Lack of relationship between weeks #1 and Slam Titles
- Thread starter timnz
- Start date
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
All three, without the other two, would have achieved much more in my view.
I'm still at the coast, so when I'm out on the ocean tomorrow, I'll get out my binoculars and have a look around for it.
No promises though.
I've always maintained that Sampras had it the easiest among the top dogs for each era (contrary to what his fanbois would like everyone to believe). This is more proof of that fact.
The surfaces are not homogenized - they are less heterogenous. Otherwise, you'll see the about similar serving stats on RG, as you would at Wimbledon, for instance. The "homogenized" nonsense is used by detractors to explain away the current crop's all-year, all-surface excellence, compared to the Pete's (players like Stich, Edberg and Agassi reached all 4 slam finals; only Pete didn't).
The surfaces are not homogenized - they are less heterogenous. Otherwise, you'll see the about similar serving stats on RG, as you would at Wimbledon, for instance. The "homogenized" nonsense is used by detractors to explain away the current crop's all-year, all-surface excellence, compared to the Pete's (players like Stich, Edberg and Agassi reached all 4 slam finals; only Pete didn't).
Not all year end number 1 are equally the same. Certain YE #1 players were more achieved than the others.
See Sampras vs. Federer YE #1 comparison.
Not all Year End #1 are equally impressive
Sysyphus
Talk Tennis Guru
Clear and simple as the truth. Well put.
The most important thing for past great's legacy is how long their records stand the test of time.
People talk about Federer and Nadal NOW becuase they are the current players for tennis community to promote.
But once they retire, only their records live. Future kids will have no idea how good they were.
Unless they have records unbroken.
Pancho Gonzalez's pre-open era 7-8 year #1(including 6 straight year),
Rod Laver's grand slams and preopen era 6 straight year end #1,
Sampras' open era 6 straight year end #1 in an official ranking system.
have stood and will stand the test of time.
Nadal's 9 (or more? no?) French Open will probably be immortal.
But I'm pretty sure Federer's 17 will be broken pretty soon if this homogeneous surface condition of ATP tour does not change.
# of weeks is less important. If it is that important, Lendle would have been considered open era GOAT before Sampras.
It is much easier to dominate all year long now, compared to, say 70s - 90's.
Someone will dominate 5+ straight years and win ~20 slams under current surface conditions. Pretty soon, I think.
People talk about Federer and Nadal NOW becuase they are the current players for tennis community to promote.
But once they retire, only their records live. Future kids will have no idea how good they were.
Unless they have records unbroken.
Pancho Gonzalez's pre-open era 7-8 year #1(including 6 straight year),
Rod Laver's grand slams and preopen era 6 straight year end #1,
Sampras' open era 6 straight year end #1 in an official ranking system.
have stood and will stand the test of time.
Nadal's 9 (or more? no?) French Open will probably be immortal.
But I'm pretty sure Federer's 17 will be broken pretty soon if this homogeneous surface condition of ATP tour does not change.
# of weeks is less important. If it is that important, Lendle would have been considered open era GOAT before Sampras.
It is much easier to dominate all year long now, compared to, say 70s - 90's.
Someone will dominate 5+ straight years and win ~20 slams under current surface conditions. Pretty soon, I think.
Last edited:
Pancho and Laver's number of years #1 was unofficial. It's open to different interpretations.
Until someone actually breaks Fed's 17 then we can talk, otherwise predicting the future is fruitless.
Ranking is the 2nd most important criteria in achievement, right behind Grand Slam titles.
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
That's a weak "excuse" IMO. Yes, Sampras's era had more varied conditions, but he was well below average on clay overall. He only made the SF's once and in that year he just so happened to lose at Wimbledon. I don't know if that's a coincidence or not, but anyway...
Also, on top of all that, his best rival, Agassi has the career slam so I think it's fair to Pete to use Federer and Nadal's career slams.
None of the guys in this era are that bad on a single surface. Nadal is right now of course, but he has 2 Wimbledon titles already and his highest level on grass beats Pete's on clay by a lot.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
You can be number 1 for several weeks by being a "clay specialist" or being a "Masters champion".
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
I understand what you're saying definitely, but most sports are like that anyway.
They have regular seasons that are not held in real high esteem by many people even though they show longer periods of consistency and dominance, but the playoffs is where the "legends are made" so to speak.
I also think it lacks a bit of logic sometimes, but it's just the way things are right now with it not looking likely to change any time soon.
K
King Fed WW
Guest
For sure but maybe Fed and/or Rafa would have been that weak on fast fast grass. I agree re Agassi. Would you agree Agassi's career slam is 'better' than Fedal's?
My point was just that we should not use it as a point against Pete in comparison to Fedal or even Nole in the future.
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
Yes, I would, but I still disagree on the comparison of career slams. Sampras was terrible at RG. It's not like he made 4 finals and ran into Nadal. And even then Federer still took his one and only chance to this point that was presented to him.
Pete shouldn't get a pass for sucking at RG.
Sysyphus
Talk Tennis Guru
Somewhat of a pass in the comparisons people make. For instance, I don't know if Nadal would have the career slam in the 90's, Wimbledon in particular.
Being markedly worse on one surface, like Sampras, may also be in large part a result of the greater spread of surfaces, and it's hard to know for sure how Fed would have handled that, though I do think he would've handled it better than Pete.
OrangePower
Legend
If you are looking for a completely linear relationship, then the correlation is not perfect.
But I disagree with the premise about a lack of relationship.
For example, look at the men with 8 or more open era slam wins - there are 8 such players. And the same 8 players hold 8 of the top 9 spots in terms of weeks at #1.
If you include in that list JMac, with 7 slams tied for 9th, then that's also the exact same players as the top 9 in #1 weeks.
One step further, there are 12 men with 6 or more slams in the open era. All 12 are in the top 17 in terms of weeks at #1.
So no way one can say there is a lack of relationship. The top guys are going to be near the top in both categories, even though the ordering might vary somewhat.
D
Deleted member 21996
Guest
this fórum...
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
Perhaps, but Nadal has the career slam and Pete doesn't. It's really quite simple IMO. We don't need to overcomplicate it just because we don't know if Nadal or even Federer would've won the career slam in the 90's. I could say a much more likely truth in reverse.
Pete wouldn't have a snowballs chance in hell of winning the career slam in the 2000's, even with homogenized surfaces.
Sysyphus
Talk Tennis Guru
We really have no idea what kind of player Pete (or any of them) would've developed to be in completely different circumstances. These are not some trivial changes (e.g. assuming Pete was born 16 years later). Sure, we can make some (more or less educated) guesses, but that's about it.
It's not about overcomplicating. The point is that the comparison is meaningless, as is most comparisons between eras. It's moot.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
Yes, but he was #2 from 7/25/2005 to 8/18/2008 then #1 to 6/22/20 2009, and that situation was unique because of the opposite surface dominance and the fact that Nadal that was still in the shadow of Fed. And then, of course, there were the injuries.
Nadal is really unique because of his precocious beginning and his total domination of one surface.
Novak's story was different because he had to come out of the shadow of two great players, was a bit younger than Nadal, could not compete with him on clay, and most certainly could not compete with Fed on grass.
This is the reason I think that BOTH Nadal and Novak are better than their slam total and number of weeks at #1 shows. I would see that there has never been such a tight competition between three players for such a long period of time, in the open era.
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
Yes it is. Which is why I give Pete the nod on pure numbers over Nadal for now, but I'm not into giving Sampras a pass for ultimately failing at RG. I'm just not.
And as I said, Pete's main rival has the career slam although Sampras is more accomplished, so Agassi more than proved it wasn't impossible in the 90's. You could say that Sampras's style suited the 90's more than Agassi's on a larger variety of surfaces, hence his struggles at RG since S & V doesn't generally work well there but you could also say that if Agassi was more determined he could've won a few more slams for example.
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
As per the bold, would you also then say that Federer is better than his number of slam titles suggests? Honest question.
Sysyphus
Talk Tennis Guru
Sure, that's absolutely fair. I agree that Agassi very well could have eeked out some more slams.
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
And FWIW, I agree with NN as far as Nadal and Djokovic's time at #1 goes. Yes, it is true that Federer had the spot on lock from 04-07 and nobody was taking it. Not Nadal or prime Djokovic or anybody, and this was the time that Nadal was #2, but I wouldn't say his years at #2 were better than Novak's #1 years. Nadal's biggest obstacle hasn't been Djokovic or Federer, it's been his own body and his lack of comparative consistency. Nadal would have more time at #1 right now if he was better in 2009 for example. And if he was better in 2009 he may not have lost the #1 ranking to Federer and thus retained it through all of 2010 and not just regained it after RG. That's another year right there, until Djokovic takes over in mid 2011.
Then in 2012 it was the same story potentially. After RG, there was serious talk that Nadal could finish at #1 and be #1 for a bit but that never happened because he lost early at Wimbledon and then proceeded to take the rest of the year off with an injury.
He also has a weak part of the season comparatively i.e after the USO whereas Novak is strong in all parts of the season so it's not really surprising that he will get more weeks at #1 than Nadal.
All in all, Nadal's had his chances. It's not all to blame on prime Federer or even Djokovic from 2011 (since that's only one year anyway).
Then in 2012 it was the same story potentially. After RG, there was serious talk that Nadal could finish at #1 and be #1 for a bit but that never happened because he lost early at Wimbledon and then proceeded to take the rest of the year off with an injury.
He also has a weak part of the season comparatively i.e after the USO whereas Novak is strong in all parts of the season so it's not really surprising that he will get more weeks at #1 than Nadal.
All in all, Nadal's had his chances. It's not all to blame on prime Federer or even Djokovic from 2011 (since that's only one year anyway).
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
That's all I was trying to say. People need to stop acting like they don't know why Nadal doesn't have more weeks.
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
As far as the discrepancy b/w slam titles and weeks at #1, I don't see it as all that surprising considering that they both generally value different things. One being a higher peak over 2 weeks (where Nadal excels for example) and one being higher consistency, but not necessarily peak, over a full season (where Djokovic excels for example).
Just one more point on Nadal and Djokovic. It is clear that Nadal quite likes being the underdog whereas Djokovic and Federer thrive on being #1, so again not all that surprising that Djokovic will likely end with more weeks at #1 than Nadal. They just excel at different things.
Just one more point on Nadal and Djokovic. It is clear that Nadal quite likes being the underdog whereas Djokovic and Federer thrive on being #1, so again not all that surprising that Djokovic will likely end with more weeks at #1 than Nadal. They just excel at different things.
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
And by that token, Nadal has cost Federer slams. However I think NN's idea is that if you put the Djokovic from 2011-2015 in 04-07 he may also edge out Nadal in terms of #1 time.
That is why I agree with him. Because Nadal's main problem has never been Djokovic and Federer, hence the leading H2H's. It was the losses to guys like Youzhny, Gonzalez, and Tsonga for example.
As I said, I don't believe Federer or even Djokovic is the entire reason for Nadal's "short" stay at #1 in comparison to his number of slams. It's his body and/or his relative inconsistency. Although, as you can see, I also don't believe there's a discrepancy in Nadal's case or Djokovic's since the two metrics measure almost entirely different things anyway.
But I do agree with you if that was all you were trying to say. That nobody was taking the #1 ranking from Fed in his prime. I just don't agree that that's the entire reason why Nadal doesn't have more weeks. I outlined a few chances he had outside of Federer to get another year or so on top of the rankings for example.
Last edited:
Bukmeikara
Legend
How is Federer or Djokovic problem that Nadal couldnt reach them when he was in bad shape? So if Youzhny defeated Nadal at Us Open would there be any different outcome that year if Rafa reached Novak or Fed, I would say that in 80% of the cases the answer is NO. Nadal probably wouldnt beat Fed at the Us 06-09 or Novak in Australia in most of the times. Nadal often skipped the outcomes with the other two when he would have been a big underdog. For example he would have potentially lost most of the matches with Novak or Roger since RG 14 but he never reached them. On the other hand in 2013 Federer reached Nadal in Rome and Cincinnati, Djokovic almost always reached him on clay in 07-09.
Bottom line they play for titles and ranking points. If someone has more titles and ranking points than you during your era than HE IS your main problem and not the likes of Gonzalez, Tsonga or Youzhny with whom you play 2-3 matches per year. For example Nadals level in 2011-2012 was on par or even better than his form in 2010 but yet both Djokovic and Federer managed to surpass him in the ranking during that period.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
You can see how bizarre the ranking system was then. You have Rios at #2, no slams, Corretja at #3, no slams, Moya at #4 with the USO, Korda at #5 with the AO.
Inanimate_object
Hall of Fame
Wow. Here's a cookie for the most defensive post of the day.
Steve0904 is right. Nadal's head-to-head records show clearly his main problem has never been with any particular rival. Given how amazing Federer and Djokovic are, to think that Nadal could not, by a huge margin, improve his slam tally had both the World Number 1 and World Number 2 never played the game, is testament to this.
Nadal's problem has always been his fleeting deteriorating health. That is his main obstacle. Swap out Federer and Djokovic for any player in any era. The bottom line is Nadal has never faced a problem as tough as himself.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
Two weeks dominance and slams come from players like Cilic and Wawrinka, last year. No one is talking about them as all time greats.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
Yes, that is a fair question. I think through 2007 he had an easier time of it. There really were very few people to stop him then. But from that time on I think it was no longer true, and since 2011 the competition at the top has been incredibly close. It's logical to assume that he would have at least a couple more FOs without Nadal stopping him every year, except 2009, and I think without any question Novak has become one of the most dominant players I've ever seen.
I would be more likely to agree that any of the Big Three have been at least somewhat unlucky in being in this era, and extend that to Murray who I think is better than a #4 player in most eras.
I don't compare eras much, but I do tend to think that in the open era there have been two eras that were more dominated by just a few players. This is one of them.
The Connors/Borg/JMac/Lendl era is another, four greats in a span of time a bit less than 8 years.
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
This is by and large, true, and that's my point. Chances are Nadal's H2H's suffer if he goes farther in more tournaments, but he loses out on the ranking points that go with the extra wins in exchange for the H2H's. I understand that Federer and Djokovic have denied Nadal his fair share and they are more worthy rivals than guys you might only play 2 or 3 times a year, but that was my point to mentioning the "early" losses.
He's losing ranking points for these losses. Hence those guys being more of a "main" problem as far as ranking points goes.
OddJack
G.O.A.T.
Oh absolutely.
Weeks at number one speak to consistency through years. Winning majors translate into consistency for weeks.
Cilic, Del Potro, Wava... will never be number one for a week.
There is no relation between #1 and majors because there not supposed to be.
Weeks at number one speak to consistency through years. Winning majors translate into consistency for weeks.
Cilic, Del Potro, Wava... will never be number one for a week.
There is no relation between #1 and majors because there not supposed to be.
Being #1 and maintaining for a significant amount of time is a high level achievement, and is frequently a by-product of winning majors, but as an achievement, like everything else in tennis, it is secondary to winning majors.
The other problem with rankings is that there is no way to properly value a major. Two Masters titles equal a major. In reality, no player would trade a major win for 5 Masters. But, you have to come up with a reasonable system and majors can't be worth 5000 points, so I think the current setup is fine.
Take 2013 for example - Djokovic could have easily finished #1 that year by winning one Masters event instead of Nadal and if their RG epic had been a F instead of a SF, but everybody would have known Nadal had the better year with 2 major titles. And, consider that Nadal won 10 titles (2 majors, 5 Masters), made 14 finals and was still that close to not finishing the year with the #1 ranking.
For comparison, Pete Sampras won 3 titles (1 major, no Masters equivalent) and finished the year #1 in 1998. That's not a knock on Sampras, just an example of differing years and what it took to be #1.
The thing about majors is pretty simple. They are the events that players schedule for to make sure they're healthy and hopefully peaking at. They are a consistent measuring stick for that reason. You have to win 7 best-of-five matches in two weeks in a 128-man draw where you know everyone is giving it their best effort to win. In non-majors, guys may skip an event to rest, they may lose a match because they need a break, they may be working something new into their games, etc.
Like other noteworthy achievements, being No. 1 is special, but it doesn't replace winning majors.
The other problem with rankings is that there is no way to properly value a major. Two Masters titles equal a major. In reality, no player would trade a major win for 5 Masters. But, you have to come up with a reasonable system and majors can't be worth 5000 points, so I think the current setup is fine.
Take 2013 for example - Djokovic could have easily finished #1 that year by winning one Masters event instead of Nadal and if their RG epic had been a F instead of a SF, but everybody would have known Nadal had the better year with 2 major titles. And, consider that Nadal won 10 titles (2 majors, 5 Masters), made 14 finals and was still that close to not finishing the year with the #1 ranking.
For comparison, Pete Sampras won 3 titles (1 major, no Masters equivalent) and finished the year #1 in 1998. That's not a knock on Sampras, just an example of differing years and what it took to be #1.
The thing about majors is pretty simple. They are the events that players schedule for to make sure they're healthy and hopefully peaking at. They are a consistent measuring stick for that reason. You have to win 7 best-of-five matches in two weeks in a 128-man draw where you know everyone is giving it their best effort to win. In non-majors, guys may skip an event to rest, they may lose a match because they need a break, they may be working something new into their games, etc.
Like other noteworthy achievements, being No. 1 is special, but it doesn't replace winning majors.
BringBackSV
Hall of Fame
That's quite the exaggeration.
Bukmeikara
Legend
I ask you again, which is harder - to be number 1 for 52 weeks or to win a Major for two weeks?! Other question, how manny players have won a Slam and how manny from them reached the number 1 ranking? If Wawrnka wins 1 or even 2 Slams more does this make him a better player than Roddick, Hewitt or Safin?
Last edited:
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Preach it Nathaniel. Sounds to me like MN is just trying to find excuses to cover Nadal being overtaken by Novak for weeks at #1 instead of simply giving credit where it's due. Not cool.
Russeljones
Talk Tennis Guru
Michael made a valid point about the timing. I know this is extremely unpalatable to you, but had Novak's preak coincided with Nadal's, he too would have had to play for Federer's scraps.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Not really. Novak's peak did coincide with Nadal's and he did just fine. In fact he beat him seven times in a row, won 4 slams AND took the number 1 ranking off him!
Russeljones
Talk Tennis Guru
Not really. Novak's peak did coincide with Nadal's and he did just fine. In fact he beat him seven times in a row, won 4 slams AND took the number 1 ranking off him!
You realize you are claiming Nadal has had the longest preak of any male tennis player in the Open Era?
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Nadal was at his peak in 2011.
Russeljones
Talk Tennis Guru
You're losing the plot here.
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
I've been thinking about it, and I half agree with this.
He was damn fine at many of the tournaments where Djokovic beat him though, which is what matters in this discussion (and to you, presumably
), but at others he was clearly below his best (RG springs to mind).But what you're saying (that Djokovic beat a fully-fit Nadal at tournaments like Rome 2011 and WIM/USO 2011) is something I agree with.
Also, as for his #1 weeks, he is fully deserving of having more #1 weeks than Nadal, I think we were just pointing out that the reason why Nadal doesn't have more is Federer.
Both Djokovic and Nadal have been unlucky in different ways, as has Federer, so it all evens out in the end.
If Novak was prime then instead, as Russel has been saying, Novak would have accrued a healthy number of weeks at #2 as well.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
And there ain't nothin' wrong with that either. It was never written in stone that you're only a worthy number 1 if you're constantly racking up GS titles.
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
You are a worthy #1 if you have more points than anyone else.
Similar threads
