How important are ATP rankings when determining greatness?

drm025

Hall of Fame
But the fact is if you ended the year #1....you have to be at least a slam winner(s). You say "slam wins do not go hand in hand with the ranking" is wrong.

No, the FACT is that the slam wins were not necessary in being the number 1. It is not a fact that you have to win a slam to be number 1, even though that it is what was happened.
 

drm025

Hall of Fame
Errr...no it doesn't show that at all. It just happens that the players who do win a lot of grand slams tend to win plenty of smaller events too.

Right, and those smaller events were enough to guarantee the number 1 even without winning any slams. Therefore, the ranking is due to overall consistency.
 

drm025

Hall of Fame
It's meaningless to point that out since it never happened. All year end #1 player have won a slam(s). Unless in the future we see many cases that a year end #1 player doesn't win a slam, then we can point that out.



Correct. Slam count/performance is the most important criteria, and ranking(weeks at #1 and YE #1) is the 2nd most important.

PLAYER CRITERIA

* Number of Major Titles won
* Overall performance at Grand Slam Events
* Player Ranking
* Performance at ATP/WTA events
* Win/loss record at Davis & Fed Cup events
* Records held or broken
* Intangibles(contribution to tennis)

That is your subjective criteria. Which you are free to establish for yourself.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
No, the FACT is that the slam wins were not necessary in being the number 1. It is not a fact that you have to win a slam to be number 1, even though that it is what was happened.

You based on mathematically, I base on what actually happened in the real world. Not much of a discussion when a case never exist.


I can open a thread about a player can win a Calendar Slam but may not end the year #1(mathematically). But it's pointless.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Right, and those smaller events were enough to guarantee the number 1 even without winning any slams. Therefore, the ranking is due to overall consistency.

Yes but if they didn't win those slams and went 0-3 in finals in a year multiple times I find it.unlikely that the rest of the yearly results would be the same...

You could win a slam by beating only players ranked outside the top 100. Does anyone his discredit slams as a measure of greatness?
 

SpicyCurry1990

Hall of Fame
I agree that it does show that the ranking is a separate achievement from winning slams, but this means that the rankings are mostly independent of winning grand slam finals which are the most important matches in anyone's career. That's why I think in terms of greatness the value of ranking should be clearly below slams.

ATP YE #1 rankings showcase who had the best season based on a composite total of tournament play that is predetermined before the season and all players are aware of. In a situation where the person who wins the most slams contradicts with a person who leads the ATP points lead, there is never a unanimous YE #1 (75, 77, 78, 82, 89 for examples). As such the reduced value of a YE #1 in this circumstance is ALREADY considered for cases when this occurs as you allude to in your OP, had those #1 seasons resulted from 0 slam win seasons, they would not be viewed as undisputed YE #1 seasons the way they are now.

The undisputed YE #1 distinction is considered for players who lead the points race and also win the most slams in a season.

Those YE #1 should be valued very highly at the very least as the second biggest criteria after slams, and its arguable it should even be equal to a slam.

Additionally, when comparing players across eras where there are so many variations in regards to "value of majors" and such, the undisputed YE #1 is the best metric we have to compare who dominated the most for the longest time in a GOAT debate.

I agree weeks ranked #1 is not a great measure, because it takes into account a lot of things such as scheduling. A player can choose to play Dubai and Rotterdam as the 500s and another can play Basil and Beijing later in the year. Both players can win both titles, yet one has a 1000 point lead for the majority of the year. These situations are only resolved by the end of the year. Additionally, weeks #1 has only been kept track of since 73 so its a category not applicable to cross era comparisons. I see weeks #1 to be an interesting nugget for consideration that is a function of success similar to h2h record and hence don't consider either in the highest echelon of player valuation.

YE #1, however, I feel should be considered heavily.
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
The numbers show that Federer outperformed everyone at the slam and non-slam tournaments.

Federer 5 YE #1:
2004: 74-6(93%); 3 slams, 3 slam finals, YEC, 11 titles
2005: 81-4(95%), 2 slams, 2 slam finals, 11 titles
2006: 92-5(95%), 3 slams, 4 slam finals, YEC, 12 titles
2007: 68-9(88%), 3 slams, 4 slam finals, YEC, 8 titles
2009: 61-12(84%), 2 slams, 4 slam finals, 4 titls


Not all Year End #1 are equally impressive

Yes, year end nr.1 is an achievement.

But also total weeks nr.1 is a separate achievement.

Both count for greatness.
 

augustobt

Legend
Well, the OP can't cease to show how much he is clueless about the game.

YE #1 usually reflects a strong performance during a calendar year. It would be impossible in the ATP tour to become a #1 without lifting a major, this ain't the flawed WTA tour.

Winning/losing a major is decisive to a player performance through the year, specially because it directly affects the player confidence. This kind of thread is generally created by the ones who never touched a racket. Confidence plays a big role in the game and absolutely nothing boosts up the confidence of a tennis player as major tournaments.
 

tacou

G.O.A.T.
It's meaningless to point that out since it never happened.


It's not meaningless in the context of this discussion. But I think for the most part everyone is agreeing here. Slams are more important and YE#1/weeks at #1 are second. They generally go hand in hand, but not always.

The OP is giving us all hypothetical situations, however they illustrate that 3-slam years can become 0-slam years and have no effect on ranking, which I find interesting.
 

drm025

Hall of Fame
It's not meaningless in the context of this discussion. But I think for the most part everyone is agreeing here. Slams are more important and YE#1/weeks at #1 are second. They generally go hand in hand, but not always.

The OP is giving us all hypothetical situations, however they illustrate that 3-slam years can become 0-slam years and have no effect on ranking, which I find interesting.

Thank you, tacou. It's mind-boggling to me how people can't just simply accept facts and maybe, just maybe, change their view on something slightly. It's not like I came out and just said look Federer would be number 1 from 2004-2007 with zero slams, so clearly the ranking system is trash. I simply find interesting things and share them. I don't even make a conclusion, and I still get attacked, smh.
 

drm025

Hall of Fame
Yes but if they didn't win those slams and went 0-3 in finals in a year multiple times I find it.unlikely that the rest of the yearly results would be the same...

You could win a slam by beating only players ranked outside the top 100. Does anyone his discredit slams as a measure of greatness?

I think losing a couple grand slam finals but maintaining overall consistency would be somewhat more likely than winning a slam without facing a top-100 opponent. That's a little extreme.

It is subjective to say that losing those slam finals would affect the rest of a player's results, but it is a fact that they would still end up as number 1.

Again, I am not saying rankings don't matter, just pointing out that performance in slam finals has not been significant in determining number 1. I did not realize that this was the case and I thought it was interesting, so I shared it.
 

OrangePower

Legend
First off I would say that IMO total weeks at #1 is a much better rankings-based stat than year-end #1. Year end #1 is too binary.

It would have been more interesting had the OP calculated weeks at #1 changes for the scenarios with players not winning majors in a particular year. Probably the impact (of not winning majors) would have been more felt in that stat.

this means that the rankings are mostly independent of winning grand slam finals

Actually, no. Statistically, there is a very strong correlation between the list of top slam winners and the list of players ordered by weeks at #1. So they are not independent metrics.

That is not surprising since what enables players to have weeks at #1 and what enables players to win slams is the same thing - i.e. dominance over other players. Just that slams measure dominance over 2 weeks, and #1 measures weighted dominance over a rolling 12 month period.


One ignores the correlation at one's own risk - because then, all sorts of absurd situations can be concocted.

For example, if we use slam wins as the only measure of greatness, what do we do with a player who for example wins 20 FOs but loses the majority of matches played other than at FO. No other wins, finals or semi at any other slams, masters, etc.

Do we consider this player the greatest ever?

Obviously this *will* never happen, but in theory it *could*...
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
I think losing a couple grand slam finals but maintaining overall consistency would be somewhat more likely than winning a slam without facing a top-100 opponent. That's a little extreme.

It is subjective to say that losing those slam finals would affect the rest of a player's results, but it is a fact that they would still end up as number 1.

Again, I am not saying rankings don't matter, just pointing out that performance in slam finals has not been significant in determining number 1. I did not realize that this was the case and I thought it was interesting, so I shared it.

Yes it's possible for someone to end the year #1 without winning a slam. We knew that already. But I'm not sure how it devalues the ranking.

You can't say winning slam finals was not significant for ending the year #1 though as we don't know what would have happened had other players stepped up. It's rather dubious to claim Federer would have carried the same sort of aura, confidence, momentum etc...through 2004 and even beyond had he lost every slam final.

Slam performances are often linked to other results. The fact is every year end #1 has won a slam. If they didn't it would have a knock on effect for other results throughout the year.
 
Last edited:

merlinpinpin

Hall of Fame
I think losing a couple grand slam finals but maintaining overall consistency would be somewhat more likely than winning a slam without facing a top-100 opponent. That's a little extreme.

Okay, maybe NatF went a little bit overboard with not facing a single top 100 opponent. But you could theorically win a slam without facing a single top 20 opponent. And I mean, any slam. Even--theorically, of course ;)--the most prestigious of them all, ie Wimbledon.

As for slams not being the be-all and end-all of tennis (at least not all the time since tennis has existed, although they have been since Sampras masde such a big fuss about it and the media jumped on the bandwagon), I'll play the Pancho card again. Of course, there were no ATP rankings at the time, but *his* greatness sure isn't determined by slam wins. In fact, it couldn't be further from the truth. ;)
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
I exaggerated a little bit...but the point is you can get cakewalk draws at slams but to be number one you've got to play a lot of tennis and beat a lot of great players throughout the year.
 

SpicyCurry1990

Hall of Fame
First off I would say that IMO total weeks at #1 is a much better rankings-based stat than year-end #1. Year end #1 is too binary.

YE #1 is a far better stat and I have already explained why.

If neither of us play a 500 series event in 2013, but I were to win the Australian Open, Wimbledon, Rotterdam, and Dubai for 2014, but you choose to play Basil and Beijing and win the French Open, US Open, Beijing, and Basil, we both have the same performances for the year, I would be ranked above you for 39 weeks, but at the end of the year we would be tied.

Weeks ranked #1 has many other situation tendencies for why a player can hold a ranking or not and plays into other year's performances as well (another example is Nadal holding #1 for more weeks than Djokovic in 2011 and the inverse being true in 2013).

The end of the year is the only time when all results for a full year have been taken into account for all players and it gives a composite indicator of who was the best performer for the whole year.
 
Last edited:

NatF

Bionic Poster
YE #1 is a far better stat and I have already explained why.

If neither of us play a 500 series event in 2013, but I were to win the Australian Open, Wimbledon, Rotterdam, and Dubai for 2014, but you choose to play Basil and Beijing and win the French Open, US Open, Beijing, and Basil, we both have the same performances for the year, I would be ranked above you for 39 weeks, but at the end of the year we would be tied.

Weeks ranked #1 has many other situation tendencies for why a player can hold a ranking or not and plays into other year's performances as well (another example is Nadal holding #1 for more weeks than Djokovic in 2011 and the inverse being true in 2013).

The end of the year is the only time when all results for a full year have been taken into account for all players and it gives a composite indicator of who was the best performer for the whole year.

Perhaps consecutive weeks at number one is more appropriate?

Though I will point out the points total is not reset at the end of the year, so player B who only took the ranking at the end of the year would likely hold it for a large portion of the next year to compensate.
 

SpicyCurry1990

Hall of Fame
Perhaps consecutive weeks at number one is more appropriate?

Consecutive weeks #1 is better than total weeks #1 yes, but YE #1 is still better. Consecutive weeks #1 is also dependant on whether or not you have a rival capable of pushing you. I think even you would acknowledge Djokovic and Nadal have a harder time holding on to #1 vs each other in 2011-2014, than Federer did vs anyone in 2004-2007. Federer is already rewarded for dominating the field all 4 years with 4 YE #1s vs Nadal's 1 and Djokovic's 2, but to look at 237 vs 50ish I think gives a large and unfair discrepancy.

Like I have said to me weeks at #1 is pretty much the same argument as h2h in reverse. Nadal's h2h is high because in 04-07 most meetings came on clay and hence it biased the results because Nadal didn't reach the HC meetings. Similarly Nadal in 04-07 wasn't good enough on those surfaces to challenge Fed in the rankings. When Nadal got good enough on those other surfaces, he had Djokovic challenging him for #1 so his weeks are diminished. At this point the h2h also favors Nadal even more since he is meeting post peak Fed in his peak and then post prime Fed in his prime.

As such I pretty much consider h2h and weeks #1 (or consecutive) to be washes in regards to them and only consider YE #1s along with the various titles.

Though I will point out the points total is not reset at the end of the year, so player B who only took the ranking at the end of the year would likely hold it for a large portion of the next year to compensate.

Dependant on a lot of things, case in point Roddick 03 where he immediately lost it at the start of 04 so this compensation is not necessarily true. Additionally, Djokovic did not reign all of 2012 #1 because his late 2011 performance allowed Federer to have a small 12 month window of greater play, but Djokovic still finished 2012 ahead of Federer.
 
Last edited:

NatF

Bionic Poster
Consecutive weeks #1 is better than total weeks #1 yes, but YE #1 is still better. Consecutive weeks #1 is also dependant on whether or not you have a rival capable of pushing you. I think even you would acknowledge Djokovic and Nadal have a harder time holding on to #1 vs each other in 2011-2014, than Federer did vs anyone in 2004-2007. Federer is already rewarded for dominating the field all 4 years with 4 YE #1s vs Nadal's 1 and Djokovic's 2, but to look at 237 vs 50ish I think gives a large and unfair discrepancy.

I agree about YE #1's, though I feel in the context of comparing past era's the weeks and consecutive weeks at #1 is still a valid discussion point.

Your position is fair though.

Like I have said to me weeks at #1 is pretty much the same argument as h2h in reverse. Nadal's h2h is high because in 04-07 most meetings came on clay and hence it biased the results because Nadal didn't reach the HC meetings. Similarly Nadal in 04-07 wasn't good enough on those surfaces to challenge Fed in the rankings. When Nadal got good enough on those other surfaces, he had Djokovic challenging him for #1 so his weeks are diminished. At this point the h2h also favors Nadal even more since he is meeting post peak Fed in his peak and then post prime Fed in his prime.

As such I pretty much consider h2h and weeks #1 (or consecutive) to be washes in regards to them and only consider YE #1s along with the various titles.

This is fair enough when comparing Federer and Nadal and to a lesser extent Djokovic (who lived less time in the shadow of Federer).

Dependant on a lot of things, case in point Roddick 03 where he immediately lost it at the start of 04 so this compensation is not necessarily true. Additionally, Djokovic did not reign all of 2012 #1 because his late 2011 performance allowed Federer to have a small 12 month window of greater play, but Djokovic still finished 2012 ahead of Federer.

Indeed, but Federer was really close in 2003 and Roddick had a shot to take the #1 ranking at Wimbledon.

I think it's fair that Federer had that few week window at #1, and it adds to his legacy. Though ending the year #1 would of been better in most cases I think having the record for weeks at #1 is a major achievement. Obviously some pre-open era players would have set the bench mark impossibly high had the system been in place...
 

SpicyCurry1990

Hall of Fame
I agree about YE #1's, though I feel in the context of comparing past era's the weeks and consecutive weeks at #1 is still a valid discussion point.

Your position is fair though.

Oh of course its a valid discussion point, just as h2h is. I just think it should be weighed very minimally in the GOAT debate after many other big metrics of which YE #1 should be one.

This is fair enough when comparing Federer and Nadal and to a lesser extent Djokovic (who lived less time in the shadow of Federer).

Ya its a point both for Fed vs Nadal and also for Nadal vs Sampras in regards to the weeks at #1 and as you mentioned to a lesser extent Djokovic in regards to weeks at #1 vs his likely comparative equivalents Connors, Lendl, and McEnroe.

Indeed, but Federer was really close in 2003 and Roddick had a shot to take the #1 ranking at Wimbledon.

Oh ya that wasn't intended to be in relation to Fed. It was pointing out for example that Hewitt reigned more weeks as #1 in 03 than Roddick did and Roddick did not get his compensatory weeks in 04 due to the rise of Fed.

I think it's fair that Federer had that few week window at #1, and it adds to his legacy.

For sure it adds to Fed's legacy, but it shouldn't detract from Nole in that his consecutive weeks were broken by Fed whereas Lendl and Connors had more extended runs of consecutive weeks as long as Djok matches both of their YE #1s (I consider 3.5 for Lendl, 85-87 and split 89 and 3.33 for Connors 74 and splits for 75 (or disregard and 76 is full), 76, 78 (or disregard and 82 is full), 82, and 1/3 for 77).

Though ending the year #1 would of been better in most cases I think having the record for weeks at #1 is a major achievement. Obviously some pre-open era players would have set the bench mark impossibly high had the system been in place...

Ya which is why I don't really consider it a record because Gonzalez, Tilden, and Laver would certainly be above Fed's total and possibly Rosewall as well.
 
Being #1 at any point is being a year-end #1, by definition. It is a 52-week system. When Pat Rafter was #1 for one week, it was because he was the best player between July 27th 1998 and July 26th 1999. That is a year. Is that any different really to being #1 between January 1st and December 31st of a given year. To me, not at all.

I understand that, as humans, we like things structured and into patterns, so we like to talk about seasons and calendar year-end #1s.

But, even though it clearly is considered it by many from players to fans, I don't think year-end #1s matter that much. It is just arbitrary. Total weeks at #1 is clearly the important stat.
 

SpicyCurry1990

Hall of Fame
Being #1 at any point is being a year-end #1, by definition. It is a 52-week system. When Pat Rafter was #1 for one week, it was because he was the best player between July 27th 1998 and July 26th 1999. That is a year. Is that any different really to being #1 between January 1st and December 31st of a given year. To me, not at all.

I understand that, as humans, we like things structured and into patterns, so we like to talk about seasons and calendar year-end #1s.

But, even though it clearly is considered it by many from players to fans, I don't think year-end #1s matter that much. It is just arbitrary. Total weeks at #1 is clearly the important stat.

Read my post on why it is clearly different and YE #1 is better.
 

timnz

Legend
Not correct

But the fact is if you ended the year #1....you have to be at least a slam winner(s). You say "slam wins do not go hand in hand with the ranking" is wrong.

That just isn't correct. You can be YE number 1 without winning a Slam in the year. Here is just one of many scenerios where that could happen. If you won the majority of Masters 1000's and was the runner-up in a couple of slams, and there were 4 different slam winners in that year and each of these didn't perform that well outside of the slams - you could easily be number 1 at year's end. There are 9000 points on offer in Masters 1000's and an additional 1500 points on offer at the WTF and only 8000 points on offer total for all of the Slams combined.

Now whether you would deserve the number 1 ranking - that is another story. But in terms of the ATP rankings, someone definitely can be YE #1 without winning a slam. Two players in ATP history (since 1973) have achieved the number 1 ranking (though not end of year - which is no different than any other time of year in terms of it calculation - ie just take the points from the previous 52 weeks) without ever winning a Slam in their career up to that time - Lendl in 1983 and Rios in 1998.
 
Last edited:

merlinpinpin

Hall of Fame
Consecutive weeks #1 is better than total weeks #1 yes, but YE #1 is still better. Consecutive weeks #1 is also dependant on whether or not you have a rival capable of pushing you. I think even you would acknowledge Djokovic and Nadal have a harder time holding on to #1 vs each other in 2011-2014, than Federer did vs anyone in 2004-2007. Federer is already rewarded for dominating the field all 4 years with 4 YE #1s vs Nadal's 1 and Djokovic's 2, but to look at 237 vs 50ish I think gives a large and unfair discrepancy.

Lol at the "unfair discrepancy".

More dominant #1's generally hold on to the #1 spot longer than those that are not so dominant and post worse results, big surprise there.

During his heyday, Federer was much better compared to the rest of the field (which included Nadal and, later, Djokovic) than Djokovic and Nadal currently are or ever were. There's nothing "unfair" about it. There is no condition in the ATP rules that says all the guys who get to the #1 spot have to all be #1 for the exact same number of weeks, no more, no less. Tennis is a sport. Some are more successful than others, some are less. There is nothing "unfair" about it, that's just the way it is.
 

SpicyCurry1990

Hall of Fame
Lol at the "unfair discrepancy".

More dominant #1's generally hold on to the #1 spot longer than those that are not so dominant and post worse results, big surprise there.

During his heyday, Federer was much better compared to the rest of the field (which included Nadal and, later, Djokovic) than Djokovic and Nadal currently are or ever were. There's nothing "unfair" about it. There is no condition in the ATP rules that says all the guys who get to the #1 spot have to all be #1 for the exact same number of weeks, no more, no less. Tennis is a sport. Some are more successful than others, some are less. There is nothing "unfair" about it, that's just the way it is.

You are not understanding my point, a point that the poster I made this claim to (who is a Federer fan) DID understand and agreed with.

Federer's dominance of the field in his heyday is captured by his 5 YE #1 to Nadal's 3 advantage already.

The 237 consecutive weeks #1 vs Nadal's 50 consecutive weeks at #1 shows a marked discrepancy that means very little in the grand scheme of who is a greater player because all it shows is that there were no players of any consistency to stop Federer's reigns until Nadal hit his prime, while Nadal had to deal with prime Djokovic ending his consecutive reigns twice.

Like I said it works both ways. Nadal in his youth got a h2h advantage because mostly met Fed on clay. However, the flipside is Fed had better results on other surfaces keep an uninterrupted #1 streak.

Consecutive weeks at #1 are also not translatable to comparisons of open era with pre-open era players where weeks #1 were not kept track of, but YE #1 was.

For these reasons weeks at #1 and even consecutive weeks #1 mean little in determining greatness just like h2h.

Slams, YE #1, YEC titles, Masters equivalent titles should all come well before even considering either of those metrics.
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
Thank you, tacou. It's mind-boggling to me how people can't just simply accept facts and maybe, just maybe, change their view on something slightly. It's not like I came out and just said look Federer would be number 1 from 2004-2007 with zero slams, so clearly the ranking system is trash. I simply find interesting things and share them. I don't even make a conclusion, and I still get attacked, smh.

We accept facts. We just don't accept your interpretation of facts and how you want to offer your interpretations as facts.

You said you didn't make conclusions, but you actually did. You claimed that if you can be nr.1 without winning a slam, that rankings aren't important for greatness. And that actually almost never happens and it didn't happen with Federer or anyone. Who was ranked nr.1 for years without winning slams?

By your logic, I can say that you can win a slam by beating all 7 opponents who are not even in top 20. Does that mean slams can't be considered for greatness just because it's possible in theory?

And by the way, using your logic, that means all year end nr.1 don't have the same value. So, Fed was nr.1 by winning 3 slams, three times. So, that would make his nr.1 ranking even more impressive.

And your attitude that anyone who doesn't agree with your interpretation of facts is stupid, isn't really nice. Maybe you are the one who refuses to change your view, when a lot of times people demonstrated other possibilities to you and found flaws in your interpretation of facts.

And saying stupid things like ranking system is trash. Hey, you can win a major by 7 players not showing up an cancelling the match, so does that mean slam system is trash? A lot of crazy things can happen in tennis in theory, is tennis system trash? You can win tons more points than your enemy and still lose the match. Is that trash too?

I mean, you are so biased man. You are brilliant in finding facts, but too biased when interpreting them.
 

timnz

Legend
Relation or lack of between weeks at number 1 and number of slams in the Open era

Hello,

Thought it might be useful to post here. If you compare the last two columns it shows the order of the players in terms of Slams won, then then order of the players in terms of weeks at number 1 (sorry about the formatting - it is so hard to get it right!):


Player Weeks Slams Slam Order Weeks Order
============ ===== ===== ========== ===========
 Roger Federer  302 17 1 1
 Pete Sampras 286 14 2= 2
 Rafael Nadal  141 14 2= 6
 Björn Borg 109 11 4 7
 Ivan Lendl 270 8 5= 3
 Jimmy Connors 268 8 5= 4
 Andre Agassi 101 8 5= 9
 John McEnroe 170 7 8= 5
 Novak Djokovic  108 7 8= 8
 Mats Wilander 20 7 8= 15
 Stefan Edberg 72 6 11= 11
 Boris Becker 12 6 11= 17
 Jim Courier 58 4 13 12
 Gustavo Kuerten 43 3 14 13
 Lleyton Hewitt  80 2 15= 10
 Ilie Năstase 40 2 15= 14
 Andy Roddick 13 1 17 16

The conclusion reached is weeks at number 1 only vaguely corresponds to dominance in slam numbers - there isn't a tight correlation eg Roddick at 1 slam having more weeks at number 1 than Becker who has 6 slams.
 
Last edited:

merlinpinpin

Hall of Fame
You are not understanding my point, a point that the poster I made this claim to (who is a Federer fan) DID understand and agreed with.

Federer's dominance of the field in his heyday is captured by his 5 YE #1 to Nadal's 3 advantage already.

The 237 consecutive weeks #1 vs Nadal's 50 consecutive weeks at #1 shows a marked discrepancy that means very little in the grand scheme of who is a greater player because all it shows is that there were no players of any consistency to stop Federer's reigns until Nadal hit his prime, while Nadal had to deal with prime Djokovic ending his consecutive reigns twice.

Like I said it works both ways. Nadal in his youth got a h2h advantage because mostly met Fed on clay. However, the flipside is Fed had better results on other surfaces keep an uninterrupted #1 streak.

Consecutive weeks at #1 are also not translatable to comparisons of open era with pre-open era players where weeks #1 were not kept track of, but YE #1 was.

For these reasons weeks at #1 and even consecutive weeks #1 mean little in determining greatness just like h2h.

Slams, YE #1, YEC titles, Masters equivalent titles should all come well before even considering either of those metrics.

I'm not trying to defend the ATP rankings, but you're keeping separate two points that are obviously related, implying that, depending on the competition, it's easier or harder to get the #1 spot (obviously) but *not* to win big titles (your last sentence). Obviously, the same players who are able to grab the #1 spot from you are also the same who can prevent you from winning titles, so both are related.

YE#1 can be incidental, and a bit of a lucky shot, depending how things pan out (see for example Roddick, who was #1 at the end of 2003 for a couple of points (he would have ended #2 had he won just one less match that year) and ended up #1 for 13 weeks, including 7 or 8 which were "given" to him because it was the end of the year and tennis players don't play in November-December. Does that make him a greater #1 than Becker, who got to 12 weeks but no YE? Was he more deserving for getting the #1 in November instead of in January? (Of course, both were pretty bad #1's, but you get my point.)

Also, the 237 consecutive weeks don't show that there was no-one to challenge Federer at the time, it just shows that he was better than the competition, that's all. Consider this: Sampras is the only all-time great who spent most of his career without another all-time great in front of him, including some of his best years. So, according to you, he should have many more consecutive weeks at #1 than Federer because there really wasn't anyone to challenge him, right? And yet, he never managed to hold on to it more than 102 weeks, losing it to half a dozen different players, none of which should have been relevant in the grand scheme of things, Agassi excepted. Sampras ended up with 6 YE finishes to Federer's 5, and yet their respective careers show that Federer was a much more dominant #1, although Sampras breezed through the '90's without a single rival for most of the time and was able to end the year #1 with a point total that would only have brought him to the #5 spot in 2009 (change in point count included).
 
Last edited:

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
That just isn't correct. You can be YE number 1 without winning a Slam in the year. Here is just one of many scenerios where that could happen. If you won the majority of Masters 1000's and was the runner-up in a couple of slams, and there were 4 different slam winners in that year and each of these didn't perform that well outside of the slams - you could easily be number 1 at year's end. There are 9000 points on offer in Masters 1000's and an additional 1500 points on offer at the WTF and only 8000 points on offer total for all of the Slams combined.

Now whether you would deserve the number 1 ranking - that is another story. But in terms of the ATP rankings, someone definitely can be YE #1 without winning a slam. Two players in ATP history (since 1973) have achieved the number 1 ranking (though not end of year - which is no different than any other time of year in terms of it calculation - ie just take the points from the previous 52 weeks) without ever winning a Slam in their career up to that time - Lendl in 1983 and Rios in 1998.

timnz,
I know you don't have to win a slam in order to qualify for the YE #1 because it possible, mathematically(I've mention that on post #54).

My point was about the fact since 1990(24 years), all players that ended the year #1 have won the slam(s). I think it's important to point out because slam winner(s) and YE #1 was never an isolated incident. The OP agenda is trying to the devalue the important of the ranking simply because it doesn't require to win a slam. But history have shown that every YE #1 players have won a slam, so ranking is important to one's legacy.
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
Hello,

Thought it might be useful to post here. If you compare the last two columns it shows the order of the players in terms of Slams won, then then order of the players in terms of weeks at number 1 (sorry about the formatting - it is so hard to get it right!):


Player Weeks Slams Slam Order Weeks Order
============ ===== ===== ========== ===========
 Roger Federer  302 17 1 1
 Pete Sampras 286 14 2= 2
 Rafael Nadal  141 14 2= 6
 Björn Borg 109 11 4 7
 Ivan Lendl 270 8 5= 3
 Jimmy Connors 268 8 5= 4
 Andre Agassi 101 8 5= 9
 John McEnroe 170 7 8= 5
 Novak Djokovic  108 7 8= 8
 Mats Wilander 20 7 8= 15
 Stefan Edberg 72 6 11= 11
 Boris Becker 12 6 11= 17
 Jim Courier 58 4 13 12
 Gustavo Kuerten 43 3 14 13
 Lleyton Hewitt  80 2 15= 10
 Ilie Năstase 40 2 15= 14
 Andy Roddick 13 1 17 16

The conclusion reached is weeks at number 1 only vaguely corresponds to dominance in slam numbers - there isn't a tight correlation eg Roddick at 1 slam having more weeks at number 1 than Becker who has 6 slams.

That means Becker wasn't very consistent. Greatness in my opinion consists of two main factors. Rankings and domination. Slams measure domination, rankings measure consistency.

Both is very important. You can't just show up for slams and then go away. Also the reverse is true. You can't just be consistent and not win slams.
You need both for greatness.

I mean you can be nr.1 for 500 weeks and not win a major in theory. Yes, you are partly great but something is missing.

But you can also win 20 majors and don't even be top 10 in theory. So, you are also partly great and something is missing.

Greatness is good combination of both.
 
Last edited:

SpicyCurry1990

Hall of Fame
I'm not trying to defend the ATP rankings, but you're keeping separate two points that are obviously related, implying that, depending on the competition, it's easier or harder to get the #1 spot (obviously) but *not* to win big titles (your last sentence). Obviously, the same players who are able to grab the #1 spot from you are also the same who can prevent you from winning titles, so both are related.

Not really, there is a big difference. For isolated events like a Slam or Masters or YEC any given player can get hot and take a title off you (see Safin AO 05, Nalbandian TMC 05, Del Po USO 09, Wawrinka AO 14, Tsonga Canada 14, etc...). For a player to actually break your run at the #1 position he needs marked consistency week after week and tournament after tournament, which only happens when another great player is competing against you directly so its a far different level of competition criteria. I still say YE #1 has prime value because ultimately no matter how tough the competition finishing as the best is translatable.

YE#1 can be incidental, and a bit of a lucky shot, depending how things pan out (see for example Roddick, who was #1 at the end of 2003 for a couple of points (he would have ended #2 had he won just one less match that year) and ended up #1 for 13 weeks, including 7 or 8 which were "given" to him because it was the end of the year and tennis players don't play in November-December. Does that make him a greater #1 than Becker, who got to 12 weeks but no YE? Was he more deserving for getting the #1 in November instead of in January? (Of course, both were pretty bad #1's, but you get my point.)

Becker vs Roddick presents an interesting conundrum but one that has even more layers because Becker won the most slams in 89 while Roddick only tied for the most in 03. When I say YE #1 it is not solely based on the ATP #1 but also on the ATP Player of the Year and ITF Awards and winning the most slams. For the purposes of this discussion Becker has a split YE #1 for 89 and Roddick has a unanimous one for 03 so yes it means more.

Also, the 237 consecutive weeks don't show that there was no-one to challenge Federer at the time, it just shows that he was better than the competition, that's all. Consider this: Sampras is the only all-time great who spent most of his career without another all-time great in front of his, including some of his best years. So, according to you, he should have many more consecutive weeks at #1 than Federer because there really wsn't anyone to challenge him, right? And yet, he never managed to hold on to it more than 102 weeks, losing it to half a dozen different players, none of which should have been relevant in the grand scheme of things, Agassi excepted. Sampras ended up with 6 YE finishes to Federer's 5, and yet their respective careers show that Federer was a much more dominant #1, although Sampras breezed through the '90's without a single rival for most of the time.

Conversely Sampras held the #1 ranking for 102 straight weeks, while Nadal has only held it for 50ish at best. Does this indicate in someway Sampras was more dominant or is it a function of the competition?

Like you said Sampras was not as dominant and this is already reflected by the # of slams and masters and YEC titles Federer has over Sampras, so the consecutive weeks at #1 gives you no additional picture than what you already have. The 6-5 YE #1s gives you the added picture that Sampras was the best in the world more times than Federer was
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
timnz,
I know you don't have to win a slam in order to qualify for the YE #1 because it possible, mathematically(I've mention that on post #54).

My point was about the fact since 1990(24 years), all players that ended the year #1 have won the slam(s). I think it's important to point out because slam winner(s) and YE #1 was never an isolated incident. The OP agenda is trying to the devalue the important of the ranking simply because it doesn't require to win a slam. But history have shown that every YE #1 players have won a slam, so ranking is important to one's legacy.

Yeah. And we aren't falling for this one. You can win a major by 7 walkovers too. You can win a match by having more points than opponent. Should we devalue everything then?

And even if that is true, being nr.1 for a long time is an amazing achievement on its own anyway, even if you don't win a single major. It still means you are very consistent and you need to play a very high level of tennis and beat a lot of top guys.

One guy can win CYGS without beating any top 10 players. Another guy can be nr.1, but he beats tons of top 10 players and never win a major.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
You are not understanding my point, a point that the poster I made this claim to (who is a Federer fan) DID understand and agreed with.

Federer's dominance of the field in his heyday is captured by his 5 YE #1 to Nadal's 3 advantage already.

The 237 consecutive weeks #1 vs Nadal's 50 consecutive weeks at #1 shows a marked discrepancy that means very little in the grand scheme of who is a greater player because all it shows is that there were no players of any consistency to stop Federer's reigns until Nadal hit his prime, while Nadal had to deal with prime Djokovic ending his consecutive reigns twice.

Like I said it works both ways. Nadal in his youth got a h2h advantage because mostly met Fed on clay. However, the flipside is Fed had better results on other surfaces keep an uninterrupted #1 streak.

Consecutive weeks at #1 are also not translatable to comparisons of open era with pre-open era players where weeks #1 were not kept track of, but YE #1 was.

For these reasons weeks at #1 and even consecutive weeks #1 mean little in determining greatness just like h2h.

Slams, YE #1, YEC titles, Masters equivalent titles should all come well before even considering either of those metrics.

That is Nadal's fault for not fending off Nole to sustain longer than 50 straight weeks at #1. Federer is more consistent on all surfaces, doesn't skipped tournament are the reason why he got 237 weeks at #1. Had Nadal was good as Federer, Nole wouldn't have a chance to overtake the #1. LOL

There's no criteria for H2H in determining greatness, but the weeks at #1. Tennis Channel 4 episodes(2012) highlighted Sampras record 285 weeks at #1 as one of the remarkable achievements.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
No it's not an established criteria. That list does not objectively prove anything, it's just subjective speculation.

Any objective historians/tennis experts can come up with the criteria and I believe they look similar.


I mean what criteria was use to determine Michael Jordan is basketball goat? NBA experts have their own criteria but I'm pretty sure they are strikingly similar.
 

chjtennis

G.O.A.T.
The ATP rankings are commonly used as a major criteria when discussing the greatness of players. For example, who has more weeks at #1 or who has more YE #1's.

While number of slams still stands as the major determining factor for the majority of people, the ATP rankings seem to be the next most important factor.

You've answered the question, I think.
 

firepanda

Professional
Personally, I don't put any stock in it. Titles and records are what matter in tennis and they are what people pay attention to. I think they are what determine greatness. Rankings are a measure of this, but they don't put enough emphasis on slams, since they're targeted to all players, not just the very top. Using rankings as an indicator as well as your own is inconsistent.
 

merlinpinpin

Hall of Fame
drm025 said:
While number of slams still stands as the major determining factor for the majority of people, the ATP rankings seem to be the next most important factor.

Actually, number of *majors* is much more important than number of slams if you want a clearer picture that includes pre-open era tennis, instead of ignoring these guys and considering they didn't even play the same game.

Then, dominance, of course, which is, I guess, a mix of YE#1 and number of weeks at #1, which is, once again, very subjective.

But these are clearly the most important factors for just about everyone, I guess.
 

Steve132

Professional
Rankings do matter, and they are an important part of a player's legacy, irrespective and quite apart from the number of majors he has won. Sampras's six straight year end #1's are now considered his greatest achievement, since it is unmatched by anyone since Laver. Similarly, Federer's 302 weeks at #1, 237 of them consecutive, are regularly quoted as being among his major accomplishments. His achievements in passing Sampras's 286 weeks and reaching 300 weeks at #1 were both widely noted in the press. This would not have occurred if the weeks at #1 statistic was considered meaningless or of little account.

In fact, both year end #1's and weeks at #1 are valuable metrics, to be used when they are available. As has been pointed out before, year end #1's do not necessarily represent the same level of achievement. Consider Justine Henin, who was the year end #1 for both 2006 and 2007. In 2006 she was barely ahead of Amelie Mauresmo, who won two majors to her one. In 2007 she was as dominant on the WTA tour as Federer was on the ATP equivalent in one of his great years. Yet both years are listed in the record books as year end #1's for Henin. There is, fairly obviously, some important information about a player's accomplishments that is not captured by the YE #1 statistic.

Weeks at #1 - or, to be more precise, consecutive weeks at #1 - are an excellent indicator of a player's sustained dominance over the field. Federer's 237 consecutive weeks at the top represent one of his greatest feats. The claim that there was no one around to challenge him is simply another version of the "weak era" argument. We can't assume that because Federer dominated his contemporaries so thoroughly any other great player in his place would have do so. Nadal, for example, is not nearly as consistent against the field as peak Federer on non-clay surfaces, even if you remove Djokovic from the equation. Sampras never faced as strong a No.2 as Nadal was to Federer, yet he was never able to remain at #1 for more than 102 weeks - less than half of Federer's record run. I see no reason to ignore this information when evaluating players.
 
Top