View Full Version : which is more important: no of weeks at no.1,or no. or years end at no. 1

04-21-2009, 02:20 AM
Theoretically, player A and B can rank at no. 1 and 2 respectively for the 1st 49 weeks of year X, then swap places at week 50 when things shut down. Then player B is the year end no 1.

People remember player B more than player A. So who is greater?

a player can at any rank but no1 thru out the year going into the final match of the Master Cup, win it and become the year end no 1 for three weeks for the year, then be dethroned the first week next year at Adeliade, since ranking point are so close, thoughts?

04-21-2009, 02:22 AM
# of weeks.

04-21-2009, 02:24 AM
# of weeks.

04-21-2009, 02:30 AM
# of weeks.

Cesc Fabregas
04-21-2009, 02:34 AM
Year ending no. 1.

04-21-2009, 03:48 AM
Neither Nubmer Of Grand Slams And The Money U Make From Tennis Is More Important!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

04-21-2009, 03:49 AM
Number of year end number 1 can be deceptive. A person can have a total of 4 weeks at number 1 spot, and ended up with 4 year-end number 1. Overall, weeks are better indication of dominance.

04-21-2009, 04:39 AM
The year end # 1 is a lot more important.

The #1 during the year is useful for tournament seedings, no one cares whos leading in the middle of the season. The end of year #1 is useful to determine the best player of the Calendar year before players have an off season and start again the next year to try to be the best player of the year.

So definitely the year end #1 is more meaningful.

King of Aces
04-21-2009, 04:41 AM

In the end no one remebers rankings as they mean nothing.

Boris Becker is a hall of famer and considered one of the greatest of all time. And yet he never finished a year with a year end #1 ranking,

Bottom line: who cares?

04-21-2009, 04:45 AM
I say year end--shows consistency throughout the year.

04-21-2009, 04:49 AM
I don't really know...no suprise that Sampras fans picked Year end number 1

I say if they overlap like Fed thats good

Maintaining number 1 for all the weeks and being year end number 1 for four years shows the consistency not to lose that ranking

04-21-2009, 05:35 AM
Weeks because it gives an more accurate depiction of how long a person was actually the #1 player in the world.

You could have two players neck and neck all year and the year end #1 is decided by the masters. Player A could have had the #1 ranking for 40 weeks with Player B on his coat tails all year then Player B wins the Masters and takes the year end #1. Player B is certainly not the more dominant player for the year because he had the #1 ranking for 1/5 the time Player A did.

04-21-2009, 05:41 AM
Year-end #1. Like a race it's not how you start, but how you finish.

04-21-2009, 05:55 AM
I think it's actually not very trivial and I will present a scenario to demonstrate this.

Lets say player A and B are neck and neck and then player A plays his favourite (strongest) tournament early in the year and goes ahead in points. The rest of the year their results are fairly identical with player B just doing maybe 1-2 % better than player A and narrowing the gap to something really small. And then player B wins his strongest tournament at the end of the year and becomes year end No 1. He holds this no 1 position until player A's strong tournament next yr and then they swap again. I don't think in this scenario you can clearly say who the better player is .

04-21-2009, 01:01 PM
It's all how you look at it. I personally like weeks more than years but really most times years and weeks coincide.

04-21-2009, 01:03 PM
Weeks. I shows how long someone really spent on top.

Year end #1 is just an arbitrary mark.