ATP Masters 1000: Monte Carlo

What a return from Fed!

High BH dtl...how does he do it!!!!!!!

Wow!
I just saw Fed moonball...though his moonball looks like Nadal's "flattest" FH.

Good to see Fed still adding to his arsenal. He must be very serious anout clay season this year.

I am almost sure Nadal will be in Nole's half in RG, and that has got to give Federer huge motivation.

One of the most interesting springs/summers ahead of us!

Every other woman in Monte Carlo has huge lips/trout pout - collagen enlargement (yuk!)  

Doping spreading to all areas of life

Fed taking the ball incredibly early today. Insane talent.

Nadal apparently has changed the spacing between the strings on his racket.. apparently now more space between the strings.

Kim Jong-Un wrote:Ah yes, I've checked page 1 now, and I did miss it.

Again I think the point you raise is frankly irrelevant. If you look at Nadal and Djokovic, Nadal has won more tournaments and picked up more ranking points.  This is despite the fact Nadal has missed quite a lot of the tour through injury.
Frankly your point is just a bit of a cheap shot at players who are injury prone rather than a sensible reasonable point as to why ranking position should be looked at rather than overall ranking points throughout career and ranking points obtained/ possible ranking points. You don't have to look at weeks at number 1 to see that Nadal is injury prone, anyone who follows Nadal can see that.
And you didn't have rebuttal against any of my points.

Kim, you should watch your tone, especially that the only one making irrelevant points here is you. Also, I didn't like your tone when you answered Tenez but he was kind enough to reply to you without mentioning your tone and his reply to your post on page 2 is in line with what I wrote earlier and you refuse to understand. the number of tournaments for the ranking is 18, pre-set, so they count a pre-set number of tournaments to determine the players' rankings. This means it tells you who was more consistent during the year (or last 52 weeks) and your whole ratio to tournaments entered is irrelevant. These guys are athlete, so injuries are part of their job. How they handle them, their schedule, how they maximize the use of their talent vs. physicality is their job. The ones who are more talented and rigorous (you need both) will succeed better and be more consistent at the top and amass more weeks at #1. So it is not surprising to see the names you see on the top of that list and it is not surprising to see Nole getting ahead of Nadal. Ask Toni who is the better player between Nole and his nephew, you'll then understand why the number of weeks at #1 is a better measure of who is the better player...

Kim Jong-Un wrote:Nadal apparently has changed the spacing between the strings on his racket.. apparently now more space between the strings.

I find that hard to believe, what's his strings pattern now?

truffin1 wrote:Fed taking the ball incredibly early today.  Insane talent.

Some of his shots were breath-taking, esp in the first game.

noleisthebest wrote:Every other woman in Monte Carlo has huge lips/trout pout - collagen enlargement (yuk!)  

Doping spreading to all areas of life  

Oh yeah! Monaco is a filthy place.

Kim Jong-Un wrote:Nadal apparently has changed the spacing between the strings on his racket.. apparently now more space between the strings.

this means even more spin....less precision, but precision is not Nadal's worry. What is the pattern? used to be 16/19...quite loose already.

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Every other woman in Monte Carlo has huge lips/trout pout - collagen enlargement (yuk!)  

Doping spreading to all areas of life  

Oh yeah! Monaco is a filthy place.

You're right.
I watched a BBC documentary on it, it cured me from ever wanting to go there...

Dolgo-Monf started.

H2H 0:2, I want to see a Dolgo-Fed on Friday.

Davai Alex!!!!

sphairistike wrote:
Kim, you should watch your tone, especially that the only one making irrelevant points here is you. Also, I didn't like your tone when you answered Tenez but he was kind enough to reply to you without mentioning your tone and his reply to your post on page 2 is in line with what I wrote earlier and you refuse to understand. the number of tournaments for the ranking is 18, pre-set, so they count a pre-set number of tournaments to determine the players' rankings. This means it tells you who was more consistent during the year (or last 52 weeks) and your whole ratio to tournaments entered is irrelevant. These guys are athlete, so injuries are part of their job. How they handle them, their schedule, how they maximize the use of their talent vs. physicality is their job. The ones who are more talented and rigorous (you need both) will succeed better and be more consistent at the top and amass more weeks at #1. So it is not surprising to see the names you see on the top of that list and it is not surprising to see Nole getting ahead of Nadal. Ask Toni who is the better player between Nole and his nephew, you'll then understand why the number of weeks at #1 is a better measure of who is the better player...

Good one Sphair.

We know however that Kim is only sensible one day a year...April 1st....but he doesn't even know that.

sphairistike wrote:
These guys are athlete, so injuries are part of their job. How they handle them, their schedule, how they maximize the use of their talent vs. physicality is their job.

I do think when considering who is better out of two players, 'propensity to get injured' may indeed be a factor, but frankly it's very low down the list of factors to consider.
Forehand, backhand, movement, serve, etc. and many other categories I'd have as far more important than propensity to get injured.
Federer has struggled with back injury in the past few years, Nalbandian suffered with injuries all throughout his career; while Ferrer has actually stayed injury free. Thus I wouldn't be too quick to directly correlate injuries with talent so closely.

The ones who are more talented and rigorous (you need both) will succeed better and be more consistent at the top and amass more weeks at #1.

This may be the case sometimes, but once again it may not necessarily be the case.
Weeks at number 1 is a reflective measure- it is indirectly achieved through good performances in tournaments. Look at my Nadal Djokovic comparison, Nadal has more ranking points overall throughout his career, more tournament wins, more match wins, better Win/Played ratio, more Slams even if you don't count their best major (i.e. take away FO from Nadal, and AO from Djokovic).
The issue I raised earlier is what no one has attempted to have any sort of rebuttal against; that looking at ranking position rather than ranking points as a whole- means you are taking into consideration the distribution of the remaining points among other players. In fact this is given primary importance- look at my Hewitt Murray example- even if you adjust the ranking points Murray had more ranking points in 2012 than Hewitt did in 2002, yet Murray finished the year ranked number 3 while Hewitt was number 1. The reason for that is the distribution of points of other players, which is totally out of the control of Hewitt and Murray.

Ask Toni who is the better player between Nole and his nephew, you'll then understand why the number of weeks at #1 is a better measure of who is the better player...

Well we don't know what both will achieve after this point, but you feel right now given what they've done across their careers, that Djokovic is a better player ?
That shows more for your prejudice against Nadal (which many Federer fans have because of the warped head-to-head, but they will never publicly admit), than any sort of rational reasonable thinking.

Tenez wrote:We know however that Kim is only sensible one day a year...April 1st....but he doesn't even know that.  

Tenez wrote:
We know however that Kim is only sensible one day a year...April 1st....but he doesn't even know that.  

Hehe, I guess this is the only argument you have left now !
Btw Tenez, there is a thread where I measured some timings and showed no change in pace between 2007 and 2015 basically, perhaps you haven't seen it or maybe you ignore evidence that doesn't fit your pre-held theories.

Kim Jong-Un wrote:

sphairistike
Ask Toni who is the better player between Nole and his nephew, you'll then understand why the number of weeks at #1 is a better measure of who is the better player...

Well we don't know what both will achieve after this point, but you feel right now given what they've done across their careers, that Djokovic is a better player ?
That shows more for your prejudice against Nadal (which many Federer fans have because of the warped head-to-head, but they will never publicly admit), than any sort of rational reasonable thinking.

Again, you are confusing what they achieved in titles vs. their tennis acumen, their talent and who is the better player. Let's define it as, at the height of their powers, at their respective best levels, who is the player who is more dominant vs. opposition, then the answer is clearly Djokovic. The title achievements is circumstantial. When they arrived on tour, the fact Nole had to cope with both Federer and Nadal so if one of them was sub-par or absent, the other one was there to deal with, most of the time he had to deal with both, etc.

Funnily enough, Toni seems to have the same prejudice as mine, unless it is not a prejudice and just the plain truth for all to see... What do you think?

sphairistike wrote:[
Again, you are confusing what they achieved in titles vs. their tennis acumen, their talent and who is the better player. Let's define it as, at the height of their powers, at their respective best levels, who is the player who is more dominant vs. opposition, then the answer is clearly Djokovic. The title achievements is circumstantial. When they arrived on tour, the fact Nole had to cope with both Federer and Nadal so if one of them was sub-par or absent, the other one was there to deal with, most of the time he had to deal with both, etc.

Funnily enough, Toni seems to have the same prejudice as mine, unless it is not a prejudice and just the plain truth for all to see... What do you think?

It is true Djokovic has had to deal with pretty tough competition- I believe 6 out of 8 of his Slams came against either Federer or Nadal.
Nadal though has had to beat Federer or Djokovic or both in 12 out of 14 Slams.
Slam H2H of Nadal vs Djokovic: Nadal 8-3 Djokovic
Multiple Slam Winning Years: Nadal 3-1 Djokovic
Djokovic has a negative H2H against both Nadal and Federer
You say titles are not circumstantial, which is true in many respects, but they are of similar age and: Nadal does have more titles, more Grand Slams, more Grand Slams away from favourite venue (i.e. if you don't count FO for Nadal and AO for Djokovic).

I do like the fact you are looking at competition though, we can both agree that competition is an important factor when analysing who is the better player.
However you didn't address any of my paragraphs on the point we were discussing, the flaws of looking at ranking position rather than overall ranking points.

Kim Jong-Un wrote:

Tenez wrote:
We know however that Kim is only sensible one day a year...April 1st....but he doesn't even know that.  

Hehe, I guess this is the only argument you have left now !
Btw Tenez, there is a thread where I measured some timings and showed no change in pace between 2007 and 2015 basically, perhaps you haven't seen it or maybe you ignore evidence that doesn't fit your pre-held theories.

I have already discussed that with you. You are working it wrong. I said to take 15 +shots rallies cause 15is too short to make up for one or 2 sec precision loss due to the fact we are only accounting to the second. Therefore you need to account a mimimum of 15 length but account for 18, 20 will gove you more precision. And if you do that you will see that 2015 is faster than 2009 or 2010 at the AO. 2007 is the wrong year cause I agree that at the USO for instance it was pretty fast and top players then where usually shot makers (Blake, Gonzo, Nalby), hence used to play pace as opposed to lungbusting rallies.

So you have to compare what is comparable.

Don;t do like Nadal, cheat at every opportunity.

Will reply on the thread.

Kim Jong-Un wrote:

Tenez wrote:
We know however that Kim is only sensible one day a year...April 1st....but he doesn't even know that.  

Hehe, I guess this is the only argument you have left now !
Btw Tenez, there is a thread where I measured some timings and showed no change in pace between 2007 and 2015 basically, perhaps you haven't seen it or maybe you ignore evidence that doesn't fit your pre-held theories.

I have already discussed that with you. You are working it wrong. I said to take 15 +shots rallies cause 15is too short to make up for one or 2 sec precision loss due to the fact we are only accounting to the second. Therefore you need to account a mimimum of 15 length but account for 18, 20 will gove you more precision. And if you do that you will see that 2015 is faster than 2009 or 2010 at the AO. 2007 is the wrong year cause I agree that at the USO for instance it was pretty fast and top players then where usually shot makers (Blake, Gonzo, Nalby), hence used to play pace as opposed to lungbusting rallies.

So you have to compare what is comparable.

Don;t do like Nadal, cheat at every opportunity.

Posting it twice doesn't make your post less wrong I've replied on the thread, you clearly have not paid close attention to my methodology.

...
https://ourtennisforum.forumotion.co.uk/t855-time-to-put-this-theory-to-bed-djokovic-vs-nadal-speed-comparison

Kim Jong-Un wrote:

sphairistike wrote:[
Again, you are confusing what they achieved in titles vs. their tennis acumen, their talent and who is the better player. Let's define it as, at the height of their powers, at their respective best levels, who is the player who is more dominant vs. opposition, then the answer is clearly Djokovic. The title achievements is circumstantial. When they arrived on tour, the fact Nole had to cope with both Federer and Nadal so if one of them was sub-par or absent, the other one was there to deal with, most of the time he had to deal with both, etc.

Funnily enough, Toni seems to have the same prejudice as mine, unless it is not a prejudice and just the plain truth for all to see... What do you think?

It is true Djokovic has had to deal with pretty tough competition- I believe 6 out of 8 of his Slams came against either Federer or Nadal.
Nadal though has had to beat Federer or Djokovic or both in 12 out of 14 Slams.
Slam H2H of Nadal vs Djokovic: Nadal 8-3 Djokovic
Multiple Slam Winning Years: Nadal 3-1 Djokovic
Djokovic has a negative H2H against both Nadal and Federer
You say titles are not circumstantial, which is true in many respects, but they are of similar age and: Nadal does have more titles, more Grand Slams, more Grand Slams away from favourite venue (i.e. if you don't count FO for Nadal and AO for Djokovic).

I do like the fact you are looking at competition though, we can both agree that competition is an important factor when analysing who is the better player.
However you didn't address any of my paragraphs on the point we were discussing, the flaws of looking at ranking position rather than overall ranking point

There is no question- Djokovic hit his peak or stride later than Nadal.  He also didn't have a surface he could dominate like Nadal did.  Nadal was able to get a huge head start on Djokovic by peaking earlier and racking up so many titles on clay as well as doing well sporadically on the other surfaces.    Now Djokovic fans say he didn't hit his peak because of allergies, or whatever, but something happened in 2011 that Djoko suddenly came into his own and there is no question he has been the best all around player  and deserved #1 since then.   At his peak- whenever he reached it- he has been the better overall player than Nadal.   

Nadal was stuck behind the better overall player Federer for years and couldn't get the weeks at #1 he prob would have normally been able to attain if not having GOAT Federer in front of him.  Then he had a brief period where he took over, but Djokov ruined that party and has ruined it since except for a brief period in 2012.

It's fine and true to point out that NAdal has amassed more in his carreer than Djokovic at this point- but I think we can all see that he is going to catch up quickly.  If not for Nadal ducking Djokovic and even Federer the past year by not being capable of reaching end stages in non clay tournies-  the H2H would be quickly swinging to Djokovic.  IF and it's a big IF- Nadal actually will face him off clay to any great extent over the next couple of years- Djoko will prob end up with a better H2h.  He will also likely end up with more or at least equal masters, be far ahead of Nadal in weeks at #1 and year end #1, and as close in the slam count to Nadal as Nadal is to Federer.   At that point- only true Nadal fanatics will be able to say that Nadal is the better player.

You yourself say Nadal is declining due to his age, but we can all see  Djoko of the same generation and virtually the same age is dominating the tour.   That tells us Nadal started winning earlier but is fading earlier, while Djoko started winning later but will fade later.   That's why these "looks" at whose better are only valid when they are both done.

Meanwhile old man Federer is the only player capable of even hanging with Djokovic on a consistent basis across the whole season which tells us plenty about Fed's talent level.

truffin wrote:He also didn't have a surface he could dominate like Nadal did.  Nadal was able to get a huge head start on Djokovic by peaking earlier and racking up so many titles on clay as well as doing well sporadically on the other surfaces.

Yes, but surely this is to Nadal's credit ? You say it so grudgingly as if it's a negative for Nadal.

truffin wrote:At his peak- whenever he reached it- he has been the better overall player than Nadal.

 
Djokovic dominated 2011. Then 2012-2014 Nadal won more Slams than Djokovic, DESPITE injury problems. Now 2015-? onwards Djokovic is going to dominate, rivals are declining and no new young player is really performing well.

truffin wrote:That's why these "looks" at whose better are only valid when they are both done.

That is a fair point, it is better to wait until both their careers have finished.
As you know, due to the fact Federer faced easier competition- if they retired now I wouldn't have Federer above Nadal in the GOAT stakes, so if Djokovic overtook Nadal than for me he would also overtake Federer (logically).
Anyway we have had this debate before, as you say I think we should wait until they all finish their careers.

This debate was not about who's better out of Fed-Djoko-Nadal though, it was on me addressing the flaws of looking at weeks at number 1 rather than ranking points as a whole. Not many counter-points to the flaws I found so far...

There is not much to discuss really. Nadal never won a slam playing within the rules. We can check easily. he got some warnings, and as he went over multiple times despite the warnings, shoudl have been disqualified.

It's a fact and when we have said that we have said it all.

Tenez, have you run out of arguments ? Because this is getting a bit embarrassing.
Regardless, my point here was on weeks at number 1, if you want you can continue to obsess over Nadal picking his butt for 2 extra seconds.

Kim Jong-Un wrote:

truffin wrote:He also didn't have a surface he could dominate like Nadal did.  Nadal was able to get a huge head start on Djokovic by peaking earlier and racking up so many titles on clay as well as doing well sporadically on the other surfaces.

Yes, but surely this is to Nadal's credit ? You say it so grudgingly as if it's a negative for Nadal.

truffin wrote:At his peak- whenever he reached it- he has been the better overall player than Nadal.

 
Djokovic dominated 2011. Then 2012-2014 Nadal won more Slams than Djokovic, DESPITE injury problems. Now 2015-? onwards Djokovic is going to dominate, rivals are declining and no new young player is really performing well.

truffin wrote:That's why these "looks" at whose better are only valid when they are both done.

That is a fair point, it is better to wait until both their careers have finished.
As you know, due to the fact Federer faced easier competition- if they retired now I wouldn't have Federer above Nadal in the GOAT stakes, so if Djokovic overtook Nadal than for me he would also overtake Federer (logically).
Anyway we have had this debate before, as you say I think we should wait until they all finish their careers.

This debate was not about who's better out of Fed-Djoko-Nadal though, it was on me addressing the flaws of looking at weeks at number 1 rather than I ranking points as a whole. Not many counter-points to the flaws I found so far...

I dont' say it grudgingly that Nadal dominated clay and Djoko did not have a surface at that point he could dominate-   Hard court, Grass, and In door Goat Federer gobbled most of that.  It's just a fact that Nadal amassed huge stats by having multiple masters and the French on clay where he was far and away the best player on that surface.  Just like now Djoko is able to rack up hard court stats which is why we will see him catching up.   It's also not a negative that Nadal started winning earlier and Djoko later- it is what it is.............  what actually matters though is where they finish, so Djoko finishing his late 20's early 30's better than Nadal is going to even all that out.  

You can spin it any way you want- but Djoko has been the best player in the world overall during the past few years over Nadal bar clay.   Federer got back to #1 and won a Major during that period too- but as a whole this has been Djokovics era-   non clay.

When djokovic passes Nadal- FOR YOU he will pass Federer- fine.... but you seem to again be forgetting Federer isn't finished either.  As he continues to be the 2nd best player in the world next to the in prime Djokovic, not only will Federer be continuing to pull away from Nadal while Djokivic catches Nadal, but all will be able to see that for Federer in his mid 30's to run Djokoivic this close-  in his prime he was better than Djokovic as well.   LOGICALLY.

I look forward to visiting it in a few years... We'll see if your prediction that Djokovic will pass Fed's weeks at #1 comes true and all this other stuff.

I am pretty sure Nole was better on clay than Nadal last year (bar that one match in RG where he outplayed Nadal but lost as he could not cope physically in the hot weather).

truffin wrote:I dont' say it grudgingly that Nadal dominated clay and Djoko did not have a surface at that point he could dominate-

When both were youngsters, Nadal was actually better on grass too. But yes, of course I agree Djokovic did not dominate a surface like Nadal dominated clay, that's obvious.

truffin wrote:You can spin it any way you want- but Djoko has been the best player in the world overall during the past few years over Nadal bar clay.

This is a completely inherently flawed way of presenting it.
Djokovic dominated 2011- I'll give you that.
Then from 2012-2014; Nadal won MORE slams than Djokovic. Despite Nadal not even entering 3/12 Slams.
Djokovic relied on the Australian Open for all but one of his slams in this period, same as Nadal at French Open. It shows your bias you don't even talk about Djokovic's reliance on Australian Open.

truffin wrote:We'll see if your prediction that Djokovic will pass Fed's weeks at #1 comes true and all this other stuff.

I stick by that prediction.
I predict that because Djokovic I feel will probably have pretty weak competition in the next few years. Maybe even as weak as the competition Federer had to face during his prime, I'm not sure. Even if Djokovic declines a bit, I don't see any player playing at a level to challenge him consistently in Grand Slams.

Truffin- if you want to continue a GOAT debate, feel free to post it on the GOAT thread. I did want this to be a debate about weeks at number 1 rather than this. For now I'm content to wait and see what happens in the next few years, I think we both agree that Djokovic at this age still has some catching up to do.

truffin1 wrote:
There is no question- Djokovic hit his peak or stride later than Nadal.  He also didn't have a surface he could dominate like Nadal did.  Nadal was able to get a huge head start on Djokovic by peaking earlier and racking up so many titles on clay as well as doing well sporadically on the other surfaces.    Now Djokovic fans say he didn't hit his peak because of allergies, or whatever, but something happened in 2011 that Djoko suddenly came into his own and there is no question he has been the best all around player  and deserved #1 since then.   At his peak- whenever he reached it- he has been the better overall player than Nadal.   

Meanwhile old man Federer is the only player capable of even hanging with Djokovic on a consistent basis across the whole season which tells us plenty about Fed's talent level.

Hi Truffin!

There is only one Nole fan on the entire www worth listening to when it comes to Nole

No offence to the "rest" but NITB is the best   , there from day one...not bandwagon that caught after he become successful, no different than Nadal fans.
Now that we've cleared that one...I can assure you that Nole's lack of success had nothing  to do with "delayed peaking".

He was developing naturally and was better than Nadal from the very start back in 2006 when he told the world that Nadal is beatable.

His only "disadvantage" was he hadn't used steroids and pumped his body like Nadal at the age of 15-16 and thank God for that!

He lost some excrutiatingly close matches to Nadal in 2008 and 9, despite the hugely unfavourable rigged draws that had  him in Federer's half 12\12 in non clay slams.

2011 was the way it was because he finally listened to Federer's advice post his retirement in AO 2009 vs Roddick.

Do you remember what Fed told him: to get fitter!

noleisthebest wrote:
Do you remember what Fed told him: to get fitter!

If you don't like doping, and think Djokovic dopes, why do you still continue to support Djokovic ??

Kim Jong-Un wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:
Do you remember what Fed told him: to get fitter!

If you don't like doping, and think Djokovic dopes, why do you still continue to support Djokovic ??

Is that the last straw you can clutch to?

We've been through this one more than once on your many threads here posted under other names.

noleisthebest wrote:

Kim Jong-Un wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:
Do you remember what Fed told him: to get fitter!

If you don't like doping, and think Djokovic dopes, why do you still continue to support Djokovic ??

Is that the last straw you can clutch to?

We've been through this one more than once on your many threads here posted under other names.

Sorry if you've addressed this before, because I cannot remember you answering it, but I genuinely can't get my head round it.
It is a pertinent question though, because your position doesn't seem to make much sense. You hate doping with all your heart, you keep accusing players you dislike of doping, and then you yourself think the player you support is doping, and then continue to support him ?

Kim Jong-Un wrote:Tenez, have you run out of arguments ? Because this is getting a bit embarrassing.
Regardless, my point here was on weeks at number 1, if you want you can continue to obsess over Nadal picking his butt for 2 extra seconds.

Who is lacking argument? I have never heard you arguing this very point....cause there is no counter argument.

What does the illogic of looking at weeks at number 1 as an indicator have anything to do with any specific player taking time between points ?
No one apart from very angry Federer fans lose any sleep at night because Nadal's picked his butt for a few extra seconds.

Nole wins Laureus Award (Sportsman of the year) for the second time!!!

Good times for tennis!


Btw, did anyone hear anything about ATP forming a special committee for trying to keep sponsors' interest once Fedal & Nole retire?

I read it on a Serbian news website a few days ago, sounded a but odd.

Funny thing about this weak era that Federer supposedly thrived in and the weak era that Djoko is supposedly thriving in--    Nadal was a Major Champion in 2005-  at a point where Federer I think had 4 Majors?  So Nadal was quite capable duriing Fed's weak era.   Now Nadal is basically the same age of Djokovic who people including himself say is in his prime and Djokvic is dominating another supposed weak era.

So why is Nadal unable to dominate these weak eras?   He dominated a weak clay era, but why not able to dominate these other surfaces like Federer did and now Djokovic?   Nadal should be blowing through the field right now on all surfaces-  Federer could, Djoko can...

Well Nadal is currently declining quite rapidly, so he can't take advantage of any weaker field even if Djokovic did run off for whatever reason.

As for Nadal's competition throughout his career- I feel Federer is one of the best clay courters of all time, certainly in the top 10. When he was younger and mainly a clay court specialist, Nadal had to deal with Federer in his Slam wins.

Kim Jong-Un wrote:

If you read my last post, I said important measures could be: ranking points obtained, and ranking points obtained as a percentage of maximum rankings points he could have obtained in the tournaments he did play (so for example if you enter all slams and 5 masters, and you win all of them- you get 100%).

There's 2 key differences between looking at this, and looking at ranking position. Firstly ranking position looks at how the other players have split up the remaining rankings points that you have not won. For reasons just explained, I think this is frankly irrelevant when examining a player specifically.
The second one could be the timing spread. For me this is also irrelevant. If you win 6 tournaments in one year, and 0 in the next; I don't see why that would be better than winning 3 in one year and 3 in the next. The first one could mean you reach world number 1 for a period of time, while the second one may mean you won't. But I don't see why one is better than the other, unless you just want to put across a cheap jibe at players who are injury prone.

As well as these, I think I've also found a flaw in looking at ranking points themselves:
-I don't think the arbitrary points handed out by the ATP accurately reflect the importance given tournaments. So for example, a slam win is 2000 points. Meanwhile winning a Masters gets you 1000 points.
But would any player really see 2 Masters titles as equivalent to 1 Slam ? If players were given that choice, I can guarantee you 99% of players would prefer 1 slam win over 2 Masters.
So another flaw in giving too much importance to our ranking system.

noleisthebest wrote:Nole wins Laureus Award (Sportsman of the year) for the second time!!!  

Good times for tennis!


Btw, did anyone hear anything about ATP forming a special committee for trying to keep sponsors' interest  once Fedal & Nole retire?

I read it on a Serbian news website a few days ago, sounded a but odd.

Not surprised....except that Nole is in the mix.......though it is Serbian news.

truffin1 wrote:Funny thing about this weak era that Federer supposedly thrived in and the weak era that Djoko is supposedly thriving in--    Nadal was a Major Champion in 2005-  at a point where Federer I think had 4 Majors?  So Nadal was quite capable duriing Fed's weak era.   Now Nadal is basically the same age of Djokovic who people including himself say is in his prime and Djokvic is dominating another supposed weak era.

So why is Nadal unable to dominate these weak eras?   He dominated a weak clay era, but why not able to dominate these other surfaces like Federer did and now Djokovic?   Nadal should be blowing through the field right now on all surfaces-  Federer could, Djoko can...

Considering they slowed all other slams to make them play like clay to give Nadal a chance....yet..Nadal cannot do much without a big ball bounce.

Hilarious !

https://twitter.com/TennisTV/status/588359066075955202

Kim Jong-Un wrote:Well Nadal is currently declining quite rapidly, so he can't take advantage of any weaker field even if Djokovic did run off for whatever reason.

As for Nadal's competition throughout his career- I feel Federer is one of the best clay courters of all time, certainly in the top 10. When he was younger and mainly a clay court specialist, Nadal had to deal with Federer in his Slam wins.

why is Nadal declining so rapidly at the basic same age as Djoko who is excelling?  Why more rapidly than the 34 year old Federer- a huge age difference historically in tennis?  With what you say is goat talent and greatness, why can't a fully healthy NAdal perform at Djoko or Feds level?  Federer has a chronic back condition which can be just as limiting as Nadals knees.  It can't be that.  Toni and NAdal both say he is feeling as healthy as he has in a long time. They both say he is as motivated as ever so it can't be motivation problems like Sampras faced as he hit his 30's.

"When he was younger and MAINLY a clay court specialist".   NAdal went nearly 2 years without a non clay title in 2011, 2012.  He has one non clay major since 2011, past year one non clay title in a 250 tourny. He has had two stints of consistent non clay dominence and neither lasted even a full season.  He had always been Mainly a clay court specialist.

So because he had to face Federer on clay that cancels out all the other players he played the same as Federer that you deem weak.  The same players Federer cut through with ease on all courts and on clay, NAdal was able to cut trhoug with ease on clay. Seems that is same competion to me.  You guys use Federer as the name though to camaflauge the fact that the very people you call weak era for Fed were the same NAdal faced.  Even worse is most of those guys weakest surface was clay. The thing is that even as you rightly recognize Federer as a great clay counter in ability, Nadals style was a horrible matchup on clay for the federer style.  Even your with your NAdal goat delusion realize that at worst they are near equals- yet on clay there is a massive gap-  that is clealry a matchup issue.  So while fed is a great clay courter- when it comes to the purpose of rating nadals competion-  he was weak competion- making NAdal even an weaker era clay courter King than many realize.  Even further- when you want to suddenly say the era was stronger in tennis to try and give weight to the NAdal competion- you ignore that murray has been mediocre on clay and, while djoko is now excellent on clay-  he wasn't so great for years.   It doesn't detract from Nadals greatness on clay because he has certainly proven himself, just as Federer has proven himself to be great against any era as well.

Now for a quick goat point based on your accurate statement that as a whole - Federer is a top 10 clay courter of all time.   Navrotilova just recently said Federer might be the 2nd best clay courter of all time next to NAdal, but that is way over the top so we will still with your top 10.  I'll even gove you bottom of top 10.

It is fact that in tournamenta that they both played in together- so ignoring onea that only one played- so the exact same competion-  Federer won more of those tournaments and/ or finished further than NAdal on outdoor, indoor hard, grass.  And NAdal only won more or finished Better between the two on clay.

Federer is bottom top 10 all time on clay.
He is top 2 all time on outdoor hard, maybe 1, and inarguably top 3.
He is inarguably top 2, arguably 1 all time on grass.
He is inarguably top 2 all time, maybe 1 all time on indoor.

NAdal is #1, inarguably top 2 all time on clay.
On grass-  some would say not even top 10, but you will argue differently so I'll be generous and give you a lower top 10 all time.
Outdoor hard-  again I'll be generous and says lower top 10
Indoor hare- out of top 10.

How can a guy who is 1, 8-10, 8-10, and doesn't rank top 10 on one surface logically be better as an ALL AROUND, consistent over long stretches GOAT than a guy 1-2,1-2,1-3, 8-10 on the surfaces?.  It's not logical as you like to say

truffin wrote:why is Nadal declining so rapidly at the basic same age as Djoko who is excelling?

Some player peak and decline at different ages to others. There is no reason for everyone to follow the same pattern.

truffin wrote:You guys use Federer as the name though to camaflauge the fact that the very people you call weak era for Fed were the same NAdal faced.

Well it's not camouflage, more than the fact it's simply true that Federer is one of the greatest clay courters in the history of the game- top 10.
Nadal had to beat one of the greatest clay courters in the history of the game to win most of his French Open at an early age.
As for the fact Nadal matches up well- that is entirely because Nadal's forehand is so good. He matches up better than Federer against the rest of the tour too, on average (if you look at average match performance).

truffin wrote:Even further- when you want to suddenly say the era was stronger in tennis to try and give weight to the NAdal competion- you ignore that murray has been mediocre on clay and, while djoko is now excellent on clay- he wasn't so great for years.

Murray clearly has not been hard competition on clay, that much is clear. Federer played at a pretty high level for a considerable number of years, and Djokovic has been playing fantastically well but has been denied by Nadal the past few years there as well.

Look, this laughable attempt at false equivalency between Federer and Nadal in terms of their competition won't work. Nadal had to face Federer/Djokovic/both 12 out of 14 majors. All of those 12 with either Fed or Djoko aged 22-28.
Federer in GS finals had to face: Philipoussis, Baghdatis, Gonzalez, Roddick x4, 35 year old Agassi, Nadal aged 20 and 21, Djokovic aged 20, Murray x3 (including 1 aged 21), Soderling, Hewitt, Safin.

Honestly, we have discussed this topics many times before, and the answer is as obvious as ever unless you are purposefully irrational.

truffin wrote:Now for a quick goat point based on your accurate statement that as a whole - Federer is a top 10 clay courter of all time.   Navrotilova just recently said Federer might be the 2nd best clay courter of all time next to NAdal, but that is way over the top so we will still with your top 10.  I'll even gove you bottom of top 10.

Since his prime, when it comes to Grand Slams, for me in terms of surface there's no difference between French Open, USO, Aus Open for Nadal.
The differences have come mainly due to injury, form at the time, form of opponents, confidence at venue, and other external factors.
We will have to agree to disagree with this for the time being... I am compiling more evidence for this theory of mine, which I will let everyone scrutinise on v2.
I have created a thread already on this forum with some preliminary explanations, if you want I can link you that right now, or you can wait until I post something similar but slightly more comprehensive on v2.

That whole argument aside, in general I see it as measuring the mean of all surfaces. If you are worse of one surface, you can compensate by being better on another. The better player as I see it is the one with a better average by mean across all the surfaces played on.

Kim Jong-Un wrote:

truffin wrote:Now for a quick goat point based on your accurate statement that as a whole - Federer is a top 10 clay courter of all time.   Navrotilova just recently said Federer might be the 2nd best clay courter of all time next to NAdal, but that is way over the top so we will still with your top 10.  I'll even gove you bottom of top 10.

Since his prime, when it comes to Grand Slams, for me in terms of surface there's no difference between French Open, USO, Aus Open for Nadal.
The differences have come mainly due to injury, form at the time, form of opponents, confidence at venue, and other external factors.
We will have to agree to disagree with this for the time s all the surfaces played on.

How do you explain that Nadal never won the WTF?

Winning year end tournament featuring best 8 players has always been a statement for season's dominant players.

And somehow, all these many years he has been on tour, it has always eluded Nadal...

It's a day of tennis:

Wawrinka-Dimitrov, battle of SBHs...will Dimi grind Stan or will Stan blast Dimi away?

Robredo-Raonic, we've seen it all before, a quirky match-up if nothing else.

Berdych-Agut, these two have already played 2-3 times this year, and it's always interesting. They can't stand each other, too.

Federer-Monfils, Monf played two totally different matches in MC passive in his first and very aggressive against Dolgo yesterday, but that's what talented players are able to do...which one will turn up against Fed?

Nole-Heider-Mauer, not as easy as it may look to most. Mauer is good on clay: big serve, big FH, big heart...and yes those vile tattoos....

Tsonga-Cilic, haven't seen any of their matches, both are on comeback mission

Simon-Ferrer, the ultimate battle of grinders, for me Ferru is the favourite, but I'd love Simon to win this one

Nadal-Isner, dunno about this one...it's Isner...so...anything can happen!

Just had a look at MC website to see why the matches haven't started and for the first time tried to read it in French!

There is an interview with Monfils and in the opening paragraph he calls Federer:

C’est en tout cas un plaisir à chaque fois. J’admire beaucoup Federer. Il a vraiment une carrière incroyable. C’est une légende. Monsieur tennis. Je le respecte énormément. Si on peut se livrer une grosse bataille, on ne va pas s’en priver.

Mr Tennis, he,he...
A nice, genuine, ego-free opinion.

Something sorely lacking among fans on tennis forums...

It looks like it's rained in MC this morning, matches about to start.

The vista looks so different without the sun.

Allez Zdan!