How would you sum up the "weeks at no.1" stat?

[La Grande]

I find it a weird one, so significant in most peoples eyes. Why I say weird is, Djokovic has zoomed past Nadal in weeks at no1, congrats to the fella. But what does that say about Nadal? Nadal has more titles, more masters 1000's, more slams (and that is what you play for, right?).. but has already been surpassed in the weeks at no.1 stat.

So two questions.. does this just mean that Nadal was regularly the underdog when he was winning his titles or do you see it another way?. And secondly, how do you see the weeks at no.1 stat? Just below slams in importance or somewhere else?

All thoughts appreciated

 

[metsman]

consistency throughout the year. Nadal has only had a few years where he has been consistent start to finish (like 1 or 2). His peak levels are extremely high on today's surfaces but outside of clay (and grass until 2012) he has never maintained elite levels of performance year after year which Djokovic has the last half decade.

Also to be fair to nadal he was number 2 for how long behind Federer? Djoker was winning 1 slam a year 2012-2014 but still spent a fair amount of time at 1 whereas Federer was not only shutting Nadal out of the top spot but also out of Wimbledon and TMC 2006-2007.

 

[Tennisanity]

No it just means Nadal took vacations when he knew he couldn't win.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Its easy really. 52 weeks, players play on multiple surfaces. There are fast surfaces, slow surfaces, indoor, outdoor, everything. And someone who is CONSISTENT on all surfaces, for one whole year.

Nadal was seldom favorite outside his clay career. Till 2009 he was underdog to Federer, after Wimbledon 2011, he was underdog to Djokovic. There is no other way around. So I would say the guys are better than Nadal in that time period but underdog MAY win sometime.

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

I would say that consistency is important.
Nadal has 141 weeks at the top spot, divided in 3 waves. But only one of them passed the 52 weeks line (46, 56, 39).
On the other side we have Federer who spent 4 and a half consecutive years at the number 1 spot (237) and two smaller waves (48, 17), with the 2nd being almost a full year.
Djokovic himself has 3 waves, but only one of them lasted a bit shorter than a full year (53, 48, 75+). There is a good chance that the current streak will be stretched quite a lot too.
So Rafa being behind in this category is down to his consistency (or lack of it to be precise), which includes big depending on clay results (comparing to Fed and Djoko who didn't depend as much on grass and HC results), but also his injury problems. He lost his number 1 ranking to Federer in 2009 when being out, while he dropped out of the number 1 race with Djokovic in 2012 and 2014 after taking two big breaks.
What he did manage to do is make up for that time out. Though he was unlucky with basically sitting out 2 years of his prime, he made up for that by winning a lot when he was playing, perhaps his 14 Slams being an overachievement. Nothing against the guy, it probably evens out when considering he had most fitness issues of all. But we can probably say that Rafa is the only guy that cannot look back at his past results and regret something (unless you want to make a huge case out of 2014 AO). Federer and Djoko on the other hand will probably feel they had very good chances to currently stand at more than 17 and 10...
As for the importance of weeks at number 1 stat, I wouldn't put them close to Slams, but certainly wouldn't put them to the H2Hs level either. Probably in top 3 stats that are important when discussing which player is greater.

 

[StannisTheMannis]

"Injuries" is the only reason this is the case.

 

[Fiero425]

"Injuries" is the only reason this is the case.

You say injury, I say "surreptitious" suspensions! Guess why! On some sites you can't make accusations without proof, but I question Nadal's gamesmanship! From his act on court to possible use of PED's which makes him bulk up one season, then musculature disappearing the next! That would explain the injuries; that's for sure! ;-(

 

[Deleted member 688153]

I find it a weird one, so significant in most peoples eyes. Why I say weird is, Djokovic has zoomed past Nadal in weeks at no1, congrats to the fella. But what does that say about Nadal? Nadal has more titles, more masters 1000's, more slams (and that is what you play for, right?).. but has already been surpassed in the weeks at no.1 stat.

So two questions.. does this just mean that Nadal was regularly the underdog when he was winning his titles or do you see it another way?. And secondly, how do you see the weeks at no.1 stat? Just below slams in importance or somewhere else?

All thoughts appreciated

Nads still has more Masters?
Wow.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

"Injuries" is the only reason this is the case.

I too like to take off swathes of the calendar when (if I was actually fine) I could just go in and win more slams.

 

[talicnitom]

I think that YE#1 title is more important one than single slam title. The first one means that you are the best player of the season, the second one means that you are the best player of the one big tournament. Weeks at no1 are significant too but I don’t think that 20-30 weeks difference (when we talk about 150-200 weeks) have importance like YE#1 title or a slam. On the other side if someone has never been no1 (like Muzza, Cilic, Stan or Potro) I think that just to became no1 is more significant for him then an additional slam (and I personally think that a no1 and especially YE#1 is more significant than a slam for players that lack both, that’s simple, if you are no1 you are the BEST player in the world, if you are slam winner but not no1 you are not a best player in the world).

And in the Rafas case, he is the only OTG that never had his own era and it is his biggest issue as the one of the greatest. And that’s why he wasn’t capable to accumulate more weeks as no1. He was never dominant player for a longer time period. And it is because he always was dominant only on clay but not as consistent on others surfaces.

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

Nads still has more Masters?
Wow.

Don't tell me you thought he was already overtaken.

 

[HewittAlwaysDisappoints]

Deceiving

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/weeks-at-no-1-is-a-deceiving-stat.547335/

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Don't tell me you thought he was already overtaken.

I had no idea whether or not he was (never bothered to check or keep track) but Novak's been absolutely racking them up and I did know that he was close.

The only thing I guess is that if he had done it, folks would be crowing about it.

 

[Fiero425]

Don't tell me you thought he was already overtaken.

You're kidding? It's inevitable; PLEASE! Someone must be a diehard Nadal sycophant to even push that Masters' record at this time! Nole will totally fly by him before the clay season next season! Give me a break! ;-)

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

I had no idea whether or not he was (never bothered to check or keep track) but Novak's been absolutely racking them up and I did know that he was close.

The only thing I guess is that if he had done it, folks would be crowing about it.

Though everyone knows that the difference was huge before 2011, I myself am amazed that, before Shanghai 2013, which is just over 2 years ago, Rafa led Novak 26-14. Now it is 27-26.
You could potentially witness the crowing in Miami next year. Not going to be a big part of it though, because the Masters record is the one and only that I am sure Djokovic will hold eventually.

You're kidding? It's inevitable; PLEASE! Someone must be a diehard Nadal sycophant to even push that Masters' record at this time! Nole will totally fly by him before the clay season next season! Give me a break! ;-)

Well I am confident too, but I do live in present.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Though everyone knows that the difference was huge before 2011, I myself am amazed that, before Shanghai 2013, which is just over 2 years ago, Rafa led Novak 26-14. Now it is 27-26.
You could potentially witness the crowing in Miami next year. Not going to be a big part of it though, because the Masters record is the one and only that I am sure Djokovic will hold eventually.

Well I am confident too, but I do live in present.

Mr. Masters is probably going to end up with 35+ of those things.

Gotta win Cincy though.

 

[Fiero425]

Mr. Masters is probably going to end up with 35+ of those things.

Gotta win Cincy though.

He doesn't have to, but he'll set the bar very high I'm sure! ;-)

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

Mr. Masters is probably going to end up with 35+ of those things.

Gotta win Cincy though.

Why? He is already the only one to win 8 out of 9.
In all honesty, I would give half of those Masters for one French Open and one more Wimbledon. Btw, even a 40 year old Roger will be denying Novak on his quest to complete the Masters collection.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Why? He is already the only one to win 8 out of 9.
In all honesty, I would give at half of those Masters for one French Open and one more Wimbledon. Btw, even a 40 year old Roger will be denying Novak on his quest to complete the Masters collection.

Unless he gets all of them, there will always be a question mark over his Masters dominance.
The only way to shut down all the haters is to win all of them.

I gave up on Fed doing that after MC in 2014 though.

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

Unless he gets all of them, there will always be a question mark over his Masters dominance.
The only way to shut down all the haters is to win all of them.

I gave up on Fed doing that after MC in 2014 though.

Not impossible, he does need just one good week or just one good day because he had no problem reaching finals.
As for Fed, I think Rome has been his biggest problem. 4 finals if I remember well and he wasn't far away.

 

[Fiero425]

Not impossible, he does need just one good week or just one good day because he had no problem reaching finals.
As for Fed, I think Rome has been his biggest problem. 4 finals if I remember well and he wasn't far away.

Well not likely now; forget it! ;-)

 

[Djokovic2011]

Unless he gets all of them, there will always be a question mark over his Masters dominance.
The only way to shut down all the haters is to win all of them.

Not sure if serious or trolling mate?

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

Well not likely now; forget it! ;-)

He was unlucky to run into two princes of Rome. Rafa and Novak won the last 11 editions of this tournament. No chance for him to win it now, I agree.

 

[duaneeo]

I think the "weeks at No 1" stat can be very misleading. Martina Hingis has 209 weeks at #1 to, say, Monica Seles' 178, Justin Henin's 117, Maria Sharapova's mere 21, and Venus Williams' nearly nonexistent 11. But how would most rank these players in terms of greatness?

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Not sure if serious or trolling mate?

So you're telling me that if he doesn't win Cincy, people won't mention it/ask questions?

He will be the Masters GOAT in half a year's time.
Of course he doesn't actually need to win it to be considered great or something, that's not what I mean.
I mean it's the only way to silence the haters as he would then have no resume holes in the Masters events.

Right now, we can always say "but he didn't/hasn't won Cincy" and "he can't win on fast HC".
Regardless of the truth or significance of these things, some people will still keep mentioning it until the day they can't.
Winning it would mean that no-one can say that kind of stuff anymore.

 

[ultradr]

And in "homogeneous surface" era since ~2003, weeks at #1 seems to be high for all #1's, simply because #1 dominates all year long...

 

[Deleted member 688153]

And in "homogeneous surface" era since ~2003, weeks at #1 seems to be high for all #1's, simply because #1 dominates all year long...

I agree.
Sampras and Nadal are the co-ultraGOATs.
All other players pale in comparison.

 

[Fiero425]

I agree.
Sampras and Nadal are the co-ultraGOATs.
All other players pale in comparison.

You're kidding? No comment!

 

[Deleted member 688153]

You're kidding? No comment!

Ofc I'm kidding lol.

 

[CYGS]

It is what it is. Don't try to twist it because you don't like it.

 

[ultradr]

I agree.
Sampras and Nadal are the co-ultraGOATs.
All other players pale in comparison.

These "homogeneous surface era" records includes things like # of consecutive slam quarter-finals where
Federer dwarps everyone in history and David Ferrer is also at #7 among all time greats.

Some of homogeneous surface era records need to taken with grain of salt, IMHO.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

This "homogeneous surface era" records includes things like # of consecutive slam quarter-finals where
Federer dwarps everyone in history and David Ferrer is also at #7 among all time greats.

Some of homogeneous surface era records need to taken with grain of salt, IMHO.

That's true.
It's way easier to do well everywhere now, I'll give you that.

 

[Fiero425]

Ofc I'm kidding lol.

I would hope so; Sampras with no FO title and Nadal with little else! When Rafa defends a title off the dirt, I'll give him all due credit; until then forget it! He's not even in my legitimate top 4 even with all his majors and Masters! His winning said more about the lame competition and lack of heart than his ability! Too often he's struggling with WC's, qualifiers, and never weres! That's embarrassing if you look at the record closely! His game is so offensive to me; the strokes, his act on court, and entitlement to make a player wait until he's ready! Only IPTL makes him speed it up it seems to me! ;-(

 

[ultradr]

That's true.
It's way easier to do well everywhere now, I'll give you that.

That should reflect in this inflation going on for # of weeks at #1, IMHO.

same goes for all these records getting broken in this homogeneous surface era since ~2003.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

I would hope so; Sampras with no FO title and Nadal with little else! When Rafa defends a title off the dirt, I'll give him all due credit; until then forget it! He's not even in my legitimate top 4 even with all his majors and Masters! His winning said more about the lame competition and lack of heart than his ability! Too often he's struggling with WC, qualifier, and never weres! That's embarrassing if you look at the record closely! His game is so offensive to me; the strokes, his act on court, and entitlement to make a player wait until he's ready! Only IPTL makes him speed it up it seems to me! ;-(

I can't say I'd go that far though.
I don't think he's the legit GOAT, and neither is Sampras IMO, but they're still absolutely top-flight Tier 1 players.
Rafa shows extreme heart in many of his wins, his slam match records vs. Fedovic are nuts.
He's earned his 14.

As for playing style, that's a matter of opinion I think, some people are going to love it (and that's great), and some will hate it (and that's fine too).
So long as we can respect the players.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

That should reflect in this inflation going on for # of weeks at #1, IMHO.

same goes for all these records getting broken in this homogeneous surface era since ~2003.

I will say here that you might be right.
There seems to be a lot of record inflation and devaluation going on the last while.

Too many 10+ GS winners etc.

 

[ultradr]

I will say here that you might be right.
There seems to be a lot of record inflation and devaluation going on the last while.

Too many 10+ GS winners etc.

My guess is someone will do 20+ in this tour environment. That possibility still includes Federer, by the way.

 

[Fiero425]

I will say here that you might be right.
There seems to be a lot of record inflation and devaluation going on the last while.

Too many 10+ GS winners etc.

What has become of our sport to allow this to happen so routinely? Everyone's more athletic today, but only a select few seem to take the most advantage of it, taking all the big titles, accumulating such ridiculous numbers and records! Laver's been the only person to hold onto his CYGS feat since '69, but many now have career slams along with entirely too many zipping past Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, and even Borg's 11 to dwarf their records that held up for decades! I just don't know what to say about it! ;-(

 

[Deleted member 688153]

What has become of our sport to allow this to happen so routinely? Everyone's more athletic today, but only a select few seem to take the most advantage of it, taking all the big titles, accumulating such ridiculous numbers and records! Laver's been the only person to hold onto his CYGS feat since '69, but many now have career slams along with entirely too many zipping past Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, and even Borg's 11 to dwarf their records that held up for decades! I just don't know what to say about it! ;-(

All the surfaces play the same?
Everyone is using 150" solid plastic Babolats?

Those are my first thoughts.

 

[StannisTheMannis]

You say injury, I say "surreptitious" suspensions! Guess why! On some sites you can't make accusations without proof, but I question Nadal's gamesmanship! From his act on court to possible use of PED's which makes him bulk up one season, then musculature disappearing the next! That would explain the injuries; that's for sure! ;-(

I put injuries in quotations because I believe the same lol.

 

[metsman]

My guess is someone will do 20+ in this tour environment. That possibility still includes Federer, by the way.

that's just cruel. Fed getting to 18 will take a miracle.

 

[La Grande]

It is what it is. Don't try to twist it because you don't like it.

I asked a question. Didn't try and twist anything. I guess your answer is "It is what is is". Accepted

 

[Fiero425]

that's just cruel. Fed getting to 18 will take a miracle.

Thank you! Like they think the old guy will continue making these semi's and finals of major until he's 50! Sooner or later, these gutless losers will figure it out and finish Roger off; sorta like Seppi at the AO earlier this season! Kei, Raonic, and even Dimitrov should do something next year that will impresss; if not win a major, at least upset someone in the "BIG 4!" Roger's at the top of that list to go out! ;-)

 

[Man of steel]

I will say here that you might be right.
There seems to be a lot of record inflation and devaluation going on the last while.

Too many 10+ GS winners etc.

Well if you think about it 10+ GS is easier to achieve. Its still hard by all means but in terms of players fitness and longevity they can keep their bodies in shape to match these younger guys.
It would take 10 years to get 10 majors if you won 1 a year. Thats not long for a top player. Look at how long top football players are playing for. Ronaldo has been a top player for how many years now. He's been in the top 3 best player for 7/8+ years now and he's a physical freak. Players know today you can't reach your max potential if your not at your best physically.
So its unsurprising when tennis players win 10+ majors. Although other factors come into it as well

 

[BeatlesFan]

Weeks at #1 is definitely an important stat, unlike the H2H nonsense endlessly repeated here (which is not a stat anyway).

As others have said, it indicates consistency and sustained level of great play. But many truly great players spent very little time at #1. Becker had 12 weeks at the top, Edberg 72 weeks, Borg/Agassi both around 100 weeks there. Hewitt had 80 weeks, which is amazing, considering he's not in the league of the other guys just mentioned.

I doubt Djoker will ever catch Fed's 302 weeks. While he's amassed a huge lead now, this means he has TONS of points to defend next year. If he loses early at the AO and plays poorly at IW and Miami, his lead will shrink monumentally and very quickly.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Important but less so than the Slams.

It means Nadal is built for dominance over short periods but not so much consistent excellence, so he's punished in terms of time spent at #1 but has outstanding results at the Slams. Opposite for Novak. Obviously, both have done well in both areas.

Nadal doesn't get bonus points for failing to be as consistently good as Djokovic, and Djokovic doesn't get bonus points for failing to peak as often as Nadal.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Judging about a certain metric based on ONE player is a little devoid of context, I fear.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Well if you think about it 10+ GS is easier to achieve. Its still hard by all means but in terms of players fitness and longevity they can keep their bodies in shape to match these younger guys.
It would take 10 years to get 10 majors if you won 1 a year. Thats not long for a top player. Look at how long top football players are playing for. Ronaldo has been a top player for how many years now. He's been in the top 3 best player for 7/8+ years now and he's a physical freak. Players know today you can't reach your max potential if your not at your best physically.
So its unsurprising when tennis players win 10+ majors. Although other factors come into it as well

Fed won first slam at i guess 21. Sampras at 19 and last at 31. 12 year difference. If you are peaking later it's fair to decline later

 

[mike danny]

Weeks at no.1 to me have plenty of value only if you won at least 1 slam.

This is why I consider Roddick way above Rios for instance.

Also if you win at least 1 slam and are no.1, then it's actually very impressive.

This is why I have Roddick ahead of guys like Cilic and Ivanisevic.

 

[nolefam_2024]

And in "homogeneous surface" era since ~2003, weeks at #1 seems to be high for all #1's, simply because #1 dominates all year long...

Enough whining with homogeneous era. Connors was no1 for 200+ years I guess when he was not even winning a slam. Because he was consistent accross all surfaces. And others weren't. Its same for all. The conditions are same for all. So, if one guy does better then he clearly deserves it.