ATP coffee table book on No. 1 players

[JMR]

The ATP has published a book that celebrates the open era's "iconic" No. 1 players, by which the organization means those who have finished at least one year ranked at the top: http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/descpage.html?PCODE=ATPONE&from=atp. We all know who they are.

On the other hand, these are the No. 1s who are left out:

• Boris Becker
• Marat Safin
• John Newcombe
• Juan Carlos Ferrero
• Thomas Muster
• Marcelo Rios
• Yevgeny Kafelnikov
• Carlos Moya
• Patrick Rafter

Although I consider both Becker and Newcombe to be "iconic" players, it would be very hard to make a case for them as iconic No. 1s, due to their paucity of weeks. It might have been awkward if a player had amassed a truly impressive number of weeks at No. 1 without managing to finish a calendar year at the top, but that didn't happen. Becker's 12 weeks is the highest total of the left-outs. Sure, he's only one week behind Roddick's 13, and five slams ahead, but I suppose Boris has no one to blame but himself for his lack of sustained domination.

 

[FrontHeadlock]

I think that was a huge mistake.

When I hear the phrase "iconic No. 1", I immediately think of "iconic players who were ranked Number 1", as opposed to "players who were iconic when they were Number 1". Secondly, even if you wanted to make it a book about players who were iconic when they were Number 1, using year end ranking is a bit odd. Someone was more iconic because they were number 1 for Dec-Jan as opposed to Feb-Nov? Makes no sense.

 

[Magnetite]

Having Roddick and not Becker is weird.

 

[Phoenix1983]

Having Roddick and not Becker is weird.

+1

10chars.

 

[JMR]

When I hear the phrase "iconic No. 1", I immediately think of "iconic players who were ranked Number 1", as opposed to "players who were iconic when they were Number 1". Secondly, even if you wanted to make it a book about players who were iconic when they were Number 1, using year end ranking is a bit odd. Someone was more iconic because they were number 1 for Dec-Jan as opposed to Feb-Nov? Makes no sense.

Well, I suppose the ATP wanted a method of weeding out players like Rios and Kafelnikov. A case could be made for writing a book that simply includes all No. 1s since the computer era began, but evidently that's not the book the ATP wanted to publish.

Interestingly, there is also a clear divide in terms of number of weeks between the year-end No. 1s and the non-year-end No. 1s. Roddick is the year-end No. 1 with the fewest total weeks at the top, 13. Becker is the non-year-end No. 1 with the most total weeks at the top, 12. There is no overlap between the two groups.

 

[JMR]

Having Roddick and not Becker is weird.

Everyone knows Becker is a much greater player than Roddick, but touting Boris means celebrating the slams, which the ATP doesn't own. This book strikes me as the ATP's congratulating itself as much as its "iconic" No. 1s. The rankings are an ATP product, so they're carrying the legacy load here.

 

[FrontHeadlock]

Well, I suppose the ATP wanted a method of weeding out players like Rios and Kafelnikov. A case could be made for writing a book that simply includes all No. 1s since the computer era began, but evidently that's not the book the ATP wanted to publish.

Interestingly, there is also a clear divide in terms of number of weeks between the year-end No. 1s and the non-year-end No. 1s. Roddick is the year-end No. 1 with the fewest total weeks at the top, 13. Becker is the non-year-end No. 1 with the most total weeks at the top, 12. There is no overlap between the two groups.

I guess I just don't understand why people need to create a bright-line rule here. One can easily leave out Rios, Moya, Muster and Ferrero. I'd probably include the rest, though I can see the argument for leaving out Rafter, Safin and Roddick as well.

 

[veroniquem]

Excellent choice by the ATP. #1 means nothing unless one can seal the deal at year end. Kudos to the 10 players who did it more than once (Sampras, Connors, Federer, McEnroe, Lendl, Borg, Edberg, Hewitt, Nadal, Djokovic)

 

[FrontHeadlock]

Excellent choice by the ATP. #1 means nothing unless one can seal the deal at year end. Kudos to the 10 players who did it more than once (Sampras, Connors, Federer, McEnroe, Lendl, Borg, Edberg, Hewitt, Nadal, Djokovic)

It's a rolling 12-month ranking. What's the difference?

 

[sbengte]

I think that was a huge mistake.

When I hear the phrase "iconic No. 1", I immediately think of "iconic players who were ranked Number 1", as opposed to "players who were iconic when they were Number 1". Secondly, even if you wanted to make it a book about players who were iconic when they were Number 1, using year end ranking is a bit odd. Someone was more iconic because they were number 1 for Dec-Jan as opposed to Feb-Nov? Makes no sense.

This. I don't understand the logic at all. If they wanted to weed out some players, they should have just gone by the total duration spent as #1 which at least makes sense.

 

[JMR]

This. I don't understand the logic at all. If they wanted to weed out some players, they should have just gone by the total duration spent as #1 which at least makes sense.

As I've pointed out, that approach would have weeded out the exact same set of players, or at least would have provided just as good a rationale for stopping at Roddick and leaving out Becker.

 

[FrontHeadlock]

As I've pointed out, that approach would have weeded out the exact same set of players, or at least would have provided just as good a rationale for stopping at Roddick and leaving out Becker.

Only if you cut it off at Roddick.

You could make the cutoff at > 52 weeks. Then the list starts at Jim Courier. The only guy that really looks out of place in that list is Hewitt.

 

[JMR]

Excellent choice by the ATP. #1 means nothing unless one can seal the deal at year end. Kudos to the 10 players who did it more than once (Sampras, Connors, Federer, McEnroe, Lendl, Borg, Edberg, Hewitt, Nadal, Djokovic)

The ATP is also extending kudos to the six players who did it only once (Nastase, Wilander, Courier, Agassi, Kuerten, and Roddick).

 

[JMR]

Only if you cut it off at Roddick.

You could make the cutoff at > 52 weeks. Then the list starts at Jim Courier. The only guy that really looks out of place in that list is Hewitt.

The list of honorees might then look "cleaner," but the list of casualties would be longer. In addition to Becker, you'd omit Wilander (seven slams!) and Guga (three FOs + YEC, and 43 total weeks on top). Not to mention Nastase, the very first year-end No. 1.

 

[veroniquem]

It's a rolling 12-month ranking. What's the difference?

It's not for nothing that they have that little ceremony at the end of the year to reward the #1. Holding it throughout a season is definitely something special.

 

[FrontHeadlock]

It's not for nothing that they have that little ceremony at the end of the year to reward the #1. Holding it throughout a season is definitely something special.

It's arbitrary. And plenty of people are year-end number 1 without holding it all year. I would agree that holding it for an entire year is a special accomplishment.

 

[JMR]

It's arbitrary. And plenty of people are year-end number 1 without holding it all year. I would agree that holding it for an entire year is a special accomplishment.

If it had been up to me, I probably would have included all ATP No. 1s in a book entitled, No. 1. The ATP could have achieved the desired effect by devoting full chapters to the "iconic," year-end No. 1s, and sidebars to the other No. 1s. That way no one would have been left out, but the book still would have primarily honored performance in the rankings rather than performance in the slams.

 

[FrontHeadlock]

If it had been up to me, I probably would have included all ATP No. 1s in a book entitled, No. 1. The ATP could have achieved the desired effect by devoting full chapters to the "iconic," year-end No. 1s, and sidebars to the other No. 1s. That way no one would have been left out, but the book still would have primarily honored performance in the rankings rather than performance in the slams.

I probably would have done the same, with the possible exception of Rios.

 

[veroniquem]

It's arbitrary. And plenty of people are year-end number 1 without holding it all year. I would agree that holding it for an entire year is a special accomplishment.

They could have picked the top 10 with most weeks at #1 true which would have included the same players (except for Edberg) or they could have picked the top 12 (players with 52 weeks + at #1) which would have included Edberg and Courier but would have excluded guys like Roddick who do not really qualify as "legendary #1" anyway.
The thing is: ending the season at #1 is an accomplishment of its own (aka winning the race) and that's why players get an award for it. That is not my decision but the ATP's. They made the decision that best player of the season means more than doing it cross-season. It's their right. It may be a rolling 52 week ranking but stats and accomplishments are being compiled per season a bit like CYGS has a different value than 4 or + slams in a row (non-calendar).

 

[veroniquem]

If it had been up to me, I probably would have included all ATP No. 1s in a book entitled, No. 1. The ATP could have achieved the desired effect by devoting full chapters to the "iconic," year-end No. 1s, and sidebars to the other No. 1s. That way no one would have been left out, but the book still would have primarily honored performance in the rankings rather than performance in the slams.

They could have included Becker (who is a legendary player in any case) and dropped the players who had fewer than 10 weeks at #1 but I don't find it shocking to pick year-end #1 only as a system.

 

[veroniquem]

Only if you cut it off at Roddick.

You could make the cutoff at > 52 weeks. Then the list starts at Jim Courier. The only guy that really looks out of place in that list is Hewitt.

Hewitt can't be cut off with any system due to his 2 consecutive years at #1 and his high # of weeks at #1 overall (he's in the top 10). I agree that instinctively though I don't consider Hewitt a "legendary" #1 (no more than Roddick or Kuerten). Maybe they should have included only 100+ weeks at #1 if they truly wanted to honor the "legendary" ones because "legendary" is a really strong word. Obviously it was just a marketing hyperbole though...

 

[FrontHeadlock]

Hewitt can't be cut off with any system due to his 2 consecutive years at #1 and his high # of weeks at #1 overall (he's in the top 10). I agree that instinctively though I don't consider Hewitt a "legendary" #1 (no more than Roddick or Kuerten). Maybe they should have included only 100+ weeks at #1 if they truly wanted to honor the "legendary" ones because "legendary" is a really strong word. Obviously it was just a marketing hyperbole though...

I agree that Hewitt has to be included for sure.

I was more saying that, when cutting the list off at 52 weeks, Hewitt is a little out of place compared to the absolute greats.

 

[powerangle]

Hmmm interesting book, I may be interested.