The_Order
G.O.A.T.
It was VERY close.
Unlike this year where there's a guy who couldn't even win a major still with a chance to finish YE#1...
I don't get the hype about weeks at no.1/YE No. 1
- Thread starter Love Life and Rafa
- Start date
It was VERY close.
Unlike this year where there's a guy who couldn't even win a major still with a chance to finish YE#1...
Bukmeikara
Legend
Guys reaching number 1 is the highest achievment in tennis, normaly it comes alongside Slam titles. Its ridiculous to say that being the best at one tournament is better than being the best against the entire field. If Federer had become number 1 this year, it was going to shows us how good he was during the entire year to be able to surpass someone with Slam title and all of points coming from it.
Its ludacris to say that you preffer Slam title over YE number 1, anyone sticking to this position is just naive, illogical or stupid. I am not insulting anyone but there is no explanation in the world that would make this sounds reasonable.
Its ludacris to say that you preffer Slam title over YE number 1, anyone sticking to this position is just naive, illogical or stupid. I am not insulting anyone but there is no explanation in the world that would make this sounds reasonable.
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
I think we have kind of agreed here.
Regarding breaking records...Never Say Never
As for your question. I think Djokovic and Nadal will continue to fight over the number one ranking next year, and one of them will end 2015 as year end number one.
Russeljones
Talk Tennis Guru
Of course he could. He was in the 5th set of a Wimbledon final. Forgot already? Oh and he also won some matches this year. A metric that some here love to turn a blind eye to.
Bukmeikara
Legend
Majors awards at least twise the points that any other tournament awards, if someone is able to surpass a Grand Slam champion with 2000 points without being one than he is definately done a lot of hard work to earn it.
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
It was close, but I wouldn't say very close. Nadal deserved it.
As for Roger this year...well, despite not winning a slam, he still had a very consistent year, and was in finals on all surfaces, and picked up a few Masters along the way. Sure, he would trade it all for that Wimbledon trophy, but his consistency has been great, considering he just became a father again.
And that Wimbledon final was a classic. I throughly enjoyed that match.
D
Deleted member 716271
Guest
Yeah, agreed. I think whoever wins the point race should be the number 1. It's there for a reason. If Federer wins it with 0 slams, then he wins it.
After all the players are playing on the ATP world tour and the ATP sets their points value.
Using this logic, I think Nadal was the player of the year in 2013.
And it looks like it will be Djokovic who will make it 3 of 4.
Bukmeikara
Legend
Simple example:
You have the group of Federer, Djokovic, Nadal, Murray and Del Potro which are pointed to be number 1 candidates since 2005-2006
Now lets expand the group with the guys which on a "hot" week could have/had won Slams in that period but hardly ever considered to be good enough to top the ranking - Cilic, Wawrinka, Soderling, Davydenko, Berdych, Gasquet, Tsonga, Monfils, Simon, Coria, Almagro, Ferrer(I am maybe forgetting someone).
So my question is, which group is more prestigious?
You have the group of Federer, Djokovic, Nadal, Murray and Del Potro which are pointed to be number 1 candidates since 2005-2006
Now lets expand the group with the guys which on a "hot" week could have/had won Slams in that period but hardly ever considered to be good enough to top the ranking - Cilic, Wawrinka, Soderling, Davydenko, Berdych, Gasquet, Tsonga, Monfils, Simon, Coria, Almagro, Ferrer(I am maybe forgetting someone).
So my question is, which group is more prestigious?
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
No, what it really says is the top guy wasn't as consistent as the previous year.
It was an opportunistic chance of being YE#1.
You see, he's only won 2 Masters and made it to 1 slam final. Not good enough for YE#1. He's only close because Nadal had to miss the US HC swing and Djokovic was distracted by his family events.
If Fed had these same exact results last year he would've been ranked 3rd.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
It's not ludicrous at all. In fact, most pros would rather win a major than reach #1 ranking.
Nothing more ludicrous than saying your the best tennis player in the world when you haven't won one of the major titles...
Russeljones
Talk Tennis Guru
Not even worth a 'butthurt gif'. The hate truly flows with this one.
D
Deleted member 716271
Guest
This bottom line...the points don't lie..more points=better season to me, just like more slams=better career
Points is actually more correlated even, as there could be other metrics besides slam total..
Rare possible exceptions would include very uneven slam distribution (Nadal finishes with 13 RGs etc.) even then it would be debatable at best
Likewise maybe it could be debated the race winner wasn't the best if he won only masters vs someone else who won 2 slams and bowed out everywhere else or was injured due to a variety of reasons.
In general though, the points are there for a reason and all tournaments count.
Last edited by a moderator:
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Butthurt over what? Federer's YE#2?
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
Rafa should hang his head in shame letting a 33 year old, father of 4, being able to lead him by 2000 points.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Rafa should hang his head in shame letting a 33 year old, father of 4, being able to lead him by 2000 points.
Nah, instead he'll just return and actually beat Fed to take back his position.
That 33 year old needs to beat Rafa in a major before Rafa should hang his head in shame.
Bukmeikara
Legend
He cant do that while Nadal is constanly running away from the Tour in the past years.....
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
He can't do it when Nadal's around either.
9-2 in majors. Hasn't beat him since 2007 and even in that one he barely got over the line.
As a Fed fan, you should be happy that Rafa is out of the way for him, that's the only chance he has of over taking him in the rankings because let's face it, he's not going to beat him is he.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
For the ************* the 2012 and the #1 for Federer in that year didn't happen (and Nadal's loss in his hands along the way too).
:roll:
Devil's_Advocate
Banned
Federer beat Nadal twice to get to #1. At the WTF and IW.
Povl Carstensen
Legend
Ofcourse, there can only be one year end no 1 a year, while there are 4 majors to be won. I would be more interested in how many atp ranking nr 1's there has been in those years, compared to the 44 slam winners.
Devil's_Advocate
Banned
Not exactly. That'd be like saying winning the Olympics is tougher and a bigger indicator of greatness than winning a Slam because there are 16 Slam-winners to every Olympic Gold-winner. Or that winning the WTF is more valuable than winning a Slam because there are 4 Slams to every WTF title.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
I was speaking about 2012 only, as that was the year Federer reclaimed the #1 position.
Devil's_Advocate
Banned
When Federer got to #1, he got there as a result of his achievements in the past 12 months. He beat Nadal twice in that duration, losing once.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
I am not trying in any way to disprove you.
I just said that I was thinking only about the year, when Federer reclaimed his #1 position.
Devil's_Advocate
Banned
I wasn't trying to disprove you, either. I was just adding to your point that Federer beat Nadal not just once, but twice to get to #1.
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
OrangePower
Legend
25 players have been able to reach #1 since 1973.
Versus 44 slam winners as noted.
Of all players to reach #1, all except one have also managed to win at least one slam (sometimes after reaching #1). The exception is Rios.
On the other hand, there have been many slam winners who were never able to reach #1.
Statistically, reaching #1 is harder and is thus more of an achievement than winning a slam.
Also interesting, is that most of the 25 #1 have also managed to have at least one YE #1 (16 have achieved this). Meaning that if you are good enough to get to #1 at all, chances are good that sooner or later you will also be able to end at least one year at #1.
The numbers suggest strongly that reaching #1, and especially YE #1, is more impressive than winning a slam.
tennis_badger
Rookie
weeks #1 simply shows that you're consistently deliver, which is not an easy task, as the saying goes "getting to the top is easy, staying at the top is much harder".
look at nadal, an injury here and there, suddenly out for half a year. or murray, bad performances in a few tournaments suddenly you're out.
if the points is not that big of gap as you said, then its even harder for the top guy (Mr X in your scenario), now he has to win at least one more round than Mr Y. and if they got to the final he's to win it.
so week #1 is a big deal.
why not week #2, #3 etc you said? well because nobody cares about who came second....thats the harsh reality.
grab a random person on the street and ask who's the fastest person on earth, they'll say, rightly, usain bolt.
ask them who's the second fastest, they won't know, nor do they care
look at nadal, an injury here and there, suddenly out for half a year. or murray, bad performances in a few tournaments suddenly you're out.
if the points is not that big of gap as you said, then its even harder for the top guy (Mr X in your scenario), now he has to win at least one more round than Mr Y. and if they got to the final he's to win it.
so week #1 is a big deal.
why not week #2, #3 etc you said? well because nobody cares about who came second....thats the harsh reality.
grab a random person on the street and ask who's the fastest person on earth, they'll say, rightly, usain bolt.
ask them who's the second fastest, they won't know, nor do they care
PMChambers
Hall of Fame
Unfortunately for you, you'll find the majority of the tennis world does not value to ATP YE1 any where near as important as a Major. Majors are to a great degree what defines the top players. Week ending No.1 also represent an entire year of tennis, 365 days, only difference is it point of reference. ATP YE1 has not been considered very important by some of the greats including Borg, Lendl, Sampras, as they have not played the point game you think is important, often missing ATP ranked tourneys. The ITF thought the ATP ranking system was so poor they made their own which is of higher value as it ranks the best player of the year through matches and results that the great players themselves value.
From you're logic and assumption of what is best as well as comment,
I'd assume your understanding of tennis and it's history is poor, and likely due to your age which I'd guess as 14-18 years.
helloworld
Hall of Fame
Are you sure?
1)Wimbledon-Sampras ties him.
2)Other Grand Slams-He's not GOAT at any slam.
3) #1 Ranking-Sampras beats him with 6 YE#1
4) WTF-Ok, he got 1 more than Sampras, but you gotta admit it's very close.
Fed is GOAT? Don't make Nadal laughs. :lol:
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
10 characters
helloworld
Hall of Fame
10 characters.Are you sure?
1)Wimbledon-Sampras ties him. More finals, and has H2H over Sampras at Wimbledon. I consider Sampras higher at US Open for this very same reason, more finals there-Being humiliated in 2 extra finals by clay court and hard court specialist does not equate to GOATness.
2)Other Grand Slams-He's not GOAT at any slam. But has his name on three of the four slams, Sampras only two-If only the Australian were as important a slam as it is now.
3) #1 Ranking-Sampras beats him with 6 YE#1 Federer beats Sampras with more consecutive weeks at number one and more overall weeks at number one-YE#1 is more significant than weeks#1. Only the truly great players became YE#1. Unless you think Rios and Moya was a great world #1.
4) WTF-Ok, he got 1 more than Sampras, but you gotta admit it's very close. If this is close, then Federer being only one YE number 1 behind Sampras is very close too-Yes, they are close in both categories. Who's disputing that?
Fed is GOAT? He is not GOAT Don't make Nadal laughs. But neither is Nadal or Sampras-Who's saying Nadal and Sampras are GOAT?
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Kuerten has been Year End #1 and he's just a clay specialist.
SpinToWin
Talk Tennis Guru
exactly. Year End #1 can translate to very little time at the top of the game. Weeks at number 1 is the better indicator for dominance now, though that may not be the case for previous greats.
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
1)Wimbledon-Sampras ties him. More finals, and has H2H over Sampras at Wimbledon. I consider Sampras higher at US Open for this very same reason, more finals there-Being humiliated in 2 extra finals by clay court and hard court specialist does not equate to GOATness. Losing two five set epics to two all time greats is better than not making those finals. Sampras doesn't get extra points for being blown off the court by Richard in 96.
2)Other Grand Slams-He's not GOAT at any slam. But has his name on three of the four slams, Sampras only two-If only the Australian were as important a slam as it is now. Sampras played in it enough, twice beaten by Agassi otherwise he would have had the record also
3) #1 Ranking-Sampras beats him with 6 YE#1 Federer beats Sampras with more consecutive weeks at number one and more overall weeks at number one-YE#1 is more significant than weeks#1. Only the truly great players became YE#1. Unless you think Rios and Moya was a great world #1. Do think Federer having 300 plus weeks at number one isn't more impressive than Sampras' 286 weeks? Or Federer's domination of 237 weeks at number one compared to what numbers Sampras put in his prime? Yes, only true great players become YE 1, but only ONE player in the history of the game is holding the most weeks at number one, beating all the other greats including the guy he took it from
4) WTF-Ok, he got 1 more than Sampras, but you gotta admit it's very close. If this is close, then Federer being only one YE number 1 behind Sampras is very close too-Yes, they are close in both categories. Who's disputing that? You failed to mention that Federer and Sampras are very close in YE 1, just stating Sampras beats him there, but making sure you mention it when Sampras trails Federer behind something
Fed is GOAT? He is not GOAT Don't make Nadal laughs. But neither is Nadal or Sampras-Who's saying Nadal and Sampras are GOAT? Just making sure we are all clear here that if Federer isn't GOAT, neither are those two
10 characters.
2)Other Grand Slams-He's not GOAT at any slam. But has his name on three of the four slams, Sampras only two-If only the Australian were as important a slam as it is now. Sampras played in it enough, twice beaten by Agassi otherwise he would have had the record also
3) #1 Ranking-Sampras beats him with 6 YE#1 Federer beats Sampras with more consecutive weeks at number one and more overall weeks at number one-YE#1 is more significant than weeks#1. Only the truly great players became YE#1. Unless you think Rios and Moya was a great world #1. Do think Federer having 300 plus weeks at number one isn't more impressive than Sampras' 286 weeks? Or Federer's domination of 237 weeks at number one compared to what numbers Sampras put in his prime? Yes, only true great players become YE 1, but only ONE player in the history of the game is holding the most weeks at number one, beating all the other greats including the guy he took it from
4) WTF-Ok, he got 1 more than Sampras, but you gotta admit it's very close. If this is close, then Federer being only one YE number 1 behind Sampras is very close too-Yes, they are close in both categories. Who's disputing that? You failed to mention that Federer and Sampras are very close in YE 1, just stating Sampras beats him there, but making sure you mention it when Sampras trails Federer behind something
Fed is GOAT? He is not GOAT Don't make Nadal laughs. But neither is Nadal or Sampras-Who's saying Nadal and Sampras are GOAT? Just making sure we are all clear here that if Federer isn't GOAT, neither are those two
10 characters.
Bukmeikara
Legend
Which Majority of the tennis world doesnt find the ATP YE1 important enough? Do you have names or any prove of some sort? And yet if the same majority tells you that 2+2=5 would you just believe them? I know that in the past the ranking system was kind of messed up but thats long time ago. Saying that winning a Slam is more difficult to do than reaching number 1 is like saying that by using the stairs is more easy to climb to the tenth floor than to the 6th. And in the end assuming is not something that you are good at....
Bukmeikara
Legend
By clay specialist you mean the same sort as Nadal? Kuerten has reached the finals in Indian Wells, Miami, Canada and Cincinnati + he defeated Agassi and Sampras in Lisbon to reach the number 1 ranking.
I would rate Almagro as clay specialist and yet he is far from reaching the number 1 ranking....
helloworld
Hall of Fame
The guy who defeated both Sampras and Agassi at the World Championship to claim the YE#1 ranking is just a clay court specialist? How the hell did he beat Sampras and Agassi then? :shock:
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Kuerten is a clay specialist when it comes to the Grand Slams, never passing the QF round at any major besides the French Open.
He was a very talented player and a worthy #1 by all my own admission (I believe he'd be #1 in other eras even, unlike a lot of other 90s players like Moya & Kafelnikov) but it doesn't change the fact that in GS tournaments he was a non-factor other than the French Open.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Federer didn't beat anyone tough at the AO to win his titles.
Nalbandian in 04 was probably his toughest opponent across all of his AO title runs.
Sampras had to deal with Agassi who is also sitting atop the leader board with AO titles.
But Federer is still a better player than Sampras was anyway.
If Nadal wasn't around during the Fed era, he'd have the most RG titles as well as even more WIM and AO titles.
I guess every Fed fan knows this so that's why they hate Nadal so much.
Nalbandian in 04 was probably his toughest opponent across all of his AO title runs.
Sampras had to deal with Agassi who is also sitting atop the leader board with AO titles.
But Federer is still a better player than Sampras was anyway.
If Nadal wasn't around during the Fed era, he'd have the most RG titles as well as even more WIM and AO titles.
I guess every Fed fan knows this so that's why they hate Nadal so much.
Bukmeikara
Legend
So Roddick, Davydenko, Safin, Murray, Gonzalez are not tough opponents at the AO ?
OrangePower
Legend
In terms of which is valued more (slam win or #1), I guess that's a matter of personal preference. I haven't seen a definitive source of which actual players value more, but perhaps you have.
However in terms of difficulty to achieve, there is no doubt at all that reaching #1, and especially YE #1, is harder than winning a slam. The numbers make this perfectly and empirically clear.
Povl Carstensen
Legend
Thank you very much!
Povl Carstensen
Legend
Federer is clearly ahead of Sampras, while it is more close between Sampras and Nadal.
Yes, Federer is the goat.
Roger Federer Greatest Tennis Player OF All Time
Poll result gives Nadal slight edge over Sampras
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=17012
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
Don't mind him. He's one of them "weak era" people.
NatF
Bionic Poster
When did Sampras beat Agassi at the AO? It's not like Federer hasn't had Djokovic blocking his path - also a title leader.
PrinceMoron
Legend
They all only got the #1 because the previous greats got old and too infirm to play.
And what is the logic in saying Nadal was going to defend a title off clay? Far more likely not to win it the next year.
Similar threads
- Poll
