Your predictions for final Big 3 slam tally

[Fiero425]

Lucky? He won 2 slams! He’s been the best player, regardless who ends the season number one…

As some will continue to say; "best player" with an asterisk behind his name since Novak was verbotten to enter 2 countries w/ majors!

 

[Kieran]

As some will continue to say; "best player" with an asterisk behind his name since Novak was verbotten to enter 2 countries w/ majors!

Those “some” you mention? Nut jobs…

 

[El Dude]

Lucky? He won 2 slams! He’s been the best player, regardless who ends the season number one…

Ahh, good old Slam Absolutism...Nadalfan2013, is that you? Unfortunately tennis isn't only about the Slams.

As for Rafa vs Carlos, it reminds me of the question people ask in baseball: Some variation of, would you rather have a pitcher with a 3.00 ERA in 200 innings or 2.50 ERA in 150 innings? Not sure there's a great answer for that.

Meaning, I do agree that if we're looking at who has been the "pound for pound" best player, Rafa edges out Alcaraz. By that same logic, Roger was the best player in 2017, not Rafa; and probably Novak over Andy in 2016. I'm sure we could find other instances.

But in the end, the world number one is based on a formula that also recognizes consistency and the ability to stay healthy as part of it - as it should.

 

[Kieran]

Ahh, good old Slam Absolutism...Nadalfan2013, is that you? Unfortunately tennis isn't only about the Slams.

As for Rafa vs Carlos, it reminds me of the question people ask in baseball: Some variation of, would you rather have a pitcher with a 3.00 ERA in 200 innings or 2.50 ERA in 150 innings? Not sure there's a great answer for that.

Meaning, I do agree that if we're looking at who has been the "pound for pound" best player, Rafa edges out Alcaraz. By that same logic, Roger was the best player in 2017, not Rafa; and probably Novak over Andy in 2016. I'm sure we could find other instances.

But in the end, the world number one is based on a formula that also recognizes consistency and the ability to stay healthy as part of it - as it should.

Absolutely, but most of the time the number one has been the player who did best at the slams. A player can end the season number one and not win a slam - as McEnroe did in 1982 - but was he the best player that year? No, Connors was because he won two slams…

 

[El Dude]

Absolutely, but most of the time the number one has been the player who did best at the slams. A player can end the season number one and not win a slam - as McEnroe did in 1982 - but was he the best player that year? No, Connors was because he won two slams…

That's a particularly strange year, because it wasn't like Mac won a ton of big titles - he won just a single Masters, like Connors. But Mac piled up a ton of points by going deep in everything.

I think YE#1 equates with the clear "best player of the year" about 90% of the time, with 10% questionable. That isn't too bad.

Anyhow, maybe I'll do some research and find the "worst" -- or at least most questionable -- year-end #1 players in ATP history.

 

[Fiero425]

That's a particularly strange year, because it wasn't like Mac won a ton of big titles - he won just a single Masters, like Connors. But Mac piled up a ton of points by going deep in everything.

I think YE#1 equates with the clear "best player of the year" about 90% of the time, with 10% questionable. That isn't too bad.

Anyhow, maybe I'll do some research and find the "worst" -- or at least most questionable -- year-end #1 players in ATP history.

IMO, 2016 should be at the top of the list! Djokovic won 2 Majors, in the final of the USO, and had 4 Masters under his belt! It was a joke #1 came down to YEC! Murray must have gone to every small tourney in the Fall to accumulate enough points to overtake Novak at the end!

 

[El Dude]

IMO, 2016 should be at the top of the list! Djokovic won 2 Majors, in the final of the USO, and had 4 Masters under his belt! It was a joke #1 came down to YEC! Murray must have gone to every small tourney in the Fall to accumulate enough points to overtake Novak at the end!

Yet Novak lost the YEC to Andy...so in a way, Andy earned it.

 

[El Dude]

I think 2016 is a great example of how a deeper look beyond just Slam count, paints a different picture.

Novak: 2 GS, 4 Masters, 1 ATP 250, 88% W-L (65-9)
Andy: 1 GS, WTF, Olympics Gold, 3 Masters, 3 ATP 500, 90% W-L (78-9)

As you can see, Andy's three ATP 500s made a difference - they had the same number of losses but Andy had 13 more match wins.

But more importantly, it is also a matter of the course of the year - and this is where I don't think it was undeserving. In fact, it was an epic achievement from Andy. Going into October, Novak was #1 with 14040 points, 4695 points ahead of Andy with 9345. One would think Novak could coast to #1, but consider October-November:

1. Andy wins Beijing, Novak doesn't defend his title. +500 Andy, -500 Novak. Meaning, with that one ATP 500, Andy added a 1000 point swing.
2. Andy wins Shanghai, Novak loses to Bautista Agut in the SF. Andy adds +640, Novak loses -640. Another 1280 point swing.
3. Andy wins Vienna, adds 500 points; Novak doesn't play. Now it is at 12900 Novak, 10985 Andy....still almost 2000 points.
4. Andy wins Paris, Novak loses in QF. Andy adds +400, Novak -820, so before WTF points come off, it is Novak 12080, Andy 11385.
5. WTF points come off: -1300 Novak, -200 Andy. Points are 10780 Novak, 11185 Andy.

Meaning, Andy won his last five tournaments - including two Masters and the WTF, which Novak had won previously. Novak didn't defend any of them. Andy played his ass off to get a chance at the year-end #1, and Novak had a chance to stop him, but he didn't.

It was the ultimate Andy win: he outlasted his opponent. The tortoise won.

 

[Kieran]

Yet Novak lost the YEC to Andy...so in a way, Andy earned it.

Well, somehow the system worked in his favour, but Novak was clearly the best player in 2016. He completed the Novak Slam that year, his achievements were far greater than Andy’s…

 

[Fiero425]

Meaning, I think 2016 is a great example of how a deeper look beyond just Slam count, paints a different picture.

Novak: 2 GS, 4 Masters, 1 ATP 250, 88% W-L (65-9)
Andy: 1 GS, WTF, Olympics Gold, 3 Masters, 3 ATP 500, 90% W-L (78-9)

As you can see, Andy's three ATP 500s made the difference - they had the same number of losses but Andy had 13 more match wins. But it is also a matter of the course of the year - and this is where I don't think it was undeserving. Andy won Shanghai, Paris, and the WTF - meaning, the last three big tournaments of the year. He played his ass off to get a chance at the year-end #1, and Novak had a chance to stop him, but he didn't.

It was the ultimate Andy win: he outlasted his opponent. The tortoise won.

Looking back, the big difference was Novak losing match to 1 of his many pigeons in Paris QF; Cilic! Marin then went on to lose to Isner!

 

[El Dude]

Well, somehow the system worked in his favour, but Novak was clearly the best player in 2016. He completed the Novak Slam that year, his achievements were far greater than Andy’s…

Look at my edited post. You're looking at the season as if it is a static thing. There is also a narrative - an unfolding. Andy worked the system; Novak had several chances to stop him, but didn't defend any of those last three big titles.

So it is a combination of Andy playing perfectly those last two months, and Novak choking. I think it is a well-deserved #1, and really one of the most remarkable achievements in recent history.

 

[El Dude]

Looking back, the big difference was Novak losing match to 1 of his many pigeons in Paris QF; Cilic! Marin then went on to lose to Isner!

Again, he didn't defend any of those last three big titles, and Andy won all three. Novak choked, and Andy took advantage and played the best tennis of his career - arguably ending his career to do so.

 

[Fiero425]

Again, he didn't defend any of those last three big titles, and Andy won all three. Novak choked, and Andy took advantage and played the best tennis of his career - arguably ending his career to do so.

I'm glad you said it! That was the beginning of the end of Murray overplaying like that! He was finished, done, caput after that! Did it to himself!

 

[Jelenafan]

Ahh, good old Slam Absolutism...Nadalfan2013, is that you? Unfortunately tennis isn't only about the Slams

Just so weird to hear Federites say that now, when the cult of his Total Majors record was so ingrained for years…

 

[Fiero425]

Just so weird to hear Federites say that now, when the cult of his Total Majors record was so ingrained for years…

It took Sampras decades to break Emerson's rec. & just over 8 for Fed to break Sampras'! Who'd think 2 other players would overtake them all?

 

[Kieran]

It took Sampras decades to break Emerson's rec. & just over 8 for Fed to break Sampras'! Who'd think 2 other players would overtake them all?

In fairness, I don’t think anyone was trying to break Emersons record until Pete decided to. Borg could have sleepwalked by it if it was considered to be a thing back then, but as you know, it wasn’t…

 

[Fiero425]

In fairness, I don’t think anyone was trying to break Emersons record until Pete decided to. Borg could have sleepwalked by it if it was considered to be a thing back then, but as you know, it wasn’t…

There are a few new things that's happened in the last 20-50 yrs. of tennis! Besides the TB becoming a staple, terms like CGS were created! Since Graf successfully completed her CYGS, the Martina-Slam, Serena-Slam, & Nole-Slam aren't taken seriously even though no one else has been able to accomplish it!

 

[Kieran]

There are a few new things that's happened in the last 20-50 yrs. of tennis! Besides the TB becoming a staple, terms like CGS were created! Since Graf successfully completed her CYGS, the Martina-Slam, Serena-Slam, & Nole-Slam aren't taken seriously even though no one else has been able to accomplish it!

Yeah, I think Agassi originated the career slam? And I agree, the Martina slam included six slams in a row. Martina’s loss against Sukova in 1984 still hurts as much as Borg’s defeat to McEnroe in New York in 1980. Serena and Novak both held all four at one stage and also both came so close to winning the CYGS. So many epic achievements by great players, we’re fortunate to witness them..

 

[Moxie]

As some will continue to say; "best player" with an asterisk behind his name since Novak was verbotten to enter 2 countries w/ majors!

You need to stop with the "asterisk." You know how many majors Djokovic has won with Nadal absent? Two, even though Nadal has missed 7 since 2012. How many has Nadal won with Djokovic absent? One. How many has Novak missed since 2012? Only 3. I don't see anyone putting an asterisk on the ones that Nadal, or for that matter, Roger missed. Novak had the ability to play those majors and he chose not to, for his own reasons. No asterisk.

 

[Moxie]

Again, he didn't defend any of those last three big titles, and Andy won all three. Novak choked, and Andy took advantage and played the best tennis of his career - arguably ending his career to do so.

Fiero loves this line of thinking, but I disagree. Murray's injury in early 2017 was elbow, I think. He's had hip issues since early 20s, by all accounts. I do not believe that Murray's hip issues were from making a run in the last months of 2016 and getting to #1. He has osteoarthritis. That takes a long time to become a problem.