Djokovic says weeks at 1 are more important than Slams won ..... Do you agree with his view?

[RS]

Tyson Fury's asterisked number one.

 

[Razer]

Ok now that is more respectful.

90s gen has faced unique situation of 3 greats going strong. The old gens didn't face this at all. Without this simple context I don't know what is the point of debating endlessly.

Yes and atg can beat another atg but what about the wins out of nowhere.

10 years is a big advantage, you give that to Murray and even he will beat Big 3 a few times in Slams, you give that to Roddick and he will win vs old Big 3.

There is no excuse in losing to Big 3 aged in mid 30s when Stan, Berdych, Tsonga, Del Potro all won over them. Berdych defeated Federer 2 times in Slams when Federer was 29-31, and you are defending Daniil who is losing to 36 years old Djokovic ? Am I supposed to take Daniil seriously ? or am I supposed to assume that 36 year old Djokovic is not as good as 31-29 year old Federer if not better ? LOL. that is absurd.

 

[jm1980]

Second bolded: If Ruud had won a slam, he would have achieved just that, ie, won a slam. Lifting the trophy at a significant tournament is the ultimate goal for every professional player in every sport. The issue with the current ranking system in tennis is that one can attain the #1 rank by consistently reaching finals in major events, as long as he does not lose most of those finals to the same player. Your claim that a player would be considered the best of the last 52 weeks simply by reaching #1 even without winning any significant titles, is incorrect.

In order for one to reach #1 he would have to outperform the competition over 52 weeks. If that means reaching a bunch of finals and losing to different players, then so be it. In a scenario like that, who would you place over the guy who made all those finals?

 

[nolefam_2024]

10 years is a big advantage, you give that to Murray and even he will beat Big 3 a few times in Slams, you give that to Roddick and he will win vs old Big 3.

There is no excuse in losing to Big 3 aged in mid 30s when Stan, Berdych, Tsonga, Del Potro all won over them. Berdych defeated Federer 2 times in Slams when Federer was 29-31, and you are defending Daniil who is losing to 36 years old Djokovic ? Am I supposed to take Daniil seriously ? or am I supposed to assume that 36 year old Djokovic is not as good as 31-29 year old Federer if not better ? LOL. that is absurd.

I don't think Murray 10 years younger would be so much better vs Nole post 2018. But he might win 1/2 more slams.

Berdych did beat Federer from 29 to 31 but then laid egg vs Roger consistently. You are cherry picking. The tournaments where he beat fed, fed was already struggling. So there is some luck involved.

 

[Razer]

I don't think Murray 10 years younger would be so much better vs Nole post 2018. But he might win 1/2 more slams.

Berdych did beat Federer from 29 to 31 but then laid egg vs Roger consistently. You are cherry picking. The tournaments where he beat fed, fed was already struggling. So there is some luck involved.

Except that Berdych himself is only 4 years younger to Federer, give him a 10 years age advantage and then lets see ..... I bet he'll do better vs a really old Fed than Med did vs Djokovic.

 

[NoleFam]

Even Agassi did that, the point is they were all good enough and they must have trained too in the off season. Did we see them eating junk food for 10 months and then coming back to rise in the ranking ?

Serena did nothing for like 2 years, came into the tournament out of shape, and won it out of blue.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Except that Berdych himself is only 4 years younger to Federer, give him a 10 years age advantage and then lets see ..... I bet he'll do better vs old Fed than Med did vs Djokovic.

If that's the case then why did he flop post 2012 vs fed. He was still in his 20s. This is classic Murray syndrome. These guys have their peaks defined by very small window of time where they beat top players. Actually they are always there playing but barely ever beat someone of the caliber of fedkovic (Nadal if in good form). It's the same thing before big 3 and after big 3 it will be the same.

The rest of the tour from 80s born gen is as bad as the next it seems. But they had more chances to play non big 3 players. And they have some wins. they are no world beaters. Big 3 stayed on the top longer based on modern medicine and racket technologies not changing faster. Big 3 adapted with time and modern healthcare allowed them to compete at the top. This completely halted the growth of genuine contenders.

Now coming to big 3, it's heirarchy is self explanatory. Djokovic is the top and other two are fairly similar. Now if you don't like this you can blame whatever you want but do remember all of them didn't face a great opposition outside the other two.

 

[RaulRamirez]

We are talking here about 3 different things:
- level of difficulty
- level of prestige
- level of importance to a specific player

The level of difficulty does not always align with the level of prestige.
For example is more difficult to achieve a Golden Career Masters than to achieve a Career Grand Slams. But players will take any day Career GS.
Winning all the 9 Masters in the same year is more difficult to achieve than CYGS, but CYGS will be way more prestigious.

A specific tournament or statistic can be more important to player (for various reasons) but it does not make it more prestigious.

Very good post. In glancing through this thread, I found yours to be the best, most nuanced reply. (For what that's worth.)
..

To me...but I am far from a touring pro...in looking at the relative achievements of players, I tend to value slams, followed by YE#1s and then weeks at #1. It's possible that Novak's statement is slightly self-serving, but does it need to be when he holds the OE records in all three categories?

 

[nolefam_2024]

Very good post. In glancing through this thread, I found yours to be the best, most nuanced reply. (For what that's worth.)
..

To me...but I am far from a touring pro...in looking at the relative achievements of players, I tend to value slams, followed by YE#1s and then weeks at #1. It's possible that Novak's statement is slightly self-serving, but does it need to be when he holds the OE records in all three categories?

He is most proud of this record because this is the highest difference between second place and him. There is nothing wrong in that.

The fact that he had all other records makes it somewhat logical that he is so far ahead in weeks at number 1.


While others lack some major records now so they are behind.

 

[GoatNo1]

He is most proud of this record because this is the highest difference between second place and him. There is nothing wrong in that.

The fact that he had all other records makes it somewhat logical that he is so far ahead in weeks at number 1.


While others lack some major records now so they are behind.

slams + 9%
weeks + 35%
YE#1s + 60%

 

[nolefam_2024]

slams + 9%
weeks + 35%
YE#1s + 60%

Is it? Sampras has 6 year ends

 

[RaulRamirez]

He is most proud of this record because this is the highest difference between second place and him. There is nothing wrong in that.

The fact that he had all other records makes it somewhat logical that he is so far ahead in weeks at number 1.


While others lack some major records now so they are behind.

Obviously, Novak's achievements edge is significant. I wasn't knocking him to indicate that it may have been slightly self-serving on his part as he holds the other most significant records as well. And again, I think that the post I was replying to (@James_Bolt, #49) offered a good, nuanced breakdown.

 

[GoatNo1]

Is it? Sampras has 6 year ends

you are right
33%

 

[_phantom]

In order for one to reach #1 he would have to outperform the competition over 52 weeks. If that means reaching a bunch of finals and losing to different players, then so be it. In a scenario like that, who would you place over the guy who made all those finals?

The main purpose of the current ATP ranking system is to ensure (and encourage) year-round participation of the players in the ATP tournaments (and not the ITF ones), and to facilitate tournament draws. Accepting it as it is and giving credit to consistent players too without overemphasizing the #1 ranking makes sense.

If I were to propose a change to increase the significance of #1 ranking, it would be to make it nearly impossible for a player without a slam title in the last 12 months to be ranked #1, would assign more points in slams and make slam championship points 3x the runner-up points. However ATP seems to be moving in the opposite direction by increasing slam runner-up points from 1200 to 1300. Super-masters (2 weeks) are becoming the norm, and it seems likely that they will soon have 1200 points (or more). Rios' feat would be repeated much more easily.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

@Kralingen - This whole talk of doing well for just 2 weeks and take a slam while work hard for year around to be 1 is not a correct statement.

Nobody can just do nothing for 11 months and then come to play a slam and win it in 2 weeks, you need to work year round to get that win in 2 weeks. Just because Nadal every year came and won french and then took some gaps it looks like you just need to peak for 2 weeks and thats it, easy, now enjoy for the remaining 11 months, the come again to win.... but it aint the case

Even more wrong is the stance that you need to work hard for year around to be 1. You need to win more than the others but you can well afford lapses in between, you do not need to be the best at every point in time. Kafelnikov became No.1 after seven consecutive losses, yeah how hard he had to work for getting there lol.