To be fair to the OP, he never claims this is a statistic for any epithets. Its a phenomenal achievement though - 18 year old who was playing lights out tennis, who still plays lights out tennis at 35. The other teen phenoms barely played this well into their 30's so its just a post of appreciation. Say well done and move on. I don't see why there is even discussion beyond that
I don't think we'll convince each other, but I first replied because I wish I had a dollar for every time I've read some variation (usually sarcastic) of "Gee, isn't it amazing how Rafa is magically healed by clay". Well, of course, he prioritizes clay, but clay - while it places a premium on endurance - does not put the same type of strain on Rafa's chronic pain/injuries (mostly foot and knee, sometimes back) as do hard courts or low-bouncing grass.
welcome to TTW!
nut house?
In the midst of the current energy crisis, the ability to play lights out tennis is invaluable.
That's not how age works. You become 20 years old exactly 20 years after your birth, not on January 1st of that year.It says 2001when he was 20. But OK, I'll concede that it was before he turned 20. Still nothing to write home about.
TTW: come for the tennis, stay for the laughs!nut house?
I shudder at the thought of my next electricity bill lol - I didn't know clean energy meant significant portion of my pay package goes to the tiny light bulb at home!
Exactly.
I'm not saying that I get every take right -- I'm not that arrogant...not quite that arrogant -- but I simply try to make fair-minded points that aren't easily destroyed or turned around. The same points that I would make with my own name, or in-person. Yes, I have my preferences, but in the end, I'm not the member of any camp, and I don't deserve any credit or "self-esteem points" when any player wins. I think that my take on this is a fair one.
| Rank | Country | Name | Weeks At No. 1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | SRB | Novak Djokovic | 340 |
| 2 | SUI | Roger Federer | 310 |
| 3 | USA | Pete Sampras | 286 |
| 4 | USA | Ivan Lendl | 270 |
| 5 | USA | Jimmy Connors | 268 |
| 6 | ESP | Rafael Nadal | 209 |
| 7 | USA | John McEnroe | 170 |
| 8 | SWE | Bjorn Borg | 109 |
| 9 | USA | Andre Agassi | 101 |
| 10 | AUS | Lleyton Hewitt | 80 |
This is so salty for no reason. You guess it's nice that someone has always been ranked in the top 10 for more than 16 years? There are good professional players who never make it even close to the top 10, and there are greats of the game whose entire ATP careers were shorter than Rafa's time in the top 10.
Rafa is the only frequently injured player who has been #1 in many occasions.
Statement of fact to be proud of.
Absolutely.
Because Nadal has more natural talent.
Flashbacks of aguing with 11-year-olds in middle school activated.
So, if a player stayed in the top 10 for damn near 200 years that’d be the equivalent of being a journeyman
Remember guys, @Sunny014 total respects RAFA and other tennis greats. He’d never say anything that makes him look incredibly ignorant about the game
I respect his French Open dominance which shows his great athleticism, second to none.
But skillwise he is below Federer and Novak
Why would anyone want to suppose a scenario when they know the facts. You might as well suppose that Djokovic had the most weeks at #1 without a slam title. That's how ridiculous your point is.
His record against them suggests otherwise, but you’d know that if you knew anything about tennis
It does doesn't it because it's a lot of days to be in the top 10. Quite an achievement.
If they lived that long we’d probably be debating something else!So, if a player stayed in the top 10 for damn near 200 years that’d be the equivalent of being a journeyman
You have a hard time following arguments? Apologies
Agree!
You have a hard time sticking to the facts.
Really? And where did we debate facts here? What we are debating is how to interpret those facts. I never argued against the fact that Nadal has 6000 weeks as a top 10 player. Don’t think anyone here has debated that “fact”.
He’s beaten a much better Federer than any version Joker beat at Wimby. He’d be sitting on close to if not as many titles as him if his peak/prime lined up with the current grass field.
Just burning down a strawman when I see one
Actually he’s probably the only real GOAT, although a surface GOAT. only Nadal can claim complete dominance over all the rest in a specific area of tennis.
So sad to see no one is trained in arguments and debates anymore!Just burning down a strawman when I see one
Dude, everyone is getting on your case about this because you said having a top 10 career is being a journeyman. If you want to “debate” it’s best not say something so ridiculously hyperbolic
Why bring in a completly irrelevant baseless argument into this? Nadal has been YE#1 5 times why suppose he didn't have a single week at #1?
