I already spoke to what annoyed me: You turned yet another thread into yet another opportunity to defend Rafa, even when there was no offense on Rafa (Defense implies offense). This happens all. the. time.
(I don't care if you defend Rafa or not, Moxie--and sometimes, as you know, will do so myself. But the problem is that you get triggered so damn easily when it comes to Rafa, and see offense when none is intended or implied).
Imagine you start a thread saying, "Let's discuss the history of clay dominance," and someone says, "That's an artificial construct. How can you only look at clay?" Then you say, "But I want to discuss clay - that's the point of this thread." Meaning, the point of such a thread would be to focus on clay dominance, not overall dominance. And to try to make it about overall dominance usually implies an ulterior motive. In your case, it is (usually) defending Rafa and making sure he is given his due. The problem, though, is that it muddies the waters for other kinds of discussion, such as this one.
Again, the point of the thread was to look at chronological decades and weeks at #1. In other words, the point was to look through a particular lens, not discuss whether the lens was valid or not. It is a lens, no more or less. No lens tells the whole story--I have said that a million times, in almost every statistical post I make. But obviously you took issue with this lens because you found a way to see it as a slight on Rafa's greatness.
Now if you want to start a thread about greatness and how rankings relate to it, go ahead. But again, the point of this thread was to use decade leaders in weeks at #1 as a context to speculate about the 2020s.
