- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 10,586
- Reactions
- 6,432
- Points
- 113
[BLOG] Open Era Gens, Part Thirteen: Gen 11 (1984-88) - Reign of Spain, err, Serbia
- Thread starter El Dude
- Start date
Another good read, Dude!
And if your ordering of the top two players of this generation doesn't generate debate, I don't know what will!
For myself, I am inclined to stick with Rafa as number 1 unless/until Novak actually gets to 14-15 slams. I'm less bothered about Masters titles, WTFs (which just seems to me like a glorified Masters), and about weeks at no.1, which is a measurement of consistency but not a measurement of bringing it in the big matches (e.g. Andy had two majors and Novak one, but Novak stayed no.1 'cause he did better at the Masters etc). So I don't agree that Novak has already surpassed Rafa. If he gets to at least 14 (and Rafa doesn't win any more slams), then yes, his overall record outside of slam count gives him the edge, but he hasn't done it yet, and sport is unpredictable. Plus, Rafa currently has the Career Grand Slam, which still eludes Novak.
And if your ordering of the top two players of this generation doesn't generate debate, I don't know what will!
For myself, I am inclined to stick with Rafa as number 1 unless/until Novak actually gets to 14-15 slams. I'm less bothered about Masters titles, WTFs (which just seems to me like a glorified Masters), and about weeks at no.1, which is a measurement of consistency but not a measurement of bringing it in the big matches (e.g. Andy had two majors and Novak one, but Novak stayed no.1 'cause he did better at the Masters etc). So I don't agree that Novak has already surpassed Rafa. If he gets to at least 14 (and Rafa doesn't win any more slams), then yes, his overall record outside of slam count gives him the edge, but he hasn't done it yet, and sport is unpredictable. Plus, Rafa currently has the Career Grand Slam, which still eludes Novak.
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 10,586
- Reactions
- 6,432
- Points
- 113
Thanks, Great Hands.
I agree, it is debatable whether or not Novak has surpassed Rafa already. My only problem with what you say is that you over-emphasize Slams titles, in my opinion. As I mentioned in this article, if we follow your logic then Stan and Andy are equals. But if you look below the surface of "2 Slams," then Andy has a much better overall career. Tennis history is filled with such cases. There are many Slamless players who had far greater careers than, say, Gaston Gaudio. This doesn't mean that they wouldn't trade all of their lesser titles for one Slam - but that is more a matter of desirability than greatness.
I agree, it is debatable whether or not Novak has surpassed Rafa already. My only problem with what you say is that you over-emphasize Slams titles, in my opinion. As I mentioned in this article, if we follow your logic then Stan and Andy are equals. But if you look below the surface of "2 Slams," then Andy has a much better overall career. Tennis history is filled with such cases. There are many Slamless players who had far greater careers than, say, Gaston Gaudio. This doesn't mean that they wouldn't trade all of their lesser titles for one Slam - but that is more a matter of desirability than greatness.
El Dude said:
No, that's not true. I said if Novak got to 14 slams, then he would become no.1 because he has a better record outside of slam count. Likewise, Andy is a greater player than Stan - currently - because although they both have the same number of slams, Andy has the better overall career outside of slam count. So, following my logic, Andy and Stan are not equals.
But you also said in your blog that if Stan got another couple more slams and Andy stayed on two, then Stan would surpass Andy (regardless of Andy's overall record at slams, Masters titles, years in the top 5 etc). Well - Rafa currently has not two, but three more slams than Novak. So, going by your own logic as regards Stan and Andy, Rafa should be considered greater than Novak - for now.
So I am just applying the same logic to Andy/Stan and Rafa/Novak, whereas you are applying one set of logic for one, and a different logic for the other.
Open Era Gens
By the way, I do think Novak will pass Rafa. I just disagree that he already has. I think you're jumping the gun a little.
Look at it this way. The difference in slams between Rafa and Novak is currently the same as between Roger and Rafa. So imagine if Rafa had won more WTFs than Roger - I know, LOL, but this is just a hypothetical - and that he had more weeks at no.1, would you then regard Rafa as a greater player than Roger, even though Roger had three more slams?
This is not a snarky comment, I am genuinely trying to understand your reasoning and stimulate debate!
And I do think that slams are more important, because they tell you who can produce on the biggest stage, which is what it's all about. For example, look at the H2H between Federer and Murray - it's 14-11 - that's 56% of wins to Roger and 44% of wins to Andy. On the basis of this, you might think these two players are relatively similar in greatness. But look at the H2H at slams - it's 5-1 - Federer has 83% of wins and Andy only 17%. Now that gives you a much better idea of their relative greatness - how they perform at slams. This is what separates the men from the boys.
So IMO Novak needs to prove he can do it on the biggest stage a few more times. He's not far away, but he's not there yet.
By the way, I do think Novak will pass Rafa. I just disagree that he already has. I think you're jumping the gun a little.
Look at it this way. The difference in slams between Rafa and Novak is currently the same as between Roger and Rafa. So imagine if Rafa had won more WTFs than Roger - I know, LOL, but this is just a hypothetical - and that he had more weeks at no.1, would you then regard Rafa as a greater player than Roger, even though Roger had three more slams?
This is not a snarky comment, I am genuinely trying to understand your reasoning and stimulate debate!
And I do think that slams are more important, because they tell you who can produce on the biggest stage, which is what it's all about. For example, look at the H2H between Federer and Murray - it's 14-11 - that's 56% of wins to Roger and 44% of wins to Andy. On the basis of this, you might think these two players are relatively similar in greatness. But look at the H2H at slams - it's 5-1 - Federer has 83% of wins and Andy only 17%. Now that gives you a much better idea of their relative greatness - how they perform at slams. This is what separates the men from the boys.
So IMO Novak needs to prove he can do it on the biggest stage a few more times. He's not far away, but he's not there yet.
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 10,586
- Reactions
- 6,432
- Points
- 113
Good stuff, Great Hands - love the discussion. You make excellent points, although I'm sticking with my view that Novak has the edge even now.
First of all, in terms of the Stan-Andy analogy, I said in the article that if Stan won a couple more he might surpass Andy, but not because he won two more Slams but because he won twice as many Slams. 4 to 2 is a larger gap than 14 to 11, if we think in terms of percentages: 4 is 100% more than 2, but 14 is only 27% more than 11. So the question is whether or not the rest of Novak's resume makes up for that 27% difference, and I think it does - but only by a hair.
As for your hypothetical, I do think that I'd have to give the edge to Rafa. I know it is easy for me, a Fed fan, to say that now when it isn't the case, but as it stands I think the gap between the two - if there is one - is smaller than the +3 Slams would entail.
Anyhow, when I have a few minutes a bit later, maybe I'll draw up lists of the edges that Rafa and Novak have over each other, so we can look at them side by side.
First of all, in terms of the Stan-Andy analogy, I said in the article that if Stan won a couple more he might surpass Andy, but not because he won two more Slams but because he won twice as many Slams. 4 to 2 is a larger gap than 14 to 11, if we think in terms of percentages: 4 is 100% more than 2, but 14 is only 27% more than 11. So the question is whether or not the rest of Novak's resume makes up for that 27% difference, and I think it does - but only by a hair.
As for your hypothetical, I do think that I'd have to give the edge to Rafa. I know it is easy for me, a Fed fan, to say that now when it isn't the case, but as it stands I think the gap between the two - if there is one - is smaller than the +3 Slams would entail.
Anyhow, when I have a few minutes a bit later, maybe I'll draw up lists of the edges that Rafa and Novak have over each other, so we can look at them side by side.
tented
Administrator
Dude,
If Novak were to die in a car wreck today -- thus preventing Novak from getting a career slam, as well as getting more than 11 Slams -- would you still rank Novak over Rafa?
If Novak were to die in a car wreck today -- thus preventing Novak from getting a career slam, as well as getting more than 11 Slams -- would you still rank Novak over Rafa?
El Dude said:
Fair enough. this the key pont we diasagree on thenm you think it amkes up teh 27% diffrence , i dnot/
you value being no,1 and wtfs more than me. i mean, rios got to be world no.1. nuff said.
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 10,586
- Reactions
- 6,432
- Points
- 113
tented said:
Yes, by a hair. Of course my ranking is only partially based on that, and partially on projecting forward. But I do think that Novak has surpassed Rafa as the greatest of the generation, but right now it is like Lendl-McEnroe close, not Sampras-Agassi.
El Dude said:
Fair enough. this the key pont we diasagree on thenm you think it amkes up teh 27% diffrence , i dnot/
you value being no,1 and wtfs more than me. i mean, rios got to be world no.1. nuff said.
RE: [BLOG] Open Era Gens
Fair enough. This is the key pont we disagree on then. I don't really look at slams that way - i.e. Rafa has 27% moreYou think it amkes up teh 27% diffrence , i dnot/
As for your hypothetical, I do think that I'd have to give the edge to Rafa. I know it is easy for me, a Fed fan, to say that now when it isn't the case, but as it stands I think the gap between the two - if there is one - is smaller than the +3 Slams would entail.
Anyhow, when I have a few minutes a bit later, maybe I'll draw up lists of the edges that Rafa and Novak have over each other, so we can look at them side by side.
that would be itneresting. the thing is though, for me the slams outwegih the other tings.
enjoyignt eh debtae, fdude!
there are two main areas of disgree,etn hre. one is with the meaningfulness of worldno1 and wtfs compared to slams. you place more emphasis on teh former, i on the latter. here is another hypothetrical:
iamginae if payer a gets to 4 gs finals loses them allm but wins a bunch of mastersa dnthe wtfs. i aign if payer b doenst win many masters orthe w2tfs, but wins 2 majors but crashe sout early in the other two majors. now, for my money, player b has had the better year, even thogh player a would be world no.1. whereas you 0- corerct me if i; wrong -wld see player a as having had the better year, because word no1 and the wtfs is more imprtn to you than the difference of a few majors. this is the first area of disgreemtn.
[ fundamental disagreemtn, but fair nough, i thinkwe;ve outkined our reasoning pretty well. [- even thgoh player b had 2 more slams tt yearr.]
i just think winning even one slam is a huge ahcirvemnt. most players never achieve it. many work their whole lives just to achieve one or two. so i don't 'downgrade' three slams just because both players have more of them. for me a slam is worth the same if it's you first or your twentieth. it's still teh ultimate achievement in the sport.]
the second area
enjoyignt eh debtae, fdude!
This is the key pont we disagree on then. I don't really look at slams that way - i.e. Rafa has 27% moreYou think it amkes up teh 27% diffrence , i dnot/
this is thwere we disagree. [using this 'percetnages' emtho9d to cmpare players alsm totals, each slam becomes less important the more of them the player has. - ile.] in yuour exampe above, 2 slams for andy and stan consitue 100% difference, whereas in the case of raf and novak 3 slams represent 27% difference. therefore i dont' agree with this method. if you use this 'percetnages' emtho9d to cmpare players alsm totals, each slam becomes less important the more of them the player has. therefore i dont' agree with this method. why shouold a slam become less iprtatn because a player already has a lot fo them?
the difference between rafa nd novak is curetnyl 3 slams. think of the difference to, say, dominc thiem, from where he is now - slamless - to having 3 slams. this would be absotuley momentous. i just think winning even one slam is a huge ahcirvemnt. most players never achieve it. many work their whole lives just to achieve one or two. so i don't beleive in 'downgrading' three slams just because both players have more of them. for me a slam is worth the same if it's you first or your twentieth. it's still teh ultimate achievement in the sport.
three slams is an amazing achievemtn, [i dont' belive in 'downgrading' it just because both players involved have a lot of slams.]
, aand if a player has three more than osmeone else it outweighs things like no.1 - becasue no1 can be agained by doing wll in slams but not winniing them and doing well in smaller events - see novak's 2012, where he had the same number of slams as roger, rafa and andy, but was no.1 ecause of his constsncy in majors rather than winning them, and by winning masters... maybe if novk hd just one less slams thn rafa i coudl see your arguemnt, but three?
[forr eg, in 2012 novak was number 1 at the end of year because he was more consistent than roger, rafa and andym but all 4 of them each one 1 slam. so for me,, novak was a dereved number 1 that year beacuse al though all the big 4 were equal in number of slams won that year, novak had the most conststent year of the 4. however, if roger, andy or rafa had won 2 majors to novak;s one, novak may very well still have been year-end no1 due to his constsncy, but to me it woudl not be sderserved.]
[/quote]
Fair enough. this the key pont we diasagree on thenm you think it amkes up teh 27% diffrence , i dnot/
you value being no,1 and wtfs more than me. i mean, rios got to be world no.1. nuff said.
El Dude said:
Fair enough. This is the key pont we disagree on then. I don't really look at slams that way - i.e. Rafa has 27% moreYou think it amkes up teh 27% diffrence , i dnot/
As for your hypothetical, I do think that I'd have to give the edge to Rafa. I know it is easy for me, a Fed fan, to say that now when it isn't the case, but as it stands I think the gap between the two - if there is one - is smaller than the +3 Slams would entail.
Anyhow, when I have a few minutes a bit later, maybe I'll draw up lists of the edges that Rafa and Novak have over each other, so we can look at them side by side.
that would be itneresting. the thing is though, for me the slams outwegih the other tings.
enjoyignt eh debtae, fdude!
there are two main areas of disgree,etn hre. one is with the meaningfulness of worldno1 and wtfs compared to slams. you place more emphasis on teh former, i on the latter. here is another hypothetrical:
iamginae if payer a gets to 4 gs finals loses them allm but wins a bunch of mastersa dnthe wtfs. i aign if payer b doenst win many masters orthe w2tfs, but wins 2 majors but crashe sout early in the other two majors. now, for my money, player b has had the better year, even thogh player a would be world no.1. whereas you 0- corerct me if i; wrong -wld see player a as having had the better year, because word no1 and the wtfs is more imprtn to you than the difference of a few majors. this is the first area of disgreemtn.
[ fundamental disagreemtn, but fair nough, i thinkwe;ve outkined our reasoning pretty well. [- even thgoh player b had 2 more slams tt yearr.]
i just think winning even one slam is a huge ahcirvemnt. most players never achieve it. many work their whole lives just to achieve one or two. so i don't 'downgrade' three slams just because both players have more of them. for me a slam is worth the same if it's you first or your twentieth. it's still teh ultimate achievement in the sport.]
the second area
enjoyignt eh debtae, fdude!
This is the key pont we disagree on then. I don't really look at slams that way - i.e. Rafa has 27% moreYou think it amkes up teh 27% diffrence , i dnot/
this is thwere we disagree. [using this 'percetnages' emtho9d to cmpare players alsm totals, each slam becomes less important the more of them the player has. - ile.] in yuour exampe above, 2 slams for andy and stan consitue 100% difference, whereas in the case of raf and novak 3 slams represent 27% difference. therefore i dont' agree with this method. if you use this 'percetnages' emtho9d to cmpare players alsm totals, each slam becomes less important the more of them the player has. therefore i dont' agree with this method. why shouold a slam become less iprtatn because a player already has a lot fo them?
the difference between rafa nd novak is curetnyl 3 slams. think of the difference to, say, dominc thiem, from where he is now - slamless - to having 3 slams. this would be absotuley momentous. i just think winning even one slam is a huge ahcirvemnt. most players never achieve it. many work their whole lives just to achieve one or two. so i don't beleive in 'downgrading' three slams just because both players have more of them. for me a slam is worth the same if it's you first or your twentieth. it's still teh ultimate achievement in the sport.
three slams is an amazing achievemtn, [i dont' belive in 'downgrading' it just because both players involved have a lot of slams.]
, aand if a player has three more than osmeone else it outweighs things like no.1 - becasue no1 can be agained by doing wll in slams but not winniing them and doing well in smaller events - see novak's 2012, where he had the same number of slams as roger, rafa and andy, but was no.1 ecause of his constsncy in majors rather than winning them, and by winning masters... maybe if novk hd just one less slams thn rafa i coudl see your arguemnt, but three?
[forr eg, in 2012 novak was number 1 at the end of year because he was more consistent than roger, rafa and andym but all 4 of them each one 1 slam. so for me,, novak was a dereved number 1 that year beacuse al though all the big 4 were equal in number of slams won that year, novak had the most conststent year of the 4. however, if roger, andy or rafa had won 2 majors to novak;s one, novak may very well still have been year-end no1 due to his constsncy, but to me it woudl not be sderserved.]
[/quote]
Fair enough. this the key pont we diasagree on thenm you think it amkes up teh 27% diffrence , i dnot/
you value being no,1 and wtfs more than me. i mean, rios got to be world no.1. nuff said.
RE: [BLOG] Open Era Gens
Enjoying the debate, Dude!
Your response is really interesting, and it gets us into something that has ramifications beyond this Rafa-Novak debate, so I'd like to explain why I disagree with you.
Re: Your bolded part above:
This is where we disagree. In your example above, 2 slams for Andy and Stan constitute 100% difference, whereas in the case of Rafa and Novak 3 slams represent 27% difference. i.e. If you use this 'percentages' method to compare players' slam totals, each slam becomes less important the more of them the player has. Therefore I don't agree with this method. Why should a slam become less important because a player already has a lot of them?
The difference between Rafa and Novak is currently 3 slams. Think of the difference to, say, Dominic Thiem, from where he is now - slamless - to having 3 slams. This would be absolutely momentous. I just think winning even one slam is a huge achievement. Most players never achieve it. Many work their whole lives just to achieve one or two. So I don't believe in 'downgrading' three slams just because both players have more of them. For me a slam is worth the same if it's your first or your twentieth. It's still the ultimate achievement in the sport.
El Dude said:
Enjoying the debate, Dude!
Your response is really interesting, and it gets us into something that has ramifications beyond this Rafa-Novak debate, so I'd like to explain why I disagree with you.
Re: Your bolded part above:
This is where we disagree. In your example above, 2 slams for Andy and Stan constitute 100% difference, whereas in the case of Rafa and Novak 3 slams represent 27% difference. i.e. If you use this 'percentages' method to compare players' slam totals, each slam becomes less important the more of them the player has. Therefore I don't agree with this method. Why should a slam become less important because a player already has a lot of them?
The difference between Rafa and Novak is currently 3 slams. Think of the difference to, say, Dominic Thiem, from where he is now - slamless - to having 3 slams. This would be absolutely momentous. I just think winning even one slam is a huge achievement. Most players never achieve it. Many work their whole lives just to achieve one or two. So I don't believe in 'downgrading' three slams just because both players have more of them. For me a slam is worth the same if it's your first or your twentieth. It's still the ultimate achievement in the sport.
RE: [BLOG] Open Era Gens
Enjoying the debate, Dude!
Your response is really interesting, and it gets us into something that has ramifications beyond this Rafa-Novak debate, so I'd like to explain why I disagree with you.
Re: Your bolded part above:
This is where we disagree. In your example above, 2 slams for Andy and Stan constitute 100% difference, whereas in the case of Rafa and Novak 3 slams represent 27% difference. i.e. If you use this 'percentages' method to compare players' slam totals, each slam becomes less important the more of them the player has. Therefore I don't agree with this method. Why should a slam become less important because a player already has a lot of them?
The difference between Rafa and Novak is currently 3 slams. Think of the difference to, say, Dominic Thiem, from where he is now - slamless - to having 3 slams. This would be absolutely momentous. I just think winning even one slam is a huge achievement. Most players never achieve it. Many work their whole lives just to achieve one or two. So I don't believe in 'downgrading' three slams just because both players have more of them. For me a slam is worth the same if it's your first or your twentieth. In both cases it's still the ultimate achievement in the sport, and it shouldn't be regarded as any less of an achievement because a player has already won a lot of them.
Another hypothetical: imagine if Federer won an 18th slam (are you enjoying it?). Would this be any less of an achievement than when he won, say, his fourth? I don't think it would, because I count each slam the same. But you are saying that once players have a lot of slams, slams don't mean as much. So much so, that three slams becomes relatively nothing. But I just don't think it works like that, and I don't think Roger would either!
El Dude said:
Enjoying the debate, Dude!
Your response is really interesting, and it gets us into something that has ramifications beyond this Rafa-Novak debate, so I'd like to explain why I disagree with you.
Re: Your bolded part above:
This is where we disagree. In your example above, 2 slams for Andy and Stan constitute 100% difference, whereas in the case of Rafa and Novak 3 slams represent 27% difference. i.e. If you use this 'percentages' method to compare players' slam totals, each slam becomes less important the more of them the player has. Therefore I don't agree with this method. Why should a slam become less important because a player already has a lot of them?
The difference between Rafa and Novak is currently 3 slams. Think of the difference to, say, Dominic Thiem, from where he is now - slamless - to having 3 slams. This would be absolutely momentous. I just think winning even one slam is a huge achievement. Most players never achieve it. Many work their whole lives just to achieve one or two. So I don't believe in 'downgrading' three slams just because both players have more of them. For me a slam is worth the same if it's your first or your twentieth. In both cases it's still the ultimate achievement in the sport, and it shouldn't be regarded as any less of an achievement because a player has already won a lot of them.
Another hypothetical: imagine if Federer won an 18th slam (are you enjoying it?
). Would this be any less of an achievement than when he won, say, his fourth? I don't think it would, because I count each slam the same. But you are saying that once players have a lot of slams, slams don't mean as much. So much so, that three slams becomes relatively nothing. But I just don't think it works like that, and I don't think Roger would either!
Kirijax
Grand Slam Champion
Always fun to read El Dude. You're not afraid of stepping up with an opinion so it's great for discussion. With the weeks at No. 1 and all the WTF, I'm ready to say he's greater than Nadal but I'm going to have to say not yet. He HAS to get that French Open title this year and then yeah, he will leap WAY over Nadal, even though Nadal still has a 2-Slam lead over him. But it's just a matter of time before he passes Nadal in Slam count. But he needs that FO!
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 10,586
- Reactions
- 6,432
- Points
- 113
Glad to see some discussion generated. Some good arguments, and I want to make clear a couple things: One, while I do stand by my initial statement that I think Novak has the edge right now, I want to emphasize that it is only by the finest of hairs, in my opinion, and only revealed if we look beyond Slam counts. But regardless, it is almost certainly a moot point, as Novak will more noticeably pass him as soon as this year, or next.
Just to pull back the curtain a bit, in my generational rankings I use a formula that gives points for four categories: Slam results, all titles, rankings, and peak level. If you don't want to read a detailed discussion about nerdy tennis rankings systems, skip to the "summary" at the end. The point system is, of course, arbitrary in terms of what values I assign, but I've done my best to try to come up with something that makes sense. At first I didn't have the peak level category but found that the system overly benefited longevity. For instance, it ranked Lendl and Connors ahead of Sampras, which didn't sit right with me. I added the peak category, which gave points for things like years with multiple Slams, having all four Slams, and doubling-up on the top 5 years in rankings and top 5 Slam results. After this adjustment, Sampras moved ahead of Lendl, and was almost exactly the same as Connors.
Anyhow, I'll continue to tweak the system. I will also mention that I followed the "90-10" rule. I followed the formula roughly 90% of the time, but bypassed it roughly 10% of the time when I thought a player simply deserved to be ranked higher than another, regardless of what the formula said. Considered this a fifth category or subjective x-factor -- not based upon my own personal preferences, but on reputation and consensus opinion.
All that said, I will tell you that using the formula, Novak and Rafa are so close that they really are even - we're talking Iowa caucus close. Before the "peak adjustment," Novak has 1924 pts to Rafa's 1872. After the peak adjustment, it comes to Novak 2174 and Rafa 2172. Two points, or .001% difference!
So according to my system, they are in a dead-heat, and perhaps I should have written in the article that I see them as exactly tied right now, but am ranking Novak higher because he's still in peak form and likely to surpass Rafa in a more clear manner. Actually, I did the ranking before doing the peak adjustment, so that would have been more accurate than what I actually wrote - that Novak has an edge. They really are tied, at least using the formula.
(As an aside, Tennis Base--which is even more nerdy than me--also has Novak higher, with 2027 pts to Rafa's 1967--a larger difference than mine. I don't know their formula, but think it is far more complicated than mine)
So why the difference? As you can see, Rafa gains some back with the peak adjustment, mainly because he's won all four Slams, which I gave +100 bonus points for. But in the other three categories, Rafa edges in Slam results--905 to 865--but falls behind in titles--510 to 567--and rankings--457 to 492. I think the rankings and titles are clear enough: Novak has more year-end #1s, and while he's six titles behind Rafa, including 1 Masters and 4 ATP 500s, he's got 5 WTFs to Rafa's 0, which more than makes up for it.
But what about Slam results? With a 14 to 11 lead, why is Rafa only up 905 to 865? Well, first of all understand that in my formula, each Slam win gives 50 points, so just going by wins, Rafa has 700 to Novak's 550. Finals give 20 points, SF 10 points, QF 5 points, 4R 3 points, 3R 2 points, and 2R 1 point. So it is heavily weighted towards better results, with a win worth two Fs and a SF combined. Compare the two's Slam results:
W/F/SF/QF/4R/3R/2R
RN: 14/6/3/6/4/4/5
ND: 11/8/10/6/2/4/1
Let's subtract the results from each other, to see what we end up with:
RN: +3 Wins, +2 4R, +4 2R
ND: +2 Fs, +7 SF
Now clearly the system still favors Rafa's +3 Wins, but the rest of the results favor Novak - as they should. Novak has been far less prone to go out early or be upset, and far more consistent overall.
Another way to put is that while Rafa has those wins to two finals and one semifinal from Novak, Novak partially--although not fully--makes up the difference through having six semifinals to Rafa's two extra 4R and four extra 2R. This isn't as much penalizing Rafa for going out early as it is benefiting and acknowledging Novak's remarkable consistency.
One other factor of my formula that some might not agree with is that in addition to points for year-end rankings, I give a bonus of +1 point per week at #1. This gives Novak an edge of +45 and counting.
Summary: Right now, Novak and Rafa are neck-and-neck, at least according to the El Dude Proprietary Ranking Formula--actually just .001% apart. While Rafa has the big edge in Slam wins, Novak makes up for it with better non-win Slam results, 5 more World Tour Finals titles, and 45 more weeks at #1.
Another and non-statistical way to put it is that while Rafa still has an edge in terms of peak performance, or a higher "ceiling," Novak's base-line or "floor" has been significantly higher.
Just to pull back the curtain a bit, in my generational rankings I use a formula that gives points for four categories: Slam results, all titles, rankings, and peak level. If you don't want to read a detailed discussion about nerdy tennis rankings systems, skip to the "summary" at the end. The point system is, of course, arbitrary in terms of what values I assign, but I've done my best to try to come up with something that makes sense. At first I didn't have the peak level category but found that the system overly benefited longevity. For instance, it ranked Lendl and Connors ahead of Sampras, which didn't sit right with me. I added the peak category, which gave points for things like years with multiple Slams, having all four Slams, and doubling-up on the top 5 years in rankings and top 5 Slam results. After this adjustment, Sampras moved ahead of Lendl, and was almost exactly the same as Connors.
Anyhow, I'll continue to tweak the system. I will also mention that I followed the "90-10" rule. I followed the formula roughly 90% of the time, but bypassed it roughly 10% of the time when I thought a player simply deserved to be ranked higher than another, regardless of what the formula said. Considered this a fifth category or subjective x-factor -- not based upon my own personal preferences, but on reputation and consensus opinion.
All that said, I will tell you that using the formula, Novak and Rafa are so close that they really are even - we're talking Iowa caucus close. Before the "peak adjustment," Novak has 1924 pts to Rafa's 1872. After the peak adjustment, it comes to Novak 2174 and Rafa 2172. Two points, or .001% difference!
So according to my system, they are in a dead-heat, and perhaps I should have written in the article that I see them as exactly tied right now, but am ranking Novak higher because he's still in peak form and likely to surpass Rafa in a more clear manner. Actually, I did the ranking before doing the peak adjustment, so that would have been more accurate than what I actually wrote - that Novak has an edge. They really are tied, at least using the formula.
(As an aside, Tennis Base--which is even more nerdy than me--also has Novak higher, with 2027 pts to Rafa's 1967--a larger difference than mine. I don't know their formula, but think it is far more complicated than mine)
So why the difference? As you can see, Rafa gains some back with the peak adjustment, mainly because he's won all four Slams, which I gave +100 bonus points for. But in the other three categories, Rafa edges in Slam results--905 to 865--but falls behind in titles--510 to 567--and rankings--457 to 492. I think the rankings and titles are clear enough: Novak has more year-end #1s, and while he's six titles behind Rafa, including 1 Masters and 4 ATP 500s, he's got 5 WTFs to Rafa's 0, which more than makes up for it.
But what about Slam results? With a 14 to 11 lead, why is Rafa only up 905 to 865? Well, first of all understand that in my formula, each Slam win gives 50 points, so just going by wins, Rafa has 700 to Novak's 550. Finals give 20 points, SF 10 points, QF 5 points, 4R 3 points, 3R 2 points, and 2R 1 point. So it is heavily weighted towards better results, with a win worth two Fs and a SF combined. Compare the two's Slam results:
W/F/SF/QF/4R/3R/2R
RN: 14/6/3/6/4/4/5
ND: 11/8/10/6/2/4/1
Let's subtract the results from each other, to see what we end up with:
RN: +3 Wins, +2 4R, +4 2R
ND: +2 Fs, +7 SF
Now clearly the system still favors Rafa's +3 Wins, but the rest of the results favor Novak - as they should. Novak has been far less prone to go out early or be upset, and far more consistent overall.
Another way to put is that while Rafa has those wins to two finals and one semifinal from Novak, Novak partially--although not fully--makes up the difference through having six semifinals to Rafa's two extra 4R and four extra 2R. This isn't as much penalizing Rafa for going out early as it is benefiting and acknowledging Novak's remarkable consistency.
One other factor of my formula that some might not agree with is that in addition to points for year-end rankings, I give a bonus of +1 point per week at #1. This gives Novak an edge of +45 and counting.
Summary: Right now, Novak and Rafa are neck-and-neck, at least according to the El Dude Proprietary Ranking Formula--actually just .001% apart. While Rafa has the big edge in Slam wins, Novak makes up for it with better non-win Slam results, 5 more World Tour Finals titles, and 45 more weeks at #1.
Another and non-statistical way to put it is that while Rafa still has an edge in terms of peak performance, or a higher "ceiling," Novak's base-line or "floor" has been significantly higher.
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 10,586
- Reactions
- 6,432
- Points
- 113
One final note on Slam wins. One of the things I wanted my formula to accomplish is to show the value of Slam wins, but not overly so. So often--too often, in my opinion--Slam wins are used as the definitive way to rank players in terms of greatness. While they certainly are important and are, I would argue, the single most important factor in ranking greatness, we can't marginalize or ignore everything else.
There are plenty of instances where a player with more Slams was actually inferior to a player with less. Jan Kodes won 3 Slams but was far inferior to Ilie Nastase (2 Slams). John McEnroe, with 7 Slams, was a greater player than Andre Agassi, with 8 Slams. There are also many cases of players with no Slams like David Ferrer, Nikolay Davydenko, or Tom Okker, being greater than "one-Slam wonders" like Mark Edmondson, Thomas Johansson, or Gaston Gaudio.
Slam titles are the big trophy in tennis, and there really isn't anything close. But my ranking system isn't about determining who has the best trophy case - that's easy to determine, just by looking at titles (I also play with a much simpler title ranking system, which looks only at title wins). This system is about determining overall career greatness, so was built to include as many factors as possible, for which the data was available for all Open Era players.
I will continue to tweak the "Proprietary Formula" (which is a self-deprecating joke, btw), and maybe I'll give it another tweak and then offer a Top 100 Players of the Open Era list, via this system.
There are plenty of instances where a player with more Slams was actually inferior to a player with less. Jan Kodes won 3 Slams but was far inferior to Ilie Nastase (2 Slams). John McEnroe, with 7 Slams, was a greater player than Andre Agassi, with 8 Slams. There are also many cases of players with no Slams like David Ferrer, Nikolay Davydenko, or Tom Okker, being greater than "one-Slam wonders" like Mark Edmondson, Thomas Johansson, or Gaston Gaudio.
Slam titles are the big trophy in tennis, and there really isn't anything close. But my ranking system isn't about determining who has the best trophy case - that's easy to determine, just by looking at titles (I also play with a much simpler title ranking system, which looks only at title wins). This system is about determining overall career greatness, so was built to include as many factors as possible, for which the data was available for all Open Era players.
I will continue to tweak the "Proprietary Formula" (which is a self-deprecating joke, btw), and maybe I'll give it another tweak and then offer a Top 100 Players of the Open Era list, via this system.
Whilst [i agree that one has to look beyond slam count when reviwwing the histroy of the gaem. in the examples you gave, kodes won wd because of the boycott, and mcenroe played in a time when ther wer basxciallty three majors a year not four bwecause the top players didn't play the ao, whereas agassi played in an era of 4 majors a year. the ting is,
t, and agasssi did, so agassi had more
[- for one one thing, i think laver needs to be regarded as teh current goat not federer - explantion. but sitll everyone talks about roger hacnig trhe 'record' for slam count, when really, he doesn;t. but if you want ot say roger is thegeratest because of the comb of his careeer accomplsihments and the fact that he's the most techicnally gifted player ever, then i woudl agree. but in terms of success, i woudl have to give the edge to laver.]
this sia lso true of Those examples you gave. kodewes won slams when not all the top paleyrs platyed. mcernoe didn't play the ao a lot, whereas agassi did. but]
the novak/rafa debate is different to those examples you gave because bnoth are poaying in teh sasme eera. it's a level playing field. both have four chances a year to win a slam. there are 4 slams that are considered the top four tournametns, and all the top players play them.
i udnerstand that you want to rward consistency, but maybe we can look at it like this: you are trying to rate player players in terms of who has teh most consistenyly gerat career, but i think that that is a different thing from who has teh greatest career.
[there are two main areas of disgree,etn hre. one is with the meaningfulness of worldno1 and wtfs compared to slams. you place more emphasis on teh former, i on the latter.]
here is another hypothetrical:
iamginae if payer a gets to 4 gs finals loses them allm but wins a bunch of mastersa dnthe wtfs. i aign if payer b doenst win many masters orthe w2tfs, but wins 2 majors but crashe sout early in the other two majors. now, for my money, player b has had the better year, even thogh player a would be world no.1. whereas you 0- corerct me if i; wrong -wld see player a as having had the better year, because word no1 and the wtfs is more imprtn to you than the difference of a few majors. [this is the first area of disgreemtn.]
i think that if a player has three more slams than osmeone else it outweighs things like no.1 - becasue no1 can be agained by doing wll in slams but not winniing them and doing well in smaller events - see novak's 2012, where he had the same number of slams as roger, rafa and andy, but was no.1 ecause of his constsncy in majors rather than winning them, and by winning masters.
but you don't get to be a great polayer by winning masters. otherwise andy would be considerd grat player, becayse he has 11 (that's no.6 on the all-time list). you also don't get to be a great player by losing in grand slam sfs or fs, or by winning the wtfs, but those things can get you to no.1, which devalues the no.1 ranking as a measure of greatness.
.. maybe if novk hd just one less slams thn rafa i coudl see your arguemnt, but three?
[ fundamental disagreemtn, but fair nough, i thinkwe;ve outkined our reasoning pretty well. [- even thgoh player b had 2 more slams tt yearr.]
t, and agasssi did, so agassi had more
[- for one one thing, i think laver needs to be regarded as teh current goat not federer - explantion. but sitll everyone talks about roger hacnig trhe 'record' for slam count, when really, he doesn;t. but if you want ot say roger is thegeratest because of the comb of his careeer accomplsihments and the fact that he's the most techicnally gifted player ever, then i woudl agree. but in terms of success, i woudl have to give the edge to laver.]
this sia lso true of Those examples you gave. kodewes won slams when not all the top paleyrs platyed. mcernoe didn't play the ao a lot, whereas agassi did. but]
the novak/rafa debate is different to those examples you gave because bnoth are poaying in teh sasme eera. it's a level playing field. both have four chances a year to win a slam. there are 4 slams that are considered the top four tournametns, and all the top players play them.
i udnerstand that you want to rward consistency, but maybe we can look at it like this: you are trying to rate player players in terms of who has teh most consistenyly gerat career, but i think that that is a different thing from who has teh greatest career.
[there are two main areas of disgree,etn hre. one is with the meaningfulness of worldno1 and wtfs compared to slams. you place more emphasis on teh former, i on the latter.]
here is another hypothetrical:
iamginae if payer a gets to 4 gs finals loses them allm but wins a bunch of mastersa dnthe wtfs. i aign if payer b doenst win many masters orthe w2tfs, but wins 2 majors but crashe sout early in the other two majors. now, for my money, player b has had the better year, even thogh player a would be world no.1. whereas you 0- corerct me if i; wrong -wld see player a as having had the better year, because word no1 and the wtfs is more imprtn to you than the difference of a few majors. [this is the first area of disgreemtn.]
i think that if a player has three more slams than osmeone else it outweighs things like no.1 - becasue no1 can be agained by doing wll in slams but not winniing them and doing well in smaller events - see novak's 2012, where he had the same number of slams as roger, rafa and andy, but was no.1 ecause of his constsncy in majors rather than winning them, and by winning masters.
but you don't get to be a great polayer by winning masters. otherwise andy would be considerd grat player, becayse he has 11 (that's no.6 on the all-time list). you also don't get to be a great player by losing in grand slam sfs or fs, or by winning the wtfs, but those things can get you to no.1, which devalues the no.1 ranking as a measure of greatness.
.. maybe if novk hd just one less slams thn rafa i coudl see your arguemnt, but three?
[ fundamental disagreemtn, but fair nough, i thinkwe;ve outkined our reasoning pretty well. [- even thgoh player b had 2 more slams tt yearr.]
[liek dud'e posts- and any others!]
I agree that one has to look beyond slam count when reviewing the history of the game. In the examples you gave, Kodes won WD because of the boycott, and McEnroe played in a time when there were basically only three majors a year not four because the top players didn't play the AO, whereas Agassi played in an era of 4 majors a year. The thing is, the Novak/Rafa debate is different to those examples you gave because both are playing in the same era. It's a level playing field. Both have four chances a year to win a slam. There are 4 slams that are considered the top four tournaments, and all the top players play them.
I understand that you want to reward consistency, but maybe we can look at it like this: you are trying to rate players in terms of who has the most consistently great career, but I think that that is a different thing from who has the greatest career. i.e. As things stand right now, Novak has certainly had the more consistently great career than Rafa (mainly due to Rafa's injuries - I don't mean because he wouldn't have won if Rafa was there, I mean because Rafa's injury plagued career puts him out of the running for those 'consistency' awards like weeks at no.1 and consecutive slam SFs and QF s.), But I think that Rafa has had the greater career to date. I mean, I'm just not bothered if Rafa went out in R1 of a slam and Novak got to the semis. You don't get to be a great player by getting to slam semis. If you did, Andy Murray would be considered a great player.
Here is another hypothetical:
iamginae if payer a gets to 4 gs finals loses them allm but wins a bunch of mastersa dnthe wtfs. i aign if payer b doenst win any masters orthe w2tfs, but wins 2 majors but crashe sout early in the other two majors. now, for my money, player b has had the better year, even thogh player a would be world no.1. whereas you 0- corerct me if i; wrong -wld see player a as having had the better year, because word no1 and the wtfs is more imprtn to you than the difference of a few majors.
i think that if a player has three more slams than osmeone else it outweighs things like no.1 - becasue no1 can be agained by doing wll in slams but not winniing them and doing well in smaller events - see novak's 2012, where he had the same number of slams as roger, rafa and andy, but was no.1 ecause of his constsncy in majors rather than winning them, and by winning masters.
but you don't get to be a great polayer by winning masters. otherwise andy would be considerd grat player, becayse he has 11 mastets title to date (that's no.5 on the all-time list!). you also don't get to be a great player by losing in grand slam sfs or fs, or by winning the wtfs, but those things can get you to no.1, which devalues the no.1 ranking as a measure of greatness.
so we disagree, but fair enough, i think we;ve both outlined our reasoning pretty well.
I agree that one has to look beyond slam count when reviewing the history of the game. In the examples you gave, Kodes won WD because of the boycott, and McEnroe played in a time when there were basically only three majors a year not four because the top players didn't play the AO, whereas Agassi played in an era of 4 majors a year. The thing is, the Novak/Rafa debate is different to those examples you gave because both are playing in the same era. It's a level playing field. Both have four chances a year to win a slam. There are 4 slams that are considered the top four tournaments, and all the top players play them.
I understand that you want to reward consistency, but maybe we can look at it like this: you are trying to rate players in terms of who has the most consistently great career, but I think that that is a different thing from who has the greatest career. i.e. As things stand right now, Novak has certainly had the more consistently great career than Rafa (mainly due to Rafa's injuries - I don't mean because he wouldn't have won if Rafa was there, I mean because Rafa's injury plagued career puts him out of the running for those 'consistency' awards like weeks at no.1 and consecutive slam SFs and QF s.), But I think that Rafa has had the greater career to date. I mean, I'm just not bothered if Rafa went out in R1 of a slam and Novak got to the semis. You don't get to be a great player by getting to slam semis. If you did, Andy Murray would be considered a great player.
Here is another hypothetical:
iamginae if payer a gets to 4 gs finals loses them allm but wins a bunch of mastersa dnthe wtfs. i aign if payer b doenst win any masters orthe w2tfs, but wins 2 majors but crashe sout early in the other two majors. now, for my money, player b has had the better year, even thogh player a would be world no.1. whereas you 0- corerct me if i; wrong -wld see player a as having had the better year, because word no1 and the wtfs is more imprtn to you than the difference of a few majors.
i think that if a player has three more slams than osmeone else it outweighs things like no.1 - becasue no1 can be agained by doing wll in slams but not winniing them and doing well in smaller events - see novak's 2012, where he had the same number of slams as roger, rafa and andy, but was no.1 ecause of his constsncy in majors rather than winning them, and by winning masters.
but you don't get to be a great polayer by winning masters. otherwise andy would be considerd grat player, becayse he has 11 mastets title to date (that's no.5 on the all-time list!). you also don't get to be a great player by losing in grand slam sfs or fs, or by winning the wtfs, but those things can get you to no.1, which devalues the no.1 ranking as a measure of greatness.
so we disagree, but fair enough, i think we;ve both outlined our reasoning pretty well.