown on me in his dotage, and I genuinely have come to like him, but he, in no way, carries himself as someone who has a low opinion of himself.

Modesty doesn't mean a low opinion of oneself - it means he's unassuming and doesn't toot his own horn. He is confident, yes, but he also doesn't prop himself up or say "I'm the best, I should have won that match." Actually, he has outright said that Novak is the best player on tour.

 

[Mile]

Does Roger respect Novak as a great champion?
Legit question, no snark.

As you could read from todays link of New York Post, Fed is Narcis, he like just himself, and he is talking just about himself.

I know one narcis is my sphere, wont get him far.