The best players, how do you define it?

Talk about anything related to the ATP and WTA tours.

The best players, how do you define it?

Postby Corbon » Sun, 23 Sep 2012 09:25

Inspired by Tennis Channels controversial Top 100 list, I wonder what people here think are the most important aspects for a player to be rated. To make things easier, let's ignore the pre-Open Tennis period, I mean what's the value of winning 7 Wimbledons while being automatically qualified for the next final after each victory. Or how important is winning 10 GS during a period when the strongest players were absent? Worthless.

Grand Slam performances
Probably the most important aspect. Number of wins, finals and general performance in the 4 Slams. This is where players may be remembered the most.

Overall tournament performances
Overall number of wins and finals and also a breakdown between Slams, Masters titles, YEC's and performances on different surfaces.

Ranking
Another important aspect, what was the player's highest ranking, how many weeks at No. 1, year end No. 1's, weeks in the top 10, etc. This is also where players will be strongly remembered.

Doubles performances
This should only be thrown in as a "kicker", to complement your singles performances or to put some player over another one if other things being nearly equal (e.g. Bryans rule doubles but can't win crap in singles).

Head-to-Head
What was the competition like, did it include several other great players, winning record against said players etc.

Arbitraty stuff
Youngest ever, oldest ever, first ever, winning streaks, etc.

---

Now comparing one criteria to another one can be tricky. For example how important is being No. 1 without winning a GS compared to winning a Slam but never being No. 1? How important is winning 2 Masters titles compared to reaching 1 GS final? Number of weeks at No. 1 compared to number of GS titles. And so on.
User avatar
Corbon
 
Posts: 1735
Joined: Sun, 27 Nov 2011 23:37
Location: Germany

Re: The best players, how do you define it?

Postby ICEMAN_9588 » Sun, 23 Sep 2012 18:55

I think overall tournaments performances includes GS.
Think about Federer in 2010 or 2011: great exploits in indoor seasons, he won Bercy, Basel (twice), Masters Cup (twice), but only one Slam and one final in 2 years, which is a sort of "shame" for a player like him.

Nadal before, and then Djokovic too, at the contrary, were able to win Grand Slams besides Master 1000 and 500.
Which is the same thing Federer did when he used to dominate tennis in 2004-2007.

Now, if when you say "the best player" you mean "number 1", I think it requires continuity in every tournament. To be on top, you got to be competitive in each single World Tour event.
And that's beyond technical/physical/tactical characteristics (look at Ferrer for example: best tennis player? Mmm...but he's a fighter, always competitive, great runner, great mentality, so he's number 5).

If you mean "the best tennis player", I think the modern era brought us two highest example of what tennis is today: Nadal and Djokovic perfectly represent the type of game almost all players do on courts.
Just few years ago, the best was the all-around player, but now even the volley playing seems to be useless in order to win a point.
For me, the best player is like this one, someone who can adapt to every situation, to every surface and able to play various game (that drives other monotonous players crazy XD), both on the baseline and at thenet.
In a word: Federer :mrgreen:
ICEMAN_9588
 
Posts: 445
Joined: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 20:49

Re: The best players, how do you define it?

Postby Corbon » Mon, 24 Sep 2012 12:04

I singled out Grand Slam performances because they hold so much more prestige. Next tier would be YEC because it's up 5 matches against the best players and then Masters tournaments and the Olympics being a special tournament.

Lendl one said (after losing the '83 USO) that he would give all of his other tournament wins (he had like 40 at that time) for just one GS win and he has a point. It's hard to value other tournaments against Slams. For example, Murray has 8 Masters titles, would he give all of them away for 4 GS wins? Definitely. Would he give all of them away for 2 GS wins. Probably. How many ATP 500 tournament victories equal 1 GS? 10 or more?

Also I would not put one GS over another.
User avatar
Corbon
 
Posts: 1735
Joined: Sun, 27 Nov 2011 23:37
Location: Germany

Re: The best players, how do you define it?

Postby ICEMAN_9588 » Mon, 24 Sep 2012 14:16

Don't misunderstand me, I agree when you say GS are much more important than other tournaments, but that's in general.
At the end of the day, people will remember Federer winning 7th Wimbledon title or Murray dominating the Olympics? (Ok, probably that's not the best example to bring to an English XD).

But in order to become number one, it's not enough doing well "only" in GS. Anyway it's a logic consequence.
When a player wins one or two (or 3) Slams in a year, he generally plays well also in the other tournaments.
When Nadal won Australian Open in 2009, the he continued with Indian Wells, Montecarlo, Roma, before the injury.

But we have also examples that not always a Slam is enough to stay number one.
Djokovic in 2008 won Australian Open, then Indian Wells, then Rome, but for the rest of the year, until Masters Cup, didn't achieve good results.
Federer started 2010 as number one, won Australian Open, but after that, not a single title until Cincy. And infact, he became number 3.

The question is simple for me. If you want to be considered a real great player, you must succed in Grand Slams. To get more consideration from opponents, and to write your name in history books.
But it's not only about that. It's not the title that makes a player a Champion. It's your mentality when you play the game, it's that will of winning, that "killer instinct". And your attitude on court, the class you show even when you lose.
Considering these thing, I think, for example, that Murray is "still" a great player, but Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, are Champions.
ICEMAN_9588
 
Posts: 445
Joined: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 20:49

Re: The best players, how do you define it?

Postby VMoe86 » Tue, 25 Sep 2012 18:26

Corbon wrote:Ranking
Another important aspect, what was the player's highest ranking, how many weeks at No. 1, year end No. 1's, weeks in the top 10, etc. This is also where players will be strongly remembered.


Just looking at this particular point. I find it overrated. No one looks at "Was number 1 after Wimbledon", but "Was number 1 after WTF/Masters Cup" is considered more important. Federer for instance was number 1 after Wimbledon in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 (six straight years!) and in 2012. It is just arbitrary to look at "Was number 1 after ...". Nadal was number 1 after Roland Garros in 2009, 2010, 2011 is another example, yet he only finished a calendar year twice as number 1. Consecutive weeks at number 1 is the most important one regarding ranking, at least for me. It reflects consistency much better.
User avatar
VMoe86
ITST Manager
 
Posts: 1580
Joined: Sun, 03 Apr 2011 08:46

Re: The best players, how do you define it?

Postby Corbon » Tue, 25 Sep 2012 18:37

Yeah it's rather arbitrary because it doesn't really matter at which cut off point you're No. 1. It's just an inofficial "title" to see who has been the most consistant player of the season. Theoretically you could be a year end No. 1 five times while spending only 30 weeks altogether at the top but keep in mind that the ranking will be carried through the "off-season" in late November and December when there's no way for someone else to challenge it = "free" weeks at No. 1.

In Nole's case 2011 (WTC concluded on 27th).

02.01.2012 - 1
26.12.2011 - 1
19.12.2011 - 1
12.12.2011 - 1
05.12.2011 - 1
28.11.2011 - 1
User avatar
Corbon
 
Posts: 1735
Joined: Sun, 27 Nov 2011 23:37
Location: Germany

Re: The best players, how do you define it?

Postby ICEMAN_9588 » Tue, 25 Sep 2012 23:35

Ranking sometimes is relative.
There's a great italian journalist, Rino Tommasi, who uses to say: "Computer is good in calculation, but he never known about tennis" :mrgreen:

In fact, ranking points breakdown sometimes don't respect the real situation "on court". Yes, after Wimbledon 2008 Federer was still number one, but it was clear to everyone that after the epic final, Nadal had alreadyy overtaken him, even before it was official by the ranking itself.
Other example, Djokovic in 2011. He became number 1 after Wimby, but clearly he dominated the season from the very beginning.
One more great example, women ranking with Safina, Jankovic, Wozniacki as number 1...

Ok, these examples concern few weeks in about 8 years of "dominated" tennis, where the number 1 of the computer is been equivalent to the number 1 of the court.
But just sometimes, computer may be wrong :mrgreen:

PS Sorry for my bad english.
ICEMAN_9588
 
Posts: 445
Joined: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 20:49

Re: The best players, how do you define it?

Postby Corbon » Wed, 26 Sep 2012 09:34

Well this year Serena could've captured the No. 1 position again if she hadn't so many tournaments. Indian Wells (lol), Rogers Cup, doesn't play in Tokyo this week either.

But you can't stay at No. 1 over a longer period by not winning Slams. Unless you're Wozniacki who keeps collecting easy points in small tournaments and fails in all the big ones.
User avatar
Corbon
 
Posts: 1735
Joined: Sun, 27 Nov 2011 23:37
Location: Germany

Re: The best players, how do you define it?

Postby ICEMAN_9588 » Wed, 26 Sep 2012 11:37

Yes, you say you can't, and I do agree.
But anyway, Wozniacki stood as number 1 more than a year!

And the best GS result she could get in this period were just 2 semis in Australia and NY.
So how can you explain that? I think the best answer is: women's tennis general level is going lower and lower, except for Serena and, sometimes, Masha. Because Wozniacki is not the one and only, before her we had Safina and Jankovic.

And even now, Azarenka is a worthy number 1, but at the moment she isn't the best in the world.
So I think this is one of that few times computer gone wrong, just like Rino Tommasi uses to say :mrgreen:
ICEMAN_9588
 
Posts: 445
Joined: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 20:49

Re: The best players, how do you define it?

Postby Corbon » Wed, 26 Sep 2012 15:59

And the best GS result she could get in this period were just 2 semis in Australia and NY.
So how can you explain that?


One answer lies in the different point distribution systems of the ATP and WTA. Let's look at Grand Slams.

Image

As you can see, the WTA awards substantially more points for "losers" in basically every round. Board width cut off, R64 is 45M 100W, R128 is 5M 0W).

The remaining tournaments are grouped in tiers and while there are differences in point distribution (ATP 250, 500, 1000; WTA 280, 470, 900/1000 for wins), they're not as dramatic as in Slams.

Serena has 0 points to defend post-USO, her decision not play at Tokyo this week for example will cost her but apparently she doesn't care about ranking anymore.
User avatar
Corbon
 
Posts: 1735
Joined: Sun, 27 Nov 2011 23:37
Location: Germany

Re: The best players, how do you define it?

Postby ICEMAN_9588 » Thu, 27 Sep 2012 17:22

And she's right if she doesn't care of the ranking anymore.
She had her 31st birthday just yesterday (best wishes, by the way), she has nothing more to prove.

Anyway, your point on female ranking is good. That could be a specific reason of worthless number one in modern tennis.
Tennis today has become very physical, and with this point system, you can be number one (not 2 or 3, or 4, I'm saying number 1) only playing well every tournament.
It could be paradoxical, but it's not enough, today, winning 2 Grand Slams title, if you snub other tournaments.

Is that system fair? Yes, in a general way, cause it's fair for you to be repaied based on how much you play during the year.
Is that system truthful? Not always, as we can see now in female tennis.

Everybody knows that Serena is the best, we don't need to know she won Wimbledon and US Open.
So the point is not about being number one, but being the best one. And that brings me back to the topic's principal request: when I said ranking is relative in order to define the best, I meant that.

The difference between number one and best one.
ICEMAN_9588
 
Posts: 445
Joined: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 20:49


Return to Pro Tennis

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests

cron