Big Four Dominance - a visual depiction (through 2015)

[Front242]

Rafa has more than enough of his own needles :snicker

 

[Fiero425]

I created a chart that depicts what I call "big tournaments" - Slams, the WTF, and Masters in sizes relative to their importance. I colored in the titles won by members of the so-called Big Four, going back to the first big tournament won by Roger Federer in 2002.

Take a look:



This displays how dominant Novak has been since 2011, but especially the last couple years. It also shows how weak Nadal has been the last two years, and Federer for three years now.

I have a little formula of "Dominance Shares" that gives 14 points per Slam, 8 points for the WTF, and 4 pts each for Masters - for a total of 100 possible points. Novak finishes the year at 74, which is the highest dominance share in Open Era history - better even that Rod Laver's 1969 (68) or Roger Federer's 2006 (66).

One more thing. If we define Roger's and Rafa's prime years as the span of multi-Slam years, we come up with 2004-09 for Roger and 2008-13 for Rafa - in both cases, six years. If the same holds true for Novak, 2016 would be his sixth and last prime year. Kind of makes sense to me.

Came across this on another site:

People have been speaking of a current big 4 for a number of years. What about in the past?

I'd be interested in people's thoughts. These are just initial thoughts - open to feedback and changes.

1920's Tilden, Cochet, Lacoste, Kozeluh (he won many pro championships)
1930's Vines, Perry, Budge, Von Cramm (special mention of Nusslein)
1940's Budge, Riggs, Kramer, ??
1950's Gonzales, Sedgman, Rosewall, Hoad
1960's Laver, Rosewall, Emerson, ??
1970's Newcombe, Nastase, Connors, Borg (special mention of Smith)
1980's Lendl, McEnroe, Becker, Wilander (special mention of Edberg)
1990's Sampras, Agassi, Courier, ??
2000's Federer, Nadal, Hewitt, Kuerten
2010's Djokovic, Nadal, Federer, Murray

=====

I don't think "Big 4" is a concept that applies most of the time. I was looking for some scientific method to determine most dominant players every season that used objective criteria rather than "impressions" and that would reward BOTH domination and consistency in the main events and I came up with: players winning 3+ tier 1 over a season (with the exception of just 2 being 2 slams or 1 slam + WTF). When the lead player won more than twice the # of tier 1 as 2nd best, I gave the season to that one player only. With this system, I never came up with 4 dominant players over a season, maximum was always 3.

2015: Djokovic
2014: Djokovic
2013: Nadal/Djokovic
2012: Djokovic/Federer/Nadal
2011: Djokovic
2010: Nadal/Federer
2009: Federer/Nadal
2008: Nadal/Djokovic
2007: Federer/Nadal
2006: Federer
2005: Federer/Nadal
2004: Federer
2003: Ferrero/Roddick/Federer
2002: Hewitt/Agassi
2001: Kuerten/Agassi/Hewitt
2000: Kuerten/Safin
1999: Agassi/Sampras
1998: Rafter/Rios
1997: Sampras
1996: Sampras
1995: Sampras/Agassi/Muster
1994: Sampras/Agassi
1993: Sampras/Courier/Stich
1992: Courier
1991: Courier
1990: Edberg
1989: Lendl/Becker
1988: Wilander/Becker/Lendl
1987: Lendl/Edberg
1986: Lendl/Becker
1985: Lendl/McEnroe
1984: McEnroe
1983: McEnroe/Wilander
1982: Lendl/McEnroe/Connors
1981: McEnroe/Lendl
1980: Borg
1979: Borg
1978: Borg/McEnroe
1977: Vilas/Borg
1976: Connors
1975: Orantes
1974: Connors/Borg
1973: Nastase/Newcombe/Connors
1972: Nastase/Smith
1969 & '70: Laver

 

[GameSetAndMath]

If you really want to "scientifically" group like players together from the raw data, there is a whole field of science devoted to it. It is called "clustering".

 

[El Dude]

Interesting stuff, Fiero. There's another, simpler, way to assess dominance and consistency, and that is the year-end rankings. Now you are talking about the main events and some players (ahem, Ferrer, ahem) pad their point totals with tons of lesser events played and won. This is why I came up with "Dominance Shares" because it implies that ATP 250 and 500 wins don't count towards dominance, only the bigger tournaments do.

Maybe I'll do a post or even a blog about Dominance Shares, do a fun little chart.

 

[the AntiPusher]

I created a chart that depicts what I call "big tournaments" - Slams, the WTF, and Masters in sizes relative to their importance. I colored in the titles won by members of the so-called Big Four, going back to the first big tournament won by Roger Federer in 2002.

Take a look:



This displays how dominant Novak has been since 2011, but especially the last couple years. It also shows how weak Nadal has been the last two years, and Federer for three years now.

I have a little formula of "Dominance Shares" that gives 14 points per Slam, 8 points for the WTF, and 4 pts each for Masters - for a total of 100 possible points. Novak finishes the year at 74, which is the highest dominance share in Open Era history - better even that Rod Laver's 1969 (68) or Roger Federer's 2006 (66).

One more thing. If we define Roger's and Rafa's prime years as the span of multi-Slam years, we come up with 2004-09 for Roger and 2008-13 for Rafa - in both cases, six years. If the same holds true for Novak, 2016 would be his sixth and last prime year. Kind of makes sense to me.

Came across this on another site:

People have been speaking of a current big 4 for a number of years. What about in the past?

I'd be interested in people's thoughts. These are just initial thoughts - open to feedback and changes.

1920's Tilden, Cochet, Lacoste, Kozeluh (he won many pro championships)
1930's Vines, Perry, Budge, Von Cramm (special mention of Nusslein)
1940's Budge, Riggs, Kramer, ??
1950's Gonzales, Sedgman, Rosewall, Hoad
1960's Laver, Rosewall, Emerson, ??
1970's Newcombe, Nastase, Connors, Borg (special mention of Smith)
1980's Lendl, McEnroe, Becker, Wilander (special mention of Edberg)
1990's Sampras, Agassi, Courier, ??
2000's Federer, Nadal, Hewitt, Kuerten
2010's Djokovic, Nadal, Federer, Murray

=====

I don't think "Big 4" is a concept that applies most of the time. I was looking for some scientific method to determine most dominant players every season that used objective criteria rather than "impressions" and that would reward BOTH domination and consistency in the main events and I came up with: players winning 3+ tier 1 over a season (with the exception of just 2 being 2 slams or 1 slam + WTF). When the lead player won more than twice the # of tier 1 as 2nd best, I gave the season to that one player only. With this system, I never came up with 4 dominant players over a season, maximum was always 3.

2015: Djokovic
2014: Djokovic
2013: Nadal/Djokovic
2012: Djokovic/Federer/Nadal
2011: Djokovic
2010: Nadal/Federer
2009: Federer/Nadal
2008: Nadal/Djokovic
2007: Federer/Nadal
2006: Federer
2005: Federer/Nadal
2004: Federer
2003: Ferrero/Roddick/Federer
2002: Hewitt/Agassi
2001: Kuerten/Agassi/Hewitt
2000: Kuerten/Safin
1999: Agassi/Sampras
1998: Rafter/Rios
1997: Sampras
1996: Sampras
1995: SamFieropras/Agassi/Muster
1994: Sampras/Agassi
1993: Sampras/Courier/Stich
1992: Courier
1991: Courier
1990: Edberg
1989: Lendl/Becker
1988: Wilander/Becker/Lendl
1987: Lendl/Edberg
1986: Lendl/Becker
1985: Lendl/McEnroe
1984: McEnroe
1983: McEnroe/Wilander
1982: Lendl/McEnroe/Connors
1981: McEnroe/Lendl
1980: Borg
1979: Borg
1978: Borg/McEnroe
1977: Vilas/Borg
1976: Connors
1975: Orantes
1974: Connors/Borg
1973: Nastase/Newcombe/Connors
1972: Nastase/Smith
1969 & '70: Laver

fiero, was a Djokovic Federer site that you got this list or was it created by yourself. 2008, 2010 and 2013 should just have Rafa 's name only. Those years he should have garner more points by winning the grand slams , IMO

 

[Kieran]

I don't know how to read that either. Rios in 1998, and no Sampras? I like 1995 though: "SamFieropras" :laydownlaughing

 

[El Dude]

fiero, was a Djokovic Federer site that you got this list or was it created by yourself. 2008, 2010 and 2013 should just have Rafa 's name only. Those years he should have garner more points by winning the grand slams , IMO

His list is based upon those players who won 3 or more "main events," by which I think he means Slams, WTF, and Masters. And in that case he's right - Novak won a Slam, the WTF, and three Masters, so five in total. I believe the ITF actually gave the 2013 world champion title to Novak, who accrued more ATP ranking points at Slams than Rafa (W, F, F, SF = 5120, vs. W, W, 1R, A = 4035). I don't agree with Novak being the champion as Rafa had the more dominant year, but it points out that the gap between the two wasn't huge that year.

 

[Fiero425]

fiero, was a Djokovic Federer site that you got this list or was it created by yourself. 2008, 2010 and 2013 should just have Rafa 's name only. Those years he should have garner more points by winning the grand slams , IMO

His list is based upon those players who won 3 or more "main events," by which I think he means Slams, WTF, and Masters. And in that case he's right - Novak won a Slam, the WTF, and three Masters, so five in total. I believe the ITF actually gave the 2013 world champion title to Novak, who accrued more ATP ranking points at Slams than Rafa (W, F, F, SF = 5120, vs. W, W, 1R, A = 4035). I don't agree with Novak being the champion as Rafa had the more dominant year, but it points out that the gap between the two wasn't huge that year.

The site is "Talk Tennis" and sometimes it's looks like a homage to Federer and Djokovic, but the info is "keyed" and accurate for the most part! I too noticed Rafa had the more dominant 2013, but Nole was more consistent in the majors obviously; maybe every semi and quarter for so many times it eludes me! uzzled :nono :cover :ras:

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_men%27s_Grand_Slam,_Olympic_and_ATP_Tour_Finals_and_Masters_Series_singles_champions -

 

[amicitia81]

"2015: The climax of Novak Djokovic". An article summarizing the season of the Serbian, the Big-4 and the future promises of world tennis by thetennisbase. www.thetennisbase.com/?enlace=noticias&accion=detalle&codigo=1051

 

[the AntiPusher]

fiero, was a Djokovic Federer site that you got this list or was it created by yourself. 2008, 2010 and 2013 should just have Rafa 's name only. Those years he should have garner more points by winning the grand slams , IMO

His list is based upon those players who won 3 or more "main events," by which I think he means Slams, WTF, and Masters. And in that case he's right - Novak won a Slam, the WTF, and three Masters, so five in total. I believe the ITF actually gave the 2013 world champion title to Novak, who accrued more ATP ranking points at Slams than Rafa (W, F, F, SF = 5120, vs. W, W, 1R, A = 4035). I don't agree with Novak being the champion as Rafa had the more dominant year, but it points out that the gap between the two wasn't huge that year.

The site is "Talk Tennis" and sometimes it's looks like a homage to Federer and Djokovic, but the info is "keyed" and accurate for the most part! I too noticed Rafa had the more dominant 2013, but Nole was more consistent in the majors obviously; maybe every semi and quarter for so many times it eludes me! uzzled :nono :cover :ras:

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_men%27s_Grand_Slam,_Olympic_and_ATP_Tour_Finals_and_Masters_Series_singles_champions -

Fiero, Nothing is more important or consistent as capturing major GS championships as Rafa did in 2010, 2013 . I can't see your point

 

[Fiero425]

His list is based upon those players who won 3 or more "main events," by which I think he means Slams, WTF, and Masters. And in that case he's right - Novak won a Slam, the WTF, and three Masters, so five in total. I believe the ITF actually gave the 2013 world champion title to Novak, who accrued more ATP ranking points at Slams than Rafa (W, F, F, SF = 5120, vs. W, W, 1R, A = 4035). I don't agree with Novak being the champion as Rafa had the more dominant year, but it points out that the gap between the two wasn't huge that year.

The site is "Talk Tennis" and sometimes it's looks like a homage to Federer and Djokovic, but the info is "keyed" and accurate for the most part! I too noticed Rafa had the more dominant 2013, but Nole was more consistent in the majors obviously; maybe every semi and quarter for so many times it eludes me! uzzled :nono :cover :ras:

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_men%27s_Grand_Slam,_Olympic_and_ATP_Tour_Finals_and_Masters_Series_singles_champions -

Fiero, Nothing is more important or consistent as capturing major GS championships as Rafa did in 2010, 2013 . I can't see your point

No point actually! Just musing about a player with more ATP points, but another one given ITF supremacy due to better results at the majors! I had forgotten that happened to poor Rafa! :angel: :dodgy: :ras:

 

[El Dude]

Fiero, Nothing is more important or consistent as capturing major GS championships as Rafa did in 2010, 2013 . I can't see your point

There are a couple things here, which you may be missing.

1. The list Fiero provided was not about the best player, but those who won three big events (Slams, WTF, Masters). In 2013, Nadal won 7 and Djokovic 5 so both are no the list. As far as I can tell, no one is disputing that Rafa deserved the #1 ranking in 2013.

2. Novak's Slam results in 2013 were overall more consistent that Rafa's. Yes, Rafa has the two titles but he missed one Slam and went out in the 1R of another, thus he was essentially a non-factor in half of the Slams. Novak, on the other hand, was a factor in all four Slams: winning one, making the final of two others, and the SF of another. I'm sure Novak would have rather had the two titles, but that's not the point Fiero was making - he was talking about consistency.

3. The ITF did actually give its world champion title to Novak in 2013, presumably because they liked his more consistent results at the Slams, and possibly because he won the WTF.

 

[Backhand_DTL]

3. The ITF did actually give its world champion title to Novak in 2013, presumably because they liked his more consistent results at the Slams, and possibly because he won the WTF.

The ITF uses a formula which gives more weight to the ITF events (Grand Slams+Davis Cup) to determine the winner of that award. So Novak's point gain in comparison to Rafa by using the formula was bigger than the difference between them in ATP ranking points at the end of 2013.

But it's probably quite a rare occassion, that the year end No. 1 does not win the ITF world champion title as well.

 

[Fiero425]

3. The ITF did actually give its world champion title to Novak in 2013, presumably because they liked his more consistent results at the Slams, and possibly because he won the WTF.

The ITF uses a formula which gives more weight to the ITF events (Grand Slams + Davis Cup) to determine the winner of that award. So Novak's point gain in comparison to Rafa by using the formula was bigger than the difference between them in ATP ranking points at the end of 2013.

But it's probably quite a rare occasion, that the year end #1 does not win the ITF World Champion title as well.

I loved it; showed his limitations and shortcomings! Nadal's one of the greats due to his FO streak for the most part! Other players have had more than 1; Borg at FO & Wimbledon, Federer at Wimbledon & USO, Lendl at FO & USO, and McEnroe at Wimbledon & USO! :angel: :dodgy:

 

[GameSetAndMath]

No, ITF does not use any formula. The ITF may award the title of World Champion to players who, in the opinion of the Board of Directors, are the most outstanding players in any one-year.

However, the BOD usually give more weight to ITF events viz., GS, DC, FC and HC.

 

[Fiero425]

No, ITF does not use any formula. The ITF may award the title of World Champion to players who, in the opinion of the Board of Directors, are the most outstanding players in any one-year.

However, the BOD usually give more weight to ITF events viz., GS, DC, FC and HC.

They make no secret of that and it makes sense! It wasn't that long ago a tourney was created and run to rival the WTF; "The Grand Slam Cup!" That draw was fully determined by a formula adding total weight to the Slams! IIRC, only one time did it break down where the 8th man didn't make it due to a FO winner Guadio falling down to #9! Agassi was knocked out BTW! :cover uzzled :nono :angel:

 

[Backhand_DTL]

No, ITF does not use any formula. The ITF may award the title of World Champion to players who, in the opinion of the Board of Directors, are the most outstanding players in any one-year.

However, the BOD usually give more weight to ITF events viz., GS, DC, FC and HC.

http://www.itftennis.com/news/163361.aspx

The ITF article which announced Novak as their 2013 world champion called it "an objective system that considers all results during the year, but gives special weight to the Grand Slam tournaments, and two ITF international team competitions, Davis Cup by BNP Paribas and Fed Cup by BNP Paribas"

To me that sounds like some kind of formula is used, but there's no explanation of how it works in detail.

 

[the AntiPusher]

3. The ITF did actually give its world champion title to Novak in 2013, presumably because they liked his more consistent results at the Slams, and possibly because he won the WTF.

The ITF uses a formula which gives more weight to the ITF events (Grand Slams+Davis Cup) to determine the winner of that award. So Novak's point gain in comparison to Rafa by using the formula was bigger than the difference between them in ATP ranking points at the end of 2013.

But it's probably quite a rare occassion, that the year end No. 1 does not win the ITF world champion title as well.

Trust me on this one, the most important title that someone Will remember is the slams

 

[El Dude]

Trust me on this one, the most important title that someone Will remember is the slams

Yes, and? Who is arguing otherwise?

It is also true that Novak's overall performance at Slams in 2013 was more consistent, with more ATP points. One could even argue that he was a better overall Slam performer, or as good but in a different way. Consider that Novak won 10 more Slam matches than Rafa, going 24-3 overall vs. Rafa's 14-1.

Yes, the Slams are the historical trophies but the rankings are about who had the better year, and the two were very close in 2013. I don't agree with the ITF's choice, but it isn't absolutely absurd.