Do weeks as no. 1 REALLY matter?

[objectivity]

If a player with just 1/3 the total GS titles as another player, can spend more weeks as no.1 than him, how much do weeks as no. 1 really matter?!

hewitt has 2 GS, while edberg has 6. yet hewitt has spent 8 more weeks as no. 1 than edberg.

doesn't this show something?

 

[helloworld]

Grand Slam titles come first, then weeks at No.1 follows. I'd rank year-end No.1 as the more important achievement than weeks st No.1 though.

 

[NatF]

Time at #1 is important, in terms of value I'd rate reaching #1 at all probably close to a slam win - though extra weeks don't matter so much unless we're comparing players of the same relative achievements.

Ending the year #1 is bigger than a slam IMO.

 

[jg153040]

If a player with just 1/3 the total GS titles as another player, can spend more weeks as no.1 than him, how much do weeks as no. 1 really matter?!

hewitt has 2 GS, while edberg has 6. yet hewitt has spent 8 more weeks as no. 1 than edberg.

doesn't this show something?

It seems to matter to you, since you can't stop talking about it .

 

[jg153040]

Time at #1 is important, in terms of value I'd rate reaching #1 at all probably close to a slam win - though extra weeks don't matter so much unless we're comparing players of the same relative achievements.

Ending the year #1 is bigger than a slam IMO.

Weeks nr.1 measure consistency. I also think consecutive weeks nr.1 is a good indicator of how you do under huge pressure and how long you can retain it.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Of course they do.

They show consistency and ability to stay focused over a long period, which in itself is a virtue.

With the current point system this is also a way of taking into consideration the influence of the player as per his achievements in the tournaments from different categories.

For example, If a player A wins a couple of small tourneys and a player B wins a Major, player B will have an automatical advantage in the points needed to gain the #1 position at any given time.

It also rewards the players, who are able to defend their achievement from the past year.


The number of weeks at #1 definitely underline other characteristics of a player than the winning, say of a Major.

As does the YE #1.

One of the few weak points of the current system is only the fact that during the off season the player, who finished at #1, gets several "free" weeks.

I would get rid of that to make this metric more adeqate.

 

[The_Order]

Time at #1 is important, in terms of value I'd rate reaching #1 at all probably close to a slam win - though extra weeks don't matter so much unless we're comparing players of the same relative achievements.

Ending the year #1 is bigger than a slam IMO.

Really?

If a player makes the final of all 4 majors and loses to different opponents each time, it's highly likely that he would finish #1 without a slam. I just seriously doubt that player would be happier with the ranking rather than winning at least 1 major.

 

[Algo]

They do, but aren't the whole picture, as no other individually considered stat is

 

[JMR]

If a player with just 1/3 the total GS titles as another player, can spend more weeks as no.1 than him, how much do weeks as no. 1 really matter?!

They matter to the extent that you incorporate them into your system for evaluating all-time greats. You are free to rely on them or not.

In general, however, the fact that players' legacies tracked by weeks at No. 1 do not track perfectly with their legacies tracked by slam wins does not discredit weeks at No. 1 as a GOAT metric. The whole point of examining more than one factor is to obtain different measures of performance. If every metric produced absolutely the same hierarchy of players, there would never be any need to use more than one.

 

[NatF]

Really?

If a player makes the final of all 4 majors and loses to different opponents each time, it's highly likely that he would finish #1 without a slam. I just seriously doubt that player would be happier with the ranking rather than winning at least 1 major.

Del Potro was happier with his Bronze medal than his USO. SO I'm not sure happiness is a factor tbh. I also don't see the point in engaging in hypotheticals like this. You could win a slam facing players all outside the top 50 hypothetically speaking. That has no bearing on the real value of a slam win.

I personally feel ending the year #1 is more impressive as it requires you to lead the tour and be the best player in the world. I think Federer has had a better year than Wawrinka, even though I would probably rather they switched them - winning slams is not everything IMO. Being #1 at the end of the yea, every year since it's inception required a slam win and several other good results anyway.

I see it as a slam win leading into being the YE #1 if the rest of your results back it up. In my train of thought the YE #1 follows after a great year including many results including a slam. So naturally it is greater than just a slam.

If someone ended the year #1 without a slam I'd probably just evaluate that particular year differently. Obviously Djokovic ending the year #1 in 2011 with tough competition is more impressive than Sampras doing it in 1998 as well.

These are just my general thoughts.

 

[MasturB]

Del Potro was happier with his Bronze medal than his USO. SO I'm not sure happiness is a factor tbh..

Maybe it's because of how rudely shunned he was having 20 seconds to speak during the trophy ceremony. Yet we gave 30 plugs to all the sponsors overkill.

 

[NatF]

Maybe it's because of how rudely shunned he was having 20 seconds to speak during the trophy ceremony. Yet we gave 30 plugs to all the sponsors overkill.

I tend to think he's just very patriotic but sure...:lol:

 

[Carsomyr]

Maybe it's because of how rudely shunned he was having 20 seconds to speak during the trophy ceremony. Yet we gave 30 plugs to all the sponsors overkill.

That was one of the worst moments in US Open coverage history.

 

[SwankPeRFection]

If a player with just 1/3 the total GS titles as another player, can spend more weeks as no.1 than him, how much do weeks as no. 1 really matter?!

hewitt has 2 GS, while edberg has 6. yet hewitt has spent 8 more weeks as no. 1 than edberg.

doesn't this show something?

What is shows is that everyone under him wasn't able to accumulate enough points to dethrone him while he was able to maintain a good winning streak to maintain points, nothing more.

It's the same argument that was made a few years ago when Woz was #1 women's player and hadn't won a sing slam or anything big. All she did was play all the other places and have either wins or good finishes to accumulate a ton of points.

I'm not saying it's easy to do, but the only thing it shows is consistency for the #1 person and poor consistency for everyone else under him/her.

 

[objectivity]

personally, i favor titles over rankings as measurement of a players' accomplishments. call me biased if you like, but judging my favorite player of all time Boris Becker by rankings, one would think he is a loser compared to Edberg. but its pretty clear to me that he is at least Edberg's equal if not superior.

 

[NatF]

personally, i favor titles over rankings as measurement of a players' accomplishments. call me biased if you like, but judging my favorite player of all time Boris Becker by rankings, one would think he is a loser compared to Edberg. but its pretty clear to me that he is at least Edberg's equal if not superior.

Well Becker was the real #1 in 1989 and Edberg in 1990 and 1991, but yes otherwise Boris did achieve more and was better. But that's because of the bulk of his achievements. I'd take all those YEC + other titles over a single YE #1.

But if they were equal in all respects but Boris had 7 slams and Edberg the extra YE #1 I'd find it very hard to seperate them.

 

[objectivity]

i know most of you probably don't follow badminton, but there we have a very interesting situation. Lin Dan, generally regarded as the greatest ever player in history, has spent virtually no time at all as world no. 1. simply because he hasn't played enough tournaments as he likes to dick around at home, relax and enjoy hero status in China. his great "rival" Lee Chong Wei, plays virtually every tournament and is consistently ranked world no. 1. but when the 2 of them meet in the big tournaments, Lin Dan inevitably comes out on top.

its interesting that in the badminton community, most fans are cognizant of this, and so highly discount rankings. i.e. they rely much more on their judgement of real players' abilities. the chinese players for eg, are generally ranked relatively low in world rankings. simply because they don't play enough tournaments. but come the big tournaments like All England and World Champ, no badminton fan worth his/her salt will discount them.

yet in our tennis community, we seem to have vastly different thoughts about this.

 

[NatF]

i know most of you probably don't follow badminton, but there we have a very interesting situation. Lin Dan, generally regarded as the greatest ever player in history, has spent virtually no time at all as world no. 1. simply because he hasn't played enough tournaments as he likes to dick around at home, relax and enjoy hero status in China. his great "rival" Lee Chong Wei, plays virtually every tournament and is consistently ranked world no. 1. but when the 2 of them meet in the big tournaments, Lin Dan inevitably comes out on top.

its interesting that in the badminton community, most fans are cognizant of this, and so highly discount rankings. i.e. they rely much more on their judgement of real players' abilities. the chinese players for eg, are generally ranked relatively low in world rankings. simply because they don't play enough tournaments. but come the big tournaments like All England and World Champ, no badminton fan worth his/her salt will discount them.

yet in our tennis community, we seem to have vastly different thoughts about this.

We don't have a similar situation to this in tennis though. Are you trying to draw parallels to Nadal? Because he's consistently be #2, the only large amount of time he missed on the tour was from mid 2012 to beginning of 2013.

 

[objectivity]

Well Becker was the real #1 in 1989 and Edberg in 1990 and 1991, but yes otherwise Boris did achieve more and was better. But that's because of the bulk of his achievements. I'd take all those YEC + other titles over a single YE #1.

But if they were equal in all respects but Boris had 7 slams and Edberg the extra YE #1 I'd find it very hard to seperate them.

off topic, but if only Boris had won the 1990 Wimbledon final. that to me, is still the most bitter moment ever as a tennis fan. i remember crying. lol.

boris becker is the nalbandian (or Safin) of the late 80s to mid 90s. the most supremely talented player, but with non existent motivation and ****-*** attitude. but i guess that's what makes him so endearing.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Yes they do. Easy question!

 

[Fiji]

they do REALLY matter.

 

[objectivity]

We don't have a similar situation to this in tennis though. Are you trying to draw parallels to Nadal? Because he's consistently be #2, the only large amount of time he missed on the tour was from mid 2012 to beginning of 2013.

yes, a bit to nadal. but also to players such as borg, and even agassi. their weeks as no. 1 were relatively rubbish partly cos they did not play enough!

 

[Mustard]

Not compared to winning tournaments in themselves, no. Also, the ATP World Rankings from before the summer of 1984 are heavily flawed.

 

[NatF]

off topic, but if only Boris had won the 1990 Wimbledon final. that to me, is still the most bitter moment ever as a tennis fan. i remember crying. lol.

boris becker is the nalbandian (or Safin) of the late 80s to mid 90s. the most supremely talented player, but with non existent motivation and ****-*** attitude. but i guess that's what makes him so endearing.

Maybe if he hadn't won Wimbledon so early he would of had a more consistent career. He's still incomparable to Safin and Nalbandian though.

yes, a bit to nadal. but also to players such as borg, and even agassi. their weeks as no. 1 were relatively rubbish partly cos they did not play enough!

Agassi was a headcase who was rarely the best player of the year, his weeks reflect his career. Borg on the other hand should have way more time and years at #1. It's the ATP's sucky computer ranking which gives him such low figures.

I think this is a good resource for #1 tennis players;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_number_1_male_tennis_player_rankings

Borg had 4 years at #1 in my opinion.

 

[Carsomyr]

yes, a bit to nadal. but also to players such as borg, and even agassi. their weeks as no. 1 were relatively rubbish partly cos they did not play enough!

Nadal isn't playing 6-8 tourneys a year, winning each and every one of them. He misses tournaments due to injury, which isn't the same as taking time off to watch the grass grow and enjoy the glory of his celebrity in Spain. He plays a full schedule, like everyone else.

 

[objectivity]

Nadal isn't playing 6-8 tourneys a year, winning each and every one of them. He misses tournaments due to injury, which isn't the same as taking time off to watch the grass grow and enjoy the glory of his celebrity in Spain. He plays a full schedule, like everyone else.

well he can't do that right? because there is a requirement at ATP for players to play certain number of tournaments. i think badminton does too, but the penalties for not doing that aren't so hardcore. also, prize money is not as important as sponsorship in badminton, as the prize money is terribly low anyway.

 

[NatF]

Nadal isn't playing 6-8 tourneys a year, winning each and every one of them. He misses tournaments due to injury, which isn't the same as taking time off to watch the grass grow and enjoy the glory of his celebrity in Spain. He plays a full schedule, like everyone else.

Yes - I think some have a romantic fantasy idea of Nadal, unbeatable when healthy and motivated, warrior etc...

Some truth in it as he is a very good player so naturally hard to beat when in form and he has the heart of a champion. But it is exaggerated by his fans.

 

[Carsomyr]

well he can't do that right? because there is a requirement at ATP for players to play certain number of tournaments. i think badminton does too, but the penalties for not doing that aren't so hardcore. also, prize money is not as important as sponsorship in badminton, as the prize money is terribly low anyway.

So...

What you're saying is that Nadal phones it for every tournament he has to play, but doesn't want to play...but if he were allowed a more lax schedule, he would win the tournaments of his choosing?

 

[tennisaddict]

That was one of the worst moments in US Open coverage history.

There is a reason for Enberg's first name.

 

[objectivity]

So...

What you're saying is that Nadal phones it for every tournament he has to play, but doesn't want to play...but if he were allowed a more lax schedule, he would win the tournaments of his choosing?

no that's not what i am claiming. i am just saying that weeks as no. 1 and other ranking related measures are very VERY contextual by nature. personally, i highly discount them compared to things like GS titles.

 

[NatF]

no that's not what i am claiming. i am just saying that weeks as no. 1 and other ranking related measures are very VERY contextual by nature. personally, i highly discount them compared to things like GS titles.

What's contextual about them? Is there nothing to be said for turning up and making consistent results - including winning big tournaments?

If you win enough titles and especially GS titles you get the ranking, so how can you discount it when it's linked to the very thing you value.

 

[objectivity]

What's contextual about them? Is there nothing to be said for turning up and making consistent results - including winning big tournaments?

If you win enough titles and especially GS titles you get the ranking, so how can you discount it when it's linked to the very thing you value.

its contextual in the sense that a variety of extraneous factors can conspire to muck up the outcome. for eg, rankings is dependent on the weight that they give to tournaments. which is arbitrary frankly. and not only that, they vary so much era by era.

related to this, rankings are also algorithmic by design. as you mentioned, prior to 84, ranking system was messed up and borg got creamed. similarly, i think pete "benefitted" from the old system.

on the other hand, titles won ... well thats all there is to it, no?

 

[bjsnider]

Caring about total number of majors won is a recent phenomenon -- post-Sampras. The players used to pursue the #1 ranking harder than any other goal. I think it's still highly prized by the players, and it matters a great deal.

 

[Dedans Penthouse]

Time at #1 is important, in terms of value I'd rate reaching #1 at all probably close to a slam win - though extra weeks don't matter so much unless we're comparing players of the same relative achievements.

Ending the year #1 is bigger than a slam IMO.

Let's say I have a 12 year career on the tour. During those 12 years, I've never ended any year ranked #1 however, I won a major in each of those 12 years.

I'd take that over 6 years at #1 with 6 GS titles, thank you verrry much.

 

[objectivity]

Let's say I have a 12 year career on the tour. During those 12 years, I've never ended any year ranked #1 however, I won a major in each of those 12 years.

I'd take that over 6 years at #1 with 6 GS titles, thank you verrry much.

exactly. me too. and comparing nadal to djokovic, is similar to your example.

 

[TMF]

Yes, it matters a lot to a player's legacy.

You never find a player at tier 3 great and above have never reached #1 in the word.

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

oh look... wouldn't that be a närd thread ?

 

[tennisaddict]

Let's say I have a 12 year career on the tour. During those 12 years, I've never ended any year ranked #1 however, I won a major in each of those 12 years.

I'd take that over 6 years at #1 with 6 GS titles, thank you verrry much.

How about when someone has 17 majors and 302 weeks and another one with 17 majors and 100 weeks ? I will take the former any day.

Infact I will take it even if the later has 18 majors.

 

[Anti-Fedal]

Really?

If a player makes the final of all 4 majors and loses to different opponents each time, it's highly likely that he would finish #1 without a slam. I just seriously doubt that player would be happier with the ranking rather than winning at least 1 major.

Sampras did skip the 1999 AO because he was exhausted from chasing the Year end no.1 the previous year I'm pretty sure.

 

[objectivity]

How about when someone has 17 majors and 302 weeks and another one with 17 majors and 100 weeks ? I will take the former any day.

Infact I will take it even if the later has 18 majors.

over 18???!! u serious?

 

[tennisaddict]

over 18???!! u serious?

Why not ? Especially if the 17 guy has a bunch of major finals , has a more varied resume ( 5+ finals every major) , has several other big tournaments and is not a single surface specialist.

 

[TMF]

Not compared to winning tournaments in themselves, no.

It depends on how many weeks you compare to. One can argue 50 weeks is equivalent to 1 slam title. If you look back at the past history, there's more number of players are 1 slam wonder than there are players with at least 50 weeks at #1.

Also, the ATP World Rankings from before the summer of 1984 are heavily flawed.

But that has nothing to do with Federer, Nadal, Nole, Sampras, Agassi and company who deserve all the credits for their earned rank.

 

[objectivity]

Why not ? Especially if the 17 guy has a bunch of major finals , has a more varied resume ( 5+ finals every major) , has several other big tournaments and is not a single surface specialist.

man, with your kind of rationalizing, i really hope nadal wins next 4 GS, blows out his knees and retires. imagine the pandemonium on this forum...

btw, i am not saying your views are wrong. i just think it will be really cool to see what happens if that scenario really happens.

 

[tennisaddict]

man, with your kind of rationalizing, i really hope nadal wins next 4 GS, blows out his knees and retires. imagine the pandemonium on this forum...

btw, i am not saying your views are wrong. i just think it will be really cool to see what happens if that scenario really happens.

The flaw in Fed's resume is his h2h with Rafa.

Rafa's flaw is his single surface dependent resume.

Which is a bigger hole ? We can keep discussing forever, but to astute neutral observers , they realize tennis is played against the whole field and also the value of domination across surfaces.

 

[objectivity]

The flaw in Fed's resume is his h2h with Rafa.

Rafa's flaw is his single surface dependent resume.

Which is a bigger hole ? We can keep discussing forever, but to astute neutral observers , they realize tennis is played against the whole field and also the value of domination across surfaces.

but suppose nadal really wins the next 4 and promptly retires. and suppose fed continues 3 years more, never winning another gs but perhaps made a couple of finals. suppose nadal kept his MS title lead.

would u still really regard fed as the greater player in terms of career achievements?

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

but suppose nadal really wins the next 4 and promptly retires. and suppose fed continues 3 years more, never winning another gs but perhaps made a couple of finals. suppose nadal kept his MS title lead.

would u still really regard fed as the greater player in terms of career achievements?

Easily, but not the greater player.

 

[objectivity]

Easily, but not the greater player.

nadal would have the calendar slam! come on man!

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

nadal would have the calendar slam! come on man!

No. You asked would he have the greater career achievements. Federer would have one more Slam (so basically, the same amount of Slams - when Federer reached 15 I wasn't really thinking he has more Slams than Sampras, just that they are basically equal but Federer clearly wins out because he has the Career Slam), more titles, more finals, less masters, more YEC wins, more YE#1 or weeks-at-#1 ''titles''. Federer carrying on for 3 years and reaching Slam finals but losing is still adding to his career achievements as would the extra titles that he probably should be winning in that time-frame.

The point is that I would not consider Nadal to have the greater ''career achievements'' but would definitely see him as the ''greater player''.

 

[tennisaddict]

but suppose nadal really wins the next 4 and promptly retires. and suppose fed continues 3 years more, never winning another gs but perhaps made a couple of finals. suppose nadal kept his MS title lead.

would u still really regard fed as the greater player in terms of career achievements?

If all of the next 4 majors are non FO, I would gladly accept Nadal as the better achiever.

If he gets 4 majors including 1 FO, they would be same for me.

If he gets 4 majors including 2 or more FO, then I would take Fed's resume.

How long both play does not matter to me at all.

Infact every day that Fed comes on court and fights a battle, win or lose, is just adding to his legacy.

 

[Djokovic2011]

but suppose nadal really wins the next 4 and promptly retires. and suppose fed continues 3 years more, never winning another gs but perhaps made a couple of finals. suppose nadal kept his MS title lead.

would u still really regard fed as the greater player in terms of career achievements?

Federer would probably still be ahead due to his weeks at #1 and 6 WTFs. Also much better consistency and longevity, both of which are criminally underrated on these boards.