Talk Tennis

Talk Tennis (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php)
-   General Pro Player Discussion (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/forumdisplay.php?f=13)
-   -   weeks at No. 1 (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=455305)

adil1972 02-20-2013 12:42 AM

weeks at No. 1
 
connors spent 268 weeks as No. 1 while he won only 8 slams
lendl spent 270 weeks as No. 1 while he won only 8 slams
sampras spent 286 weeks as No. 1 while he won 14 slams
federer spent 302 weeks as No. 1 while he won 17 slams

on the other hand, nadal has won 11 slams, while being No. 1 for only 102 weeks
http://tennis28.com/rankings/weeks_No1.html

how connors and lendl spent so many weeks as No. 1 compared to nadal while winning less slams than nadal

Hitman 02-20-2013 12:59 AM

The biggest reason is Roger Federer.

Flash O'Groove 02-20-2013 01:09 AM

Because there is something outside slams? Players earn ranking points for reaching Finals, SFs, QFs, winning other event. Lendl and Connors where good at that. Nadal is good too, but not enough.

Beside, Nadal won more than one slam only two times: in 2008 and 2010. He won't can't the top rank only with RG.

mattennis 02-20-2013 03:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adil1972 (Post 7225851)
connors spent 268 weeks as No. 1 while he won only 8 slams
lendl spent 270 weeks as No. 1 while he won only 8 slams
sampras spent 286 weeks as No. 1 while he won 14 slams
federer spent 302 weeks as No. 1 while he won 17 slams

on the other hand, nadal has won 11 slams, while being No. 1 for only 102 weeks
http://tennis28.com/rankings/weeks_No1.html

how connors and lendl spent so many weeks as No. 1 compared to nadal while winning less slams than nadal

It is easy, I have explained already several times.

In totally polarized conditions (with different competitive game styles) you would expect the top players winning a LOWER nš of GS (than in an era of homogeneous conditions and one unique game style), BUT if a player is "the best of the era" for many years, he will be nš1 for many many weeks too.

In another words, polarized conditions and competitive styles VS homogeneous conditions and one unique competitive style, impacts the nš of total GS won by the top players, BUT it does NOT affect the nš of years (or weeks) at nš1 in the same way.

Again, the decathlon exmple:

A man who is the best at decathlon can very well be the nš1 (at decathlon) for many years, but he will never win, say, 8 or 9 out of the 10 decathlon events (in each decathlon competition) all the time (in fact not even once has that happened) because such 10 events in one decathon are vastly different.

On the other hand, if we create a "homogeneous decathlon", consisting of 10 times running the 100 m race in each "homogeneous decathlon competition", then the best at that (currently Ussain Bolt) not only will he be the best (at that thing) during many years (like the previous example), but he will also win 9 or 10 out of the 10 exactly identical 100 m races of each "homogeneous decathlon competition".

I hope this makes you understand why polarized conditions and styles VS homogeneous conditions and style, affects tremendously the nš of GS won by the best player (players) of the era, BUT it does NOT affect the same way the years (or weeks) at nš1 by the best player of the era.

Lendl and Connors dominated given eras (that is why they were nš1 for so long), but in their respective eras it was much more difficult to win different GS, that were played on totally vastly polarized conditions, against players with totally different playing styles each suited to specific conditions.

In the current era, not only Nadal, but also Djokovic will get to 10+ GS soon but neither will get to 200+ weeks at nš1 (probably not even 150+ weeks at nš1).

In short, trying to compare numbers from different eras is, most of the times, senseless.

xan 02-20-2013 05:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flash O'Groove (Post 7225866)
Because there is something outside slams? Players earn ranking points for reaching Finals, SFs, QFs, winning other event. Lendl and Connors where good at that. Nadal is good too, but not enough.

Beside, Nadal won more than one slam only two times: in 2008 and 2010. He won't can't the top rank only with RG.

wait what what what do you mean? there is tennis outside of slams ?!???

Flash O'Groove 02-20-2013 05:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xan (Post 7226110)
wait what what what do you mean? there is tennis outside of slams ?!???

Yes but its boring nobody care lol.

Fiji 02-20-2013 05:51 AM

Because of the homogenization of the surfaces, the current best player(#1) on tour can win all the slams. We saw it with Federer, Nadal and soon Djokovic. Expect many Career Slams in the future.

spinovic 02-20-2013 05:59 AM

Lendl may have "only" won 8, but he made 19 finals, so he was making deep runs on a consistent basis.

Also, the level of consistency established by Federer, IMO, has made it much tougher to attain that #1 ranking. Look at the Sampras era when guys like Moya and Muster made it to the top. Heck, even Marcelo Rios made it to #1 and he never won a slam. The Aussie Open final is the only time Rios ever made a final or semi in his career.

It is hard to imagine a guy making it to #1 today without a slam win. Murray had a fantastic 2012 and is only at #3.

Look what it took for Federer to regain the #1 spot. He finished 2011 on a 15 match win streak taking Basel, Paris and the tour finals in the process. He followed that with a SF in Australia, wins in Rotterdam, Dubai, Indian Wells, and Madrid. A SF in Rome and Roland Garros and a final in Halle. And still, it took a Wimbledon win to overtake Djokovic.

Or, look at Ferrer. He won 7 titles last year (most on the tour BTW), including Paris, Valencia and Acapulco and a final in Barcelona. On top of that, his slam performances were QF, SF, QF, SF. That's a pretty solid year that got him to #5, still behind an injured Nadal who hadn't played since Wimbledon (where he lost in the R64). It still took a SF run in Australia and the loss of 1200 more points by an absent Nadal for Ferrer to even crack the top 4.

The constistency at the top has made it tougher.

Lendl and Connors were both very consistent players, which is why they held on to that #1 ranking for so long.

mattennis 02-20-2013 06:52 AM

Dude, I already explained, but you didn't get it. It is not the players, it is the conditions.

Tommy Haas, at 35, after uncontable injuries and surgeries, gives it another try in the last months and now is nš17 in the world.

So much for your "deep talent" current era...

TMF 02-20-2013 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spinovic (Post 7226139)
Lendl may have "only" won 8, but he made 19 finals, so he was making deep runs on a consistent basis.

Also, the level of consistency established by Federer, IMO, has made it much tougher to attain that #1 ranking. Look at the Sampras era when guys like Moya and Muster made it to the top. Heck, even Marcelo Rios made it to #1 and he never won a slam. The Aussie Open final is the only time Rios ever made a final or semi in his career.

It is hard to imagine a guy making it to #1 today without a slam win. Murray had a fantastic 2012 and is only at #3.

Look what it took for Federer to regain the #1 spot. He finished 2011 on a 15 match win streak taking Basel, Paris and the tour finals in the process. He followed that with a SF in Australia, wins in Rotterdam, Dubai, Indian Wells, and Madrid. A SF in Rome and Roland Garros and a final in Halle. And still, it took a Wimbledon win to overtake Djokovic.

Or, look at Ferrer. He won 7 titles last year (most on the tour BTW), including Paris, Valencia and Acapulco and a final in Barcelona. On top of that, his slam performances were QF, SF, QF, SF. That's a pretty solid year that got him to #5, still behind an injured Nadal who hadn't played since Wimbledon (where he lost in the R64). It still took a SF run in Australia and the loss of 1200 more points by an absent Nadal for Ferrer to even crack the top 4.

The constistency at the top has made it tougher.

Lendl and Connors were both very consistent players, which is why they held on to that #1 ranking for so long.

Great post. Federer dominated the tour makes it really hard for any player to reach #1. Nadal holds the record for the most weeks(160) at #2 because Roger was too dominant. Had Nadal was playing in any of the previous era, those 160 weeks at #2 would sure be #1. Since 2003, for the player to reach #1 he had to be a mulitple slam winners(12-month stretch), unlike in the past decades when a player only needed to win one slam to be #1(eg Sampras in 1998 ). Even a non-slam winner Rios managed to be #1(LOL). Based on their results, Nadal would have more multiple year end #1, Del Potro 2009, Fed 2008, 2010 and 2012, Murray 2012...all would be good enough to end the year # in the previous generations.

With that being said, being ranked #1 in this era is much, much tougher thus more impressive than in the past. The level of accomplishment has to be much greater to earn the #1 ranking(and year end #1).

mattennis 02-20-2013 08:02 AM

Another robot that reads numbers but doesn't have a clue about the reasons behind those numbers...

Steve0904 02-20-2013 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hitman (Post 7225862)
The biggest reason is Roger Federer.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner. And it didn't take long.

TMF 02-20-2013 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mattennis (Post 7226393)
Another robot that reads numbers but doesn't have a clue about the reasons behind those numbers...

Numbers are facts. For example, Nadal in 2005 won 11 titles, including a slam + 4 Master Series. Yet he ended the year #2. In the previous generations, many year end #1 players were much less accomplished than Nadal. So who had it tougher? No question it's was much tougher since 2003.

To add, Fed in 2003 was good enough to end the year #1 in the past generation.

mattennis 02-20-2013 08:23 AM

Why do you insist in comparing numbers from different era, knowing that conditions of current era are totally different than in any previous era (thus making it senseless) ?

Nevermind, actually I am not even interested in your reasons (if there is any).

I am just amazed at how simple or naive some people can be, comparing oranges to apples as if nothing...

Or maybe it is just that I am a mathematician and all my life my work has been to find the reasons behind things. Numbers, facts, are explained by other facts, that are explained by other facts,etc.

Numbers alone, Statistics alone, without the research about the roots, the reasons behind those numbers, means nothing at all.

sale 02-20-2013 08:27 AM

What about Wilander? 7slams total, 3 slams in 1988 but was number one for just 20 weeks.
Becker 6 slams total, 12 weeks at number one.

Steve0904 02-20-2013 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mattennis (Post 7226441)
Why do you insist in comparing numbers from different era, knowing that conditions of current era are totally different than in any previous era (thus making it senseless) ?

Nevermind, actually I am not even interested in your reasons (if there is any).

I am just amazed at how simple or naive some people can be, comparing oranges to apples as if nothing...

Or maybe it is just that I am a mathematician and all my life my work has been to find the reasons behind things. Numbers, facts, are explained by other facts, that are explained by other facts,etc.

Numbers alone, Statistics alone, without the research about the roots, the reasons behind those numbers, means nothing at all.

Why do you always insist on telling us we can't compare things from different eras? You're right ok! We get it. The problem is nobody cares. It's a message board. We debate. It's what we do. If we had a bunch of people like you telling us we couldn't debate, we wouldn't have much of a friggin board would we now? Just in case you haven't noticed, I'm really trying to be nice, but you're really getting on my nerves, and I don't want to put you on ignore because you seem knowledgeable enough when you put your mind to it instead of telling us we can't debate because of differences between eras.

mattennis 02-20-2013 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve0904 (Post 7226452)
Why do you always insist on telling us we can't compare things from different eras? You're right ok! We get it. The problem is nobody cares. It's a message board. We debate. It's what we do. If we had a bunch of people like you telling us we couldn't debate, we wouldn't have much of a friggin board would we now? Just in case you haven't noticed, I'm really trying to be nice, but you're really getting on my nerves, and I don't want to put you on ignore because you seem knowledgeable enough when you put your mind to it instead of telling us we can't debate because of differences between eras.

Because it is what has happened. Things have changed, conditions have changed, different games styles have vanished,...all this have effects on the numbers and you have to be purpousedly blind to not get it.

And, because it actually does make sense the fact that the total nš of weeks at nš1 is not that affected by the changes (because after all, the best is the best of each era, even if those eras have totally different conditions), whereas the way the titles (GS) are spread among more or less different players IS totally affected, it actually makes sense depending on polarized or homogeneous conditions.

So the main reason I repeat it, is because there is actually a solid reasoning that explain these things and I like it when things make sense (because, as I said, this is what my job has been all my life).

But nevermind, I'll try to not repeat it too much, after all, this is just a tennis forum (not a science forum).

TMF 02-20-2013 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve0904 (Post 7226452)
Why do you always insist on telling us we can't compare things from different eras? You're right ok! We get it. The problem is nobody cares. It's a message board. We debate. It's what we do. If we had a bunch of people like you telling us we couldn't debate, we wouldn't have much of a friggin board would we now? Just in case you haven't noticed, I'm really trying to be nice, but you're really getting on my nerves, and I don't want to put you on ignore because you seem knowledgeable enough when you put your mind to it instead of telling us we can't debate because of differences between eras.

The agenda is to minimize Roger's achievements, as usual. The only argument they have is pure conjecture, but facts/data doesn't have merit(lol). However anyone in their right mind knows facts/numbers are the only objective answer to a debate. Speculation can support both sides and it only goes around in circles. Pointless !

McLovin 02-20-2013 09:18 AM

The problem is, while weeks at #1 are a nice number, they tell nothing other than just that: weeks at #1.

Rules for computing #1 have changed between each generation, as have point totals for each tournament (Lendl received 452 ATP points for winning the Australian Open in 1990).

So, to say 'so and so player only won N majors but was ranked #1 X times' means absolutely nothing.

mattennis 02-20-2013 09:30 AM

You must be blind or something worse, TMF.

Why would I want to minimize Roger's achievements when I have said MANY TIMES here that, FOR ME, in my totally subjective opinion, Federer is the best tennis player I have seen (at least in the last 20 years).

But I know what is a subjective opinion of mine, and what is a solid reasoning. I have no solid reasoning to say that a great player from one era would have achieved more than a great player of another era had they been born the other way around.

It is not a Federer thing. I have said many times too that numbers don't tell the whole story, EVEN among players from more or less the same era.

Sampras's numbers are TOO MUCH higher than Becker's numbers, but those two great player's level was much more similar than what their numbers seem to indicate.

If you compare Sampras's numbers or Federer's numbers with Lendl's or McEnroe's numbers, they seem to indicate that Sampras (or Federer) was much better than Lendl or McEnroe, but I have no solid reasoning to accept that, because they played in different times and conditions (even if Sampras's 90s conditions were as polarized as Lendl's and McEnroe's 80s conditions, but it was a different time period).

Had they been born the other way around, and maybe Lendl's or McEnroe's numbers would have been higher than Sampras's or Federer's. I have no way of knowing.

But the homogeneous conditions and game style of the current era will produce the effect of GS spread among less different players (only the two or three best players at that unique style, will have options every time) and that is exactly what is happening in tennis in the last years.

I only care about things that makes sense or doesn't make sense. You only care about your hero whorshipping as a truly teenage girl, and so any reasoning that could explain things about the anomaly of the current era, you see it as an attack to the only reason of your existence, your hero.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:46 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2006 - Tennis Warehouse