Most Successful

I have made a 3 tabbed list of most successful tennis players here docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AnKl04es5qkqdGQxVFNxdVNSQzRCQXJ6aU5lOTR1Z0E&usp=drive_web#gid=0

I can't make this a proper link yet, but will when the board lets me.

Interesting FK. The table looks good but the scoring is very arbitrary.

5 for Wimby and 3 for the others is weird.

First cause in my view there is not much difference pace wise between Wimby and the FO nowadays. So I am not sure why winning wimby now would be worth more than winning the FO?

In the past you could say Wimby was really fast and favoured talent over stamina and therefore is won by more talented players (just check the list of Wimby winners v FO winners and it confirms it to some extend. But nowadays??? same thing roughly: It's the fittest who wins unless it's Fed winning it.

But I also think that though I prefer talent and shot making, it's quite arbitrary to decide which is worth more.

When I was a fan of Borg and could not stand McEnroe my views could have been opposite.

Nadal is Nadal. An extremely fit player we have make do with, like it or not. He is not a talented player certainly (by top players standard I mean) but his team did an amazing work (Toni to re-invent moonballing, and the others to develop such a physique H&S above the rest still), which gave Federer a challenge he would simply not have had for most of his career.

My problem is not so much with Nadal but the commercial side of the sport which have really tried to help him like no other player was helped before by slowing the courts, turned a blind eye on the time rule (clearly purposely), reduced the anti-doping budget and test in his peak years and if that was not coincidental enough, came up with weird draws to make sure Nadal would be at the business end of tournaments.

Had they slowed the courts like crazy back then, Bruguera would be nowadays a more successful player than Pete....and that would have been quite wrong. When you think of the immense gap there is in talent between nadal and Federer it's sad to think that Nadal could actually catch up Federer in slams count .

But it is a sign of times. This morning I was reading that computers now beat systematically the best chess champions even when those are helped by computers! It says it all!

I agree, however there is still a difference.  There is a good reason Nadal has 8 French Opens and 2 Wimbledon's.  The stats here are only to show success, they are certainly not meant to be a iron-clad explanation of talent.  Think of the list as a guide only, with a few anomalies.

Computers don't beat chess players in the way we mean though, they are just number crunchers.  By creating games that have far more complexity than the number crunching can fathom, you again have the upper hand on computers.  It will be a long time before computers are able to beat grand masters consistently at "Go!"

I actually value the FO a lot....me being French probably helps but the main reason is that it is "the other" natural surface. It's a great surface to play on and it has produced great matches when Nadal is not involved. Federer v Djoko in 2011 for example. The problem is that in 2011 they introduced, maybe by mistake fast balls (you may know that in 2011 it was harder to break serve at the FO than Wimby), but have reverted to slower balls thereafter to help Nadal again I guess.

I think Federer does not need charts and figures to prove anything.
Those who can't see and appreciate his talent and tennis are those who are missing out.
There will always be people who prefer trashy music and films to classics, same with everything else.
Just because Lady Gaga (still pride myself of not having heard her voice) sells more records than Bach does't mean she is better.

Nadal may retire with 100 slams, but even he will know they are fake and that Federer is a couple of classes above him as a player.

Also note at the bottom of my document that Masters and ATP tour finals are listed.

Arguably you could give the FO the most points for everyone but nadal as it is the toughest to win.

Tenez wrote:The problem is that in 2011 they introduced, maybe by mistake fast balls (you may know that in 2011 it was harder to break serve at the FO than Wimby), but have reverted to slower balls thereafter to help Nadal again I guess.

Nadal won in FO 2011, didn't he?

luvsports! wrote:Arguably you could give the FO the most points for everyone but nadal as it is the toughest to win.

In terms of ability it isn't...  it's the easiest.  I place ability above physicality.  Also, Wimbledon is by far the most prestigious.

Pretty convincing table.
I liked the bit where you randomly allocated points for different Grand Slams depending on how you felt.

I think Tenez's point is that the faster balls unsettled nadal (ie. feds pushing him very close, isner 5 sets etc).
I could be wrong but I think that's what he's getting at.

luvsports! wrote:I think Tenez's point is that the faster balls unsettled nadal (ie. feds pushing him very close, isner 5 sets etc).
I could be wrong but I think that's what he's getting at.

Fair enough.

Julia Santamaria wrote:Pretty convincing table.
I liked the bit where you randomly allocated points for different Grand Slams depending on how you felt.

It wouldn't change the pecking order for your idol against federer even if the slams all had 3 points to a runner up.  Stop bitching because Nadal isn't at the top and hasn't even won a year end title.  The Wimbledon Slam is the greatest of all slams, and the hardest to win in terms of ability, that's why it has been given more points.  Federer would rather have 7 Wimbledon titles to 100 French, and so would Sampras.  I compiled the table, and I decide the rules, which I find completely fair.  You don't like it?  I don't care.  Tennis is a LAWN sport.  That's what it was created to be.

FedererKing wrote:I compiled the table, and I decide the rules, which I find completely fair. 

Yeah it's totally fair, when did I say otherwise?

FedererKing wrote:
Computers don't beat chess players in the way we mean though, they are just number crunchers.  By creating games that have far more complexity than the number crunching can fathom, you again have the upper hand on computers.  It will be a long time before computers are able to beat grand masters consistently at "Go!"

You'll be surprised... Within 20 years artificial intelligence will be superiour to mankind. Not necessarily a bad thing, if we're make no mistakes in the design.
Do you know Ray Kurzweil? He has great views on this subject and quite optimistic too.

I very much doubt it.  We can't emulate a worm with 302 neurons and the human brain has billions.  20 years is not going to happen.  We'll see....

noleisthebest wrote:I think Federer does not need charts and figures to prove anything.
Those who can't see and appreciate his talent and tennis are those who are missing out.
There will always be people who prefer trashy music and films to classics, same with everything else.
Just because Lady Gaga (still pride myself of not having heard her voice) sells more records than Bach does't mean she is better.

Nadal may retire with 100 slams, but even he will know they are fake and that Federer is a couple of classes above him as a player.

Great post Nole...  Not only does Federer have the stats/resume to back up his supreme greatness-- the "eye test" is the ultimate decider.  Anyone with a bit of tennis knowledge and a clear mind can see that Federer stands at the top of the greatness mountain.. Certainly guys like Laver, Sampras, Bjorg, Becker, Wilander, Agassi, even Nadal etc with all their knowledge are on record as stating Federer as GOAT.

Julia Santamaria wrote:

Tenez wrote:The problem is that in 2011 they introduced, maybe by mistake fast balls (you may know that in 2011 it was harder to break serve at the FO than Wimby), but have reverted to slower balls thereafter to help Nadal again I guess.

Nadal won in FO 2011, didn't he?

Yes but he was lucky not to play better players in the 1st rounds cause clearly it took him a few rounds to adapt...and was saved by Federer throwing away that first set...oh and that time out again to redo his ankle's tape. Playing tricks when things don't go his way!

He had Isner R1, can you get harder than that for a R1?

Julia Santamaria wrote:He had Isner R1, can you get harder than that for a R1?

On clay I can think of many players better than Isner.

Who is a harder R1 opposition for Nadal on clay with fast balls, compared to Isner?

Gulbis!

luvsports! wrote:Gulbis!

Can they face in R1?
If so, yes fair enough I'll give you that one.

No I meant back in 2011. Isner was not seeded then, so I thought of other unseeded players then.