He has an interesting point. Although the #1 ranking was not credible in the mid to late 70s, with Connors finishing ahead of Borg several times he shouldn't have, and once ahead of Vilas during an incredible season by him, it does provide for a way to cut through differences between eras.
It is more difficult to become the #1 player than to win a Grand Slam and while I can imagine Federer winning another Major, the prospect of him having more time at #1 seems far less likely (even though he's currently #2).
I'm not sure the headline of the article is correct, however. Is Federer's lead over Djokovic in time at #1 any less commanding than his lead over him in Majors won?
Djokovic/Federer
Majors: 10/17 = 59%
Weeks #1: 164/302 = 54%
Consecutive Weeks #1: 63/236 = 26%
YE #1: 4/5 = 80%
By year end #1, Djokovic only needs 1 more year to catch Federer, and it is conceivable that he'll pass him there. I think weeks #1 is the most important thing, however, and YE#1 is more psychological. In total, Federer has spent 5.8 years at #1, Djokovic 3.2 years.
http://www.oregonlive.com/the-spin-of-the-ball/index.ssf/2015/09/why_novak_djokovic_should_be_g.html
Why Novak Djokovic should be gaining faster on Roger Federer in greatest-ever debate
Novak Djokovic has clinched the year-end top ranking for the fourth time. (The Associated Press)
By Douglas Perry | The Oregonian/OregonLive
Two years ago, the ATP published a coffee-table book called "No. 1." The photo-heavy tome marked 40 years of the tour's computer ranking system and celebrated every player who had ended a season as World No. 1.
The players featured in the book gushed about what it meant to them.
"Being number one is iconic; there are not a lot of us around," Pete Sampras said. Offered Novak Djokovic: "It is incredible to be a part of this elite group, looking at the names who have ... done so much for tennis on and off the court."
The book quickly disappeared without a trace.
Only the 16 players who've been year-end World No. 1 care about the accomplishment. For the rest of us, the four Grand Slam tournaments are what matters, and nothing else.
This is a shame, because the year-end rankings are probably the best way we have to honestly determine the question that obsesses tennis fans everywhere: Who is the greatest player of all time?
The debate started anew with Djokovic's victory over Roger Federer in the U.S. Open final on Sunday. The win puts him at 10 major championships, seven fewer than Federer. The question immediately started flying around the Internet: Can Nole, still very much in his prime, surpass the aging Swiss great? Can he become the mythical "Greatest of All Time"?
If the ATP rankings played a bigger part in the calculations, he'd already be very close to getting there.
It should go without saying that a player's performance over an entire season should matter more than his performance over four two-week periods of that season. But, like with professional golf, that's not how tennis evolved in our collective consciousness.
And that's kind of a problem. After all, Gaston Gaudio is a major-tournament champion. So are Petr Korda, Albert Costa, Andres Gomez, Thomas Johansson, Brian Teacher and Mark Edmondson. Not to mention Marin Cilic. None of them have come close to World No. 1, and for good reason. They're accidents of Grand Slam history. There's plenty more where they came from.
But no one gets to the top of the computer rankings by accident. They get there through consistent high-level performance.
What would happen to the greatest-ever debate if it centered on the year-end World No. 1 computer ranking? In this alternate universe, Pete Sampras is still acknowledged as the best of the best, while 14-time major champion Rafael Nadal's rep slips a little bit. The great Bjorn Borg falls even farther than Rafa. Here are all the year-end World No 1s since the rankings began in 1973, along with the number of times they've finished at the top:
6: Pete Sampras (1993-98)
5: Jimmy Connors (1974-78)
5: Roger Federer (2004-07, 2009)
4: John McEnroe (1981-84)
4: Ivan Lendl (1985-87, 1989)
4: Novak Djokovic (2011-12, 2014-15)
3: Rafael Nadal (2008, 2010, 2013)
2: Bjorn Borg (1979-80)
2: Stefan Edberg (1990-91)
2: Lleyton Hewitt (2001-02)
1: Ilie Nastase (1973)
1: Mats Wilander (1988)
1. Jim Courier (1992)
1: Andre Agassi (1999)
1: Gustavo Kuerten (2000)
1: Andy Roddick (2003)
Actually, Borg might be a key reason we don't take the year-end computer rankings all that seriously. In the second half of the 1970s, the Swede was widely acknowledged as the tour's dominant player. When asked once what he would have to do to win a match against Borg, the Italian player Corrado Barazzutti said he'd have to bring a gun on court. Yet Borg finished as the year-end World No. 1 only twice.
The reason for this strange state of affairs? Partly it was that Borg danced to the beat of his own drummer. He skipped the French Open in 1977 so he could play World Team Tennis, for example. And partly it was because the ATP's computer was rather rudimentary in its early years, which led to some strange results. In that 1977 season, Guillermo Vilas won two major tournaments (the French Open and the U.S. Open), 14 other tournaments and an Open-era record 145 matches. Borg won Wimbledon, nine tournaments and 70 matches. Jimmy Connors failed to win a major tournament, took the trophy at eight other tournaments and won 68 matches.
Connors ended up as World No. 1.
But that was then. The bugs were long ago worked out. Nowadays, the year-end World No. 1 is unquestionably the season's best player, year after year. And that's why, if we put more stock in it, Djokovic would be very close to matching Federer. With his U.S. Open triumph, he clinched the year-end top ranking, bringing him to four total, just one behind Federer and Connors and two behind all-time leader Sampras.
Federer still might get that elusive 18th major Grand Slam title before he's done, but the 34-year-old Swiss is unlikely to finish another season at number one. He plays fewer tournaments these days, conserving his energy. Djokovic, on the other hand, is the clear favorite to finish atop the rankings in 2016. Maybe Nadal, presently down to seventh, can return to the top next year and thus keep the greatest-ever debate churning.
Here's an interesting fact: few players who fall from year-end World No. 1 ever get it back. Being able to return to the top -- to have taken the blows of the younger, hungrier challengers and come back better than ever -- should be viewed as a big accomplishment in tennis, as it is in boxing.
So far, just four men have done it: Ivan Lendl, Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. Only Nadal has done it twice.
It is more difficult to become the #1 player than to win a Grand Slam and while I can imagine Federer winning another Major, the prospect of him having more time at #1 seems far less likely (even though he's currently #2).
I'm not sure the headline of the article is correct, however. Is Federer's lead over Djokovic in time at #1 any less commanding than his lead over him in Majors won?
Djokovic/Federer
Majors: 10/17 = 59%
Weeks #1: 164/302 = 54%
Consecutive Weeks #1: 63/236 = 26%
YE #1: 4/5 = 80%
By year end #1, Djokovic only needs 1 more year to catch Federer, and it is conceivable that he'll pass him there. I think weeks #1 is the most important thing, however, and YE#1 is more psychological. In total, Federer has spent 5.8 years at #1, Djokovic 3.2 years.
http://www.oregonlive.com/the-spin-of-the-ball/index.ssf/2015/09/why_novak_djokovic_should_be_g.html
Why Novak Djokovic should be gaining faster on Roger Federer in greatest-ever debate
Novak Djokovic has clinched the year-end top ranking for the fourth time. (The Associated Press)
By Douglas Perry | The Oregonian/OregonLive
Two years ago, the ATP published a coffee-table book called "No. 1." The photo-heavy tome marked 40 years of the tour's computer ranking system and celebrated every player who had ended a season as World No. 1.
The players featured in the book gushed about what it meant to them.
"Being number one is iconic; there are not a lot of us around," Pete Sampras said. Offered Novak Djokovic: "It is incredible to be a part of this elite group, looking at the names who have ... done so much for tennis on and off the court."
The book quickly disappeared without a trace.
Only the 16 players who've been year-end World No. 1 care about the accomplishment. For the rest of us, the four Grand Slam tournaments are what matters, and nothing else.
This is a shame, because the year-end rankings are probably the best way we have to honestly determine the question that obsesses tennis fans everywhere: Who is the greatest player of all time?
The debate started anew with Djokovic's victory over Roger Federer in the U.S. Open final on Sunday. The win puts him at 10 major championships, seven fewer than Federer. The question immediately started flying around the Internet: Can Nole, still very much in his prime, surpass the aging Swiss great? Can he become the mythical "Greatest of All Time"?
If the ATP rankings played a bigger part in the calculations, he'd already be very close to getting there.
It should go without saying that a player's performance over an entire season should matter more than his performance over four two-week periods of that season. But, like with professional golf, that's not how tennis evolved in our collective consciousness.
And that's kind of a problem. After all, Gaston Gaudio is a major-tournament champion. So are Petr Korda, Albert Costa, Andres Gomez, Thomas Johansson, Brian Teacher and Mark Edmondson. Not to mention Marin Cilic. None of them have come close to World No. 1, and for good reason. They're accidents of Grand Slam history. There's plenty more where they came from.
But no one gets to the top of the computer rankings by accident. They get there through consistent high-level performance.
What would happen to the greatest-ever debate if it centered on the year-end World No. 1 computer ranking? In this alternate universe, Pete Sampras is still acknowledged as the best of the best, while 14-time major champion Rafael Nadal's rep slips a little bit. The great Bjorn Borg falls even farther than Rafa. Here are all the year-end World No 1s since the rankings began in 1973, along with the number of times they've finished at the top:
6: Pete Sampras (1993-98)
5: Jimmy Connors (1974-78)
5: Roger Federer (2004-07, 2009)
4: John McEnroe (1981-84)
4: Ivan Lendl (1985-87, 1989)
4: Novak Djokovic (2011-12, 2014-15)
3: Rafael Nadal (2008, 2010, 2013)
2: Bjorn Borg (1979-80)
2: Stefan Edberg (1990-91)
2: Lleyton Hewitt (2001-02)
1: Ilie Nastase (1973)
1: Mats Wilander (1988)
1. Jim Courier (1992)
1: Andre Agassi (1999)
1: Gustavo Kuerten (2000)
1: Andy Roddick (2003)
Actually, Borg might be a key reason we don't take the year-end computer rankings all that seriously. In the second half of the 1970s, the Swede was widely acknowledged as the tour's dominant player. When asked once what he would have to do to win a match against Borg, the Italian player Corrado Barazzutti said he'd have to bring a gun on court. Yet Borg finished as the year-end World No. 1 only twice.
The reason for this strange state of affairs? Partly it was that Borg danced to the beat of his own drummer. He skipped the French Open in 1977 so he could play World Team Tennis, for example. And partly it was because the ATP's computer was rather rudimentary in its early years, which led to some strange results. In that 1977 season, Guillermo Vilas won two major tournaments (the French Open and the U.S. Open), 14 other tournaments and an Open-era record 145 matches. Borg won Wimbledon, nine tournaments and 70 matches. Jimmy Connors failed to win a major tournament, took the trophy at eight other tournaments and won 68 matches.
Connors ended up as World No. 1.
But that was then. The bugs were long ago worked out. Nowadays, the year-end World No. 1 is unquestionably the season's best player, year after year. And that's why, if we put more stock in it, Djokovic would be very close to matching Federer. With his U.S. Open triumph, he clinched the year-end top ranking, bringing him to four total, just one behind Federer and Connors and two behind all-time leader Sampras.
Federer still might get that elusive 18th major Grand Slam title before he's done, but the 34-year-old Swiss is unlikely to finish another season at number one. He plays fewer tournaments these days, conserving his energy. Djokovic, on the other hand, is the clear favorite to finish atop the rankings in 2016. Maybe Nadal, presently down to seventh, can return to the top next year and thus keep the greatest-ever debate churning.
Here's an interesting fact: few players who fall from year-end World No. 1 ever get it back. Being able to return to the top -- to have taken the blows of the younger, hungrier challengers and come back better than ever -- should be viewed as a big accomplishment in tennis, as it is in boxing.
So far, just four men have done it: Ivan Lendl, Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. Only Nadal has done it twice.
