Is it logically necessary for a World no. 1 player for a given year to have won a slam during that year? Can you think of years or instances in which the definite, consensus or computer-ranked World no. 1 player did not win a slam title? I was just wondering. It seems unlikely, and certainly the odds are against it, but is it absolutely necessary for the year's best player to win a slam? With the present computer-ranking system, what if player X wins 8-9 Masters 1000 tournaments and the ATP World Tour Finals but no slam, and the four slams are won by four individuals who don't win any other big tourneys, wouldn't the numbers add up for player X?