Announcement

NI · 10-03-21, 08:00

Originally posted by talicni View Post

citam sta se pisalo i ranije. noletu da bi postao prvi na GOAT listi na tom sajtu ne trebaju 21 slem. zavisi od razvoja situacije ali mu najvjerovatnije ne bi trebao ni 1 ukoliko fed ne pocne opet da igra fantasticno i poosvaja neke bitne stvari. dovoljno je da ima par godina duzu karijeru od rodje i da ne bude losiji u vremenu dok igraju. poeni se dobijaju za sve zivo. ali se i gube kada gubis rekorde. tako da recimo ako rafa osvoji jos slem, rodja gubi poene za rekord za najvise slemova. izgubio je mislim 2 poena kada ga je nole pretekao po sedmicama. ne vezano za to. ako se nole izjednaci sa rodjerom onda rodjer vise nece imati ama bas nista preko noleta od najvaznijih faktora a po meni su to: YE#1, sedmice, slemovi, velike titule, h2h i W% kao i extra rekordi vezani za dominaciju i kompletnost kao zlatni mastersi, objedinjene slem titule, rekord u poenima, naj godina, naj sezona, broj kariejernih GS itd...

Ti komentarises model, vrlo kompleksni model, koji koristi UTS. I zapazas jednu znacajnu manjkavost. Dok si prvi u nekoj kategoriji, dobijas ekstra poene. Kad prestanes da budes prvi, gubis te ekstra poene. To je neminovnost takvog tipa modela. Ja sam licno protiv ekstra poena, ali necu praviti svoj model.

------------
Mimo jako dobrog modela, stranica nudi i obilje podataka koje nije tako lako naci. Pa tako ima sve turnire u istoriji ATP-a. Iskoristio sam tu pogodnost da napravim dvadesetak komparaciju. (Par stotina komparacija ali bi bilo zamorno da ih sve objavljujem.) U mojim kompracijama nema ekstra poena. Ova prva pokazuje koliko bi svaki igrac imao UKUPNO poena da je sadasnje pravilo rangiranja vazilo cijelo vrijeme. Komparacija u startu ima gresku od otprilike 1.5%. Nju je nemoguce izbjeci ako zelim uniformnost tokom 50 godina.
Komparacija pravi i drugu gresku koju je nemoguce kvantifikovati. Igraci su pravili raspored igranja prema pravilima koja su tada vazila, uzimajuci u obzir, zarade, putovanja, reklame... Danasnji igraci imaju mnogo vise obaveza. To je jedan od razloga zasto su bolji. Obaveze ih prisiljavaju da budu bolji.

Svejedno, komparacija je ilustrativna. Federer je jos uvijek debelo prvi jer ima jaku dugu karijeru u kojoj je dobio mnogo jakih turnira. Konors je dobio vise turnira ali su oni bli slabiji. Novak je igrao u prosjeku jace turnire od bilo koga drugoga (o tome je naredana komparacija) ali nema taj broj pobjeda koji ima Federer.

NI · 10-03-21, 08:15

Druga komparacija je prosjecan broj poena osvojen svake godine. Ova komparacije favorizuje Novaka i Rafu, a u nesto manjoj mjeri i sve ostale aktivne igrace, Naime, krajem karijere igarca pocne da pada i ima jednu ili vise losih godina koje pokvare prosjek.

Code:

Prosjek bodova tokom karijere:

	bodovi
1	8331	Novak Djokovic
2	7423	Rafael Nadal
3	7383	Roger Federer
4	7044	Ivan Lendl
5	6911	Bjorn Borg *
6	6159	Pete Sampras
7	5458	John McEnroe
8	5288	Stefan Edberg
9	4980	Boris Becker
10	4753	Andy Murray
11	4679	Jimmy Connors
12	4262	Andre Agassi
13	3283	Mats Wilander
14	2933	David Ferrer
15	2779	Guillermo Vilas
16	2715	Dominic Thiem
17	2405	Stan Wawrinka

*Borgova karijera je oficijelno zavrsila 1994. godine. Medjutim svi njegovi 'pokusaji' da se vrate iza 1983. su bili smijesni. Zato sam uzeo da mu je karijera zavrsila 1983.

Po ocekivanju, Novak je daleko najbolji. Njegova karijera je u naponu. Rafa je ispred Federera sto je posljedica Rodzerovog skorasnjeg pada. Ostalo je sve po ocekivanju. Konors je nastavio da igra i kada je treba da prestane. Otuda tako 'los' prosjek. Isto vazi i za Vilandera i u manjoj mjeri Mekinroa. S druge strane, Lendl jeprekinuo cim mu je nivo pao.

Ova komparacija prije svega pokazuje izuzetnost Novaka, Rafe i Federera.

**talicni** · 10-03-21, 08:48

ja jesam za extra poene i normalno je da ce apsolutni rekorder imati vise extra poena. tako je i normalno da ce te extra poene izgubiti kada vise ne bude apsolutni rekorder. ali neke extraordinarne stvari kao poen rekord, 4 slema u nizu, dupli zlatni masters, slem rekord, YE#1 rekord, rekord u sedmicama, karijerni slem itd apsolutno zasluzuju extra poene. problem je jedino sto to treba sve bodovati i rangirati koliko sta poena zasluzuje a to je jako subjektivna kategorija. kao i u ostalom koliko poena zasluzuje YE#1 a koliko slem a koliko 1 sedmica. cesto se diskutovalo na svim forumima da li je vazniji slem ili YE#1. meni je YE#1. fed je izjavljivao isto. marej je rizikovao karijeru za isti. nole igrao onaj bec. pit zrtvovao 1 AO za isti. ali ako stavimo slem i YE#1 kao neki ultimativan uspjeh onda bi ja isao tom logikom poena. slem=YE#1=godina na vrhu (ca 50 sedmica)

meni bi slem bio neki orjentir. nema veze index 100 ili 10 ali na osnovu njega bi vrjednovao ostalo.

recimo:
slem - 10
YE#1 - 10
50 sedmica - 10 (1 sedmica 0,2 p)
svi najveci gore pomenuti rekordi + 10 extra poena
WTF/OI - 4 p
masters 2 p
MM - 0,4 p

h2h - 10p ako se uporedjuju 2 igraca

**talicni** · 10-03-21, 09:06

sto se tice noletovog igranja jacih turnira, osim po % velikih titula kod njega (dosta veci od feda i rafe) to se vidi i po % top 10 meceva i pobjeda. mada tu ima veze i zrijeb koji, niko me ne moze ubjediti da nije tako, nije mazio noleta. tako je kao br3 redovno (bar na slemovima a mahom i mastersima) dobijao feda u SF van sljake a rafu na sljaci (izuzetak 2009. kada je rafa bio psihicki malo u autu, vjerovatno zbog razvoda roditelja i kada je izgubio 1 od ukupno 2 meca u karijeri na RGu). statisticki gotovo nemoguca slucajnost. pisao sam dosta o tome na serbian kafeu u to vrijeme. jedna clanicama me dosta konfrotirala oko toga. ja objasnjavao. nakon nekog vremena ostavi lenk za video kako je na nekoj velikoj konferenciji odrzala predavanje bas na tu temu oko toga o cemu sam tamo pisao. bilo je i po nasim novinama. naci cu njen raport (nadam se).

nole - 1134 meca od cega 317 vs top10 (28%), 943 pobjeda od toga 218 vs top10 (23%), skoro svaka 4. pobjeda je protiv top10 igraca.
fed - 1507 meceva od cega 346 vs top10 (23%), 1236 pobjeda od toga 223 vs top10 (18%)
rafa - 1210 meca od cega 270 vs top10 (22%), 1006 pobjeda od toga 174 vs top10 (17%)

NI · 10-03-21, 09:11

Originally posted by talicni View Post

ja jesam za extra poene i normalno je da ce apsolutni rekorder imati vise extra poena. tako je i normalno da ce te extra poene izgubiti kada vise ne bude apsolutni rekorder. ali neke extraordinarne stvari kao poen rekord, 4 slema u nizu, dupli zlatni masters, slem rekord, YE#1 rekord, rekord u sedmicama, karijerni slem itd apsolutno zasluzuju extra poene. problem je jedino sto to treba sve bodovati i rangirati koliko sta poena zasluzuje a to je jako subjektivna kategorija. kao i u ostalom koliko poena zasluzuje YE#1 a koliko slem a koliko 1 sedmica. cesto se diskutovalo na svim forumima da li je vazniji slem ili YE#1. meni je YE#1. fed je izjavljivao isto. marej je rizikovao karijeru za isti. nole igrao onaj bec. pit zrtvovao 1 AO za isti. ali ako stavimo slem i YE#1 kao neki ultimativan uspjeh onda bi ja isao tom logikom poena. slem=YE#1=godina na vrhu (ca 50 sedmica)

meni bi slem bio neki orjentir. nema veze index 100 ili 10 ali na osnovu njega bi vrjednovao ostalo.

recimo:
slem - 10
YE#1/OI - 10
50 sedmica - 10 (1 sedmica 0,2 p)
svi najveci gore pomenuti rekordi + 10 extra poena
WTF - 4 p
masters 2 p
MM - 0,4 p

h2h - 10p ako se uporedjuju 2 igraca

Vecina modela radi upravo sto ti predlazes. Razlika je u tezini(znacaju) koja se pridaje pojedinom elemetu. Tvoj predlog je dobro izbalansiran. Jedino mislim da bi h2h treba imati faktor razlike. Nije isto 29:27, 39:17 i 49:7. Mora zavisiti od postotne razlike. Opet sto znaci H2H Federer-Sampras 1:0? Tesko je naci pravilo za sve prilike.

**talicni** · 10-03-21, 10:18

nadjoh link koji vise ne moze da se otvori ali na srecu moglo se otvoriti na kec memoriji.

kopirao sam text.

Page 1

Facts and statistics indicate fixing at the very top of men’s tennis
by
Katarina Pijetlovic, LL.B, LL.M, LL.Lic. LL.D cand.
katarina.pijetlovic@ttu.ee
EU and sports law academic

Facts and statistics strongly indicate that draws at the Grand Slam tournaments 2008-2011 might have been fixedat the very top of men's tennis. Namely, in 12 out of 12 Grand Slam tournaments played on hard and grass courts between 2008-2011, Federer and Djokovic were always drawn to the same half of the draw, while Nadal and Murray were drawn to the other half. In addition, in five of those 12 tournaments Murray was not among the first four seeded players, so his draw was conducted separately five times. Thus, the statistics are as follows: to get the same result 12 out of 12 times, probability is 1 in 4096. For the case of Murray's separate draws which produced the same result 5 out of 5 times, it is 1 in 32. THEREFORE, THE PROBABILITY TO OBTAIN DRAW RESULTS AS OBTAINED AT THE 12 GRAND SLAM TOURNAMENTS IS 131072 TO 1 (4096 x 32 = 131072). Combined with the study conducted by ESPN on the draws of unseeded players at US Open it reaches 1 in many BILLIONS.

FACEBOOK PAGE ON THIS ISSUE WITH MORE DETAILS AVAILABLE AT http://www.facebook.com/pages/Tennis...547505?sk=wall

DRAWING PROCEDURE

In general, at the Grand Slam tournaments players are entered in the draw sheet based on their current standing on the ATP rank list. There are 128 players in the Grand Slams: 32 seeded players and 96 unseeded players. The first seed is placed on line 1, while the second seed is placed on line 128 at the very bottom of the draw sheet. This ensures that the two best players cannot meet before the finals. Thereafter, 3rd and 4th seeded player are hand-drawn from the cup: the first drawn is placed on the line 33 and the second drawn is placed on the line 96 inthe draw-sheet. This way the best four players cannot meet each other before semi-finals. The names of 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th seeded players are then placed into the cup and hand-drawn to fill places on lines 32, 64, 65, and 97 in the draw. Similarly, 4 more groups of seeded players are drawn and placed on their predetermined line in the draw-sheet. Any seeded player has 50% of the chance to be drawn in first seeded player’s half of the draw, and corresponding 50% to be drawn in part with second seeded player.

For unseeded players the computer programme randomly selects the names to fill in 96 remaining vacant places. For details concerning the draws see p. 25 of the Grand Slam Rulebook 2011
http://beta.itftennis.com/media/64108/64108.pdf

BACKGROUND AND FACTS ABOUT 4 TOP PLAYERS

1. For many years, the first two spots on the ATP rank list shifted between Roger Federer known as a hard and grass court specialist and Rafael Nadal known as clay court specialist. The two players held a virtual duopoly over men’s tennis.

2. Both are sponsored by Nike, and are the most popular players on the planet with the massive fan base unmatched by any other player.

Fan base on the Facebook:
Federer - 9 million
Nadal - 8.5 million
Djokovic - 1.3 million
Murray - 450.000

Majority of the tennis fans across the world, tournament organizers, and players' sponsors, each for different reasons, wanted to see Federer and Nadal clash in finals.

3. In 2007 Novak Djokovic rose to No. 3 and a year later, in the end of 2008, Andy Murray rose to No. 4 to threaten the dominant duo.

Page 2

4. General results of all the tournaments:

● Nadal-Murray: 13:4
● Federer-Murray: 6:8
● Nadal-Djokovic: 16:14
● Federer-Djokovic: 14:10

5. Results of mutual clashes on hard and grass courts before 2008 season are as follows:

● Nadal-Murray: 2:0
● Federer-Murray: 1:1
● Nadal-Djokovic: 3:2
● Federer-Djokovic: 4:1

- In their first match in 2005 Federer won Murray but back then Murray was not even among top 100 in the world. In their second match, Murray ranked 31 won Federer in 2006, the best year of Federer’s career in which he lost only to one other player: Nadal. In 2007 a fast progressing Murray had not had a chance to meet Federer on anytournaments, but he beat him again on their next encounter one and a half year later in 2008. At the same time, Murray lost to Nadal in first five encounters, two of which were before 2008 season.

- Djokovic was equal opponent to Nadal on hard and grass courts from the start, and today he is leading 11:7 against Nadal on those surfaces. But it is clear Djokovic was most likely to lose to Federer on that surface looking at 4:1 result from before 2008. Today Federer is still in lead 11:9 – of these 20 matches, four last matches on hardcourt were won by Djokovic in his run in 2011 which took everyone by surprise.

RESULTS OF THE DRAWS 2008-2011

Australian Open

2011
1st seed NADAL
2nd seed FEDERER
3rd seed DJOKOVIC
5th seed MURRAY
Result of the draw:
DJOKOVIC IN FEDERER’s HALF;
MURRAY IN NADAL’s HALF

2010
1st seed FEDERER
2nd seed NADAL
3rd seed DJOKOVIC
5th seed MURRAY
Result of the draw:
DJOKOVIC IN FEDERER’s HALF;
MURRAY IN NADAL’s HALF

2009
1st seed NADAL
2nd seed FEDERER
3rd seed DJOKOVIC
4th seed MURRAY
Result of the draw:
DJOKOVIC IN FEDERER’s HALF;
MURRAY IN NADAL’s HALF

2008
1st seed FEDERER
2nd seed NADAL
3rd seed DJOKOVIC
9th seed MURRAY
Result of the draw:
DJOKOVIC IN FEDERER’s HALF;
MURRAY IN NADAL’s HALF

Roland Garros

2011
1st seed NADAL
2nd seed DJOKOVIC
3rd seed FEDERER
4th seed MURRAY
Result of the draw:
DJOKOVIC IN FEDERER’s HALF;
MURRAY IN NADAL’s HALF

2010
1st seed FEDERER
2nd seed NADAL
3rd seed DJOKOVIC
4th seed MURRAY
Result of the draw:
MURRAY IN FEDERER’s HALF;
DJOKOVIC IN NADAL’s HALF

2009
1st seed NADAL
2nd seed FEDERER
3rd seed MURRAY
4th seed DJOKOVIC
Result of the draw:
DJOKOVIC IN FEDERER’s HALF;
MURRAY IN NADAL’s HALF

2008
1st seed FEDERER
2nd seed NADAL
3rd seed DJOKOVIC
10th seed MURRAY
Result of the draw:
BOTH DJOKOVIC AND MURRAY IN NADAL’s HALF
(let’s not forget here who is “king of clay”)

Wimbledon

2011
1st seed NADAL
2nd seed DJOKOVIC
3rd seed FEDERER
4th seed MURRAY
Result of the draw:
DJOKOVIC IN FEDERER’s HALF;
MURRAY IN NADAL’s HALF

2010
1st seed FEDERER
2nd seed NADAL
3rd seed DJOKOVIC
4th seed MURRAY
Result of the draw:
DJOKOVIC IN FEDERER’s HALF;
MURRAY IN NADAL’s HALF

2009
1st seed NADAL (withdrew)
2nd seed FEDERER
3rd seed MURRAY
4th seed DJOKOVIC
Result of the draw:
DJOKOVIC IN FEDERER’s HALF;
MURRAY IN NADAL’s HALF
(Nadal withdrew due toinjury but this is irrelevant in this context)

2008
1st seed FEDERER
2nd seed NADAL
3rd seed DJOKOVIC
12th seed MURRAY
Result of the draw:
DJOKOVIC IN FEDERER’s HALF;
MURRAY IN NADAL’s HALF

US Open

2011
1st seed DJOKOVIC
2nd seed NADAL
3rd seed FEDERER
4th seed MURRAY
Result of the draw:
DJOKOVIC IN FEDERER’s HALF;
MURRAY IN NADAL’s HALF

2010
1st seed NADAL
2nd seed FEDERER
3rd seed DJOKOVIC
4th seed MURRAY
Result of the draw:
DJOKOVIC IN FEDERER’s HALF;
MURRAY IN NADAL’s HALF

2009
1st seed FEDERER
2nd seed MURRAY
3rd seed NADAL
4th seed DJOKOVIC
Result of the draw:
DJOKOVIC IN FEDERER’s HALF;
MURRAY IN NADAL’s HALF

2008
1st seed NADAL
2nd seed FEDERER
3rd seed DJOKOVIC
6th seed MURRAY
Result of the draw:
DJOKOVIC INFEDERER’s HALF;
MURRAY IN NADAL’s HALF

Page 3

Very curiously, since the beginning of 2008 in each and every of 12 Grand Slams played on hard and grass courts (i.e., four of each, Australian Open, US Open and Wimbledon), Djokovic was placed in Federer’s half on the draw, and Murray in Nadal’s half of the draw! In US Open 2009 and 2011, and Wimbledon 2011 Federer and Murray did not even have a chance to be in the same part of the draw as they were 1st and 2nd seeds (US Open 2009) or 3rd and 4th seeds (US Open 2011 and Wimbledon 2011). But on those three occasions Nadal and Federer were placed in the separate part of the draw sheet when each and every of those times there was 50% chance to obtain that result. With Djokovic and Murray in less favorable parts of the draw the likelihood of the desired finals between Nadal and Federer increases.

INCREDIBLE STATISTICS

Any seeded player has 50% of the chance to be drawn in first seeded player’s half of the draw, and corresponding 50% to be drawn in part with second seeded player. Under the laws of probability having the draw of 3rd and 4th seeded players have identical outcome (i.e., Djokovic always in Federer’s half, and Nadal always in Murray’s half)in 12 out of 12 times is 1 in 4096, or 0.02%. But Murray was not among 4 first seeded players at 5 of those 12 tournaments (Australian Open 2008, 2010, 2011, Wimbledon 2008, and US Open 2008). This means he was drawn in the separate group with other seeded players - in each and every of those 5 separate draws he was placed in Nadal’s half! The same result in 5 out of 5 draws can happen is 1 in 32. 4096 multiplied with 32 is 131072. THEPROBABILITY TO OBTAIN THE RESULTS AS WE SAW IN HARD AND GRASS COURT GRAND SLAM TOURNAMENTS2008-2011 IS 131072 TO 1. If you wanted to arrive at the result of draws achieved at the Grand Slams from 2008 to 2011, you would have to conduct 131072 draws to get the same result only once. It would take you conducting 17 draws every single day for 359 years!

A CASE OF ROLAND GARROS (the only clay court Slam)

Results on ALL clay tournaments are as follows: Murray never played Federer on any clay court tournament.
Nadal leads 4:0 against Murray on clay. Nadal was likely to win whomever he got on clay, Djokovic or Murray.
Djokovic played 11 matches on clay with Nadal of which he lost 9 first matches. Federer vs. Djokovic on clay - 3:1.
Federer was likely to win on clay against Djokovic.

2. Results of Roland Garros draws 2008-2011

As regards this surface is was less important where Djokovic is placed in the draw, whether with Nadal or Federer.What was important is to keep Murray out of the way of Federer – and it happened in 3 out of 4 Roland Garros tournaments.

● 2008 - Murray was ranked 10th and was drawn in the part with Nadal. Djokovic was drawn separately andwas also drawn in Nadal’s part.
● 2010 - might appear as the only odd year in the entire story. This is the only year where Murray was placed in Federers half. Djokovic automatically was placed with Nadal as he and Murray were 3rd and 4th seeds. However, if you look at the Murray’s opponents on the road to semi-finals anybody knowing tennis would be able to predict he was not going to make it that far. And he did not. Some even questioned his ability to get passed Gasquet in the first round - he barely made it coming back from two sets down.

NB! This tournament was not taken into account for the purposes of statistics due to the changed relative strength of players and the need to take into account qualitative aspects, but it does not mean that it is excluded from the possible fixing.

CONNECTION TO ESPN RESEARCH

Recent research conducted by ESPN’s “Outside The Lines” demonstrated that computer-generated part of thedraw at US Open which supposed to randomly distribute the unseeded players in the draw sheet has likely been rigged for the past ten years to ensure that the top 2 players face the easiest possible opponents in the firstround. “It is still possible though…in sport just like in life anomalies can happen” said Chris Widmaier of US Tennis Association. But statistical analysis conducted by Dr. Andrew Swift produced as easy opponents in the first roundin only 4 out of million simulations! "By itself, the U.S. [Open] numbers are weird," he said. "And then they're also weird in comparison to the other three Grand Slams. So you've got a double argument of weirdness here.Something weird is going on."

Page 4

Full story available here http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/...nament-draw…
and here http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/...tically-likely
ESPN’s short video illustration at http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=686...goryid=2378529

CONCLUSION

The probability that the two incredible coincidences (i.e., hand-draws of seeded players at the three Grand Slams,and the computer generated draws of unseeded players at the US Open) might happen simultaneously is 1 in ca.32 BILLIONS. These figures are a strong indicator of fixing and merit detailed investigation.

**talicni** · 10-03-21, 10:27

vidim da je raport koji sam nasao malo izmjenjen u odnosu na prijasnji. prije se moglo naci i u PDFu i fino otvoriti. ovo je bila muka kopirati jer kesirane stranice mi je kopiralo sve u jednom tekstu bez ikakvih razmaka. a statistiku sam morao da kopiram sve godinu po godinu za svaki turnir. inace ko je clan moze da skine sa SCRIBDa: https://www.scribd.com/doc/206607244/PDF-Tennis

vidim i da se spominje slucaj USO. kada je jedna profesorka izracunala statisticku nevjerovatnost kako bolje rangirani u ranim kolima neproporcionalno dobijaju daleko lakse protivnike u prvim kolima. to je poslije priznato i opravdano time kako programeri nisu dobro razumjeli sistem zrijebanja i uprogramirali su da se najbolje rangirani mogu sretati samo sa najlosijim u prvim kolima.

NI · 10-03-21, 13:45

Lista najboljih 12 uzastopnih mjeseci od kada je sluzbeni ranking uveden. Uzeo sama samo najbolju sezonu za svakog igraca.Najbolje 52 nedjelje:

Code:

Najbolje 52 uzastopne nedjelje

		zavrsno sa
1	16985	2016-06-06	Novak Djokovic
2	15945	1984-11-05	John McEnroe
3	15495	2006-11-20	Roger Federer
4	15250	1986-03-24	Ivan Lendl
5	14690	2009-04-20	Rafael Nadal
6	13895	1980-04-07	Bjorn Borg
7	13430	1994-06-13	Pete Sampras
8	13310	2017-01-09	Andy Murray
9	13040	1995-08-21	Andre Agassi
10	12510	1974-09-09	Jimmy Connors
11	11580	1977-12-05	Guillermo Vilas
12	11420	1990-11-19	Stefan Edberg
13	10315	1987-06-15	Boris Becker
14	10150	1988-03-28	Mats Wilander
15	8340	2020-09-14	Dominic Thiem
16	7570	2013-06-10	David Ferrer
17	7225	2015-11-09	Stan Wawrinka

Novakovih rekordnih 12 mjeseci su uvjerljivo najbolji. Ocekivano je Mekinro 2. a Rodzer 3. Rafinih najboljih 12 mjesci su bili 2009. To je samo na izgled iznenadjenje jer je tom trenutku imao 3 slema plus polufinale na cetvrtom, 4 mastersa i Olimpijadu. Mari je ispred Edberga.

Borgova godina je jako dobra. Ova komparacija je potcjenjuje.

------------

Najbolja 24 mjeseca daju slican redosljed:

Code:

Najbolje 104 nedjelje:

		zavrsno sa
1	15395	2016-06-06	Novak Djokovic
2	14447	2007-01-29	Roger Federer
3	13220	1984-09-10	John McEnroe
4	12925	1987-03-09	Ivan Lendl
5	12632	2009-05-04	Rafael Nadal
6	12245	1980-04-28	Bjorn Borg
7	12025	1994-07-04	Pete Sampras
8	10675	2017-01-09	Andy Murray
9	10562	1978-03-06	Jimmy Connors
10	10377	1991-10-28	Stefan Edberg
11	9720	1991-01-28	Boris Becker
12	9370	1978-01-09	Guillermo Vilas
13	9317	2001-04-02	Andre Agassi
14	8895	1988-10-31	Mats Wilander
15	6752	2020-09-14	Dominic Thiem
16	6697	2013-11-11	David Ferrer
17	6545	2016-11-07	Stan Wawrinka

Novak je uvjerljivo prvi a Federer uvjerljivo drugi. Malo iznenadjuje razlika izmedju Federera i Mekinroa. Mari je ispred Edberga.

NI · 10-03-21, 14:52

Nema neke vece razlike izmedju najboljih 3, 4 i 5 godina. To je trka izmedju Novaka i Rodzera koju Novak nedvojbeno dobija. Tijesnu bitku izmedju Ledla i Mekinroa za 3. mjesto dobija Ivan. Rafa ni u jednoj od ovih komparacija ne prelazi 5. mjesto.

Code:

Najboljih 156 nedjelja (3 godine):

		zavrsno sa
1	14276	2016-06-06	Novak Djokovic
2	13803	2007-11-05	Roger Federer
3	12573	1987-12-07	Ivan Lendl
4	12113	1985-09-09	John McEnroe
5	11865	1980-11-10	Bjorn Borg
6	11405	2011-04-18	Rafael Nadal
7	11250	1995-11-06	Pete Sampras
8	9978	1976-09-13	Jimmy Connors
9	9248	1992-09-14	Stefan Edberg
10	9205	1991-01-28	Boris Becker
11	8871	1977-12-05	Guillermo Vilas
12	8588	2017-05-01	Andy Murray
13	7975	1986-03-24	Mats Wilander
14	7670	2001-07-09	Andre Agassi
15	6240	2016-09-26	Stan Wawrinka
16	6081	2014-08-18	David Ferrer
17	5845	2020-09-14	Dominic Thiem

Code:

Najboljih 209 nedjelja (4 godine):

		zavrsno sa
1	13665	2016-08-01	Novak Djokovic
2	13402	2007-09-10	Roger Federer
3	11713	1985-01-28	John McEnroe
4	11645	1989-03-13	Ivan Lendl
5	11007	2011-10-10	Rafael Nadal
6	10801	1981-09-28	Bjorn Borg
7	10730	1997-03-03	Pete Sampras
8	9846	1977-09-12	Jimmy Connors
9	9003	1990-11-19	Stefan Edberg
10	8335	1978-06-12	Guillermo Vilas
11	8255	1990-03-12	Boris Becker
12	8226	1988-09-12	Mats Wilander
13	7846	2016-11-21	Andy Murray
14	7366	2003-03-31	Andre Agassi
15	5836	2017-06-12	Stan Wawrinka
16	5753	2014-08-18	David Ferrer
17	5386	2020-10-12	Dominic Thiem

Code:

Najboljih 261 nedjelja (5 godina):

		zavrsno sa
1	13308	2016-06-06	Novak Djokovic
2	12736	2008-09-08	Roger Federer
3	11671	1990-02-26	Ivan Lendl
4	11385	1984-07-09	John McEnroe
5	10802	2012-01-30	Rafael Nadal
6	10485	1997-11-17	Pete Sampras
7	10260	1981-01-19	Bjorn Borg
8	9831	1978-09-11	Jimmy Connors
9	9082	1991-10-14	Stefan Edberg
10	8367	1991-02-18	Boris Becker
11	7972	1980-05-26	Guillermo Vilas
12	7940	1988-09-12	Mats Wilander
13	7881	2016-11-21	Andy Murray
14	6718	2003-07-07	Andre Agassi
15	5553	2015-04-06	David Ferrer
16	5248	2017-06-26	Stan Wawrinka
17	5086	2020-11-23	Dominic Thiem

NI · 10-03-21, 16:16

Na deset godina Federer u Djokovic su jednaki. Prednost koju Novak ima je u okviru greske racunanja. Rafa preskocio Mekinro ali daleko zaustaje za Ledlom koji je treci.

Code:

Najboljih 522 nedjelja (10 godina):

		zavrsno sa
1	10893	2016-11-21	Novak Djokovic
2	10865	2013-01-28	Roger Federer
3	10401	1990-02-26	Ivan Lendl
4	9726	2014-07-07	Rafael Nadal
5	8695	1987-05-18	John McEnroe
6	8563	2000-07-10	Pete Sampras
7	8519	1983-11-14	Jimmy Connors
8	7538	1982-04-12	Bjorn Borg
9	7384	1994-07-25	Stefan Edberg
10	6938	1996-01-29	Boris Becker
11	6843	2017-07-17	Andy Murray
12	6294	1984-05-14	Guillermo Vilas
13	6000	2004-02-02	Andre Agassi
14	5446	1991-06-10	Mats Wilander
15	4349	2016-02-29	David Ferrer
16	3590	2017-06-26	Stan Wawrinka

--------

Na 15 godina, Federer je ocekivano prvi, dok je trojka Rafa, Novak i Roger odmakla svima:

Code:

Najbolje 783 nedjelje (15 godina)

		zavrsno sa
1	9575	2018-04-02	Roger Federer
2	9323	2021-02-22	Novak Djokovic
3	8912	2019-11-18	Rafael Nadal
4	8074	1994-05-02	Ivan Lendl
5	7519	1987-10-26	Jimmy Connors
6	6629	1992-12-14	John McEnroe
7	6388	2003-02-10	Pete Sampras
8	5549	1999-07-05	Boris Becker
9	5348	2003-03-31	Andre Agassi
10	5346	1997-09-01	Stefan Edberg
11	4879	2020-10-19	Andy Murray
12	4442	1987-05-04	Guillermo Vilas
13	3775	1996-06-10	Mats Wilander
14	3409	2017-08-21	David Ferrer
15	2776	2020-11-09	Stan Wawrinka

-----------

Samo cetvorica imaju rezultate koji se protezu 20 godina a Federer dalako bolji od drugog Konorsa.

Code:

Najboljih 1044 nedjelja (20 godina)

		zavrsno sa
1	8202	2020-02-03	Roger Federer
2	6067	1991-12-16	Jimmy Connors
3	4596	2006-09-11	Andre Agassi
4	3384	1989-06-12	Guillermo Vilas

**talicni** · 10-03-21, 17:00

https://www.mmu.ac.uk/law/about-us/o...ex.php?id=4209

Dr Katarina Pijetlovic
Reader in Sports Law
Email addressk.pijetlovic@mmu.ac.uk
Telephone+44 (0)161 247 2378
Office location
6.20 Sandra Burslem Building, Manchester Campus

Academic Biography

Academic and professional qualifications

1) 2009-2015 Doctor of Laws (LL.D) higher doctorate degree (Magna Cum Laude Honours), University of Helsinki, Faculty of Law

2) 2004-2009 Licentiate in Law (LL.Lic) lower doctoral degree (Magna Cum Laude Honours, University of Helsinki, Faculty of Law

3) 2003-2004 Master of Laws (LL.M) in Contract and Commercial law (Magna Cum Laude Honours), University of Helsinki, Faculty of Law

4) 1998-2002 Bachelor of Laws (LL.B) (Cum Laude Honours), Concordia International University Estonia

Previous employment

Prior to joining Manchester Law School in March 2019, I worked at a number of academic institutions both in the UK and overseas. I was a Senior Lectuerer at Liverpool Hope University (2015-2019) and I served as a Sports Law Module Leader at Football Industries MBA Programme, University of Liverpool (2016-2019).
I lectured in Competititon Law at LL.M Programme in Contract and Commercial Law and in Sports Law at the University of Helsinki, Faculty of Law (2004-2015) where I conducted my doctoral research. In 2005-2015 I was a Lectuer in EU Law, EU Competition Law, and Sports Law at Tallinn Law School in Estonia. I spent 2014 as a Visitng Scholar at ISDE Master Programme in International Sports Law in New York.

Research Expertise, Publications & Grants
Research expertise
BOOKS

Katarina Pijetlovic (2015), “EU Sports Law and Breakaway Leagues in Football”, Springer (ASSER International Sports Law Series). Review available in Common Law Market Review 53:1 (2016).

BOOK CHAPTERS

Katarina Pijetlovic (2018) “European Model of Sport: Alternative Structures”. In Jack Anderson, Richard Parrish and Borja Garcia “Research Handbook on EU Sports Law and Policy” Edward Elgar: UK.

Katarina Pijetlovic (2016) “EU Competition Law and Organisational Rules in Sports”. In Antoine Duval and Ben Van Rompuy (eds) “The Legacy of Bosman: Re-visiting the Relationship between EU Law and Sport” Springer (ASSER International Sports Law Series) pp. 117-151.

Katarina Pijetlovic (2013) “Fundamental Rights of Athletes in the EU post-Lisbon”. In Kerikmäe (ed.) “Protecting Human Rights in the EU: Controversies and Challenges of the Charter of Fundamental Rights”, Springer.

Katarina Pijetlovic (2012) “Estonia: Legal Regulation of Sports Betting under the New Gambling Act” in Robert Siekmann et al, ed. “Sports Betting: Law and Policy”, Springer (ASSER International Sports Law Series) pp-363-382.

ACADEMIC ARTICLES

Katarina Pijetlovic (2017) EU Sports Law: Uniform Algorithm for Regulatory Rules. International Sports Law Journal 17(1) pp. 86-100. Springer International Publishing.

Katarina Pijetlovic and Katrin Nyman-Metcalf (2013) Liberalising the Service Market for Satellite Transmission: Interplay Between Intellectual Property Rights, Specificity of Sport and TFEU Economic Provisions in Murphy (Joined Cases C‑403/08 and C‑429/08). The International Sports Law Journal 1/2 Asser/Springer.

Katarina Pijetlovic, et al. (2013) Corruption and Manipulation in Sport: Interdisciplinary perspectives. Gaming Law Review and Economics New York: Mary Ann Liebert publishing.

Katarina Pijetlovic (2011) European Union Sports Policy Update. Sports Law and Policy Journal, 18: 2.

Katarina Pijetlovic (2010) Another Classic of EU Sports Jurisprudence: Legal Implications of Case C 325/08 Olimpique Lyonnais v. Olivier Bernard and Newcastle United. Sweet & Maxwell: European Law Review, 35, 858-869.

Also published as a Focus Article in Sweet & Maxwell: European Current Law, ix-xxvii, (April 2010).
Katarina Pijetlovic (2009) Paragraph 31 of C-519/04 Meca-Medina Reversed. T.M.C. Asser Press: The Hague. The International Sports Law Journal, no. 1-2.

Katarina Pijetlovic (2009) Application of EU competition law to the sports sector. Developments in political, legal, societal and cultural thought. Articles in social sciences and humanities - Proceedings of the Institute for European Studies, International University Audentes, No. 5, pp. 57-85.

Katarina Pijetlovic (2009) Euroopa Liidu olulisemad sporti puudutavad kohtulahendid. In Sporditöötaja Käsiraamat. (translation: “European Union Sports Cases” in “Handbook for Employee in Sports Sector”) (2009), under the auspices of the Estonian Olympic Committee and Estonian Ministry for Culture, Estonian Ministry for Research and Education. Available at http://www.spordiinfo.ee/sporditootaja_kasiraamat

Katarina Pijetlovic (2004) Reform of the EC Antitrust Enforcement: Criticism of the New System Is Highly Exaggerated. European Competition Law Review, 25:6, Sweet & Maxwell, pp. 356-369.
Katarina Pijetlovic (2003) Business Law in EU; Private International Law. Estonian Business School Handbook.

BOOK REVIEWS

Katarina Pijetlovic, “EU, Sport, Law and Policy: Regulation, Re-regulation and Representation” Simon Gardiner, Richard Parrish and Robert C.R. Siekmann (Eds.), T.M.C. Asser Press: The Hague (2009). The International Sports Law Journal, no. 1-2, (2009).
Katarina Pijetlovic, “Brussels I Regulation: European Commentaries on Private International Law” (2008) vol. 45, issue 3. Common Market Law Review, pp. 920-921.

CONFERENCE PAPERS

June 2019 Valletta (Malta) Sport&EU Annual Conference "European Club Football at the Crossroads: Analysis under Competition Law"

April 2019 Lille (France) "Breaking the Monopoly on the Organisational Market"

Sept 2018, LawinSport Annual Conference Panellist

July 2018, Ormskirk (UK) at Edge Hill University, Sport&EU Annual Conference: “Breaking the monopoly on the organisational market for sporting events without breaking the law: establishing unchallengeable rival leagues and competitions”. Research presentation.

June 2016, Madrid (Spain) at San Pablo University, Sport&EU Annual Conference: “The ISU case and the role of the EU Commission in the sporting sector: Antitrust and jurisdictional analysis”. Research presentation and moderator of a panel.

June 2016, Las Vegas (USA), 16th International Conference on Gambling & Risk Taking: “Match Fixing in Professional Tennis”. Research presentation.

June 2015, Angers (France), Sport&EU Annual Conference: “A novel legal perspective on Bosman case”.

April 2014, Hofstra University (New York), Soccer as the Beautiful Game: “External structures and internal structuring: will European soccer ever adopt American model of sports?”. Research presentation.

October 2013, Aarhus (Denmark), Play The Game conference: “The Kafkaesque enforcement of Uniform Tennis Anti-Corruption Programme”. Research presentation.

June 2013, Istanbul (Turkey), Sport&EU Annual Conference: “The fight against corruption in sports and the fundamental rights of athletes in the EU Post-Lisbon“. Research presentation.

October 2012, Tallahassee (US) Florida State University, Sports Management 14th Annual Conference, Panelist on Research Roundtable on “Corruption, Manipulation and Gambling in Sports”. Panellist.

October 2011, Cologne (Germany) Play The Game conference: “Curious case of draws at the Grand Slam tournaments 2008-2011”. Research presentation.

November 2010, Seoul (South Korea), World Congress of Sports Law: “EU law approach to training compensation fees in football”. Research presentation.

September 2010, Istanbul (Turkey), International Sport Law and Business conference: “Legal analysis of the ECJ judgment in C-325/08 Bernard”. Research presentation.

June 2009, Stirling (UK) Sport&EU annual conference: “Treatment of breakaway structures under EU competition law”. Research presentation.

June 2009, Coventry (UK), Play The Game conference: “Power struggles in football and treatment of breakaway structures under EU competition law”. Research presentation.

November 2008, Athens (Greece), World Congress on Sports Law: “Convergence between economic provisions of the Treaty in their application to sports”. Research presentation.

Publications

Books (authored/edited/special issues)
K. Pijetlovic (2015). EU Sports Law and Breakaway Leagues in Football. Springer.

Journal articles
K. Pijetlovic (2017). EU sports law: a uniform algorithm for regulatory rules. International Sports Law Journal. 17(1-2), pp.86-100.

R. Rodenberg, B. Tuohy, R. Borghesi, K. Pijetlovic, SP. Griffin (2013). Corruption and Manipulation in Sports: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Gaming Law Review and Economics. 17(3), pp.175-187.

K. Pijetlovic, K. Nyman-Metcalf (2013). Liberalising the service market for satellite transmission: interplay between intellectual property rights, specificity of sport and TFEU economic provisions in Murphy (joined cases C-403/08 and C-429/08). The International Sports Law Journal. 13(1-2), pp.82-96.

K. Pijetlovic (2010). Another classic of EU sports jurisprudence: Legal implications of Olympique Lyonnais SASP v Olivier Bernard and Newcastle UFC (C-325/08). EUROPEAN LAW REVIEW. 35(6), pp.857-868.

K. Pijetlovic (2008). Brussels I regulation: European commentaries on private international law. COMMON MARKET LAW REVIEW. 45(3), pp.920-921.

K. Pijetlovic (2004). Reform of the EC Antitrust Enforcement: Criticism of the New System Is Highly Exaggerated. ECLR: European Competition Law Review. 25(6), pp.356-369.

Chapters in books

K. Pijetlovic (2018). European model of sport: Alternative structures. J. Anderson, R. Parrish, B. García. In: Research handbook on EU sports law and policy. Edward Elgar Publishing, pp.326-359.

K. Pijetlovic (2016). EU Competition Law and Organisational Rules. In: The Legacy of Bosman: Revisiting the Relationship Between EU Law and Sport. Springer, pp.117-151.

K. Pijetlovic (2014). Fundamental Rights of Athletes in the EU Post-Lisbon. T. Kerikmäe. In: Protecting Human Rights in the EU. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp.161-186.

K. Pijetlovic (2011). Estonia: Legal Regulation of Sports Betting under the New Gambling Act. In: Sports Betting: Law and Policy. Springer Science & Business Media,

**talicni** · 10-03-21, 17:29

sto se tice h2h i onih dodatnih ekstra poena pri razmatranju. tu ne bih uzimao u obzir ako je ispod 10 meceva. 1- kakvo je to rivalstvo top tenisera ako nisu oigrali i 10 meceva sada kada imamo niz obaveznih turnira. 2- za bilo kakvu ozbiljnu statisticku analizu treba posojati neka reprezentativna aza podataka. recmo onoliko q-rcenjesa kirjosovim h2h protiv noleta. 2-0. mislim kakvi su oni uopste rivali. i 2 meca protiv rovitog noleta u njegovoj apsolutno najgoroj godini otkako je postao top igrac.

NI · 10-03-21, 20:09

Moguce da je ELO sistem bolja mjera za relativnu snagu tenisera. Kod njega nema naglih skokova kao kod rankings gdje se poeni izgube poslije 52 nedjelje. Osim toga pegla odredjene anomalije. Npr. Borg, Konors i Mekinro su manjevise konstatno preskakali AO. U njihove vrijme je to bio nebitan turnira. Time su gubili sansu da dodju do 2000 poena vise.

Nazalost, ELO sistem nije pravljen za tenis i neaktivni igrac pretjerano sporo gubi rejting. Na UTS-a su zato uveli i recent ELO. Taj pak previse brzo reaguje na skorasnje rezultate igraca. Tako je na primjer Djokovic, mjereno recent-ELO om, prvi put posta broj jdan u jesen 2009. On je odigrao nekoliko odlicnih turnira, pobijedio Rafi i Federera. Svejedno, tesko da je bio broj 1.

Svejedno, poredjenja otkrivaju ponesto.

Broj nedjelja na 1. mjestu mjereno ELO-om:

Code:

Broj nedjelja kao broj 1:		
		
	nedj.	
1	365	Roger Federer
2	344	Novak Djokovic
3	338	Pete Sampras
4	277	Bjorn Borg
5	267	Ivan Lendl
6	184	Jimmy Connors
7	174	Rafael Nadal
8	139	John McEnroe
9	124	Andre Agassi
10	65	Boris Becker
11	36	Stefan Edberg

Borg najvise dobija, nema Marija, Vilandera i Vilasa. Opet su na vrhu Niovak i Rodzer na vrhu.

---------
Maksimalni rejting:

Code:

Maksimalni rejting:

	poena
1	2629	Novak Djokovic
2	2611	Bjorn Borg
3	2578	John McEnroe
4	2552	Rafael Nadal
5	2550	Roger Federer
6	2516	Ivan Lendl
7	2500	Andy Murray
8	2498	Jimmy Connors
9	2418	Boris Becker
10	2416	Guillermo Vilas
11	2406	Pete Sampras
12	2377	Mats Wilander
13	2376	Andre Agassi
14	2369	Stefan Edberg
15	2348	David Ferrer
16	2291	Stan Wawrinka
17	2250	Dominic Thiem

Zacudjujuce, Federer je tek 5. To posljedica slabije konkurencije kad je on bio najbolji. Marijev maksimum je 7. na listi iako nikada nije bio broj jedana mjereno ELO-om. To je odraz izuzeten konkurencije. Zacudjujuce visko je i Vilas, dok je Sampras tek 11. On je uvijek rasporedjivao snagu, sto je ELO uhvatio.

**talicni** · 10-03-21, 20:39

kada vec govoris o ELOu i snazi konkurencije:

https://telesport.telegram.hr/wp-con...pponentELO.jpg

NI · 10-03-21, 20:45

Jos manje ocekivane rezultate daje komparacija za recent ELO

Code:

Broj nedjelja kao broj 1:		
		
	nedj.	
1	363	Roger Federer
2	312	Novak Djokovic
3	273	Ivan Lendl
4	265	Pete Sampras
5	205	Bjorn Borg
6	202	Jimmy Connors
7	188	Rafael Nadal
8	130	John McEnroe
9	123	Andre Agassi
10	86	Boris Becker
11	48	Stefan Edberg
12	25	Andy Murray
13	14	Mats Wilander
14	3	Guillermo Vilas

Novaku ce trebati jos vremena da stigne Federera. Mari, Vilander i Vilas su na listi.

----
Najvisi ostvareni nivo jos vise iznenadjuje:

Code:

Maksimalni rejting u prvih 4:

	poena
1	2801	Bjorn Borg
2	2786	Novak Djokovic
3	2751	John McEnroe
4	2716	Roger Federer
5	2697	Rafael Nadal
6	2693	Ivan Lendl
7	2680	Jimmy Connors
8	2652	Andy Murray
9	2598	Guillermo Vilas
10	2577	Boris Becker
11	2575	Pete Sampras
12	2560	Mats Wilander
13	2536	Andre Agassi
14	2513	Stefan Edberg
15	2480	David Ferrer
16	2474	Stan Wawrinka
17	2374	Dominic Thiem

Borg je prvi! Nije greska, postoje razlozi za to. On je u periodu od 28. maja 1979. do 7. jula 1980. ima:

-90 pobjeda i 2 poraza Tanera i Vilasa (Jedan mec je predao Kriku.)
4:0 sa Konorsom
3:0 sa Lendlom
2:1 sa Vilasom
2:0 sa Mekinrom

Osvojio je 54 slema od 5 koje je igrao.

Druge mjere ne hvataju tu Borgovu fantsticnu seriju!

Announcement

Rekordi teniskih majstora današnjice

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment