Are you only a worthy YE#1 if you win than one Slam?

[veroniquem]

...and it only means that Federer > Nadal > Djokovic in terms of greatness, which we all knew all along. )

Yeah but that's very different from saying that without 2 slam titles or more, one is not WORTHY of the #1 ranking for a season. If that's the case, then only Fedal are worthy #1 which always takes us back to the same issue that just because Fedal are the best, other players should be entirely disregarded or ignored, which- quite frankly- is a bit silly.

 

[Bryan Swartz]

I find it unbelievable that anyone voted yes, though I'm gratified most voted no.

If you say yes, that would be the question of what do you do in a year when four different players win slams so nobody has two? Do you just not declare a YE#1 because nobody deserves it? Mindboggling.

 

[firepanda]

You don't have to make an arbitrary rule like that: if someone won every tournament bar the slams, of course they'd be a perfectly valid YE #1. But I do think they put too little emphasis on slams at all levels (it is an ATP ranking after all, and slams aren't ATP tournaments). One reason I think the rankings are an imperfect measurement and hence shouldn't be counted as a metric for greatness.

 

[Netspirit]

other players should be entirely disregarded or ignored, which- quite frankly- is a bit silly.

Playing tennis next to Fedal must be as unlucky as playing basketball next to Michael Jordan. They raised the bar, and while it is always possible that some future champion will raise it even further it is also possible that we have witnessed the absolute height of the sport that will never be matched.

In Djokovic's case, he is already better than McEnroe, Wilander, Becker, Edberg and a bunch of other guys who were considered tennis immortals just a decade ago. But because of Fedal his current level no longer looks remarkable, his #1 is rather meh (even with tomorrow's trophy) and his 2014 season is going to be dismissed and forgotten by most of the tennis fanbase within just a few months. It just pales in comparison.

 

[tipsa...don'tlikehim!]

Answer is yes,
if you win less than 3 grand slams you don't deserve YE#1.

 

[Bryan Swartz]

Then my question remains, what should the ATP do, abdicate the #1 spot and illogically make everyone #2 or below if nobody meets that standard in a year? Seriously?

 

[RoddickAce]

You are the deserved YE #1 if you get the YE #1.

This is the case whether you get 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4 GS in the year.

It is that simple.

If Player A wins the CYGS + OG + WTF, but player B has more points (which is possible), player B deserves the YE #1.

Of course Player A has had the better year, but #1 and YE #1 is ONLY about points.

This post pretty much explains my sentiment.

 

[MaiDee]

Novak is the best and the most dominant player in the world since 2011.

All there is to say here.

 

[vernonbc]

Such a ridiculous chart. Who died and proclaimed that tennis began in 2011? The media is as delusional as many of the posters on this board. :-?