#1 players since 1973

[jg153040]

For the 10 thousandth friggin' time, will you listen to what I actually said? Of course the number #1 ranking is important and all the best players usually achieve it and all the best players achieve it by winning the best tournaments in order to achieve it. No arguments! But there have been cases in both the ATP and WTA, rare as they may be, where players have secured this ranking without winning Slams and all of them have been criticised for it. That's my point. Being number #1 for 150 weeks without a Slam would indeed be amazing but it would also risk bringing the number #1 ranking into disrepute. After all, what exactly would it mean to call a player the best in the world for over 2 years when other lower ranked players were busy winning the most important events in the sport?

Well, if you argue being nr.1 without a slam is not good, I can argue that winning a slam without the nr.1 ranking is also not good. Same logic.

So, if you want to be considered the best, you should have both, a lot of weeks nr.1 and a lot of slams.

If you have only one of those things and lack in other, it won't do.

So, of course winning slams without a lot of weeks nr.1 is bad, like having a lot of weeks nr.1 without winning slams.

The point is that both has huge value, not just one thing.

So, how can you be the best without nr.1 ranking? You can't.
So, how can you be the best without winning slams? You can't.

Both is equally important.

Why would being ranked nr.1 150 weeks devalue rankings? I can argue the same for slams. That winning a lot of slams without achieving nr.1 ranking would also make you look suspicious.

I don't like any camps. Some people over hype slams, some people over hype rankings, but both is equally important, you need both.

 

[tennisaddict]

Change the record for goodness sakes. Do you really think being called the best player in the world without being able to win one of the world's best tournaments is worth the computer paper it is printed on?

Murray has got nothing to do with this. If Murray had been world #1 for 103 weeks without ever winning a Slam I wouldn't hesitate to say exactly the same and point out its hollowness.



The principle is exactly the same. Three players who received the number #1 ranking whilst other players were winning the Slams and all 3 were ridiculed for it!



Yes, and he is constantly compared unfavourably to all the other #1s isn't he?



Exactly. So why are you wasting both our time by trying to argue that being #1 without a Slam is every bit as worthy as being #1 with one?



Well, no. Nobody ridicules Vilas, Bruguera, Murray, Del Potro, Cilic or Wawrinka for winning Slams without being #1. They are just lauded for winning Slams.



Exactly. Many players have won a Slam without being #1 and nobody criticises them for it. Players like Rios, on the other hand, have a difficult time trying to live down the fact that they called themselves the best players in the world without being able to win any of the best tournaments. That's just fact and you should stop throwing out childish arguments to try and prove otherwise just because it annoys you that Murray won Slams and Rios didn't!

Do not try to cover up for all of Murray's failures as that is a long list and is tough task for even the most obnoxious fans.

It is much easier to win a major. Much much more difficult to get to No 1.

Do not even try to deflect the topic to reaching no 1 without a major as I repeat for the zillionth time only 1 freakin player has ever done that.

Murray, Delpo and Stan are not ridiculed for the only reason that they don't even have the calibre of a No 1. What is the point in ridiculing ? This is like asking why is Gimeno Traver not ridiculed for not winning a major . It is because they just don't have what it takes to get there.

 

[jg153040]

Do not try to cover up for all of Murray's failures as that is a long list and is tough task for even the most obnoxious fans.

It is much easier to win a major. Much much more difficult to get to No 1.

Do not even try to deflect the topic to reaching no 1 without a major as I repeat for the zillionth time only 1 freakin player has ever done that.

Murray, Delpo and Stan are not ridiculed for the only reason that they don't even have the calibre of a No 1. What is the point in ridiculing ? This is like asking why is Gimeno Traver not ridiculed for not winning a major . It is because they just don't have what it takes to get there.

Yeah, I don't get that logic. People want to penalize you if you are a slam-less nr.1, but they don't penalize you if you are number-one-less slam winner.

Sounds like circular logic all over again.

 

[GabeT]

Of course being nr.1 is more impressive than a slam. Look at those guys who weren't nr.1 and won slams. Vilas, Murray, Delpo, Wawrinka, Cilic...

When you have to deal with all time greats, they will lose a slam so there is window to win slams, but there is almost no window for nr.1 if a couple of greats are playing.

Also it's not the same to be ranked nr.1 just a few weeks versus 150-300 weeks. A huge difference.

There is a huge difference between winning a few slams and winning a lot of them, like there is a huge difference between 30 weeks nr.1 and 300 weeks nr.1.

People pretend like all nr.1 achievements are equal. No, it's not simply just reaching or not reaching nr.1. Reaching nr.1 is of course great achievement on its own, but staying there for years is a huge difference.

Sports results are generally judged on a calendar year basis, which is why I think that the single most important metric is and will always remain YE1. Not the only metric though.

 

[Vegito]

The thing of the rankings is an arbitrary/relative thing, I mean, specially it was in the 70´s. The system was not good. There were many debates differentiating "what the computer said" and who was the real number one. And the revision of the rankings is important. We could have news related to this issue soon.

 

[TMF]

Do not try to cover up for all of Murray's failures as that is a long list and is tough task for even the most obnoxious fans.

It is much easier to win a major. Much much more difficult to get to No 1.

Do not even try to deflect the topic to reaching no 1 without a major as I repeat for the zillionth time only 1 freakin player has ever done that.

Murray, Delpo and Stan are not ridiculed for the only reason that they don't even have the calibre of a No 1. What is the point in ridiculing ? This is like asking why is Gimeno Traver not ridiculed for not winning a major . It is because they just don't have what it takes to get there.

To back it up, history say there's more number of players that have won slam(s) than being ranked #1.

I mean it's like Michael Jordan winning countless of rings for his team but was never the best player in any season. No way he would be a goat.

 

[tennisaddict]

The thing of the rankings is an arbitrary/relative thing, I mean, specially it was in the 70´s. The system was not good. There were many debates differentiating "what the computer said" and who was the real number one. And the revision of the rankings is important. We could have news related to this issue soon.

But we are a good 40 years with the better ranking system. This has been fair. Rankings have truly reflected the better player

 

[Mainad]

Do not try to cover up for all of Murray's failures as that is a long list and is tough task for even the most obnoxious fans.

Lol...even the most 'obnoxious' Murray fan is a thousand times more rational and impartial than hopelessly biased, hate that comes from posters like you! All of Murray's failures? Listen to yourself! The guy is the only player outside the Big 3 to win multiple Slams in the last decade and all you want to do is point out is his 'failures' ! How pathetic and sad is that?

It is much easier to win a major. Much much more difficult to get to No 1.

I may actually agree with you but since you are at pains to point out to me that getting to be #1 these days is impossible without winning multiple Slams, it's a pointless argument, isn't it?

Do not even try to deflect the topic to reaching no 1 without a major as I repeat for the zillionth time only 1 freakin player has ever done that.

And so what do you think of that 1 freakin' player? Are you going to tell us that he was a better player than someone who won Slams?

Murray, Delpo and Stan are not ridiculed for the only reason that they don't even have the calibre of a No 1. What is the point in ridiculing ? This is like asking why is Gimeno Traver not ridiculed for not winning a major . It is because they just don't have what it takes to get there.

Oh gosh, I so love this ridiculous argument you peddle! It's the same sort of argument as "Murray, Cilic, Wawrinka don't have the calibre to win a Slam' until they actually do so!

 

[jg153040]

Sports results are generally judged on a calendar year basis, which is why I think that the single most important metric is and will always remain YE1. Not the only metric though.

Yeah, I agree, I'm not saying weeks nr.1 should be everything.

No, greatness is combination of many things:

Slams
Slam finals
Weeks nr.1
Year end nr.1
Consistency
Longevity
Surface balance (if you can dominate on more surfaces)

 

[Vegito]

But we are a good 40 years with the better ranking system. This has been fair. Rankings have truly reflected the better player

Now the system is fair. In the 70´s it was pretty controversial. Probably for that readon there were other ranking publicated in special magazines or made by specialists.

 

[jg153040]

But we are a good 40 years with the better ranking system. This has been fair. Rankings have truly reflected the better player

I party agree. Rankings tell only half of the story. The other half is slams and slam finals and streaks.

So, I'm correcting you: rankings + slam results truly reflect the better player.

Rare people have both. That's why goats are rare .

I know people say Fed was in a weak era, but imagine how better he would be if he was in a strong era, because competition would push him even more.

 

[tennisaddict]

Murray may win another 20 masters. As long as he does not get the No 1, he would be less than Hewitt and on par with Kafelnikov

 

[President]

Personally, I don't understand a lot of the hype over rankings. They are just a product of your achievements, which you already get credit for. Why "double count" them and place such an emphasis on the ranking? Djokovic's season last year wasn't impressive to me because he was #1, it was impressive because he won Wimbledon, made the final of RG, won 5 (?) Masters titles, and the WTF. Those achievements gave him the #1 ranking.

 

[tennisaddict]

Personally, I don't understand a lot of the hype over rankings. They are just a product of your achievements, which you already get credit for. Why "double count" them and place such an emphasis on the ranking? Djokovic's season last year wasn't impressive to me because he was #1, it was impressive because he won Wimbledon, made the final of RG, won 5 (?) Masters titles, and the WTF. Those achievements gave him the #1 ranking.

A player like Serena who has won so many majors and been at No 1 for so long , cried when she got back the No 1 the last time.

Federer tells tournament organizers not to introduce him as the No 2 or No 3 ranked player. He says everything is the same as long as it is not No 1

I am pretty sure they know more as to what it takes to be No 1 than analysts in this forum

 

[jg153040]

Personally, I don't understand a lot of the hype over rankings. They are just a product of your achievements, which you already get credit for. Why "double count" them and place such an emphasis on the ranking? Djokovic's season last year wasn't impressive to me because he was #1, it was impressive because he won Wimbledon, made the final of RG, won 5 (?) Masters titles, and the WTF. Those achievements gave him the #1 ranking.

No, rankings don't reflect achievements. If that was the case, why does Hewitt have tons more weeks nr.1 and Becker has tons more slams?

Rankings measure another part of greatness. That is consistency over long period of time. Slams measure domination over short period of time.

Both is very important.

Also a single slam measures domination at one tournament and surface. Rankings measure how you do over all tournaments and surfaces.

 

[President]

A player like Serena who has won so many majors and been at No 1 for so long , cried when she got back the No 1 the last time.

Federer tells tournament organizers not to introduce him as the No 2 or No 3 ranked player. He says everything is the same as long as it is not No 1

I am pretty sure they know more as to what it takes to be No 1 than analysts in this forum

It definitely takes a lot of work and is an incredible achievement to be the best player in the world especially symbolically, but I don't see why (for the purposes of our analysis of players greatness, which is usually what we do on this forum) it should be considered as such a massive separate achievement, when the player's other achievements have already been taken into account. The ranking is only a byproduct of the other achievements.

 

[jg153040]

A player like Serena who has won so many majors and been at No 1 for so long , cried when she got back the No 1 the last time.

Federer tells tournament organizers not to introduce him as the No 2 or No 3 ranked player. He says everything is the same as long as it is not No 1

I am pretty sure they know more as to what it takes to be No 1 than analysts in this forum

Yeah, Federer wanted to become nr.1 even before he wanted to win a slam.

Being nr.1 for long time is a lot harder than winning slam. Don't we have a lot of slam winners who weren't nr.1?

We have very few nr.1 players who didn't win slams. And we have no players who were nr.1 for a long time and didn't win slams.

 

[RF-18]

Suarez-Navarros comments in April, the previous month:
World No. 12 Carla Suarez Navarro, who will earn a career-high ranking after her run to the Miami Open final, would someday like to became the No. 1 player in the sport. The 26-year-old turned pro in 2003 and will crack the WTA Top 10 for the first time on Monday.

“Normally all the tennis player want to be No. 1, but the first step I think is be in Top 100 and Top 50, then Top 20, Top 10, and you never know,” said Suarez Navarro. “But I want to be No. 1, yeah.”

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2015/04/suarez-navarro-i-want-be-no-1/54510/#.VUPC_Pntmko

 

[RF-18]

Heather Watson in december 2014:

British number one Heather Watson says she is aiming to become the number one tennis player in the world.

The 22-year-old from Guernsey ended the season ranked 49th after suffering glandular fever last year when she had reached a career-high 39 in the world.

Watson won two singles and two doubles events this year and reached the second round at Wimbledon and the French Open.
"I definitely want to go all the way. I wouldn't be playing if I didn't think I could," she told BBC Radio Guernsey.

"I'm not thinking about number one right now. I set my mini goals, but I believe in myself, my team believes in me and we're doing everything we can to get there."

 

[RF-18]

Federer, asked a couple of days ago in Istanbul, about wich of his 17 slams were the most special, this was his reply:

After being asked which one of his 17 Grand Slams was the most unforgettable for him, Federer said his goal has always been the world No.1 ; not for seven or eight months but for a very long time. "I always worked hard for it. I pay attention to live like a professional and I succeeded this for a long time.

http://www.dailysabah.com/tennis/20...-to-be-a-role-model-for-young-turkish-players
_

So, it's time to realize how the #1 is thought of by players around the world. We have how much proof we can get.

 

[RF-18]

Indian tennis ace Sania Mirza on Saturday said she wants to reach No. 1 position in the world rankings before bidding adieu to the game. "I am six in the world and I would like to be number 1 before I retire," the tennis player replied to a query on her professional career in future

 

[GabeT]

Federer, asked a couple of days ago in Istanbul, about wich of his 17 slams were the most special, this was his reply:

After being asked which one of his 17 Grand Slams was the most unforgettable for him, Federer said his goal has always been the world No.1 ; not for seven or eight months but for a very long time. "I always worked hard for it. I pay attention to live like a professional and I succeeded this for a long time.

http://www.dailysabah.com/tennis/20...-to-be-a-role-model-for-young-turkish-players
_

So, it's time to realize how the #1 is thought of by players around the world. We have how much proof we can get.

This is true in all sports but it's probably particularly true in a sport like tennis which has so many variations (surface, conditions, tournament types). Being number 1 summarizes all that and tells the world no one is better than you.

 

[Vegito]

I wanna mention it just like a "rumor" Apparently they discovered that Guillermo Vilas was number one at a point in 1975. Remember the case Evonne Goolagong.

"Unfortunately our record-keeping wasn't perfect in those early days of women's tennis and our ranking system was viewed as a means of just accepting tournament entries," WTA Tour chief executive and chairman Larry Scott said.

 

[RF-18]

I wanna mention it just like a "rumor" Apparently they discovered that Guillermo Vilas was number one at a point in 1975. Remember the case Evonne Goolagong.

"Unfortunately our record-keeping wasn't perfect in those early days of women's tennis and our ranking system was viewed as a means of just accepting tournament entries," WTA Tour chief executive and chairman Larry Scott said.

Sorry, but Vilas was never #1.

 

[Vegito]

Deleted post.

 

[ultradr]

Personally, I don't understand a lot of the hype over rankings. They are just a product of your achievements, which you already get credit for. Why "double count" them and place such an emphasis on the ranking? Djokovic's season last year wasn't impressive to me because he was #1, it was impressive because he won Wimbledon, made the final of RG, won 5 (?) Masters titles, and the WTF. Those achievements gave him the #1 ranking.

It's about how long you dominated tennis.

That's why people still talk about Pancho Gonzalez, Rod Laver, Bill Tilden and Sampras.

 

[TMF]

It's about how long you dominated tennis.

That's why people still talk about Pancho Gonzalez, Rod Laver, Bill Tilden and Sampras.

Under official ranking and in the open-era, Federer dominate more and longer than Sampras.

Under non-official ranking and in the pre-open era, one can argue for Pancho. But since there's no established system to determine the #1, it's all guesswork, and open for debate.

 

[GingerRafa]

Ranking 1 is pretty high on players objectives, but I wouldn't compare it to Slams and Masters... It's different.

 

[GabeT]

Under official ranking and in the open-era, Federer dominate more and longer than Sampras.

Under non-official ranking and in the pre-open era, one can argue for Pancho. But since there's no established system to determine the #1, it's all guesswork, and open for debate.

Didn't Sampras have more YE1? I understand that Federer has more weeks as number 1 but the unit is the calendar year, no?

 

[BrooklynNY]

Under official ranking and in the open-era, Federer dominate more and longer than Sampras.

Under non-official ranking and in the pre-open era, one can argue for Pancho. But since there's no established system to determine the #1, it's all guesswork, and open for debate.

my annual TMF bump

 

[ronalditop]

Fed's consecutive weeks record is truly staggering and will never be broken.

I believe this as well.

 

[Crocodile]

Since 1973, when the ATP invented the computerized rankings, ''only'' 25 players have been ranked number one.

I think this is huge. We have to treat the #1 ranking much better. Truly special for these players on this list, to have been #1 amongst so few. Getting to #1 for the first time equates a slam. That is the dream.

Congrats to these players!


Date Reached Total Weeks
1 Romania Ilie Năstase August 23, 1973 40
2 Australia John Newcombe June 3, 1974 8
3 United States Jimmy Connors July 29, 1974 268
4 Sweden Björn Borg August 23, 1977 109
5 United States John McEnroe March 3, 1980 170
6 Czechoslovakia Ivan Lendl February 28, 1983 270
7 Sweden Mats Wilander September 12, 1988 20
8 Sweden Stefan Edberg August 13, 1990 72
9 Germany Boris Becker January 28, 1991 12
10 United States Jim Courier February 10, 1992 58
11 United States Pete Sampras April 12, 1993 286
12 United States Andre Agassi April 10, 1995 101
13 Austria Thomas Muster February 12, 1996 6
14 Chile Marcelo Ríos March 30, 1998 6
15 Spain Carlos Moyá March 15, 1999 2
16 Russia Yevgeny Kafelnikov May 3, 1999 6
17 Australia Patrick Rafter July 26, 1999 1
18 Russia Marat Safin November 20, 2000 9
19 Brazil Gustavo Kuerten December 4, 2000 43
20 Australia Lleyton Hewitt November 19, 2001 80
21 Spain Juan Carlos Ferrero September 8, 2003 8
22 United States Andy Roddick November 3, 2003 13
23 Switzerland Roger Federer February 2, 2004 302
24 Spain Rafael Nadal August 18, 2008 141
25 Serbia Novak Djokovic July 4, 2011 144

It’s a very interesting list you have compiled- I enjoyed reading through the names.

 

[MichaelNadal]

I believe this as well.

Fed's consecutive weeks record is truly staggering and will never be broken.

Lol Novak might break it NOW at this rate.