Its official now, Novak is the back to back world #1

First topic message reminder :

It has been an up and down year for Novak, having both lost and regained the number 1 ranking within the last few months. Some close matches and unfavorable circumstances went against him this year where in 2011 he was not having these issues. But with all that being said he still won a slam and outpaced all of his nearest rivals in points. And by the end of the year he is pretty fit and playing probably the best tennis of the season. He now has made the semis of the last 8 straight tournaments and 14 of the 15 tournaments he entered this year with his only early exit being on Ian Tiriac's dodgy clay court in the quarters. We have also seen him accomplish feats of fighting back with his back up against the wall and cementing his reputation as the hardest player to serve out a grandslam match on.

And going into next season Djokovic have to be optimistic as he seems to be again building momentum at the tale end of the year and should be poised for greater success in 2013. He went 6-8 against his biggest rivals with a mid season slump against them and I am sure for next year he will be looking to correct that number. All in all a great year anyway you slice it and I am sure we will see a better version of Djokovic in 2013 if injuries are permitting. Novak now is one of only 9 players in the history of the game to repeat as world #1 in back to back years since the founding of th ATP ranking system. Joining an elite club with Borg, Connors, Lendl, Edberg, Sampras, Hewitt, Mcenroe, Federer and now Djokovic.

The idea that throughout a guy's career someone's luck will even out is also flawed as well I'm afraid.
Compare the careers of Tommy Haas and Roger Federer.
Haas's family had accident in 2003. He took 6 months off to look after them. When he came back on tour, he dislocated his shoulder, needed an operation. Could never reach the same level after that.

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:And a long history of a bad back, socal. It's cost him many times and nearly dd him at Wimbledon 2012.

See, if a Federer fan says that it's herioc, if Nadal fan says that he/she will be told of for making excuses.

Personally I feel that's fine if it's your opinion, but if I may ask where did you deduce he had a long history of bad back?

Don't be silly, this was posted because some on here are alleging Federer has had amazing good luck with injuries.

As for Federers back, it's something he's suffered with since his youth and I've seen him lose at Wimbledon because of it (Berdych 2010) and a fair few other matches. He was moving like an old man v Malisse this year. He had it v Murray about 4 years ago late in the season. That enough?

Ooohhh purlease Emancipator, you do of course realise I made that riposte to socal based on him saying family issues had affected Novak this year. Besides which Nadal himself said the Wimb09 withdrawal was due to his parents separation, so whether that would affect you or not is irrelevant, he said it did to him. Unless he's a liar of course. These guys are not doing a normal "9 to 5" like the rest of us. Any slight offcourt issue when you're a top 4 tennis player might cause a 1-5% loss of form which may be enough to cause a swing of result. Who knows. The point is they're highly tuned tennis machines, where everything has to work like clockwork, we're not. Whether they should be able to handle family issues better is another matter but these guys live in a sheltered bubble.

Nothing like a Fedalovic debate to get the forum juices going...lol.

bogbrush wrote:
Don't be silly, this was posted because some on here are alleging Federer has had amazing good luck with injuries.

I don't quite understand, do you think Federer had good luck with injuries or not?
Nalbandian? Haas? What about them?

bogbrush wrote:
As for Federers back, it's something he's suffered with since his youth and I've seen him lose at Wimbledon because of it (Berdych 2010) and a fair few other matches. He was moving like an old man v Malisse this year. He had it v Murray about 4 years ago late in the season. That enough?

Sure, if you can find me some evidence. Berdych 2010 yes, he did say so pre-match. Not sure which Murray match you are talking about.
Edit: btw that's only 3 matches.

lydian wrote:

Nothing like a Fedalovic debate to get the forum juices going...lol.

I'm thinking of bringing that article out sometime soon

Err, did you watch the Malisse match?

He was moving and serving like a 50 year old and he called the trainer. He then talked about the back in his presser.

Also against Murray in WTF (?08)

Also W 2003, he nearly pulled out in the ?3rd round, called a trainer onto court.

These are the ones I can remember off the top of my head, of course there may be many instances when his back doesn't feel right but we don't hear about them.

It Must Be Love wrote:I said:

Was it good fortune for Federer?
Yes, I think it was.

It referring to the injuries part we were discussing earlier.

Oh I see. So when you infer something from what I write, that's OK. But when I infer something from what people write, that's just me typically twisting things.
Although I was actually proved right (posters are saying Fed was fortunate to get back to No. 1) and so I was never twisting things at all, I was reading things correctly. Ironic.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/03/sports/tennis/wimbledon-federer-his-back-ailing-moves-stiffly-into-quarterfinals.html

socal1976 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:And a long history of a bad back, socal. It's cost him many times and nearly dd him at Wimbledon 2012.

Show me a tennis player at 30 and Ill show you a guy with a lot days in the year with a stiff back. Your statement is correct on the back but, I am talkig in comparison to pretty much any great I can ever remember Roger has had the least down time to injuries of any star I can remember. And I do think a large part of that is due to his almost preternatural efficiency of motion. But a significant part of it is luck as well. For the nearly 1000 matches the guy has played he basically has the least injury and wear and tear issues of anyone who has ever played that much, at least that I remember.

He has had the back for a lot longer than since turning 30. It's not chronic, but it's cost him important matches.

I'm not making it a big deal, I'm saying he's not had this immunity from injury some suggest.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:I said:

Was it good fortune for Federer?
Yes, I think it was.

It referring to the injuries part we were discussing earlier.

Oh I see. So when you infer something from what I write, that's OK. But when I infer something from what people write, that's just me typically twisting things.
Although I was actually proved right (posters are saying Fed was fortunate to get back to No. 1) and so I was never twisting things at all, I was reading things correctly. Ironic.

Wasn't it the 'only' vs 'crucial' thing?

bogbrush wrote:Its quite clear that some posters aren't content with their man making #1, they have to try to make out that even when he wasn't, he was really. If only he hadn't been so unlucky.
But obviously not the only reason, I mean Federer did well. Even though he got lucky. Nobody says its the only reason, they just want to taint it but have the backstop of saying he did well.

I know BB, imagine someone diminishing a players achievement. From 9th June 2012:

bogbrush wrote:Djokovic is part of the establishment, someone who stood at the door for a number of years waiting for his predecessor to age to the point where he could get in..

bogbrush wrote:he sneaked past a mono-stricken Federer in 2008

You dish it out easily enough but you get a bit sensitive when it's done to Federer.

emancipator wrote:Err, did you watch the Malisse match?

He was moving and serving like a 50 year old and he called the trainer. He then talked about the back in his presser.

Also against Murray in WTF (?08)

Also W 2003, he nearly pulled out in the ?3rd round, called a trainer onto court.

These are the ones I can remember off the top of my head, of course there may be many instances when his back doesn't feel right but we don't hear about them.

1. Berdych 2010
2. Malisse 2012
3. Murray WTF 2008- ??
4. Wimby 2003

Well that's 4 then. Could be a few more as you say.
Did it have a massive impact? Half of those 4 matches he went on to win the tournament... how many tournaments has he missed due to his back?
You can argue you make your own luck injuries wise, but is there a big difference between how Haas and Roger play?

Hey Murdoch, when I say one thing I say it straight; I don't try to hide behind half hearted compliments. And even then I don't make the mistake you do.

Djokovic did indeed benefit from Federers mono in 2008. He has also benefitted from Federer ageing. These are facts.

Do these make him lucky? No, he has had other things go against him.

IMBL - No, it was your response to HM's post.
I said posters are saying Fed was fortunate to get back to No. 1
HM said ironically no-one was saying that (it has since been seen that they were indeed saying that)
You said "lol, I was just thinking that, typical Julius
Nothing twists the situation better than misquoting, (without actually saying who the quote is from so he can't be held accountable- although it's obvious who is being implied!), and then ridiculing that."

It turns out I was right in my original statement i.e. I wasn't twisting the situation at all.
The only vs crucial bit came after that and I have acknowledged an incorrect use of the word 'only'. I try to acknowledge my mistakes.
I have yet to see you provide multiple examples of my typical behaviour in twisting things. Perhaps you're mistaken in that?

Wait, when did I say Federer was fortunate to be number 1...?
Edit:
This is my post at 1:44:

It Must Be Love wrote:

socal1976 wrote:No BB, federer didn't regain the number 1 because Novak slumped, a crucial reason that he did regain the number 1 was because Novak tore a muscle in his back. The same thing that helped him regain the number 1 in 09 when Nadal went down. Fed still had to occupy the number 2 spot to benefit from those injuries but pointing out the truth is no basis for ridicule.

Personally this topic does indeed interest me, but what I must say is the phrase:
'He doesn't deserve to be number 1 in the rankings' is simply not true, in any case.
To get to number 1 in the rankings you must accumulate more ranking points than any other player. Simple. If you do that you 'deserve' the ranking, unless the ATP miscalculates your points which is very unlikely.

However being 'number 1 in the ranking' is not equivalent to being 'the best player in the world over the last 12 months.' They are different.
For the former category we add up the points, and the players who has more deserves more, simple. For the latter we can consider other factors such as injuries, illnesses etc.

I still hold this opinion. When I was saying 'it' earlier I was talking about injuries to his rivals.
An extract from my comment earlier.

Was the injury to Djokovic/Nadal was fortunate for Federer.
I could either answer it was:
a) good fortune
b) bad fortune
c) no difference

I think a), as an injury to a rival means there are less of a threat, generally. Of course you may disagree and pick option b), or c); you are perfectly entitled to do so.

It Must Be Love wrote:

emancipator wrote:Err, did you watch the Malisse match?

He was moving and serving like a 50 year old and he called the trainer. He then talked about the back in his presser.

Also against Murray in WTF (?08)

Also W 2003, he nearly pulled out in the ?3rd round, called a trainer onto court.

These are the ones I can remember off the top of my head, of course there may be many instances when his back doesn't feel right but we don't hear about them.

1. Berdych 2010
2. Malisse 2012
3. Murray WTF 2008- ??
4. Wimby 2003

Well that's 4 then. Could be a few more as you say.
Did it have a massive impact? Half of those 4 matches he went on to win the tournament... how many tournaments has he missed due to his back?
You can argue you make your own luck injuries wise, but is there a big difference between how Haas and Roger play?

He didn't say 'a few more' you are misquoting.

And is Tommy Haas now the benchmark for average luck?

Bogbrush, he said 'many instances' but I'm not sure if that can really be shown.
Which were these instances?


As for Haas, he has a similar game-style to Federer, yet missed large parts out due to injury.

bogbrush wrote:Hey, when I say one thing I say it straight; I don't try to hide behind half hearted compliments. And even then I don't make the mistake you do.

Djokovic did indeed benefit from Federers mono in 2008. He has also benefitted from Federer ageing. These are facts.

Do these make him lucky? No, he has had other things go aginst him.

Federer did indeed benefit from Novak and Rafa burning out after USO 2011. This is a fact.

Yet when Lydian said this the other day, emancipator went nuts and you said it was just another weak era thread concentrated on Fed's spell at number 1.

Why is it a fact when you say it about Djokovic but an insult or a conspiracy when someone says it about Federer?

It Must Be Love wrote:Wait, when did I say Federer was fortunate to be number 1...?
]

No, you just invalidated the achievement by saying it isn't mean he was the best anyway.

bogbrush wrote:Hey Murdoch, when I say one thing I say it straight; I don't try to hide behind half hearted compliments.

I'm not 100% sure that proves anything.

bogbrush wrote:
Djokovic did indeed benefit from Federers mono in 2008. He has also benefitted from Federer ageing. These are facts.

Ok. Interesting.

bogbrush wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:Wait, when did I say Federer was fortunate to be number 1...?
]

No, you just invalidated the achievement by saying it isn't mean he was the best anyway.

Well I think that applies to all cases, not just in the last few years (that we have to analyse before reaching a conclusion rather than just reading off the stats). I don't see the YE number 1 as the best of the year, although I do more often than not.

HM Murdoch wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Hey, when I say one thing I say it straight; I don't try to hide behind half hearted compliments. And even then I don't make the mistake you do.

Djokovic did indeed benefit from Federers mono in 2008. He has also benefitted from Federer ageing. These are facts.

Do these make him lucky? No, he has had other things go aginst him.

Federer did indeed benefit from Novak and Rafa burning out after USO 2011. This is a fact.

Yet when Lydian said this the other day, emancipator went nuts and you said it was just another weak are thread concentrated on Fed's spell at number 1.

Why is it a fact when you say it about Djokovic but an insult or a conspiracy when someone say it about Federer?

When you say it makes him lucky.

Oh, and Djokovic didn't burn out. He suffered some injury from pushing his body harder than he could take. He was back looking great by the Summer of 2012, only losing in the Slams to Nadal at RG and Federer at Wimbledon, matchups he's never won before.

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:Wait, when did I say Federer was fortunate to be number 1...?
]

No, you just invalidated the achievement by saying it isn't mean he was the best anyway.

Well I think that applies to all cases, not just in the last few years (that we have to analyse before reaching a conclusion rather than just reading off the stats). I don't see the YE number 1 as the best of the year, although I do more often than not.

A statement so flexible as to leave endless room for manoeuvre.

Wait, you don't think Fed's mono in AO 2008 made Djokovic lucky??

That makes no sense considering you've said this before:

Djokovic did indeed benefit from Federers mono in 2008.

he sneaked past a mono-stricken Federer in 2008

It Must Be Love wrote:Wait, when did I say Federer was fortunate to be number 1...?

Wait, when have I typically twisted a situation by misquoting? You do know what 'typical' means?
Please back up your accusation.

bogbrush wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Hey, when I say one thing I say it straight; I don't try to hide behind half hearted compliments. And even then I don't make the mistake you do.

Djokovic did indeed benefit from Federers mono in 2008. He has also benefitted from Federer ageing. These are facts.

Do these make him lucky? No, he has had other things go aginst him.

Federer did indeed benefit from Novak and Rafa burning out after USO 2011. This is a fact.

Yet when Lydian said this the other day, emancipator went nuts and you said it was just another weak are thread concentrated on Fed's spell at number 1.

Why is it a fact when you say it about Djokovic but an insult or a conspiracy when someone say it about Federer?

When you say it makes him lucky.

Oh, and Djokovic didn't burn out. He suffered some injury from pushing his body harder than he could take. He was back looking great by the Summer of 2012, only losing in the Slams to Nadal at RG and Federer at Wimbledon, matchups he's never won before.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure he did burn out. 13,000 points between January and September, then only 560 points in the remaining 3 tournaments of the year is pretty clear. He was back playing well again by Australia.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:Wait, when did I say Federer was fortunate to be number 1...?

Wait, when have I typically twisted a situation by misquoting? You do know what 'typical' means?
Please back up your accusation.

OK I take back the 'typical' comment, as I have not seen you do that very often.

However I do remember last year somewhere you implied that I thought Federer wasn't a great player, but I reiterated he was.

It Must Be Love wrote:Wait, you don't think Fed's mono in AO 2008 made Djokovic lucky??

That makes no sense considering you've said this before:

Djokovic did indeed benefit from Federers mono in 2008.

he sneaked past a mono-stricken Federer in 2008

Great post IMBL. Exactly, I wish I had a nickel for how many times I heard many fed fans and BB one of them prior to 2011 talking up how Novak was lucky that fed had Mono in 08. Some still make that argument. Although it is interesting that Djokovic's 08 AO win is discounted and has been in the past especially due to fed's mono. But fed is one player and in a slam a player is playing against the whole field, that would be like someone saying Murray's USO win is tainted because Nadal wasn't healthy. The fact remains that it would be highly unlikely without serious injuries to Djoko and Nadal that Fed would have been able to overtake Novak or Nadal for that matter in points. Remember federer had settled very comfortably at the number 3 for some time and it was seen as a two way battle for number 1 with Nadal and Djoko. This is exactly the double standard I am talking about the people who made the mono excuse are somehow upset at my making the torn muscle in the back excuse if you will. If it is ok to chalk up fed's crappy 08 to mono at least in the first half why is it not ok to mention Djoko's torn back muscle in the fall of 2011? Another of the many pro-fed double standards on this site and among the media in general.

HM Murdoch wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Hey, when I say one thing I say it straight; I don't try to hide behind half hearted compliments. And even then I don't make the mistake you do.

Djokovic did indeed benefit from Federers mono in 2008. He has also benefitted from Federer ageing. These are facts.

Do these make him lucky? No, he has had other things go aginst him.

Federer did indeed benefit from Novak and Rafa burning out after USO 2011. This is a fact.

Yet when Lydian said this the other day, emancipator went nuts and you said it was just another weak are thread concentrated on Fed's spell at number 1.

Why is it a fact when you say it about Djokovic but an insult or a conspiracy when someone say it about Federer?

When you say it makes him lucky.

Oh, and Djokovic didn't burn out. He suffered some injury from pushing his body harder than he could take. He was back looking great by the Summer of 2012, only losing in the Slams to Nadal at RG and Federer at Wimbledon, matchups he's never won before.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure he did burn out. 13,000 points between January and September, then only 560 points in the remaining 3 tournaments of the year is pretty clear. He was back playing well again by Australia.

Also he had a poor and disjointed clay court season due to the death of his grandfather and a dodgey clay court in Madrid, then the loss to nadal at th French just stuck with him for a while. These players aren't robots, even a fearsome competitor like Djoko can sometimes take awhile to recover from a tough slam final loss. Especially with all Djoko had riding on it. His performances were bizarre during that mid season just different both to the way he played at the start of the season and to the way he is playing now.

It Must Be Love wrote:Wait, you don't think Fed's mono in AO 2008 made Djokovic lucky??

That makes no sense considering you've said this before:

Djokovic did indeed benefit from Federers mono in 2008.

he sneaked past a mono-stricken Federer in 2008

No, it doesn't make him lucky.

It's how things go. You seem to think there's a rule where everyone gets to play at thir peaks all the time, and when they're not its 'unlucky'. That's computer game thinking, this stuff happens all the time.

The guy who makes #1 is never lucky. To top the rankings over any 12 month period makes him the best player over that period.

socal1976 wrote:
Also he had a poor and disjointed clay court season due to the death of his grandfather and a dodgey clay court in Madrid, then the loss to nadal at th French just stuck with him for a while. These players aren't robots, even a fearsome competitor like Djoko can sometimes take awhile to recover from a tough slam final loss. Especially with all Djoko had riding on it. His performances were bizarre during that mid season just different both to the way he played at the start of the season and to the way he is playing now.

See, this is the problem in a nutshell.

The Wimbledon defeat, dismissed as attributable to to nebulous cause such as the death of a venerable family member months ago, a slippy court that caught some out and a final loss to Nadal at RG (hadn't someone lse recovered from that a few times......?)

But now it's all ok again and we can pretend those defeats weren't caused on the court because the opponent was superior.

Events seem to be malleable; only the conclusion is solid.

bogbrush wrote:

socal1976 wrote:
Also he had a poor and disjointed clay court season due to the death of his grandfather and a dodgey clay court in Madrid, then the loss to nadal at th French just stuck with him for a while. These players aren't robots, even a fearsome competitor like Djoko can sometimes take awhile to recover from a tough slam final loss. Especially with all Djoko had riding on it. His performances were bizarre during that mid season just different both to the way he played at the start of the season and to the way he is playing now.

See, this is the problem in a nutshell.

The Wimbledon defeat, dismissed as attributable to to nebulous cause such as the death of a venerable family member months ago, a slippy court that caught some out and a final loss to Nadal at RG (hadn't someone lse recovered from that a few times......?)

But now it's all ok again and we can pretend those defeats weren't caused on the court because the opponent was superior.

Events seem to be malleable; only the conclusion is solid.

No BB, this is the problem in a nutshell. You take the assertion that Novak wasn't at his best mid-season and construe that as saying that's the only reason Fed won. Here's what we were actually saying:

socal1976 wrote:Well it wasn't meant to be. Roger played great really deserved it. Served so beautifully and played the big points well. Novak did the one thing that he couldn't do to win the match he played sloppy with his forehand behind his serve and usually when he gets broken that is the main issue and it was again today.

socal1976 wrote:it was always going to be tough if Fed served that well. Good performance by him he really has deserved this resurgence. I think it is clear that Annacone has made a big difference in helping keep Fed at the top.

HM Murdoch wrote: Having looked at the match stats, they are surprisingly close but anyone who watched it knows that this was not a close match. Apart from a couple of games, this was on Roger’s racquet from start to finish. Roger was full of attacking intent but I’m struggling to describe Novak’s game.

HM Murdoch wrote:Losses to Rafa at Rome & RG and to Fed at Wimbledon & Cincy may have happened however well Novak played. The losses don't worry me. The tame performances in these matches are becoming are worryingly recurring theme though.

HM Murdoch wrote:Novak's travails at staying at the top for even one year, do put the achievement of Fed's longevity into perspective!

I think it's pretty clear we saw Federer as the superior player. You just seem to be taking any discussion of Novak's form as a slight against Fed.

I don't expect you to change your view as I think you've decided you are annoyed, you're just looking for a reason exactly why.

But at least everyone else can now see what was really being said.

No, in this thread you handily always slip in the "only", allowing you to make the excuse and claim still to give credit. It's a neat trick but fairly obvious.

What's said before has no bearing on the claims in this thread. It's no surprise it's contradictory.

bogbrush wrote:No, in this thread you handily always slip in the "only", allowing you to make the excuse and claim still to give credit. It's a neat trick but fairly obvious.

What's said before has no bearing on the claims in this thread. It's no surprise it's contradictory.

What drivel. You made this claim about excuses being made back on 1st November in the "Last of Federer at number 1" thread and you were calling people "idiots" back on the 8th November. So this has nothing to do with the subsequent claims on this thread.

As far as I can tell, and your argument seems to be morphing, but you outright reject the idea that a drop in form from an opponent can work to a players advantage. Anyone who thinks it can is an idiot.

I think we're done here.

Ooh, you've put your foot down, and with a post that doesn't make sense. The excuses were coming before I made my observations.

It Must Be Love wrote:.................................................................................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................
I don't see the YE number 1 as the best of the year, although I do more often than not.

IMBL - as one who enjoyed immensely reading your 'Weekly Series' (final edition was September sadly, but do hope they return sometime, and at same standard....), I'm perplexed that you can then come up what seems like such an oddball statement. I must say it put me in mind of our fictional friend from 'Little Britain,' none other than teenager Vicky Pollard, and her "yeah-but-no-but-yeah-but" catchphrase.

Personally I've always been a firm believer in the 'points don't lie' school of thought. If one starts talking about illnesses, injuries, drop in form, burn-out, emotional damage etc etc..... then you're swiftly into a parallel world of could have been/should have been/might have been/what-ifs......

Which is fine as far as opinion, speculation, and debate goes ; but a whole lot different from fact.

I'm struggling to think of any Y/E Number Ones who - since the system began back in the seventies - didn't actually get there by virtue of being the best player of the year and thus fully deserving it. Without qualification.

Would you care to name any specific players who finished the year as No. 1, but who - for whatever reason - you consider were not the best player(s) of the year ....??
I'm genuinely interested to know, it might even clear up my sense of puzzlement.

Wozniacki 2011
Wozniacki 2010

For starters.

Oh come on IMBL, you do yourself an injustice.

We're on the men's game fair & square, it's what the whole debate has been about, you know it and everyone else knows it. Who was the last person to mention a female player in all of this...?

You can do better, surely....?

I think I could use a better example to show what I mean though (i.e. stats vs analysis).

Let me use an example against Nadal, so no one can accuse me of bias.

Nadal has won 7 Grand Slams in French Open? Is it more then any other player?
Yes, those are both correct stats.

So therefore must Nadal be the best player on clay of all time?
No, not necessarily.
We can analyse the stats and come to a subjective conclusion for this, based on this record, but we are also allowed to look at other factors such as W/L ratio, level of competition etc.
If you know about tennis, and are balanced, then you are in the best position to analyse, and can reach a conclusion which forms your opinion.

lags72 wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:.................................................................................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................
I don't see the YE number 1 as the best of the year, although I do more often than not.

IMBL - as one who enjoyed immensely reading your 'Weekly Series' (final edition was September sadly, but do hope they return sometime, and at same standard....), I'm perplexed that you can then come up what seems like such an oddball statement. I must say it put me in mind of our fictional friend from 'Little Britain,' none other than teenager Vicky Pollard, and her "yeah-but-no-but-yeah-but" catchphrase.

Personally I've always been a firm believer in the 'points don't lie' school of thought. If one starts talking about illnesses, injuries, drop in form, burn-out, emotional damage etc etc..... then you're swiftly into a parallel world of could have been/should have been/might have been/what-ifs......

Which is fine as far as opinion, speculation, and debate goes ; but a whole lot different from fact.

I'm struggling to think of any Y/E Number Ones who - since the system began back in the seventies - didn't actually get there by virtue of being the best player of the year and thus fully deserving it. Without qualification.

Would you care to name any specific players who finished the year as No. 1, but who - for whatever reason - you consider were not the best player(s) of the year ....??
I'm genuinely interested to know, it might even clear up my sense of puzzlement.

Indeed, and what goes for the y/e applies to the momentary #1; it's measured over the same full calendar (other than those oddball times when dates change).

lags72 wrote:Oh come on IMBL, you do yourself an injustice.

We're on the men's game fair & square, it's what the whole debate has been about, you know it and everyone else knows it. Who was the last person to mention a female player in all of this...?

You can do better, surely....?

The rankings on the men and women side are pretty similar. What makes men different in that regard??
I made my point about tennis in general, I see no reason why my belief wouldn't apply to both ATP and WTA.

It Must Be Love wrote:I think I could use a better example to show what I mean though (i.e. stats vs analysis).

Let me use an example against Nadal, so no one can accuse me of bias.

Nadal has won 7 Grand Slams in French Open? Is it more then any other player?
Yes, those are both correct stats.

So therefore must Nadal be the best player on clay of all time?
No, not necessarily.
We can analyse the stats and come to a subjective conclusion for this, based on this record, but we are also allowed to look at other factors such as W/L ratio, level of competition etc.
If you know about tennis, and are balanced, then you are in the best position to analyse, and can reach a conclusion which forms your opinion.

What points system is used to calculate best clay player of all time?

So far as I know it isn't RG wins, so this is a false argument you're making; you're deposing a measurement that doesn't exist.

bogbrush wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:I think I could use a better example to show what I mean though (i.e. stats vs analysis).

Let me use an example against Nadal, so no one can accuse me of bias.

Nadal has won 7 Grand Slams in French Open? Is it more then any other player?
Yes, those are both correct stats.

So therefore must Nadal be the best player on clay of all time?
No, not necessarily.
We can analyse the stats and come to a subjective conclusion for this, based on this record, but we are also allowed to look at other factors such as W/L ratio, level of competition etc.
If you know about tennis, and are balanced, then you are in the best position to analyse, and can reach a conclusion which forms your opinion.

What points system is used to calculate best clay player of all time?

So far as I know it isn't RG wins, so this is a false argument you're making; you're deposing a measurement that doesn't exist.

Well it was another example... not exactly the same of course.
There was a 'points system' for Wozniacki in 2010 and 2011 too, but I still reached different conclusions as to who was the best player in that year.

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:I think I could use a better example to show what I mean though (i.e. stats vs analysis).

Let me use an example against Nadal, so no one can accuse me of bias.

Nadal has won 7 Grand Slams in French Open? Is it more then any other player?
Yes, those are both correct stats.

So therefore must Nadal be the best player on clay of all time?
No, not necessarily.
We can analyse the stats and come to a subjective conclusion for this, based on this record, but we are also allowed to look at other factors such as W/L ratio, level of competition etc.
If you know about tennis, and are balanced, then you are in the best position to analyse, and can reach a conclusion which forms your opinion.

What points system is used to calculate best clay player of all time?

So far as I know it isn't RG wins, so this is a false argument you're making; you're deposing a measurement that doesn't exist.

Well it was another example... not exactly the same of course.
There was a 'points system' for Wozniacki in 2010 and 2011 too, but I still reached different conclusions as to who was the best player in that year.

It was an example of something irrelevant.

Not the same indeed, because you invented a spurious ranking system then knocked it down. Well done.

Hey, no need for sarcasm BB

OK perhaps my example was not similar to YE1, but it was with my theme of stats vs analysis.

My 'ranking' argument still stands though, I don't always see the player who ends the year number 1 as the best player that year.
In the men's side in the past few years I would say I do (agree), but not on the women's.
Generally I do, but the point is I don't have to, I can analyse other factors as well to form my opinion.

It Must Be Love wrote:Hey, no need for sarcasm BB

OK perhaps my example was not similar to YE1, but it was with my theme of stats vs analysis.

It was a weak example though Amrit, that's my point.

As for the WTA, there's the special case that they have top players who just not play half the time. That's not the case with the guys, other than Rafa now, who wasn't in contention for #1 before he stopped.

bogbrush wrote:
It was a weak example though Amrit, that's my point.

It was different to rankings, fair enough.
It was to do with my theme of analysing the stats though.

bogbrush wrote:
As for the WTA, there's the special case that they have top players who just not play half the time. That's not the case with the guys, other than Rafa now, who wasn't in contention for #1 before he stopped.

No I even feel Kvitova/Sharapova and others were the best players that year. (and they played quite a lot).

IMBL : How about we just get back on main topic rather than spurious clay court only stuff, and the women's game etc etc.

Specific examples are always good whenever seemingly-vague assertions are questioned.

And with that in mind.....I'm just looking for one name, just one, where we can confidently say (with a reasoned, factual explanation of course) that the Y/E Number One man was not the best player of the year.

You've a pretty good spread to choose from, dating way back to 1975*.

*correction : I believe it was actually 1973

Why am I not allowed to talk about females?
Anyway I do have to go to Greenwhich now, when I come back this evening I'll go through it (and analyse the men's side).