PDA

View Full Version : The more "important" record? Weeks at #1 or YE #1s?


Prisoner of Birth
09-14-2012, 10:14 PM
Which would you consider the better record to hold, most weeks at #1 or most year-end #1s? I personally think the weeks record is better to hold but I guess one could make a case for YE #1s as well.

Russeljones
09-14-2012, 10:57 PM
Which would you consider the better record to hold, most weeks at #1 or most year-end #1s? I personally think the weeks record is better to hold but I guess one could make a case for YE #1s as well.

Jeffrey Archer inspired forum name! I salute you! :)

zagor
09-14-2012, 11:07 PM
Most weeks at #1 and most consecutive weeks at #1 are both far more important than YE #1s, no doubt about it.

TennisMaestro
09-14-2012, 11:08 PM
Most weeks as one can clinch YE for 1 week

Sentinel
09-14-2012, 11:16 PM
Most weeks at #1 and most consecutive weeks at #1 are both far more important than YE #1s, no doubt about it.

Most weeks as one can clinch YE for 1 week

Are you guys saying it's possible to be #2 all the year, and then suddenly clinch YE #1 at the end ?

Are there any YE #1's that come to mind, that were not dominant in that year ?

As of now, this year who has had the #1 position for more weeks -- anyone know ?

helloworld
09-14-2012, 11:17 PM
Most weeks at #1 and most consecutive weeks at #1 are both far more important than YE #1s, no doubt about it.

Most weeks at #1 is more important, but consecutive weeks are not. It doesn't matter if you are #1 consecutively or not. What matters is how many weeks were you #1 in your entire career that counts.

jones101
09-14-2012, 11:19 PM
Are you guys saying it's possible to be #2 all the year, and then suddenly clinch YE #1 at the end ?

Are there any YE #1's that come to mind, that were not dominant in that year ?

As of now, this year who has had the #1 position for more weeks -- anyone know ?

Yes, that is possible! Especially if the number 2 player did poorly at the YEC and the number 1 won the event the previous year, its a potential 3000 point swing!

Federer/Djokovic could be in a similar position this year!

helloworld
09-14-2012, 11:25 PM
Yes, that is possible! Especially if the number 2 player did poorly at the YEC and the number 1 won the event the previous year, its a potential 3000 point swing!

Federer/Djokovic could be in a similar position this year!

It can happen, but usually the year end #1 is the one with the best result throughout the whole year. No matter who ended the year as #1, they do rightfully and truthfully deserve it.

urban
09-14-2012, 11:38 PM
Clearly Year end Nr. 1. It defines the World Champion for the season. Nobody cares, who is leading the Formula 1 standings in summer. What counts, is the World Championships at the end of the season.

nereis
09-14-2012, 11:46 PM
Year end rankings matter more than a rolling ranking if only because it provides an evaluation of the performance over only one season.

merlinpinpin
09-14-2012, 11:49 PM
Are you guys saying it's possible to be #2 all the year, and then suddenly clinch YE #1 at the end ?

Are there any YE #1's that come to mind, that were not dominant in that year ?

Yes it is. That's basically what Roddick did in 2003 (although he was #1 for a couple of weeks in March). He then got it back during the Masters at the very end of the year (by winning one single match, Federer would have been #1 had Roddick lost that one, it was that close) and he kept it until the end of the Australian Open 2004. His total at #1: 13 weeks, most of which came during the winter break... ;)

As of now, this year who has had the #1 position for more weeks -- anyone know ?

Djokovic, obviously, as he was #1 from the start of the year to Wimbledon. And Federer since then.

BorisBeckerFan
09-14-2012, 11:57 PM
Year end rankings matter more than a rolling ranking if only because it provides an evaluation of the performance over only one season.

You are correct.

The Bawss
09-15-2012, 12:21 AM
Who cares about year end number 1? It is a a measure of who happens to be number 1 at the completely arbitrary time of november.

TheNatural
09-15-2012, 12:54 AM
end of year = the finish line. Who cares who is leading the race before the finish line.

BorisBeckerFan
09-15-2012, 12:55 AM
end of year = the finish line. Who cares who is leading the race before the finish line.

You are correct.

Satsuma Illini
09-15-2012, 12:55 AM
I've always held the YE #1 in high regard. Along with the Grand slams, WTF, Olympic Gold, Davis Cup, I think it is one record a player would cherish if he got it. Wilander and Edberg managed to get that YE #1 but Becker never did. Tough to do.

Sentinel
09-15-2012, 12:59 AM
Year end rankings matter more than a rolling ranking if only because it provides an evaluation of the performance over only one season.

Who cares about year end number 1? It is a a measure of who happens to be number 1 at the completely arbitrary time of november.

You have a point there. It is an arbitrary time, sanctioned only by our notion of a year/year-end. To have YE decided by the result of one match seems to devalue it, imo.

However, on telly prior to a match it is YE rankings that they show. Different people could have been #1 throughout the year, but if I ask you who was the #1 in 1990, I expect one name, and that name basically takes Jan to Dec into account.

Sentinel
09-15-2012, 01:04 AM
Most weeks at #1 is more important, but consecutive weeks are not. It doesn't matter if you are #1 consecutively or not. What matters is how many weeks were you #1 in your entire career that counts.

Consecutive weeks is certainly very impressive esp if it is close to total weeks or held by one person.

However, if consecutive week's record is, say, half of total weeks, then consecutive loses its value. Since Federer has both, so its not a big deal.

Was there a #1 player whose consecutive weeks count would have been higher than Fed's but for one week he lost somewhere in between ?

WhiskeyEE
09-15-2012, 01:05 AM
end of year = the finish line. Who cares who is leading the race before the finish line.

That analogy might make sense if we were considering weeks as race leader, not weeks as number 1. Ranking considers the previous 12 months, not just since the start of the year. The start and finish lines are arbitrary and in reality don't exist.

Sentinel
09-15-2012, 01:10 AM
end of year = the finish line. Who cares who is leading the race before the finish line.

Each event has it's finish line which is the title. You are creating an artificial finish line here.

What this can lead to is a scramble to be #1 at an arbitrary point by maybe going for an extra event (maybe a small one) just to be ahead at that one moment.

It reminds me of that time after WO when there were threads by people: what if Nole enters some 250 or 125 point event in Timbumktoo to take back the #1 from Federer !

BorisBeckerFan
09-15-2012, 01:11 AM
That analogy might make sense if we were considering weeks as race leader, not weeks as number 1. Ranking considers the previous 12 months, not just since the start of the year. The start and finish lines are arbitrary and in reality don't exist.

In reality the finish line does exist. That's why there is time off in the tennis schedule between the end of one year and the begining of the next. I think you are simply choosing to ignore reality.

nereis
09-15-2012, 01:12 AM
That analogy might make sense if we were considering weeks as race leader, not weeks as number 1. Ranking considers the previous 12 months, not just since the start of the year. The start and finish lines are arbitrary and in reality don't exist.

The purpose of the year end ranking is to evaluate who has performed the best for that season.

There is no difference in computing the points between the two, simply that the current ranking reflects last season's performance in addition to some of this year's.

At the season end, all the last year's points expire and as a result the rankings reflect only the performance over the most recent season.

Hence, this gives us an apples to apples comparison if we want to see who has been more successful for the 2012 season.

WhiskeyEE
09-15-2012, 01:13 AM
In reality the finish line does exist. That's why there is time off in the tennis schedule between the end of one year and the begining of the next. I think you are simply choosing to ignore reality.

I think you are simply too stupid to understand reality.

nereis
09-15-2012, 01:17 AM
I think you are simply too stupid to understand reality.

I would be interested in seeing your opinion on how to evaluate employee performance and remuneration, which dates to use as cutoffs, whether or not we keep the time spans consistent or whether the timing of performance matters.

In other words, do we give bonuses based on a rolling 12-month window or do we award them at year-end?

WhiskeyEE
09-15-2012, 01:18 AM
The purpose of the year end ranking is to evaluate who has performed the best for that season.

There is no difference in computing the points between the two, simply that the current ranking reflects last season's performance in addition to some of this year's.

At the season end, all the last year's points expire and as a result the rankings reflect only the performance over the most recent season.

Hence, this gives us an apples to apples comparison if we want to see who has been more successful for the 2012 season.

Tennis is not a seasonal sport. There is no regular season and there is no playoffs. In reality, year end number 1 holds no more weight than, say, July end number 1.

Paul Murphy
09-15-2012, 01:24 AM
I'd take number of weeks every time.

WhiskeyEE
09-15-2012, 01:26 AM
I would be interested in seeing your opinion on how to evaluate employee performance and remuneration, which dates to use as cutoffs, whether or not we keep the time spans consistent or whether the timing of performance matters.

In other words, do we give bonuses based on a rolling 12-month window or do we award them at year-end?

It doesn't matter. Depending on the bonus structure (I'm assuming % of revenue generated or sales or something), it should even out in the end. I mean, depending on the window, a guy can either do pretty good over 2 of them, or do really well one window and mediocre the next. Regardless of the windows used, his cumulative bonuses will be the same.

Not the same if you only consider year end number 1, since you're either awarded it or not. Which isn't the case with most bonus structures.

edit: nm I completely misread your post. It's way too late.

Year end, July end, doesn't matter. That's my point. It's arbitrary.

nereis
09-15-2012, 01:26 AM
Tennis is not a seasonal sport. There is no regular season and there is no playoffs. In reality, year end number 1 holds no more weight than, say, July end number 1.

I would to see your reply to who was the most successful player for 1990, 1992, 1998, 1999 etc.

A natural implication of your claim would seem to be that there are many 'most successful players' for each year, or that a 'most successful player' for a single year does not exist.

Likewise, it would then imply that for a business (that also does not have a regular season or playoffs) that we could not award bonuses for the best performing employees due to 'arbitrary cut-off dates.'

WhiskeyEE
09-15-2012, 01:38 AM
I would to see your reply to who was the most successful player for 1990, 1992, 1998, 1999 etc.

A natural implication of your claim would seem to be that there are many 'most successful players' for each year, or that a 'most successful player' for a single year does not exist.

Likewise, it would then imply that for a business (that also does not have a regular season or playoffs) that we could not award bonuses for the best performing employees due to 'arbitrary cut-off dates.'

I'm not saying that you can't determine the most successful player for a given year. I'm saying that being the most successful player for a given year is no more significant than being the most successful player over any other window of 12 months.

BorisBeckerFan
09-15-2012, 01:41 AM
I think you are simply too stupid to understand reality.

I'll just assume you are drunk right now, and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

helloworld
09-15-2012, 02:12 AM
Tennis is not a seasonal sport. There is no regular season and there is no playoffs. In reality, year end number 1 holds no more weight than, say, July end number 1.

You are just too funny. :lol:

pame
09-15-2012, 02:19 AM
I'll just assume you are drunk right now, and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

We'll also have to assume similar for you, otherwise how do you rationalise the example given earlier of Roddick ending Year #1, when he was No. 1 for only 13 weeks betwen November 3, 2003 and February 1, 2004, a period which in fact by the calendar year meant he had been no. 1 for only the last 8 of the previous 52 weeks.

Gustavo Kuerten is also on record ending Year #1 between December 4, 2000 and January 28, 2001

Yet he had a longer stint of THIRTY weeks at World No 1, but because this happened to fall between April 23, 2001 and November 18, 2001 this period is supposed to have less significance than his EIGHT-week stint between December 4, 2000 and January 28, 2001 because the latter happened to have occurred at the end of the calendar year!!!

Vcore89
09-15-2012, 03:29 AM
Consecutive weeks is certainly very impressive esp if it is close to total weeks or held by one person.

However, if consecutive week's record is, say, half of total weeks, then consecutive loses its value. Since Federer has both, so its not a big deal.

Was there a #1 player whose consecutive weeks count would have been higher than Fed's but for one week he lost somewhere in between ?

None, no one else!

Tennis_Hands
09-15-2012, 03:43 AM
I will take the number of weeks at the top, any time, every time.

Or an YE#1, if it was awarded only when the player, who gets it for any particular year, has the most weeks at the #1 from all active players in that year.

fuzzyball
09-15-2012, 04:08 AM
Are there any YE #1's that come to mind, that were not dominant in that year ?

Kuerten in 2000

Russeljones
09-15-2012, 04:09 AM
Tennis is not a seasonal sport. There is no regular season and there is no playoffs. In reality, year end number 1 holds no more weight than, say, July end number 1.

You should write the ATP an open letter wherein you elaborate on your brilliant theory.

Warmaster
09-15-2012, 04:20 AM
Consecutive weeks is certainly very impressive esp if it is close to total weeks or held by one person.

However, if consecutive week's record is, say, half of total weeks, then consecutive loses its value. Since Federer has both, so its not a big deal.

Was there a #1 player whose consecutive weeks count would have been higher than Fed's but for one week he lost somewhere in between ?

Jimmy Connors was #1 for 160 consecutive weeks, then lost it to Borg for 1 week, and then he was #1 for another 84 consecutive weeks. So Connors was #1 for 244/245 weeks at that point.

kOaMaster
09-15-2012, 04:28 AM
Clearly Year end Nr. 1. It defines the World Champion for the season. Nobody cares, who is leading the Formula 1 standings in summer. What counts, is the World Championships at the end of the season.

That is because they start from zero in march. In tennis there is no real "beginning" of the ranking as it goes on and always considers the results over 52 weeks. Therefore the ranking is also always accurate and there are no "lucky number ones leading" as for example the first winner of the 1. Grand Prix in formula one or the first world cup winner in alpine skiing.

To conclude: Of course #weeks@1 count more - since the YE#1 is just one week as well.

Prisoner of Birth
09-15-2012, 04:31 AM
Jeffrey Archer inspired forum name! I salute you! :)

Thank you, bud.

Russeljones
09-15-2012, 04:33 AM
Is it really so difficult to appreciate that YE #1 signifies the most consistent/dominant tennis player? Nobody flukes a YE #1. To denigrate it as some posters have done is to undermine the entire rankings system.

kOaMaster
09-15-2012, 04:53 AM
Is it really so difficult to appreciate that YE #1 signifies the most consistent/dominant tennis player? Nobody flukes a YE #1. To denigrate it as some posters have done is to undermine the entire rankings system.

do you think anybody flukes a week at number one? it's the result of the exact same tournaments, just over another span of time.

Sentinel
09-15-2012, 04:55 AM
I can think of a hypothetical situation where A has several titles, and B has NO titles but plenty of final and semi-final appearances. Yet, B pips A in terms of points.

(In reality A would have 7 or so titles, and B would have 1-2 titles).

Now who deserves to be number one. For that matter who is the better player for that year.

I think this is becoming very subjective, with some people feeling there is a clear finish line, and some feeling it's artificial.

Joker has more weeks as #1 this year, but who has more titles ?

Jimmy Connors was #1 for 160 consecutive weeks, then lost it to Borg for 1 week, and then he was #1 for another 84 consecutive weeks. So Connors was #1 for 244/245 weeks at that point.

Thanks, I was thinking of Connors but was not sure.

Russeljones
09-15-2012, 04:58 AM
do you think anybody flukes a week at number one? it's the result of the exact same tournaments, just over another span of time.

I also don't think the price of tomatoes in Angola matter to my gas bill. Which is why I didn't mention it just like I didn't mention weeks at number one. What one needs do to accumulate weeks at number one is an integral part of being year end number 1. If you can't see that, there's little hope for you.

kOaMaster
09-15-2012, 05:03 AM
I also don't think the price of tomatoes in Angola matter to my gas bill. Which is why I didn't mention it just like I didn't mention weeks at number one. What one needs do to accumulate weeks at number one is an integral part of being year end number 1. If you can't see that, there's little hope for you.

No?
There is no need to "accumulate" weeks at number one, it's just about having the weeks at the right time. For example it is very likely this year for federer to be the number 1 just the way until the WTF and then lose it to djokovic.
So Djokovic didn't need to accumulate any weeks of being number one, he needed to accumulate enough points at the right time to be the year end #1.

Either we talk about different stuff or you don't get what I want.

PS: I don't like tomatoes.

cknobman
09-15-2012, 05:37 AM
Lmao just look at who voted years end #1.

Ftr i only pick weeks because its so high right now, so say the record for weeks was only 200 then id say years end. I mean at 300+ weeks your now talking almost 6 years.

Talker
09-15-2012, 05:42 AM
Weeks at #1 is more of a career record.
Having a bunch of YE #1's can be a career record too though.

Who ever is #1 at anytime has the best record over the past year, YE is just a special case.



For 3 years and two players:
You can have one player with 3 YE #1's and 16 actual weeks at #1.
Or
One player with 0 YE #1's with 140 weeks at #1.

Weeks at #1 will be the decider between the two IMO.

Bobby Jr
09-15-2012, 05:48 AM
Most weeks at #1 and most consecutive weeks at #1 are both far more important than YE #1s, no doubt about it.
Absolutely.

As someone else mentioned, you could be #2 or even #3 all year and clinch the #1 ranking at the year ending championships and have the year ending #1 for only a matter of a few weeks - while someone else could have held it for 40+ weeks.

Bowtiesarecool
09-15-2012, 06:07 AM
Year end #1 is more difficult to obtain, but because of how the ponts change on a weekly basis, it means nothing.

fuzzyball
09-15-2012, 06:09 AM
Becker never ended a year at N1, and it doesn't make his career any worst.

urban
09-15-2012, 06:33 AM
I Sampras' case everybody, every media source talked about his record of reaching 6 years ends as Nr. 1, even before he achieved it. He himself invested everything he had, into this goal, which meant a lot to him (and all the tennis people then). I think he skipped the next AO, because he was worn out. When he reached his weeks at Nr. 1 record, nobody talked about it (maybe some posters on the internet). The rolling ranking was initially implemented only for the seeding process. It was always the year end, that counted.

pame
09-15-2012, 07:00 AM
So the goal of every player ought to be to make sure they're #1 between December 25th and January 6th of each year end/beginning for let's say, at least 4 years, even if that's the only time they hold the #1 position. That way, their clam to immortality is assured, and that will make them much more successful and acclaimed than another player who happens to have held the #1 position for 40 weeks for each of 4 years, but not on December 31st of the years

Warmaster
09-15-2012, 07:33 AM
The more I think about it the more I'm inclined to go with total weeks at #1.

It's the best parameter for dominance against the field (this is why consecutive weeks at #1 is also important)

tacou
09-15-2012, 08:06 AM
I think total weeks is "more important," but they are actually completely different records.

As many have said, YE#1 represents you "winning" that year, having the overall best performance, and in a way it's like winning a prestigious tournament. You finished first in that year's race to #1.

However weeks at #1 is a more accurate record of how long and often you dominated the sport. I'd take 51 weeks at #1 vs. 1 week at #1, which just happens to be the last week of the year.

helloworld
09-15-2012, 08:12 AM
I think total weeks is "more important," but they are actually completely different records.

As many have said, YE#1 represents you "winning" that year, having the overall best performance, and in a way it's like winning a prestigious tournament. You finished first in that year's race to #1.

However weeks at #1 is a more accurate record of how long and often you dominated the sport. I'd take 51 weeks at #1 vs. 1 week at #1, which just happens to be the last week of the year.

Both records are important, and guys who hold multiple year end #1 often also has many weeks at #1 as well. Just look at Federer, Sampras, Lendl, Connors, etc. They all hold many weeks at #1 and multiple year-end #1.

TMF
09-15-2012, 08:39 AM
The weeks at #1 doesn't have any controversy as the year end #1. The problem with the year end #1 is a player can have 1 week at #1, or 52 weeks at #1 and both can end the year #1.

Let say a player A earned 51 weeks at #1, and Player B earned 1 week at #1 and end up year end #1. Which player is more consistent throughout the year? I say Player B.

Can you imagine Fed's 5 years ending #1 he only has 30 weeks at #1 instead of 295+ weeks at #1? That doesn't look good at all.

kishnabe
09-15-2012, 08:45 AM
I think you are simply too stupid to understand reality.

I think he and Natural are ***********s.

6 year end number ones> 5 Year end number ones

Sampras has 6 conscecutive.

It the only Record Sampras has over Federer....they can help but fixate on that regardless of what is more important as a whole.

90's Clay
09-15-2012, 09:03 AM
Whatever it is, it should be easier to manage now then back in the 90s when they went from slow conditions at the beginning of the year, to totally different lightning fast conditions from June on to the end of the year.

mattennis
09-15-2012, 10:29 AM
One of the most important things in tennis always has been who is the best player of the year. In the past it was decided by some experts (that is why it is considered that Pancho Gonzalez was the best player of the world in seven or eight different years, and nobody cared who was the best player from summer to the following summer, it was always who is the best player of the Year).

Since 1973 computed ranking started mainly to do the seeds in a systematic way, and second, to decide who was the best player of each year in a more rigorous way than before. But still, the thing always was who was the best player of the year (points accumulated from the start of the year to the end of the year).

Nobody knows and nobody cares who was the best from July 1965 to July 1966, but experts want to know who was the best player in 1965. Period.

It was only very recently that total weeks at n1 started to be important, though never as important as Years-Ended as N1.

In the same way, nobody cares who was the best Formula 1 driver from July to next June (it is true that there is a "best driver in that period of time", but nobody cares about him).

That is how the thing is viewed by tennis people.

For me, total weeks at n1 is important, probably the third most important thing (after n of GS and n of Year-End-N1), but it was never considered that important generally.

They don't give you a trophy everytime you are the best player for a 52 weeks period.

They give you a trophy everytime you are the best player of a year, that is, Year-End-N1.

But anybody can value anything the way they want, that is why there will never be a "greatest player ever" or something like that (because different people value things in totally different ways, and comparing different eras is a very senseless thing to do to start with).

Prisoner of Birth
09-15-2012, 10:41 AM
One of the most important things in tennis always has been who is the best player of the year. In the past it was decided by some experts (that is why it is considered that Pancho Gonzalez was the best player of the world in seven or eight different years, and nobody cared who was the best player from summer to the following summer, it was always who is the best player of the Year).

Since 1973 computed ranking started mainly to do the seeds in a systematic way, and second, to decide who was the best player of each year in a more rigorous way than before. But still, the thing always was who was the best player of the year (points accumulated from the start of the year to the end of the year).

Nobody knows and nobody cares who was the best from July 1965 to July 1966, but experts want to know who was the best player in 1965. Period.

It was only very recently that total weeks at n1 started to be important, though never as important as Years-Ended as N1.

In the same way, nobody cares who was the best Formula 1 driver from July to next June (it is true that there is a "best driver in that period of time", but nobody cares about him).

That is how the thing is viewed by tennis people.

For me, total weeks at n1 is important, probably the third most important thing (after n of GS and n of Year-End-N1), but it was never considered that important generally.

They don't give you a trophy everytime you are the best player for a 52 weeks period.

They give you a trophy everytime you are the best player of a year, that is, Year-End-N1.

But anybody can value anything the way they want, that is why there will never be a "greatest player ever" or something like that (because different people value things in totally different ways, and comparing different eras is a very senseless thing to do to start with).

That's good reasoning, and I'm tempted to agree with you. But I don't think the number of YE #1s proves dominance the way number of weeks at #1 does. The #1 ranking can change hands EVERY week, and that is a definite and more fluid way to measure a player's dominance than when you consider achievements an year at a time, IMO. But if you're one to consider the Calander year as a tournament of sorts (like a Slam), it's pretty huge to have the most number of YE #1s.

BauerAlmeida
09-15-2012, 10:46 AM
Clearly Year end Nr. 1. It defines the World Champion for the season. Nobody cares, who is leading the Formula 1 standings in summer. What counts, is the World Championships at the end of the season.

No. It's always the last 52 weeks that count. It doesn't matter when they are. In Formula 1 only what you did from the start of the year counts. In the ATP rankings it counts what you did the whole last year. It's completely different.

Year end 1 means NOTHING more than being 1 at March, July or October.

What matters it's the amount of weeks. If someone could give an argument on why YE1 it's most important i'd be glad because it make no sense at all.

If someone is leading the ranking from January to October (that's like 40 weeks), but loses the ranking to another player from November to January and then gets it back again, the other player is better?

tacou
09-15-2012, 11:02 AM
Both records are important, and guys who hold multiple year end #1 often also has many weeks at #1 as well. Just look at Federer, Sampras, Lendl, Connors, etc. They all hold many weeks at #1 and multiple year-end #1.

yes I think it's a rare instance that the YE#1 didn't spend any weeks at #1 throughout the year, and if you finish YE#1 you are also guaranteed something like 8-10 weeks at #1, so a few YE#1 will start adding up in the total weeks department.

timnz
09-15-2012, 12:46 PM
Neither is completely reliable, but weeks is better. Reason being is that the atp didnt count all of the events in the past and therefore ended up with completely bizarre end of year number 1's as in 1982 (mcenroe was third that year on any sensible ranking mechanism but the atp had him at 1)

urban
09-15-2012, 10:54 PM
Of course, tennis is a seasonal sport. If i rightly informed, the YEC still exists, it would be obsolete otherwise (maybe it is today), just a 8 men tournament in the middle of an endless season. There is bonus money for the race leader at years end, no. There are tennis year books, no. All tennis histories are centred around year and season lists, no.
Why weeks Nr. 1 should be more reliable, i cannot see. Maybe Lendl was Nr. 1 for some time in 1982, but was he the real Nr.1 for 1982? The controversies about Nr. 1 status are caused by problems of the points system used by the ATP, not by the season concept.

tennisbuck
09-15-2012, 10:55 PM
i don't think the year end thing means anything.

Zarfot Z
09-15-2012, 11:14 PM
You might as well ask: which is more important? Grand Slam or a Masters?

egn
09-15-2012, 11:27 PM
do you think anybody flukes a week at number one? it's the result of the exact same tournaments, just over another span of time.

Yes actually I do think some people have fluked their way to the number 1 spot. Kafelnikov comes straight to my mind. The guy had lost four straight first round matches and then the math worked out right and he became the number 1 player. Nobody believe he was number 1 at all. I still have no idea where on earth the points came from outside of his Aussie win. Rafter did the same thing later that year, he got the number 1 based on his 1998 achievements and then wound up finishing the year ranked 16!?!?! People can fluke number 1, it's almost more likely for you to play onfire and be underranked then reap some benefits later on by holding onto a ton of extra points.

It's also easy to hang onto the higher rankings by sitting on large points and just getting those easier draws to push through. Berdych is a prime example in 10 he had a few big runs played mediocore elsewise it pushed him huge up the rankings. In 2011 he did no damage at all on majors but played his seed out most of the time in tons of other tournaments, never really doing anything. Again doing the same this year, a big run or two and he's up there. James Blake got to 4 by essentially not playing in the same tournaments Federer did in 2006 and winning a handful of those small ones. Muster proved you really only need to be dominant on a single surface to get there. Nadal is still sitting in the top 4 and when was the last time he won a title not on clay.

My point is number 1 doesn't ever mean a player is the best/most consistent. If they hold it for a handful of weeks and can sustain it then it's important. (I.E Nadal took number 1 by winning wimbledon and then held it throughout the year proving he was more then just a clay court player and could do strong on other surfaces to establish himself.) However if Nadal wanted to play for the ranking just do Aussie, Acapulco, IW, Miami, MC, Barcy, Rome, Madrid, RG, London, Wimby, Hamburg, Toronto, Cincy, US, Shanghai, Paris, WTF. Just going based on past few years say he does semis in the no clay majors and wins RG thats 4160 points from majors. He takes 2 out of 3 clay court masters with say worst a semi in the other, 2720 more points. He wins all those 500s, 1500 more points. He'll probably then in the 5 remaining master series make a final, two or three semis and an early exit. So let's say about 1500 points there. Give him a semi at the WTF so what 400 points there. Oh and for london give him a win. 4160+2720+1500+1500+400+250 = 10530. If he simply plays it on clay and lets Fed, Djok and Murray beat each other up on hardcourts/grass/indoor he could squeak into number 1 even losing to them on those surfaces all season because they will be fighting for points he isn't really going for in the first place. However if Nadal wanted to end that year number 1 he would most likely have to go the extra mile and do damage on those surfaces, but Nadal could pull a Muster and grab some weeks by playing it to clay.

That being said, you can fluke it or cheat it to get to number 1. I personally think more YE is more presitgious than more weeks however there is a certain point in consecutive weeks where it is outstanding. However 6 straight year ends, no matter what era is a feat that is ridiculously impressive, because how many players can say they had 6 top 10 seasons, let alone top 5.

egn
09-15-2012, 11:29 PM
yes I think it's a rare instance that the YE#1 didn't spend any weeks at #1 throughout the year, and if you finish YE#1 you are also guaranteed something like 8-10 weeks at #1, so a few YE#1 will start adding up in the total weeks department.

Guga is the only one that comes to mind. Literally grabbed it during the last tournament of the year, he held it for like 3 weeks in Decemeber but grabbed it at the last waking moment of 2000.

FlamEnemY
09-16-2012, 01:15 AM
Year end rankings matter more than a rolling ranking if only because it provides an evaluation of the performance over only one season.

The weekly rankings evaluate the performance over exactly one year. Your point is invalid.

RF-17-GOAT
09-16-2012, 02:35 AM
Most weeks at #1 and most consecutive weeks at #1 are both far more important than YE #1s, no doubt about it.

This. Cosigned.

The Bawss
09-16-2012, 03:44 AM
Federer may well end up with each of these records anyway. Mooooooot.

Sim
09-16-2012, 03:56 AM
Year end #1 is meaningless to me (especially when compared to weeks at #1)

pvaudio
09-16-2012, 07:22 AM
Clearly Year end Nr. 1. It defines the World Champion for the season. Nobody cares, who is leading the Formula 1 standings in summer. What counts, is the World Championships at the end of the season.
Worst analogy ever. There are no rankings in Formula One, and your season standing has no bearing on where you start in a race.

Satsuma Illini
09-16-2012, 10:28 AM
Both are very important records. But when I list a player's accomplishments, I've always listed YE #1s more than most weeks at #1. I remember when Sampras was going for 6 YE#1s in a row, the press covered it quite a bit, saying he would break Connor's record and all that. Seems like just in the last few years people have started looking more at the total weeks at #1, to settle the GOAT debate or whatever.

I still enjoy the race to YE#1 more than the most weeks race at #1. Each to his own I guess.

Prisoner of Birth
09-16-2012, 10:40 AM
Deletedeletedelete

Prisoner of Birth
09-16-2012, 10:44 AM
Federer may well end up with each of these records anyway. Mooooooot.

One record could be more important than the other even if one player holds both the records in question. For instance, Federer's record of most Grand Slam titles (17) is more important than his record of most Grand Slam finals (24).

Povl Carstensen
09-16-2012, 10:51 AM
One record could be more important than the other even if one player holds both the records in question. For instance, Federer's record of most Grand Slam titles (17) is more important than his record of most Grand Slam finals (24).That is true.

TMF
09-16-2012, 10:52 AM
A player A can have 300 weeks at #1 and never ended the year #1. A player B can have 30 weeks at #1 and have 10 years ended #1. This only explain player B was just lucky(or just the coincidence) that he was #1 in the month of December 10 times. However, the 300 weeks at #1 clearly say player A is the dominant player, the consistent one.

Anyway, the poll has over 92% of the people say most weeks at # is more important.

TTMR
09-16-2012, 10:55 AM
The most important record in tennis is grand slam final winning percentage.

Povl Carstensen
09-16-2012, 10:56 AM
What if you only play one grand slam final?

Prisoner of Birth
09-16-2012, 11:05 AM
The most important record in tennis is grand slam final winning percentage.

So 1 Grand Slam win in 5 finals is worse than 1 Grand Slam win in 1 final?

TTMR
09-16-2012, 11:12 AM
So 1 Grand Slam win in 5 finals is worse than 1 Grand Slam win in 1 final?

100% winning percentage or 20%. You tell me.

What if you only play one grand slam final?

This is the ultimate test of your clutchness (the pinnacle attribute in sports). You either sink or swim. 0% or 100%. Tennis is a game about seizing the moment, not getting to the moment and then squandering it.

Prisoner of Birth
09-16-2012, 11:15 AM
100% winning percentage or 20%. You tell me.



This is the ultimate test of your clutchness (the pinnacle attribute in sports). You either sink or swim. 0% or 100%. Tennis is a game about seizing the moment, not getting to the moment and then squandering it.

No record which depreciates the longer you play past your prime is worth its weight in sand. I'd take 20% wins in Grand Slam finals over 100% wins in Grand Slam finals any day of any week of any year as long as the number of Grand Slams won is equal.

Ms Nadal
09-16-2012, 11:18 AM
Number of weeks at number one is the important one. That is why Federer is so highly thought of.

fuzzyball
09-16-2012, 01:27 PM
100% winning percentage or 20%. You tell me.

1 time the best of a tounament + 4 times the second best in other tournaments Vs 1 time the best of a tournament + always worse than the second best in the other tounraments. You tell us?

timnz
09-16-2012, 01:44 PM
100% winning percentage or 20%. You tell me.



This is the ultimate test of your clutchness (the pinnacle attribute in sports). You either sink or swim. 0% or 100%. Tennis is a game about seizing the moment, not getting to the moment and then squandering it.

I believe that making a slam final is a more impressive performance than losing in the first round.

If one believes that 100% winning percentage is better then you also believe that losing in the first round of a Grand Slam is better than making the final.

Because, for instance, if Lendl, in the 11 slams he was the losing finalist, had instead lost in the first round - he would be sitting on a 100% slam final winning record! (8 out of 8 !) So therefore you believe that losing in the first round of a slam is a superior performance to making a final.

No 8 out of 19 is better than 8 out of 18, which is better than 8 out of 17 etc etc ....down to being much much much better than 8 out of 8.

tennisaddict
09-16-2012, 01:46 PM
Can Federer play Beijing and increase his gap with the field ? Or would that not count since he will play(ed) Basel / Dubai /Rotterdam.

TTMR
09-16-2012, 01:46 PM
1 time the best of a tounament + 4 times the second best in other tournaments Vs 1 time the best of a tournament + always worse than the second best in the other tounraments. You tell us?

I'm sorry, grand slam tennis is winner-take-all. Nobody boasts about how many finals they made or how many runner-up trophies they have. You either win seven matches, or you don't win. Making it all the way to the final only to lose there, simply represents a squandered opportunity. There's no victory in failure.

Sabratha
09-16-2012, 01:52 PM
Year end #1 matters more.

RF20Lennon
09-16-2012, 01:53 PM
This is highly subjective!! But IMO i value consistency more than anything so holding the top spot for the most number of weeks truely shows youre consistency!

smoledman
09-16-2012, 01:59 PM
Are you guys saying it's possible to be #2 all the year, and then suddenly clinch YE #1 at the end ?

Are there any YE #1's that come to mind, that were not dominant in that year ?

As of now, this year who has had the #1 position for more weeks -- anyone know ?

Exactly. Sampras scrambled at the end of 1998 playing 7 indoor tournaments to scrounge that 6th YE #1.

Povl Carstensen
09-16-2012, 02:00 PM
I'm sorry, grand slam tennis is winner-take-all. Nobody boasts about how many finals they made or how many runner-up trophies they have. You either win seven matches, or you don't win. Making it all the way to the final only to lose there, simply represents a squandered opportunity. There's no victory in failure.But there is more failure in loosing in the first round. I'd say you fail.

smoledman
09-16-2012, 02:01 PM
I'm sorry, grand slam tennis is winner-take-all. Nobody boasts about how many finals they made or how many runner-up trophies they have. You either win seven matches, or you don't win. Making it all the way to the final only to lose there, simply represents a squandered opportunity. There's no victory in failure.

You take 1st prize amongst the clowns(*********, ThunderVolley and the others). Congrats!

smoledman
09-16-2012, 02:02 PM
But there is more failure in loosing in the first round. I'd say you fail.

Nope. Apparently the only thing that matters is GS final winning %. So it's worse to be 17-7 then 1-0.

LOL!!!

ubermeyer
09-16-2012, 02:02 PM
Year-end is pretty irrelevant compared to weeks.

smoledman
09-16-2012, 02:04 PM
So when Federer started out 7-0 we worshiped him as a GOD amongst MEN. But then when he started to lose a few GS finals, we cast him out of heaven unto the world of MEN and he wallowed in his misery until we found a new GOD(Nadal). Then we cast him out after AO(only 11-5 now).

Who is this new GOD?

tHotGates
09-16-2012, 02:28 PM
Year ending. It's how one finishes that counts most.

MichaelNadal
09-16-2012, 02:29 PM
Year-end is pretty irrelevant compared to weeks.

Yep, you can get lucky and snag it for a few weeks at the end of the year and lose in in Jan or Feb.

fuzzyball
09-16-2012, 02:41 PM
I'm sorry, grand slam tennis is winner-take-all.

Wrong, the winner does take more money, more ranking points, more prestige and more celebrity, but he doesn't take 100% of that all, the runnner up still wins his share.

Nobody boasts about how many finals they made or how many runner-up trophies they have.

Wrong, when it's time to retire from the tour, and everything else being equal, the player with some slam finals will have had a better career than the one without.

You either win seven matches, or you don't win

Wrong you either win seven matches, or six, or five, or four, or three... and the more a professionnal player win matches the best it is for his career.


Making it all the way to the final only to lose there, simply represents a squandered opportunity.

Wrong, it simply represents a defeat against a better player that day, nothing more.

There's no victory in failure.

A first or second round defeat is a bigger failure than a defeat in the final, the kind of difference that makes the finalist considered as an exceptionnal player and a rich famous person and the first round loser a journeyman player with low incomes (Ask Baghdatis how it changed his life to reach 1 time the AO final).

fuzzyball
09-16-2012, 02:43 PM
You take 1st prize amongst the clowns(*********, ThunderVolley and the others). Congrats!

And the competition is strong.

ledwix
09-16-2012, 02:57 PM
100% winning percentage or 20%. You tell me.



This is the ultimate test of your clutchness (the pinnacle attribute in sports). You either sink or swim. 0% or 100%. Tennis is a game about seizing the moment, not getting to the moment and then squandering it.

Well maybe due to faulty human psychological urges, some might rather win a slam than win a slam and make a few more finals as well. But objectively the guy with many other finals as well achieved more, as would be evidenced by their prize money. Would you rather have less money and fame or more money and fame? No one remembers fluke slam winners since they have no face time after that anyway. The more exposure you have to the top of the game, the greater your legacy and the greater career you will have.

timnz
09-16-2012, 05:53 PM
Nope. Apparently the only thing that matters is GS final winning %. So it's worse to be 17-7 then 1-0.

LOL!!!

Yes, why did Pat Cash bother about getting to 2 Australian Open finals that he lost (in 1987 and 1988). It surely would have been a better performance for him to lose those tournaments in the first round! That way his slam final performance would have been 100%! Losing in the first round beats making a slam final everytime -it's a far superior performance!

Sorry for the sarcasim, but really? I just don't understand those who think that making a slam final is a negative thing (if you lose). You had to win 6 matches to get there. I'm sorry, but that is a heck a lot better than losing a first round match.

TTMR
09-16-2012, 06:46 PM
Yes, why did Pat Cash bother about getting to 2 Australian Open finals that he lost (in 1987 and 1988). It surely would have been a better performance for him to lose those tournaments in the first round! That way his slam final performance would have been 100%! Losing in the first round beats making a slam final everytime -it's a far superior performance!

Sorry for the sarcasim, but really? I just don't understand those who think that making a slam final is a negative thing (if you lose). You had to win 6 matches to get there. I'm sorry, but that is a heck a lot better than losing a first round match.

No one cares how you play against some geriatric wildcard or prepubescent qualifier as you would in the first round or two. However, if you have a 100% success rate in grand slam finals, it means your record against the best players at the biggest stages in your sport is not just impeccable, but unassailable. You beat the best when the chips were down. When everything was on the line, you came through in the clutch. Those are the marks of a great champion.

timnz
09-16-2012, 09:45 PM
No one cares how you play against some geriatric wildcard or prepubescent qualifier as you would in the first round or two. However, if you have a 100% success rate in grand slam finals, it means your record against the best players at the biggest stages in your sport is not just impeccable, but unassailable. You beat the best when the chips were down. When everything was on the line, you came through in the clutch. Those are the marks of a great champion.

Sorry, I will always believe that making a slam final is a better performance than losing in the first round. Yes, it is great to win the major finals. But if you don't but made it to the final it still is a great performance (not as good as winning the major but still great). It has to be this way because you would be saying that losing before the final eg the first round is better than making the final if you were going to lose the tournament - because that way it doesn't impact your final win/loss %age.

egn
09-16-2012, 09:55 PM
A player A can have 300 weeks at #1 and never ended the year #1. A player B can have 30 weeks at #1 and have 10 years ended #1. This only explain player B was just lucky(or just the coincidence) that he was #1 in the month of December 10 times. However, the 300 weeks at #1 clearly say player A is the dominant player, the consistent one.

Anyway, the poll has over 92% of the people say most weeks at # is more important.

I doubt that will ever happen. I can't even fathom how that can happen especially like 10 times. That scenario is just insane. 30 weeks at #1 isn't enough to get 10 year end number 1s. Let alone that means what 250 points are separating these guys or something ridiculous like that? Please have realistic scenarios.

Povl Carstensen
09-16-2012, 10:30 PM
Sorry, I will always believe that making a slam final is a better performance than losing in the first round. Yes, it is great to win the major finals. But if you don't but made it to the final it still is a great performance (not as good as winning the major but still great). It has to be this way because you would be saying that losing before the final eg the first round is better than making the final if you were going to lose the tournament - because that way it doesn't impact your final win/loss %age.Please... Perhaps someone could make a list of one slam wonders...

fuzzyball
09-16-2012, 11:18 PM
No one cares how you play against some geriatric wildcard or prepubescent qualifier as you would in the first round or two. However, if you have a 100% success rate in grand slam finals, it means your record against the best players at the biggest stages in your sport is not just impeccable, but unassailable. You beat the best when the chips were down. When everything was on the line, you came through in the clutch. Those are the marks of a great champion.

Ho yeah! That's why the one slam wonder Thomas Johansson ("I always hear some posters asking me "Thomas who?") who was so good that he won 100% of his slam finals is known as a possible GOAT of tennis, and will always be remember as a greater champion than players like Marat Safin or Andy Murray who in addition to their slam trophies had the bad idea to reach a few more finals. (Sarcasm)

merlinpinpin
09-16-2012, 11:25 PM
No one cares how you play against some geriatric wildcard or prepubescent qualifier as you would in the first round or two. However, if you have a 100% success rate in grand slam finals, it means your record against the best players at the biggest stages in your sport is not just impeccable, but unassailable. You beat the best when the chips were down. When everything was on the line, you came through in the clutch. Those are the marks of a great champion.

So, in essence, you're saying that Krajicek's GS career (1 win, 0 final) is better than Roddick's (1 win, 4 finals), right?

And Krajicek, of course, "beat the best when the chips were down" on that day by beating MaliVai Washington in his lone final. Pretty impressive, I'll grant you that. ;)

fuzzyball
09-16-2012, 11:26 PM
No one cares how you play against some geriatric wildcard or prepubescent qualifier as you would in the first round or two

Of course peoples care, because if a player uses to fail to make his way through the weak field of the first rounds it means that this player is not so good, and on the other side we can say that we almost don't care about players who always has the habit to lose in the early rounds happen to have a lucky series of 7 victories one time in their careers that makes them one slam wonder journeyman players.

JMR
09-17-2012, 09:59 AM
Sorry, I will always believe that making a slam final is a better performance than losing in the first round.

Everyone believes that except fools, ideologues, and jesters.

ollinger
09-17-2012, 10:02 AM
Did the OP put "important" in quotation marks because even he thinks the question is a little silly and arbitrary??

BHud
09-17-2012, 10:31 AM
Calendar year means little in this sport unless you win all 4 slams.

Towser83
09-17-2012, 10:37 AM
the rankings are done over 52 weeks, any time you're number one you are on the basis of your previous 52 weeks.Why is it more important to be number one in December than any other month? It isn't. The total number of weeks at number is more important, you have been the best player in the world for longer.

Here'sa scenario.2 players are ranked 1 and 2, player A is ranked number one from the end of Doha to the WTF. At some points he is miles ahead but player B grabs the number one by a few points after the WTF and then loses it again after Doha, not regaining it again til the end of the WTF that year. This happens 5 years in a row. One guy has roughly 230 weeks at number one but no year end number one, the other has 25 weeks at number one, but 5 year ends. Who is the better player?

timnz
09-17-2012, 02:27 PM
Everyone believes that except fools, ideologues, and jesters.

I wouldn't go that far. But I feel they are ignoring the fact that making a Slam final is a great achievement in itself. It was good that Pat Cash made the Australian Open finals in 1987 and 1988 - it is an achievement in itself. It shouldnt' detract from his record - otherwise if you believe that then you believe that losing in the first round is better than making a final (because that means your final record is untouched).

TMF
09-17-2012, 02:43 PM
I doubt that will ever happen. I can't even fathom how that can happen especially like 10 times. That scenario is just insane. 30 weeks at #1 isn't enough to get 10 year end number 1s. Let alone that means what 250 points are separating these guys or something ridiculous like that? Please have realistic scenarios.

Ok, how about 5 years ending #1. It's mathematically possible.

The point is weeks at #1 has a better picture while year end #1 is deceptive.

Prisoner of Birth
09-17-2012, 02:56 PM
Did the OP put "important" in quotation marks because even he thinks the question is a little silly and arbitrary??

It was for lack of a better word. And yes, the question is arbitrary, but not silly.

kragster
09-17-2012, 03:02 PM
I wouldn't go that far. But I feel they are ignoring the fact that making a Slam final is a great achievement in itself. It was good that Pat Cash made the Australian Open finals in 1987 and 1988 - it is an achievement in itself. It shouldnt' detract from his record - otherwise if you believe that then you believe that losing in the first round is better than making a final (because that means your final record is untouched).

You are simplifying things. Making finals and losing is OVERALL better than losing in the first round. Because it gives you more ranking points. But in reality most comparisons are not a case of 10/20 vs 1/1.

Let me give you a scenario where the players are similar.

Lets take player A and Player B who win 8 tournaments in a year. But one guy's record is 8 wins (of 8 finals)+ 7 semis . Player B's record is 8 wins (of 12 finals) + 1 quarter. Let's say both players end the year with the same ranking points because although Player A has less finals he has more semis and quarters. I think that a fair comparison system should show these players to be equal. So to compare them fairly you have 2 options:

1) Include both total finals count and finals w-l record. In this case Player A has a better finals record but Player B has made more finals. They cancel out.
2) Include Only wins and total ranking points. Again both players are same here so they would be considered equal.

The UNFAIR option, option 3 =

3) Include wins, total ranking points AND total finals. In this case Player B comes out on top by virtue of being in more finals.

In essence, outside of tournament wins , the 'average depth' you go to in tournaments is measured by your ranking points. Making multiple semi finals SHOULD be considered the same as making a final and some early rounds if they equate to the same ranking points.

So when comparing players, either you count # finals AND finals W-L record, or you don't count either of them. Including one but not the other would be unfair.

Sabratha
09-17-2012, 03:07 PM
Ok, how about 5 years ending #1. It's mathematically possible.

The point is weeks at #1 has a better picture while year end #1 is deceptive.
That's also nearly impossible to do.

TMF
09-17-2012, 03:14 PM
That's also nearly impossible to do.Ok, how about 5 years ending #1. It's mathematically possible.

The point is weeks at #1 has a better picture while year end #1 is deceptive.

A player end the year #1 in December by playing/winning DC. Then in early January, he loses his #1 by losing 1st round in Brisbane(the 2nd rank player win this event and take the #1).

If the cycle repeat itself for the next 4 years, it's possible for a player to have 30 weeks at #1 and end the year #1 for 5 times.

Sabratha
09-17-2012, 03:16 PM
A player end the year #1 in December by playing/winning DC. Then in early January, he loses his #1 by losing 1st round in Brisbane(the 2nd rank player win this event and take the #1).

If the cycle repeat itself for the next 4 years, it's possible for a player to have 30 weeks at #1 and end the year #1 for 5 times.
But this happeneing four times in a row is insane.

fuzzyball
09-17-2012, 03:31 PM
So when comparing players, either you count # finals AND finals W-L record, or you don't count either of them. Including one but not the other would be unfair.

No simply because if you do that, between two players with the same amount of trophies, the player who reached less finals can look better or at least as good as the player who reached more finals, which would just be silly nonsense.

Towser83
09-17-2012, 04:13 PM
But this happeneing four times in a row is insane.

that is true, but it is easily possible that player A could rack up about 45 weeks at number one from the start of the year only to lose it at the end to player B who holds the year end number one, and then loses it again to player A who then adds to their total. He doesnt hold on long enough to get the year number one ranking, maybe the other guy doesn't eaither.But player B has maybe 5 weeks at number one and a year end ranking, Player A has 50-80 weeks but no year end.

That's not a ridiculous scenario. It's also not ridiculous that 2 players might be closely matched, but one of them might repeatedly gain the number one ranking at the end of the year because they are better indoors, and the other guy might gain the number one early in the year. Remember, was it last year where Murray overtook Federer but Roger's great indoor season got him ahead again.

timnz
09-18-2012, 01:40 AM
No simply because if you do that, between two players with the same amount of trophies, the player who reached less finals can look better or at least as good as the player who reached more finals, which would just be silly nonsense.

Completely right. We should always rate making a final over losing in he earlier rounds.

TMF
09-18-2012, 09:44 AM
Completely right. We should always rate making a final over losing in he earlier rounds.

With an exception to a few who believe it's better to be in Nadal's shoes(losing to Rosol) than in Murray's shoes(losing to Federer).

NadalAgassi
09-18-2012, 09:50 AM
With an exception to a few who believe it's better to be in Nadal's shoes(losing to Rosol) than in Murray's shoes(losing to Federer).

The difference is unlike Murray, if Nadal reaches Federer he is hugely unlikely to lose, especialy in a slam. Always been that way since day 1.

Prisoner of Birth
09-18-2012, 10:17 AM
The difference is unlike Murray, if Nadal reaches Federer he is hugely unlikely to lose, especialy in a slam. Always been that way since day 1.

The point is that Murray made the final and Nadal lost in the 2nd round. You need to EARN your spot in the final, you can't just be handed the Grand Slam because you would most likely beat the winner of the tournament.

fuzzyball
09-18-2012, 12:12 PM
The difference is unlike Murray, if Nadal reaches Federer he is hugely unlikely to lose, especialy in a slam. Always been that way since day 1.

The fact is that outside of claycourts, Nadal is often not good enough to reach Federer and he loses against average players like Rosol, Youzhny before that he has the opportunity to play Federer.

fuzzyball
09-18-2012, 12:18 PM
The point is that Murray made the final and Nadal lost in the 2nd round. You need to EARN your spot in the final, you can't just be handed the Grand Slam because you would most likely beat the winner of the tournament.

Don't you know that according to some Nadal fans, the rule is : Each slam trophy won by Federer without himself defeating Nadal in the process shoud be added to Nadal's prize list. So actually Nadal is the undisputed goat with 26 slam Trophies (11 Nadal's own slam trophies + 15 Federer's slam trophies where he didn't defeat nadal).

pame
09-18-2012, 03:29 PM
The only way those 13 people in the poll could believe being #1 on December 31st of any year was more important, is if they think that the ranking #1 is based on results from January 1st to any other point of the year.

Once you understand that the #1 position is based on the previous 52 weeks, then December 31 is simply a point in time, like Nov 30 or January 9 or July 24

TMF
09-18-2012, 04:10 PM
The only way those 13 people in the poll could believe being #1 on December 31st of any year was more important, is if they think that the ranking #1 is based on results from January 1st to any other point of the year.

Once you understand that the #1 position is based on the previous 52 weeks, then December 31 is simply a point in time, like Nov 30 or January 9 or July 24

I'm not surprise there's a few members who felt this way. Since there's a few who also believe losing in the early round is better than losing in the final, this is not a shocking.

timnz
09-18-2012, 04:15 PM
The only way those 13 people in the poll could believe being #1 on December 31st of any year was more important, is if they think that the ranking #1 is based on results from January 1st to any other point of the year.

Once you understand that the #1 position is based on the previous 52 weeks, then December 31 is simply a point in time, like Nov 30 or January 9 or July 24

The rolling 52 week ranking system has only been in place since August of 1973. For most tennis history. however, tennis writers and tennis magazine have been concerned with ranking the overall best player of the year.

Here is A list (not a definitive list but merely an example):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World-number-one_male_tennis-player_rankings

To get the number 1 for a particular calendar year - this can only be done with the current system by taking the 31st of December rankings. Hence, on the 31st of December - the last 52 weeks represent activity of that calendar year only. Hence, the year end ranking is the statement of who was the best player of that entire calendar year. So in that sense it does carry weight over all of the other weeks of the year. Any other weeks ranking would dip into some of the activity of the previous year. Only the 31st of December rankings gives a statement of performance for that calendar year ONLY.

To illustrate what I mean. During the year of 1999 there were actually 5 number 1's. (The most of any year in the ATP weekly ranking history). However the concern of tennis writers and magaines was 'who was the best in the world for 1999' ie the whole of 1999 taken as a year. the Answer was Agassi, even though during that year Sampras, Moya, Kafelnikov, Agassi, Rafter were all number 1 during various stages. For 1999 as a whole though Agassi won out.

Now to take the other side for a moment, it is important to realize that historically there has been controversy in the end of year rankings. The ATP in the past did not take into account all of the tournaments played. 1982 year end rankings were the worst example of the impact of this. McEnroe was ranked number 1, even though any sensible analysis would have him ranked no higher than 3. I don't think any reputable commentator would rank him higher than 3 that year. Hence, there have been weaknesses.

sarmpas
09-18-2012, 04:38 PM
Is it really so difficult to appreciate that YE #1 signifies the most consistent/dominant tennis player? Nobody flukes a YE #1. To denigrate it as some posters have done is to undermine the entire rankings system.

Federer has factually in reality been ranked #1 for more weeks than Sampras, yet Sampras has more YE #1s so according to you he is more consistent/dominate despite actually being #1 for fewer weeks than Federer. Many will struggle to reason how Sampras is a more dominate number #1 than Federer.

sarmpas
09-18-2012, 04:45 PM
100% winning percentage or 20%. You tell me.



This is the ultimate test of your clutchness (the pinnacle attribute in sports). You either sink or swim. 0% or 100%. Tennis is a game about seizing the moment, not getting to the moment and then squandering it.

Hilarious!

Gaston Gaudio - 1 slam final 1 slam title = 100% 'clutchness'

Sampras - I'm sure he's lost more than 1 = <100% 'clutchness'

Gaudio more 'clutch' than the Pistol.

TTMR
09-19-2012, 01:23 PM
Hilarious!

Gaston Gaudio - 1 slam final 1 slam title = 100% 'clutchness'

Sampras - I'm sure he's lost more than 1 = <100% 'clutchness'

Gaudio more 'clutch' than the Pistol.

The thing is, Gaudio knew his limits. Too many players become overconfident, not realizing the damage they are doing to their respective legacies.

You have to know when to hold them, and know when to fold them. Gaudio did.

mattennis
09-19-2012, 01:39 PM
Now to take the other side for a moment, it is important to realize that historically there has been controversy in the end of year rankings. The ATP in the past did not take into account all of the tournaments played. 1982 year end rankings were the worst example of the impact of this. McEnroe was ranked number 1, even though any sensible analysis would have him ranked no higher than 3. I don't think any reputable commentator would rank him higher than 3 that year. Hence, there have been weaknesses.


Two things:

Prior to 1990 the ranking computed an average (not the total sum of points) and not all the tournaments counted (as you said).

But all players knew those two things, so they knew exactly well how to do things the best way to be the n1.

It does not make sense to re-evaluate those years taking the current system, because the players played taking into account the system in their time.

It is the same in 1977. Connors average points was the best, even though Vilas total points was better (but as I said, ranking in those years computed the average points obtained, i.e. total points divided by n of tournament played).

In that system it was better to make good or great results in almost all the countable tournaments you play, than to win two GS but lose early in some other tournaments.

Imagine that from next year on, they go back to compute the average (not the total sum). Are we going to re-evaluate all the Year-End-Rankings from 1990 to 2012? It would not be fair, because in each era the players compete with a given system that they know.

Had they known that 20 years later some people would re-evaluate their rankings taking into account the future system, they would have chosen to play different and also a different schedule to optimize it.

Not fair. They had their system which they knew perfectly well, and now players have another ranking system that they also know exactly well how it works.

mattennis
09-19-2012, 01:48 PM
By the way, the same is true with the M-1000 tournaments.

Prior to 2000 they were not mandatory and they were not as important as they are today (you could be n1 winning other tournaments and failing in many M-1000, because from 1990 to 2000 you computed your best 14 points results).

Prior to 2000 nobody knew how many M-1000 "equivalent" (Masters-Series/Super-9 in the 90s, Grand Prix Finals in the 80s and 70s) had they won.

It is even true about the GS if you go back to the 70s and 60s (many great players didn't even know how many GS had they won, they probably knew how many Wimbledons and how many US OPEN had they won because those were the two most important and prestigious tournaments, but they were not counting the total n of GS won, some tournaments were even more prestigious than RG or AusOpen in some periods, like Dallas and Philadelphia, with better draws).

People can not just count n of GS, n of M-1000 (or "equivalent") from different eras and pretend that that make any sense.

mattennis
09-19-2012, 02:20 PM
And yet another thing to take into account is that today players are chasing records, figures.

For example, when ATP computed ranking started in 1973, Connors was the best player for several years and overall accumulated an astronomical figure of 268 total weeks at n1.

He wasn't chasing a record. He was simply that good and consistent.

But after that, a record was set. 268 total weeks at n1.

Years later, Lendl found himself nearing that record so he went on and beat the record for two weeks. He set 270 total weeks at n1.

Is Lendl "better" at that than Connors because he surpassed it by two weeks?

Obviously no. He just happened to be born later than Connors so he could chase Connors figure (and once he beat it by two weeks he never cared about being n1 again).

Connors would have done the same, had he been born later than Lendl.

Years later, Sampras found himself nearing Lendl's figure of 270 total weeks at n1, so why not trying to beat it?

He surpassed it but after that he didn't give a damn about staying more weeks at n1.

In 2000, he was n1 after the US OPEN (had beaten Lendl's record of 270 weeks earlier) and he could have easily stayed n1 for the rest of the year and finish a seven year as Year-End-Number 1 because he was much better in the Autumn Indoor season that was coming that the other two contenders for the n1 then that were Safin and Kuerten, but Sampras chose to NOT compete in any tournament (not even the two M-1000 indoor Stuttgart and Paris-Bercy), so he didn't play a single tournament between the US OPEN and the WTF.

Obviously he didn't care about adding more weeks at n1.

Had the record been, say, 300 weeks and Sampras would have play some indoor tournaments, especially the two M-1000 tournaments, to stay more weeks at n1 and to finish another year as Year-End-N1, but why the effort if he already had both records (total weeks at n1 and Seasons ended as n1) ?

Years later Federer finds himself nearing Sampras record of 286 total weeks at n1 so he push himself and beats it. Now, he probably won't compete in many indoor tournaments because, why to stay more weeks at n1 if he already has the record?

It is always the same.

It is better Federer, than Sampras, and Sampras than Lendl, and Lendl than Connors at weeks at n1 because 300>286>270>268 ?

Obviously not, it was a result of chasing different figures because of having been born earlier or later. As simply as that.

timnz
09-19-2012, 05:30 PM
The thing is, Gaudio knew his limits. Too many players become overconfident, not realizing the damage they are doing to their respective legacies.

You have to know when to hold them, and know when to fold them. Gaudio did.

So, you feel that sampras should have withdrawn from the 1992, 2001 2001 us opens and australian open in 1995, because he should have known he wasn't capable of winning them? Just a question, how would he have known that in advance?

I feel your view encourages players to play it safe because if enter this slam tournament i might lose in the final. In fact would it not have been wise for sampras to quit tennis after he won the us open in 1990. That way his 100% finals record would be untouched.

Sorry grand slam tennis tournaments are 7 rounds not one. The performance is rated over the whole 7 rounds not just the final round.

fuzzyball
09-20-2012, 02:21 AM
Thank's to TTMR, now I know that in tennis I'm greater than players who ave been ranked ATP top 10 like Pioline (2 slam finals lost), baghdatis (1 slam final lost), Leconte (1 slam final lost) and many other pro players, since I knew I wasn't good enough to try a pro career so I didn't try and so accordingly it makes me a player with a fantastic 0% lost record in slam finals which is so much better than the performances of Pioline, Baghdatis and many other fantastic pro players who have a 100% lost record in slam finals. :rolleyes:

timnz
09-20-2012, 03:54 PM
So, you feel that sampras should have withdrawn from the 1992, 2001 2001 us opens and australian open in 1995, because he should have known he wasn't capable of winning them? Just a question, how would he have known that in advance?

I feel your view encourages players to play it safe because if enter this slam tournament i might lose in the final. In fact would it not have been wise for sampras to quit tennis after he won the us open in 1990. That way his 100% finals record would be untouched.

Sorry grand slam tennis tournaments are 7 rounds not one. The performance is rated over the whole 7 rounds not just the final round.

I'd like to give my Apologies to TTMR. Even though I obviously disagree with you on the point about Slam final percentages, there was no reason for me to be sarcastic. So sorry.

roysid
09-20-2012, 10:23 PM
Are you guys saying it's possible to be #2 all the year, and then suddenly clinch YE #1 at the end ?

Are there any YE #1's that come to mind, that were not dominant in that year ?

As of now, this year who has had the #1 position for more weeks -- anyone know ?

Yes in 1995. agassi was No.1 for most of the year even after US Open. But at the end Sampras overtook him. Nobody complained though, as Sampras had won wimbledon and US Open.