Biggest anomaly in weeks at #1?

Pick TWO biggest anomalies you see with the ATP #1 weeks

  • Becker underscored at 12 weeks

    Votes: 26 37.1%
  • Wilander underscored at 20 weeks

    Votes: 4 5.7%
  • Wawrinka with 0 weeks despite 3 Majors

    Votes: 14 20.0%
  • Hewitt having 10th most weeks at 80

    Votes: 20 28.6%
  • Slamless Rios getting 6 weeks

    Votes: 11 15.7%
  • Kuerten's 43 week run

    Votes: 5 7.1%
  • Connors amassing 268 weeks despite Borg and Vilas

    Votes: 15 21.4%
  • Other.

    Votes: 4 5.7%

  • Total voters
    70

BGod

G.O.A.T.
As has been mentioned by many here, the weeks at #1 is very circumstantial, some believe it should be largely discounted but I believe in the law of averages and despite long reigns by Lendl, Sampras and Federer somewhat distorting the overall numbers I think it's more or less a general metric that you can consider when doing rankings.

HOWEVER there are some obvious disparities and since the rankings came out in 1973 what are the biggest anomalies to you?

In the Poll you vote for TWO

As I think this will generate more discussion and I think there's serious conversation for more than 1.


Boris Becker with just 12 weeks
As a 6-time Slam champion often slotted somewhere in the Top 10, this is the best argument of how a great player can be denigrated because their best achievements coincide with better consistency from another all-timer. In this case it was namely Lendl who stole as some would claim numerous weeks from Becker's resume. In total, 6 players with 4 or less Slams had more weeks at the #1 spot than Becker while contemporary Edberg with the same amount had 60 more.

Lleyton Hewitt with 80 weeks
On the other extreme we have Hewitt who not only garnered 80 weeks overall but 75 consecutively, a mark only bested by 5 other players. This of course occured during his 2 year peak where he won 1 Slam in each year but also captured the WTF and had 5 deep runs at the Masters both years too. This came in what many refer to as a transitional era where simply put no other players was able to manage the same consistency with Sampras on the decline, clay court specialists vulturing there and the biggest challengers being Agassi, Ferrero, Kuerten, Kafelnikov(01) and Safin (02).

Stan Wawrinka with 0
Yes, we know the Big 3 and Andy Murray stood in the way of this by context but no 2-time Slam Champion since the rankings came out in 1973 has failed to be ranked #1 let alone a 3-time Champion. Meanwhile 12 men who won a career 3 Slams or less and the many times on top of that when a player holding 1 Slam was able to garner the ranking got #1. So in the historical context it's certainly loony.

Gustavo Kuerten's 43
It's less about Kuerten's YE in 2000 and more about him actually holding it for 43 weeks despite never making it past the quarters of any Slam except 1 (which he did on 3 occasions). Indeed out of the 26 players who have made #1, all of them except Kuerten and Rios made deep runs to the final four in multiple Slams including Thomas Muster who made 2 AO semifinals. Kuerten's #1 came in a perfect storm no doubt but the margins were close between Safin and Agassi so the fact he held it for nearly a calendar year just goes to show how opportune his victories really were (including in Cincinnati)

Marcel Rios
When you're the only man of 26 to be ranked #1 without ever winning a Slam, it's weird. However Rios held it for 4 weeks after making the AO final and accomplishing the Sunshine Double as the 5th and 6th hardest tournaments to win. He then got another 2 weeks after winning Rome and making French Open quarter run and Sampras dropping the ball in Cincinnati. To me, this isn't that bad considering it was just 6 weeks and really had Rios reeling off a lot of points in that interim. However the fact he never won a Slam makes him very lucky in this regard as a total 22 Slam champions never got that honor.

Mats Wilander's 20
Becker's 12 weeks despite 6 Slams has been mentioned but Wilander's 20 with 7 is just as bad if not worse considering when he captured the #1 and for what. Unlike the many gents who only got the #1 due to the right concentration of winning, Wilander needed to capture 3 Slams to garner the #1 and was only able to hold it for exactly those 20 weeks and never again. He lost it shortly after the start of 89 when he failed to defend his AO title losing in the 2nd round but he still held 2 Slams and 2 Masters while Lendl upgraded his previous year's SF to a win he would drop slightly at the French from QF to 4th. Lendl's amassed secondary titles however was simply too much as when he took the mantle from Wilander he held on to it for 80 weeks despite only winning 1 more Major.

Jimmy Connors' 268
By now many should know Connors accumulated a great deal of lower tier tournaments equivalent to 250 level today. Some of these tournaments only had 4 rounds and of course Bo3. This partly explains why Connors racked up so many weeks at #1. Although winning his 2nd Slam of 1974 at Wimbledon and holding on to the ranking through 1975 where he made all 3 Finals of Slams played, the continued streak that stretched to 160 until shortly before the US Open in 77. It was this streak that Federer broke winning 3/4 Slams in 3 seasons. Connors meanwhile never replicated his 74 escapades and in 76-77 he skipped the French, making the QF at Wimbledon and winning USO in 76 and back to back finals in 77. Borg in 76 went QF-W-F and won the WCT Final along with winning Boston and making the Philadelphia final. In 77, Borg took the #1 briefly before being upset at the USO and losing it to Connors who held it for another 84 weeks. This despite Borg's 1978 being vastly superior to Connors. While Vilas won 2 Slams himself in 77 making another final ending the year #2. It's interesting to note about Borg his longest reign at 46 weeks came in 1980 shortly after defending his Wimbledon in the epic final. Connors would somehow keep adding 17 weeks between late 1982 to mid 1983.
 

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
Curious, was the points system so different in Connors' era? Today there is no way you would get even close to # 1 no matter how many 250 events you play and win. IIRC there's a limit to how many 250s can even count for ATP points.
 

Luka888

Professional
I don't know, I guess Becker, Hewitt and Rios. Rios for the obvious reasons, he never won a major. Becker, yeah I tend to think it was a way over 12 weeks.

As for Hewitt, and say this with all respect to Rusty and his fans, I've always seen him as a transitional champion ... I mean, he won only 2 majors ... there were so many good players overlapping but nobody really that dominant .... it kinda looks like he just filled a gap between Sampras and Federer ...
 
Last edited:

JMR

Hall of Fame
I voted for Becker and Connors. As "anomalies," however, I think they fall into different categories:
  • Becker's very short reign at No. 1 is just surprising. You'd expect a player with so many slam titles and finals, great YEC showings, etc., to have secured more time at the very top. But this is only a fluke; I don't think it indicates an inherent flaw in the ranking system in those years.
  • Connors earned too many weeks at No. 1 because the system was flawed in the 1970s. I suppose that's understandable, because it took years to work out the kinks. But Vilas, especially, seemed to get shortchanged.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
I voted for Becker and Connors. As "anomalies," however, I think they fall into different categories:
  • Becker's very short reign at No. 1 is just surprising. You'd expect a player with so many slam titles and finals, great YEC, showings, etc., to have secured more time at the very top. But this is only a fluke; I don't think it indicates an inherent flaw in the ranking system at the time.
  • Connors earned too many weeks at No. 1 because the system was flawed in those days. I suppose that's understandable, because it took years to work out the kinks. But Vilas, especially, seemed to get shortchanged.

Spot on. That's where I voted as well.

Borg and Vilas should have taken at least a #1 away from Connors each in that run of 5 straight. Becker just a bit unlucky with the super consistent Lendl peaking at the same time - even so in 1989 he was arguably the best player.
 

boredone3456

G.O.A.T.
In term of the poll I voted for Becker. Just looking at his resume you'd assume he would have so much more. Certainly there was competition but it still comes off looking very odd.
 

BGod

G.O.A.T.
I voted Hewitt and Connors because as much as I love Becker his victories were very spread out with 89 being his best shot. Just a breakdown for those wondering:

1989: 2 Slams+SF, Masters +F, WTF Final
1991: 1 Slam+F, SF, Masters +F
1988: 1 Final, 3 Masters, WTF & WCT
1986: 1 Slam+SF, 2 Masters, WTF Final & WCT Final
1996: 1 Slam, 1 Masters, GSC & WTF Final
1985: 1 Slam, 1 Masters, WTF Final
1995: 1 Final+SF, WTF & Masters Finals

So there you have 7 seasons where he could of been #1 given other circumstances like Hewitt, Rios or Rafter had. Winning his 3 WTFs in non-Slam years is a real kicker I'm sure. 89-91 especially gets him #1 for more than 12 weeks between 00-02 and 17-18.
 

BGod

G.O.A.T.
Rios. There should be a rule that you cannot be #1 unless you are the current title holder for at least one Major.

It would be an interesting one and rarely used since I believe Lendl in 83 and Rios in 98 are the only times a player has held the #1 without being an active Slam champion. Unless I'm forgetting another instance.

Vilas not officially being recognized as #1?

I considered it but after putting Connors' 268 that's my contribution to Vilas.

Venus Williams has to be mentioned.....7 major winner but only 11 weeks at number 1.

Poll is for ATP

Curious, was the points system so different in Connors' era? Today there is no way you would get even close to # 1 no matter how many 250 events you play and win. IIRC there's a limit to how many 250s can even count for ATP points.

That's an interesting one I didn't know about. Yeah Connors played a lot of tournaments, which he needs some credit for given that racquet sucks for the elbow I can tell you. Now as mentioned, Connors wasn't exactly a slouch at the Slams but he was only attending 2 and only won 1 in 76 and 78. In 77 he won both year end tournaments to get the big points. In 76 he won 5 Masters equivalents. In 78 he only won 1.
 

jm1980

Talk Tennis Guru
Spot on. That's where I voted as well.

Borg and Vilas should have taken at least a #1 away from Connors each in that run of 5 straight. Becker just a bit unlucky with the super consistent Lendl peaking at the same time - even so in 1989 he was arguably the best player.
Vilas actually did take the #1 away mathematically speaking. But the ATP calculated the ratings wrong and to this day refuse to acknowledge, much less correct, their mistake
 

TheAssassin

Legend
Becker I guess.

I thought Murray being there for over 40 weeks straight was kinda funny. As bad as he was during 2017, at that time Djokovic was falling apart even more rapidly, while Fedal were too far behind at the beginning to take immediate advantage.
 

Druss

Hall of Fame
It always perplexed me how Becker only made 12 weeks at No1. He did spend a fair bit of time at No2, but still, considering his feats between late 80s and mid 90s, you'd have expected him to be at No1 much longer than that.
 

timnz

Legend
As has been mentioned by many here, the weeks at #1 is very circumstantial, some believe it should be largely discounted but I believe in the law of averages and despite long reigns by Lendl, Sampras and Federer somewhat distorting the overall numbers I think it's more or less a general metric that you can consider when doing rankings.

HOWEVER there are some obvious disparities and since the rankings came out in 1973 what are the biggest anomalies to you?

In the Poll you vote for TWO

As I think this will generate more discussion and I think there's serious conversation for more than 1.


Boris Becker with just 12 weeks
As a 6-time Slam champion often slotted somewhere in the Top 10, this is the best argument of how a great player can be denigrated because their best achievements coincide with better consistency from another all-timer. In this case it was namely Lendl who stole as some would claim numerous weeks from Becker's resume. In total, 6 players with 4 or less Slams had more weeks at the #1 spot than Becker while contemporary Edberg with the same amount had 60 more.

Lleyton Hewitt with 80 weeks
On the other extreme we have Hewitt who not only garnered 80 weeks overall but 75 consecutively, a mark only bested by 5 other players. This of course occured during his 2 year peak where he won 1 Slam in each year but also captured the WTF and had 5 deep runs at the Masters both years too. This came in what many refer to as a transitional era where simply put no other players was able to manage the same consistency with Sampras on the decline, clay court specialists vulturing there and the biggest challengers being Agassi, Ferrero, Kuerten, Kafelnikov(01) and Safin (02).

Stan Wawrinka with 0
Yes, we know the Big 3 and Andy Murray stood in the way of this by context but no 2-time Slam Champion since the rankings came out in 1973 has failed to be ranked #1 let alone a 3-time Champion. Meanwhile 12 men who won a career 3 Slams or less and the many times on top of that when a player holding 1 Slam was able to garner the ranking got #1. So in the historical context it's certainly loony.

Gustavo Kuerten's 43
It's less about Kuerten's YE in 2000 and more about him actually holding it for 43 weeks despite never making it past the quarters of any Slam except 1 (which he did on 3 occasions). Indeed out of the 26 players who have made #1, all of them except Kuerten and Rios made deep runs to the final four in multiple Slams including Thomas Muster who made 2 AO semifinals. Kuerten's #1 came in a perfect storm no doubt but the margins were close between Safin and Agassi so the fact he held it for nearly a calendar year just goes to show how opportune his victories really were (including in Cincinnati)

Marcel Rios
When you're the only man of 26 to be ranked #1 without ever winning a Slam, it's weird. However Rios held it for 4 weeks after making the AO final and accomplishing the Sunshine Double as the 5th and 6th hardest tournaments to win. He then got another 2 weeks after winning Rome and making French Open quarter run and Sampras dropping the ball in Cincinnati. To me, this isn't that bad considering it was just 6 weeks and really had Rios reeling off a lot of points in that interim. However the fact he never won a Slam makes him very lucky in this regard as a total 22 Slam champions never got that honor.

Mats Wilander's 20
Becker's 12 weeks despite 6 Slams has been mentioned but Wilander's 20 with 7 is just as bad if not worse considering when he captured the #1 and for what. Unlike the many gents who only got the #1 due to the right concentration of winning, Wilander needed to capture 3 Slams to garner the #1 and was only able to hold it for exactly those 20 weeks and never again. He lost it shortly after the start of 89 when he failed to defend his AO title losing in the 2nd round but he still held 2 Slams and 2 Masters while Lendl upgraded his previous year's SF to a win he would drop slightly at the French from QF to 4th. Lendl's amassed secondary titles however was simply too much as when he took the mantle from Wilander he held on to it for 80 weeks despite only winning 1 more Major.

Jimmy Connors' 268
By now many should know Connors accumulated a great deal of lower tier tournaments equivalent to 250 level today. Some of these tournaments only had 4 rounds and of course Bo3. This partly explains why Connors racked up so many weeks at #1. Although winning his 2nd Slam of 1974 at Wimbledon and holding on to the ranking through 1975 where he made all 3 Finals of Slams played, the continued streak that stretched to 160 until shortly before the US Open in 77. It was this streak that Federer broke winning 3/4 Slams in 3 seasons. Connors meanwhile never replicated his 74 escapades and in 76-77 he skipped the French, making the QF at Wimbledon and winning USO in 76 and back to back finals in 77. Borg in 76 went QF-W-F and won the WCT Final along with winning Boston and making the Philadelphia final. In 77, Borg took the #1 briefly before being upset at the USO and losing it to Connors who held it for another 84 weeks. This despite Borg's 1978 being vastly superior to Connors. While Vilas won 2 Slams himself in 77 making another final ending the year #2. It's interesting to note about Borg his longest reign at 46 weeks came in 1980 shortly after defending his Wimbledon in the epic final. Connors would somehow keep adding 17 weeks between late 1982 to mid 1983.
"Connors accumulated a great deal of lower tier tournaments equivalent to 250 level today" - that is said quite a bit but is there any evidence for this? We can't necessarily trust Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Connors_career_statistics - but they have only 29% of Connors 109 titles at 250 equivalent level, the rest above that level. Is there any evidence to refute that claim and establish the idea that his titles were predominately 250 level? I do agree that Borg and Vilas should have had some of those 268 weeks.
 
Last edited:

Pheasant

Legend
Becker with 12 weeks at #1 is the biggest shocker to me. He won two slam titles and was in a semi of another in 1989. He also went 64-8 that year while taking home 5 titles altogether. That same year, Lendl won 1 slam title, while adding a final and a semi. But he won 10 titles that year while going 79-7! Lendl also played in 4 Grand Prix Super series that year and won all 4 events. That's incredible. The Biscayne event was best of 5 for 7 rounds! Lendl won the first 6 rounds in straight sets, then got a walk-over in the title.

Lendl skipped the entire clay season in 1990 in order to better prepare for the grass season. This hurt him in the rankings a ton. But then, Edberg swept in and grabbed the #1 spot. Becker couldn't catch a break!
 

timnz

Legend
To me the biggest anomaly is that Borg was only number 1 for 1 week only (only 1 week more that I have been number 1!) prior to April 1979, despite being the ATP's "Player of the year" for 1976 and 1978.
 
Last edited:

RaulRamirez

Legend
For me, probably Becker and Wilander.
Although I think of Boris as having the better career (despite one fewer major), Wilander had the huge 1988 with 3 slams.
I would guess that would translate to more weeks at #1.
 

Autodidactic player

Professional
Arthur Ashe won three of the four majors, made major finals four other times and won the WCT finals (beating Bjorn Borg) yet somehow never made it to #1.
 

BGod

G.O.A.T.
"Connors accumulated a great deal of lower tier tournaments equivalent to 250 level today" - that is said quite a bit but is there any evidence for this? We can't necessarily trust Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Connors_career_statistics - but they have only 29% of Connors 109 titles at 250 equivalent level, the rest above that level. Is there any evidence to refute that claim and establish the idea that his titles were predominately 250 level? I do agree that Borg and Vilas should have had some of those 268 weeks.

Breakdown

Arthur Ashe won three of the four majors, made major finals four other times and won the WCT finals (beating Bjorn Borg) yet somehow never made it to #1.

He only won 1 Slam when the rankings were around though.
 

Sudacafan

Bionic Poster
Rios. There should be a rule that you cannot be #1 unless you are the current title holder for at least one Major.
In the WTA comparison, that’s worse. Wozniacki and Halep cases come to mind, though they got the slam finally.
 

Sudacafan

Bionic Poster
Vilas in 1977 with 2 slams and the 50 match winning streak is amazing. Only caveat was Borg. But I think Borg was not even at #1 during that year.
 
Great post and options, OP.

I would say Becker at 12 weeks. Up until Pete, I thought Becker’s best was the best I had seen. I did’t get to see JMac in 1984, but the gsme was a little different then.

Look at Becker’s record vs. the top 10. He was really, really good against the best and very difficult to play against, but he wound up getting upset too often by players who often didn’t have any business beating him. He should have been #1 longer.

Then there’s the Connors’ weeks at #1, but that's a ranking system glitch.
 
Last edited:

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Becker with only 12 weeks does seem shocking for a player of his calibre. Wawrinka must be the only triple Slam winner in history who never got to #1 or even #2 for that matter. His lack of form in anything less than a Slam obviously played a part in this but it does seem strange.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
PLAYERS RANKED #1 IN ORDER OF WEEKS HELD(since 23 August 1973)
(Active Players In Bold)


1 Roger Federer 310
2
Pete Sampras 286
3 Ivan Lendl 270
4 Jimmy Connors 268
5 Novak Djokovic 237
6 Rafael Nadal 196
7
John McEnroe 170
8 Bjorn Borg 109
9 Andre Agassi 101
10 Lleyton Hewitt 80
11 Stefan Edberg 72
12 Jim Courier 58
13 Gustavo Kuerten 43
14 Andy Murray 41
15
Ilie Nastase 40
16 Mats Wilander 20
17 Andy Roddick 13
18 Boris Becker 12
19 Marat Safin 9
20 John Newcombe 8
20 Juan Carlos Ferrero 8
22 Thomas Muster 6
22 Marcelo Rios 6
22 Yevgeny Kafelnikov 6
25 Carlos Moya 2
26 Patrick Rafter 1
 
Last edited:

BGod

G.O.A.T.
Wawrinka must be the only triple Slam winner in history who never got to #1 or even #2 for that matter.

As mentioned in the OP he is indeed since the ranking system was introduced in 1973. Bruegera is the only other one to win 2 Slams and not be #1 or #2 while Rafter narrowly got the 1 week.
 

Sudacafan

Bionic Poster
Great pot and options, OP. .

I would say Becker at 12 weeks. Up until Pete, I thought Becker’s best was the best I had seen. I did’t get to see JMac in 1984, but the gsme was a little different then.

Look at Becker’s record was the top 10. He was really, really good against the best and very difficult to play against, but he wound up getting upset too often by players who often didn’t have any business beating him. He should have been #1 longer.

Then there’s the Connors’ weeks at #1, but that's a ranking system glitch.
I think that Becker’s case was about being very good at big/important matches, but lacked some consistency, as he could lose here and there with average level players.
 

timnz

Legend
Breakdown

He only won 1 Slam when the rankings were around though
.

You mentioned that most of Connors titles were 250 level. Have you are breakdown of which of his 109 ones were? (The quote you gave didn't list them). Wikipedia isn't necessarily accurate but it says that only 29% were. Do you have figures?

Regarding Arthur Ashe in 1975 and your comment "He only won 1 Slam when the rankings were around though":

We know that WCT finals in 1975 was regarded as a defacto major. Ashe also won that event in 1975. We know that by the entry mechanisms into the pepsi grand slam only 1 year or so later, where what they called the '4 majors' - WCT Finals, French Open, Wimbledon and the US Open. Borg won the WCT finals and Wimbledon in 1976 - and the organizers of the Pepsi Grand Slam counted both of them towards his qualification to the event.
 

Djokodalerer31

Hall of Fame
Voted Connors! It boggles my mind how someone could manage to get these many weeks as world number one, which by its cumulative total exceeds 5 year period with the other guy winning 3 channel slams in a row and being dominant at both RG and WC and finishing with 11 slams...thats the biggest mystery to me...
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Venus Williams has to be mentioned.....7 major winner but only 11 weeks at number 1.

Strange that she didn't manage more in the year or two before her younger sister rose to dominance. Even non-Major winners Safina and Jankovic managed 26 and 18 weeks respectively.
 

chut

Professional
I voted for Becker and Connors. As "anomalies," however, I think they fall into different categories:
  • Becker's very short reign at No. 1 is just surprising. You'd expect a player with so many slam titles and finals, great YEC showings, etc., to have secured more time at the very top. But this is only a fluke; I don't think it indicates an inherent flaw in the ranking system in those years.
  • Connors earned too many weeks at No. 1 because the system was flawed in the 1970s. I suppose that's understandable, because it took years to work out the kinks. But Vilas, especially, seemed to get shortchanged.

Same for me.

I choose Becker over Wilander mainly because Wilander actually managed to get a YE#1 (and also because he has 7 slams but 2 of those are at the AO when it was still a second tier event) while Becker didn't, although he was probably the real YE#1 in 89. Becker was an elite player for many years but almost every time, there was a player just better than him and it just feels strange. Got upset too often i guess

Connors is also a big problem, not because he only won 250 tournaments (in fact, he didn't and at that time it wasn't working that way) but because the ranking system was broken. Ashe, Vilas and Borg should have been #1 instead of him in the 70's (75, 77, 78 for sure, 76 disputable) and Connors should have been #1 in 82 instead of Mac Enroe. Anyway his YE#1 and total number of weeks at #1 are way wrong.

As for the other anomalies, you pick a few nice ones indeed, but nothing as blatant as these:
- Wawrinka won 3 slams but he's been very inconsistent and unable to maintain his level through the smaller tournaments. You won't go up without a minimum investment away from slams (unless you win only 28 matches a year but only at slams, but Wawrinka didn't do that either)

- As someone on this board said very well, the fact that Rios is the only #1 who didn't win a slam shows more that he was unlucky not to win one rather than the opposite. Consider that Mac Enroe (certainly unfairly, but it's very much forgotten because he won slams) finished 82 as #1 without a slam title, that Lendl was #1 for the 1st time in 83 before winning any slam, that Federer was close to being #1 in 2014 without a slam title, with a much fairer system btw, and a detailed analysis would show a few more examples i guess. It's the opposite of Wawrinka, winning a slam title helps you in the ranking but ultimately, being consistent is what brings you to the #1 spot

- Hewitt and Kuerten, well after analysing Rios and Wawrinka, they both managed to be the most consistent player around in the post Sampras era when tennis was in the middle of the poly strings reconfiguration while also moving from one generation to another. So it was a global mess with little consistency from most players and they managed to stand out when someone had to. Kuerten was quite lucky that Safin was a headcase most of the time though.
 

Red Rick

Bionic Poster
Voted for Wawrinka.
Wawrnika won 3 Slams more than one year apart from each other, and in all other tournaments his record barely looks like that of a top 5 player, so it's no surprise he never broke the top 2.
 

chut

Professional
Biggest outlier?

Sampras at 286.

Weeks at #1 are not made equal.

I think his 6 straight YE#1 are more an anomaly than his 286 weeks actually. Think 95 (Agassi just stopped playing after losing USO final, while he was still in the lead and probably still the best player that year), 96 (could have lost to Corretja in USO QF and then all bets are off for the rest of the season), 98 (a strange season all around, very little consistency from all players).
 

msc886

Professional
I think Rios. No.1 is about your performance over a year so some players like Wawrinka may not get no.1 despite winning 3 because he won 1 per year over a 3 year span.

However I feel you should hold the majority of the slams to be no.1 with other touraments being the tie-breaker for multiple slam winners in 1 year period.
 

RaulRamirez

Legend
I think Rios. No.1 is about your performance over a year so some players like Wawrinka may not get no.1 despite winning 3 because he won 1 per year over a 3 year span.

However I feel you should hold the majority of the slams to be no.1 with other touraments being the tie-breaker for multiple slam winners in 1 year period.

I think the point system works pretty well, as it's transparent and fair. The slams are weighted more, though not so out of whack that Masters, 500s and 250s don't also play roles in the process. (I'd reduce the points for the WTF, but that may be my only gripe.)
 
Top