Are Djokovic and Nadal co-champions for 2013? - Page 4 - MensTennisForums.com

MensTennisForums.com

MenstennisForums.com is the premier Men's Tennis forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.Please Register - It's Free!

View Poll Results: Should Djokovic and Nadal be regarded as equally best players in 2013?

Yes 21 17.07%
No 95 77.24%
I don't know 7 5.69%
Voters: 123. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread

Old 12-23-2013, 05:37 PM   #46
country flag Ash86
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,632
Ash86 has a reputation beyond reputeAsh86 has a reputation beyond reputeAsh86 has a reputation beyond reputeAsh86 has a reputation beyond reputeAsh86 has a reputation beyond reputeAsh86 has a reputation beyond reputeAsh86 has a reputation beyond reputeAsh86 has a reputation beyond reputeAsh86 has a reputation beyond reputeAsh86 has a reputation beyond reputeAsh86 has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Are Djokovic and Nadal co-champions for 2013?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yolita View Post


You see, this is what I don't get: the complete subjectivity of people's judgements.

Let's check numbers, shall we?

Last year Novak finished the year with 12920 points, Roger with 10265 and Andy with 8000. Novak earned 25.86% (2655/10265) more ranking points than Roger and 61.5% (4920/8000) more ranking points than Andy.

This year Rafa ended the year with 13030 points and Novak with 12260. So Rafa earned 6.28% (8770/12260) more ranking points than Novak. It's the smallest difference between the #1 and the #2 players since Roddick, in 2003, passed Roger by an even smaller margin.

I find it hilarious that people (fans and pundits) who last year were claiming that Novak hadn't dominated enough to be considered the top player and that Roger (25.86% less) or even Andy (61.5% less) should be considered co-champions, are the ones up in arms about similar claims this year, when the difference in points is so much smaller.

I believe computer ranking points was the best decision the ATP could have made to put a stop to blatant bias in judging tennis achievements. Numbers don't lie.

Rafa was the best overall player this year, I have no problem whatsoever with that, the ranking points prove it. But they also show that Novak was much closer to him than any #2 had been to #1 since 2003.

And let's not forget that if Novak had lost to Rafa in the finals of RG and Canada, instead of the semis, Nole would have 720 points more, and the difference would be only 50 points. This year Novak and Rafa will very likely be the top seeds in all the events they play, at least for the first 6 months of the season.

2014 will be a very interesting year indeed.
What your biased analysis fails to take into account is that Nadal skipped a slam and a Masters - the first one due to injury. That is a lot of points that he would have likely have accumulated that he didn't. Given his records at AO and Miami it is likely he'd have had at least 1500-2000 more points to his tally. That (and the Wimbledon loss) is one of the key reasons it is so tight - not because Novak was somehow way better than other no.2s have been in the past...

The fact is it is not numbers that matter as much as types of titles. 2 slams and 5 masters > 1 slam and 3 masters by a LONG distance. So yes, last year with everyone having one slam there was more of an argument over who had the best year/ "co-champions". This year, there isn't. Just like Federer winning everything in sight post USO in 2011 didn't make Novak's year any less amazing, the same is true for Rafa this year - 2 slams out of 3 played = best year.
Ash86 is offline View My Blog!  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 

Old 12-23-2013, 06:24 PM   #47
country flag DjokoKing
King Of Tennis
 
DjokoKing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Planet Djokovic
Posts: 443
DjokoKing has a reputation beyond reputeDjokoKing has a reputation beyond reputeDjokoKing has a reputation beyond reputeDjokoKing has a reputation beyond reputeDjokoKing has a reputation beyond reputeDjokoKing has a reputation beyond reputeDjokoKing has a reputation beyond reputeDjokoKing has a reputation beyond reputeDjokoKing has a reputation beyond reputeDjokoKing has a reputation beyond reputeDjokoKing has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Are Djokovic and Nadal co-champions for 2013?

Nadal lost first round at Wimbledon to an injured opponent and didn't even show up in Australia.

Compare that to Nole's performances and you have your answer
__________________
Novak Djokovic
Verdasco - Berdych - Gulbis
Paire - Fognini - Gasquet - Dimitrov
DjokoKing is offline View My Blog!  
Old 12-23-2013, 06:43 PM   #48
country flag Kiedis
Registered User
 
Kiedis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,468
Kiedis has a reputation beyond reputeKiedis has a reputation beyond reputeKiedis has a reputation beyond reputeKiedis has a reputation beyond reputeKiedis has a reputation beyond reputeKiedis has a reputation beyond reputeKiedis has a reputation beyond reputeKiedis has a reputation beyond reputeKiedis has a reputation beyond reputeKiedis has a reputation beyond reputeKiedis has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Are Djokovic and Nadal co-champions for 2013?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DjokoKing View Post
Nadal lost first round at Wimbledon to an injured opponent and didn't even show up in Australia.

Compare that to Nole's performances and you have your answer
History only remembers the winners. And both Nole and Rafa failed this year to win Wimbledon
__________________
Free Edward Snowden | Free Brad Manning | Free SDG | Free CD

God is killing me
Kiedis is offline View My Blog!  
Old 12-23-2013, 09:57 PM   #49
country flag Yolita
Registered User
 
Yolita's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Mexico
Posts: 1,842
Yolita has a reputation beyond reputeYolita has a reputation beyond reputeYolita has a reputation beyond reputeYolita has a reputation beyond reputeYolita has a reputation beyond reputeYolita has a reputation beyond reputeYolita has a reputation beyond reputeYolita has a reputation beyond reputeYolita has a reputation beyond reputeYolita has a reputation beyond reputeYolita has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Are Djokovic and Nadal co-champions for 2013?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ash86 View Post
What your biased analysis fails to take into account is that Nadal skipped a slam and a Masters - the first one due to injury. That is a lot of points that he would have likely have accumulated that he didn't. Given his records at AO and Miami it is likely he'd have had at least 1500-2000 more points to his tally. That (and the Wimbledon loss) is one of the key reasons it is so tight - not because Novak was somehow way better than other no.2s have been in the past...

The fact is it is not numbers that matter as much as types of titles. 2 slams and 5 masters > 1 slam and 3 masters by a LONG distance. So yes, last year with everyone having one slam there was more of an argument over who had the best year/ "co-champions". This year, there isn't. Just like Federer winning everything in sight post USO in 2011 didn't make Novak's year any less amazing, the same is true for Rafa this year - 2 slams out of 3 played = best year.

It's very dangerous to evaluate players based on what would have likely happened if ...

But, since you like arguing in the woulda, coulda, shoulda realm, if Nadal had played in Australia, then he wouldn't have played the South American golden swing, which he hadn't played since 2005. By not playing Australia, he was not too spent to go and win 900 points playing on his favourite surface against weaker opponents than he would have faced in Australia. 900 points is more than a grand slam semifinal. It's not obvious that he would have made the final in Australia after 7 months off. We just don't know.

Also, if he played Australia and Miami, then he would have had more points going into Roland Garros and Canada. So very likely he would have seeded higher, so Novak would have played him in the finals of both, not in the semifinals. Novak would have earned 720 more points, bringing the difference to only 50 points!

So you see the danger of going into hypothetical scenarios? Two can play that game. And nobody knows what would have happened.

We have to go with what actually happened, which, as I explained in my post with numbers, is that Rafa beat Novak by a nose for the year-end #1. But Novak outperformed Rafa in ITF events by quite a large margin, not to mention that he actually commited to play all the ITF events, not only 60% of them, and actually did remarkably well in all of them, noto only in 40% of them.

One of the most important achievements of the ATP was the introduction of computer rankings and objective ranking points, to avoid subjective judgements of what's more valuable. Of course 2 grand slams are better than 1 grand slam and the WTF. And the rankings show that. But the ITF gives weight, for their award, to overall performance and commitment to ITF events. They made the right decision,and I admire them for withstanding the pressure to do otherwise.
__________________
NOVAK DJOKOVIC
Yolita is online now View My Blog!  
Old 12-23-2013, 10:13 PM   #50
country flag Ash86
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,632
Ash86 has a reputation beyond reputeAsh86 has a reputation beyond reputeAsh86 has a reputation beyond reputeAsh86 has a reputation beyond reputeAsh86 has a reputation beyond reputeAsh86 has a reputation beyond reputeAsh86 has a reputation beyond reputeAsh86 has a reputation beyond reputeAsh86 has a reputation beyond reputeAsh86 has a reputation beyond reputeAsh86 has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Are Djokovic and Nadal co-champions for 2013?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yolita View Post
It's very dangerous to evaluate players based on what would have likely happened if ...

But, since you like arguing in the woulda, coulda, shoulda realm, if Nadal had played in Australia, then he wouldn't have played the South American golden swing, which he hadn't played since 2005. By not playing Australia, he was not too spent to go and win 900 points playing on his favourite surface against weaker opponents than he would have faced in Australia. 900 points is more than a grand slam semifinal. It's not obvious that he would have made the final in Australia after 7 months off. We just don't know.

Also, if he played Australia and Miami, then he would have had more points going into Roland Garros and Canada. So very likely he would have seeded higher, so Novak would have played him in the finals of both, not in the semifinals. Novak would have earned 720 more points, bringing the difference to only 50 points!

So you see the danger of going into hypothetical scenarios? Two can play that game. And nobody knows what would have happened.

We have to go with what actually happened, which, as I explained in my post with numbers, is that Rafa beat Novak by a nose for the year-end #1. But Novak outperformed Rafa in ITF events by quite a large margin, not to mention that he actually commited to play all the ITF events, not only 60% of them, and actually did remarkably well in all of them, noto only in 40% of them.

One of the most important achievements of the ATP was the introduction of computer rankings and objective ranking points, to avoid subjective judgements of what's more valuable. Of course 2 grand slams are better than 1 grand slam and the WTF. And the rankings show that. But the ITF gives weight, for their award, to overall performance and commitment to ITF events. They made the right decision,and I admire them for withstanding the pressure to do otherwise.
Again, it is your view that it is the right decision. They look like idiots calling Djokovic the "world champion" when he's no.2. If they weight ITF events more there was no need to talk about his WTF and end of season results. And similarly not sure how they've given Wozniacki and Jankovic the title in years past if what matters is performance at ITF events! Serena had way more slam points than Wozniacki that year but apparently they rewarded Wozniacki for being 'YE no.1' - clearly consistency isn't their strong point! The reaction of the tennis world to the award says it all - everyone knows who the player of the year was...

I don't really care who the ITF award but I find the idea that Novak was anything like a "co-champion" this year ludicruous. He was 2nd and deserved to be second - if he'd somehow been year end no.1 due to Davis Cup it would have been farcical.
Ash86 is offline View My Blog!  
Old 12-24-2013, 10:19 AM   #51
country flag NADALRECORD
Banned!
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 508
NADALRECORD has a reputation beyond reputeNADALRECORD has a reputation beyond reputeNADALRECORD has a reputation beyond reputeNADALRECORD has a reputation beyond reputeNADALRECORD has a reputation beyond reputeNADALRECORD has a reputation beyond reputeNADALRECORD has a reputation beyond reputeNADALRECORD has a reputation beyond reputeNADALRECORD has a reputation beyond reputeNADALRECORD has a reputation beyond reputeNADALRECORD has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Are Djokovic and Nadal co-champions for 2013?

Too bad for Djokovic the ITF award is not mentioned when player achievements are read out. Its always about the Year-ending #1. And if any award is listed, its the ATP Player of the Year. The mainstream sports public aren't even aware that the ITF exists. ATP is the association men's tennis is linked with.
NADALRECORD is offline View My Blog!  
Old 12-24-2013, 07:27 PM   #52
country flag haasenqvistfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 332
haasenqvistfan has a reputation beyond reputehaasenqvistfan has a reputation beyond reputehaasenqvistfan has a reputation beyond reputehaasenqvistfan has a reputation beyond reputehaasenqvistfan has a reputation beyond reputehaasenqvistfan has a reputation beyond reputehaasenqvistfan has a reputation beyond reputehaasenqvistfan has a reputation beyond reputehaasenqvistfan has a reputation beyond reputehaasenqvistfan has a reputation beyond reputehaasenqvistfan has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Are Djokovic and Nadal co-champions for 2013?

Quote:
Originally Posted by 5555 View Post
Not true. In 1976 Connors was the best player but Borg was voted ATP Player of Year.
Well considering Borg was way superior for the year on grass, and was overall superior on clay (despite Connors`s U.S Open title on green clay over Borg), and those were the only two even important surfaces then (with a little bit of carpet on the side), Borg was in fact probably the best player of 1976, just as the always correct ATP POY recognized.
haasenqvistfan is offline View My Blog!  
Old 12-24-2013, 07:29 PM   #53
country flag haasenqvistfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 332
haasenqvistfan has a reputation beyond reputehaasenqvistfan has a reputation beyond reputehaasenqvistfan has a reputation beyond reputehaasenqvistfan has a reputation beyond reputehaasenqvistfan has a reputation beyond reputehaasenqvistfan has a reputation beyond reputehaasenqvistfan has a reputation beyond reputehaasenqvistfan has a reputation beyond reputehaasenqvistfan has a reputation beyond reputehaasenqvistfan has a reputation beyond reputehaasenqvistfan has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Are Djokovic and Nadal co-champions for 2013?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NADALRECORD View Post
Too bad for Djokovic the ITF award is not mentioned when player achievements are read out. Its always about the Year-ending #1. And if any award is listed, its the ATP Player of the Year. The mainstream sports public aren't even aware that the ITF exists. ATP is the association men's tennis is linked with.
More people know about the U.S and European version of Tennis Magazine awards than the ITF. The ITF to most people is like `who the heck is that``. Especialy these days that they dont carry any relevent events (yeah the officially govern the slams, but lets be real, the WTA, the ATP, and the Slams themselves do all the work and will probably cut the dead weight that is the ITF for good soon).
haasenqvistfan is offline View My Blog!  
Old 12-24-2013, 07:37 PM   #54
country flag nolethebest
Registered User
 
nolethebest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Age: 24
Posts: 2,722
nolethebest has a reputation beyond reputenolethebest has a reputation beyond reputenolethebest has a reputation beyond reputenolethebest has a reputation beyond reputenolethebest has a reputation beyond reputenolethebest has a reputation beyond reputenolethebest has a reputation beyond reputenolethebest has a reputation beyond reputenolethebest has a reputation beyond reputenolethebest has a reputation beyond reputenolethebest has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Are Djokovic and Nadal co-champions for 2013?

well nadal was a slightly better player
__________________
7 and Counting.....
nolethebest is offline View My Blog!  
Old 12-24-2013, 08:21 PM   #55
country flag GSMnadal
Registered User
 
GSMnadal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Netherlands
Age: 22
Posts: 16,290
GSMnadal has a reputation beyond reputeGSMnadal has a reputation beyond reputeGSMnadal has a reputation beyond reputeGSMnadal has a reputation beyond reputeGSMnadal has a reputation beyond reputeGSMnadal has a reputation beyond reputeGSMnadal has a reputation beyond reputeGSMnadal has a reputation beyond reputeGSMnadal has a reputation beyond reputeGSMnadal has a reputation beyond reputeGSMnadal has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Are Djokovic and Nadal co-champions for 2013?

http://eurosport.yahoo.com/video/bes...080648728.html

Check this video....strange they don't name Djokovic king of 2013? Or at least co-king?
__________________
RAFAEL NADAL

'Rafael Nadal is the best ever' - John McEnroe

1 AO - 9 RG - 2 W - 2 USO
GSMnadal is offline View My Blog!  
Old 12-24-2013, 09:30 PM   #56
country flag Pangloss
Registered User
 
Pangloss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Age: 29
Posts: 624
Pangloss has a reputation beyond reputePangloss has a reputation beyond reputePangloss has a reputation beyond reputePangloss has a reputation beyond reputePangloss has a reputation beyond reputePangloss has a reputation beyond reputePangloss has a reputation beyond reputePangloss has a reputation beyond reputePangloss has a reputation beyond reputePangloss has a reputation beyond reputePangloss has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Are Djokovic and Nadal co-champions for 2013?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DjokoKing View Post
Nadal lost first round at Wimbledon to an injured opponent and didn't even show up in Australia.

Compare that to Nole's performances and you have your answer
Nadal scored 0 points at half the grand slams and still demonstrably outperformed Djokovic when all was said and done

__________________
Nadal • Federer • Dimitrov • Wawrinka


Ferrer • Murray • del Potro • Tsonga • Raonic • Haas • Kohlschreiber • Verdasco • Monfils
Pangloss is offline View My Blog!  
Old 12-25-2013, 06:37 PM   #57
country flag Cloren
Registered User
 
Cloren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 4,407
Cloren has a reputation beyond reputeCloren has a reputation beyond reputeCloren has a reputation beyond reputeCloren has a reputation beyond reputeCloren has a reputation beyond reputeCloren has a reputation beyond reputeCloren has a reputation beyond reputeCloren has a reputation beyond reputeCloren has a reputation beyond reputeCloren has a reputation beyond reputeCloren has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Are Djokovic and Nadal co-champions for 2013?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yolita View Post


You see, this is what I don't get: the complete subjectivity of people's judgements.

Let's check numbers, shall we?

Last year Novak finished the year with 12920 points, Roger with 10265 and Andy with 8000. Novak earned 25.86% (2655/10265) more ranking points than Roger and 61.5% (4920/8000) more ranking points than Andy.

This year Rafa ended the year with 13030 points and Novak with 12260. So Rafa earned 6.28% (8770/12260) more ranking points than Novak. It's the smallest difference between the #1 and the #2 players since Roddick, in 2003, passed Roger by an even smaller margin.

I find it hilarious that people (fans and pundits) who last year were claiming that Novak hadn't dominated enough to be considered the top player and that Roger (25.86% less) or even Andy (61.5% less) should be considered co-champions, are the ones up in arms about similar claims this year, when the difference in points is so much smaller.

I believe computer ranking points was the best decision the ATP could have made to put a stop to blatant bias in judging tennis achievements. Numbers don't lie.

Rafa was the best overall player this year, I have no problem whatsoever with that, the ranking points prove it. But they also show that Novak was much closer to him than any #2 had been to #1 since 2003.

And let's not forget that if Novak had lost to Rafa in the finals of RG and Canada, instead of the semis, Nole would have 720 points more, and the difference would be only 50 points. This year Novak and Rafa will very likely be the top seeds in all the events they play, at least for the first 6 months of the season.

2014 will be a very interesting year indeed.
I agree with you that Novak was the best player last year but I just stated that co-champions would have made more sense last year than this year cause Fed and Murray won a 1 slam each plus achieved good results.

And seriously the fact that you used ranking points is just laughable seriously. What matters is the titles you win, the semis, finals, QF shouldn't matter much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yolita View Post
We have to go with what actually happened, which, as I explained in my post with numbers, is that Rafa beat Novak by a nose for the year-end #1. But Novak outperformed Rafa in ITF events by quite a large margin, not to mention that he actually commited to play all the ITF events, not only 60% of them, and actually did remarkably well in all of them, noto only in 40% of them.
Rafa won more ITF events than Novak though and that's what really matters.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yolita View Post
One of the most important achievements of the ATP was the introduction of computer rankings and objective ranking points, to avoid subjective judgements of what's more valuable. Of course 2 grand slams are better than 1 grand slam and the WTF. And the rankings show that. But the ITF gives weight, for their award, to overall performance and commitment to ITF events. They made the right decision,and I admire them for withstanding the pressure to do otherwise.
Not really, its laughable really, Novak was clearly the second best player. Nadal outperfomed Djokovic in the most important events.
__________________
Roger Federer

Del Potro-Dimitrov-Ferrer-Wawrinka-Hewitt
Cloren is offline View My Blog!  
Old 12-25-2013, 11:28 PM   #58
country flag Singularity
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,841
Singularity has a reputation beyond reputeSingularity has a reputation beyond reputeSingularity has a reputation beyond reputeSingularity has a reputation beyond reputeSingularity has a reputation beyond reputeSingularity has a reputation beyond reputeSingularity has a reputation beyond reputeSingularity has a reputation beyond reputeSingularity has a reputation beyond reputeSingularity has a reputation beyond reputeSingularity has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Are Djokovic and Nadal co-champions for 2013?

Quote:
Originally Posted by 5555 View Post
It can be argued that Nadal has a too big hole in his resume to be best player in 2013. He's lost in first round of Wimbledon and skipped AO which means he's done nothing in half of the slams.
I find it a little strange to say that the "best player" isn't the one with the most achievements. If what determines who is the best is the capacity to win titles, shouldn't we value title victories over simply going deep in tournaments? Nadal would have the same hole in his resume, even if Djokovic had won no grand slams at all, so on this metric being able to win tournaments doesn't seem to matter much.
Singularity is offline View My Blog!  
Old 12-26-2013, 11:05 AM   #59
country flag Sombrerero loco
Registered User
 
Sombrerero loco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Age: 25
Posts: 44,452
Sombrerero loco has a reputation beyond reputeSombrerero loco has a reputation beyond reputeSombrerero loco has a reputation beyond reputeSombrerero loco has a reputation beyond reputeSombrerero loco has a reputation beyond reputeSombrerero loco has a reputation beyond reputeSombrerero loco has a reputation beyond reputeSombrerero loco has a reputation beyond reputeSombrerero loco has a reputation beyond reputeSombrerero loco has a reputation beyond reputeSombrerero loco has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Are Djokovic and Nadal co-champions for 2013?

no way. more slams, more master series, world number one not playing one of the slams and first swing....
__________________
Henri KONTINEN

Jerzy Janowicz/Bernard the aTomic /Thanasi Kokkinakis/Kei Nishikori

John Millman / Javier Martí/Taro Daniel-Jules Marie-Josh Milton


Henkka Kontinen
-Nick Kyrgios-Henri Laaksonen- Attila Balazs- Pierre Hugues Herbert-Alex Bolt-Marcus Willis-Kristijan Mesaros-Brydan Klein-Chris Rungkat-Piotr Gadomski-Hugo Nys-Pol Toledo
www.tennisalternative.com
Sombrerero loco is offline View My Blog!  
Old 12-27-2013, 02:39 PM   #60
country flag 5555
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 265
5555 has a reputation beyond repute5555 has a reputation beyond repute5555 has a reputation beyond repute5555 has a reputation beyond repute5555 has a reputation beyond repute5555 has a reputation beyond repute5555 has a reputation beyond repute5555 has a reputation beyond repute5555 has a reputation beyond repute5555 has a reputation beyond repute5555 has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Are Djokovic and Nadal co-champions for 2013?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Singularity View Post
I find it a little strange to say that the "best player" isn't the one with the most achievements. If what determines who is the best is the capacity to win titles, shouldn't we value title victories over simply going deep in tournaments?
Why does ATP ranking takes into account how deep players go in tournaments?

Quote:
Nadal would have the same hole in his resume, even if Djokovic had won no grand slams at all, so on this metric being able to win tournaments doesn't seem to matter much.
Nadal has a too big hole in his resume considering what Djokovic has done. That's what I wanted to say.

Quote:
Originally Posted by haasenqvistfan View Post
Well considering Borg was way superior for the year on grass, and was overall superior on clay (despite Connors`s U.S Open title on green clay over Borg), and those were the only two even important surfaces then (with a little bit of carpet on the side), Borg was in fact probably the best player of 1976, just as the always correct ATP POY recognized.
It's that some tournaments are more important than others, not surfaces. Connors won 13 titles, Borg 6 (it's a far bigger difference than between Nadal and Djokovic in 2013 which was 10:7). Connors beat Borg 3 times out 3 (Djokovic and Nadal were tied 3-3 in 2013). Connors did not have a hole in his resume like Nadal in 2013 (loss in the first round of Wimbledon).

So, ATP was wrong, Player of Year in 1976 should have been Connors.

Last edited by 5555 : 12-27-2013 at 03:13 PM.
5555 is offline View My Blog!  
Closed Thread


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


Copyright (C) Verticalscope Inc
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBCredits v1.4 Copyright ©2007, PixelFX Studios