WORLD NO. 1 (by year)

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by NadalDramaQueen

Nope, Federer stole Novak's chair, therefore he is the real number one.

That chair must have felt nice, but too bad he held only the no. 2 trophy.

[NadalDramaQueen]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

That chair must have felt nice, but too bad he held only the no. 2 trophy.

Everyone knows that the higher ranked player sits to the left of the chair umpire. This is an indisputable fact that proves that Federer is officially the World No. 1.

Learn history.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by NadalDramaQueen

Federer's year was made worse when, after failing to straight set Djokovic at the US Open, Tiger Woods called Federer and ended their friendship.

Good one.

[newmark401]

What criteria do you use for judging who's the world number one at the end of a year?

[newmark401]

What criteria do you use for judging who's the world number one at the end of a year, or the best player over a twelve-month period, which might not be the same thing? After all, the "official" computer rankings didn't exist until relatively recently, so such judgements can't be made solely using those rankings.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by newmark401

What criteria do you use for judging who's the world number one at the end of a year, or the best player over a twelve-month period, which might not be the same thing? After all, the "official" computer rankings didn't exist until relatively recently, so such judgements can't be made solely using those rankings.

The official computer rankings are based on money won, which is one way of determining the number one player.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

The official computer rankings are based on money won, which is one way of determining the number one player.

Dan, ?????????????????

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

The official computer rankings are based on money won, which is one way of determining the number one player.

The official computer rankings are based on ranking points, from how far one gets in tournaments, not from prize money won. Using your criteria, David Wheaton is the number 1 player for 1991 after getting $2,000,000 for winning the Grand Slam Cup. LOL.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by Mustard

The official computer rankings are based on ranking points, from how far one gets in tournaments, not from prize money won. Using your criteria, David Wheaton is the number 1 player for 1991 after getting $2,000,000 for winning the Grand Slam Cup. LOL.

Yes, I see the point about Wheaton.
But the standards for 1959 (and today? where Djokovic guaranteed #1 before the final event) and 1964 and most Grand Prix and ATP years, is points awarded for placing in designated events. This corresponds very closely to prize money won in those events. There was also a bonus money pool in 1958 and 1959, the inaugural years for Grand Prix/ATP Masters type of annual series. The bonus money concept was not carried over into the 1964 series.
Why not just use prize money? Because using points is more dignified, less mercenary, and allows a clearer distinction between designated and non-designated events.

[krosero]

I think this is the first time in the Open Era that somebody was #1 for the year on the basis of an AO victory, not paired with any other Slam win.

Nastase and Kuerten have both made #1 with only a RG victory. It's happened many times with Wimbledon and the USO.

[timnz]

Originally Posted by krosero

I think this is the first time in the Open Era that somebody was #1 for the year on the basis of an AO victory, not paired with any other Slam win.

.

Lendl 1989 was another occasion. Interesting Note: the only tournament losses that Lendl had the whole of 1989 were to the eventual winners of the tournaments. Don't know if that has ever happened before or since

[kiki]

Originally Posted by krosero

I think this is the first time in the Open Era that somebody was #1 for the year on the basis of an AO victory, not paired with any other Slam win.

Nastase and Kuerten have both made #1 with only a RG victory. It's happened many times with Wimbledon and the USO.

Nasty won a few Masters Cup as well as USO in that time

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by newmark401

What criteria do you use for judging who's the world number one at the end of a year?

ATP Ranking points--

1 Djokovic, Novak (SRB) 12,920
2 Federer, Roger (SUI) 10,265

[Gizo]

1989 was an interesting year. Obviusly Becker produced the best standard of tennis that year, and more importantly had the best set of achievements. Thus he was the clear player of the year.

However Lendl's incredibly good day-in day-out consistency that year, meant that he had a pretty strong ranking point lead over Becker at the end of the season. In fact some posters here have shown that even if the ranking systems from the 90s, 2000-2008 or 2009 onwards were used, Lendl still would have had a clear lead in all scenarios.

It's interesting that Edberg in 1990 and Kuerten in 2000 both finished as the year end no. 1 in those respective seasons, despite suffering 1st round defeats at 2 of the majors. Edberg fell at the first hurdle to Bruguera at RG and Volkov in New York in 1990, while Guga suffered the same fate against Portas in Melbourne and Arthurs in New York in 2000.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by Gizo

1989 was an interesting year. Obviusly Becker produced the best standard of tennis that year, and more importantly had the best set of achievements. Thus he was the clear player of the year.

However Lendl's incredibly good day-in day-out consistency that year, meant that he had a pretty strong ranking point lead over Becker at the end of the season. In fact some posters here have shown that even if the ranking systems from the 90s, 2000-2008 or 2009 onwards were used, Lendl still would have had a clear lead in all scenarios.

It's interesting that Edberg in 1990 and Kuerten in 2000 both finished as the year end no. 1 in those respective seasons, despite suffering 1st round defeats at 2 of the majors. Edberg fell at the first hurdle to Bruguera at RG and Volkov in New York in 1990, while Guga suffered the same fate against Portas in Melbourne and Arthurs in New York in 2000.

This is why it is important to do well not only in points ranking, but in the major tournaments as well. Otherwise, it becomes a less than spectacular year, even if you get the #1 ranking.
Finishing number one is not worth the same in stature every year. Some years are better than others, therefore you cannot simply add up the number of years a player finishes first to rate the player.

[newmark401]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

ATP Ranking points--

1 Djokovic, Novak (SRB) 12,920
2 Federer, Roger (SUI) 10,265

So, how many ATP points did Joshua Pim, for example, finish with in the years for which he was ranked number one?

And what about Rod Laver in 1962, the year in which he won the Grand Slam for the first time? (Ken Rosewall is listed as the "world number one" for 1962 in the list on page one of this thread.)

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by newmark401

So, how many ATP points did Joshua Pim, for example, finish with in the years for which he was ranked number one?

And what about Rod Laver in 1962, the year in which he won the Grand Slam for the first time? (Ken Rosewall is listed as the "world number one" for 1962 in the list on page one of this thread.)

???????????????????
We all know there was no ATP in 1962 and before, and thus no ATP computer rankings. Back then rankings were compiled by mere human beings with favorites, biases, prejudices, and subjectively poor memories. We now have a better system.

Do you have a point that we do not know?

[hoodjem]

Did Trabert ever have a year as no. 1?

Has he ever factored into GOAT discussions?

[BobbyOne]

[quote=hoodjem;7022754]Did Trabert ever have a year as no. 1?

Has he ever factored into GOAT discussions?[/QUOTE

Trabert was never No.1 or in a GOAT discussion. He just was best claycourter in 1956 and 1959. And Dan claims that he had a better backhand than Rosewall...

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

Did Trabert ever have a year as no. 1?

Has he ever factored into GOAT discussions?

I have Trabert as the number 1 amateur player in 1953 and 1955, and narrowly behind Drobny in 1954. As a professional, he did very well to win his 2 French Pro titles.