I don't get the hype about weeks at no.1/YE No. 1

[Steve0904]

And lets be honest, nobody in their right mind would call Gonzalez or Baghdatis "weak" opponents if they could actually remember the runs of form they were on. That's garbage.

And at the time of AO 2004, Federer was in the process of reversing bad H2H's with Nalbandian AND Hewitt. The mental side of Federer's win at the AO in 2004 should not be underestimated, especially in the case of Nalbandian. And on top of those wins, he then beat Ferrero and Safin, and he beat Murray for his title in 2010 and a red hot Davy in the QF's.

Do I need to say more?

 

[Deleted member 307496]

And lets be honest, nobody in their right mind would call Gonzalez or Baghdatis "weak" opponents if they could actually remember the runs of form they were on. That's garbage.

And at the time of AO 2004, Federer was in the process of reversing bad H2H's with Nalbandian AND Hewitt. The mental side of Federer's win at the AO in 2004 should not be underestimated, especially in the case of Nalbandian. And on top of those wins, he then beat Ferrero and Safin, and he beat Murray for his title in 2010 and a red hot Davy in the QF's.

Do I need to say more?

At the time of the 2004 AO, Hewitt had a 8-1 lead against Federer in the H2H and Nalbandian had a 5-1 lead. Clearly they were threats at the time, but they look back on this with a revisionist memory.

 

[chjtennis]

Gonzalez and Baghdatis were playing their best tennis and they were tough opponents. Players can produce their best tennis for a certain period ad I think for Baghdatis, it was AO 2005. Just like Wawrinka played well in this year's AO. Gonzalez was also one heck of a player.

 

[Steve0904]

At the time of the 2004 AO, Hewitt had a 8-1 lead against Federer in the H2H and Nalbandian had a 5-1 lead. Clearly they were threats at the time, but they look back on this with a revisionist memory.

Well, yes, that's their problem.

 

[PMChambers]

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.

Yes, that is true. but that is not what I said, there can only be one ATP YE#1, technically so it is harder by default, but there can only be one June 30 ATP No.1 and one 32 week No.1 as well so that doe not make it more important than a GS it makes it harder yes. There can be two YE#1 as the ITF are considered a more correct measure of YE#1. Historically there have been individual YE#1 systems consider higher value than ATP such as "Bud Collins"? YE rankings. To be honest I never reviewed his listings as they where very US orientated (considered US based competitions including invitationals very highly).

Having said that, my comment to the poster who called everyone ignorant for his lack of understanding, was whether it was of high importance or prestige. In response to his comment "who" does not care about ATP rankings this include the ITF group who do their own review, Don Budge, Fred Perry, Lew Hoad, John McEnroe, Ivan Lendl, Matts Willander & Tony Trabert, include players who did not game the APT system, Lendl who played 2 masters in 90, Sampras and Agassi who never played a full ATP major season. Nearly all player from 68-90 including Borg and Connors, both of which where banned at ITF tourneys for scheduling choices. Probably Djokovic who was voted No1 by ITF but not ATP. The genral viewing public who count Wim wins as the be end to end all of tennis (PS: I don't endorse this at all but it's the reality of the big events over sporting accomplishments).

anyway my point is ATP YE#1 is not very prestigious and does not always representr the best player of the year. Though in recent times especially with compulsory masters has been quiet accurate.

 

[NatF]

At the time of the 2004 AO, Hewitt had a 8-1 lead against Federer in the H2H and Nalbandian had a 5-1 lead. Clearly they were threats at the time, but they look back on this with a revisionist memory.

Hewitt had beaten Federer from 2 sets to love down on that very court a few months earlier as well. Nalbandian had beaten Federer in both hardcourt slams the previous year.

 

[jg153040]

Please note that the figures are kind of random there (pulled out of air), and may not perfectly equate to 200 but you get the idea.

I can give you my argument, why it's so important. I get what you are saying.

We have the same thing for Career slam vs CYGS. So, what's the deal with dominating at your peak, then do nothing vs winning 1 slam each year, just with less dominance.

Why it makes it harder is the sequence. Being ranked nr.1 for entire year then do nothing for 3 years vs being ranked quarter of a year for 4 years. The same with CYGS vs Career slam.

If you interrupt a sequence, it's over. No more consecutive weeks nr.1. You lose it for ever. The same for CYGS. If you lose one major, it's over. That's why it makes it more impressive.

Not to mention to maintain your peak, you have more pressure. You also can't be injured or tired.

So, weeks nr.1 and CYGS will always be worth more than Career slam and more weeks at nr.2. Because it's mathematically tougher.

The same reason why winning 2 majors and losing in 1st rounds of another two is considered better than making all 4 GS finals.

But, I need to add one most important thing. That's why we use BOTH metrics to measure greatness. Titles won and weeks nr.1. And combinations of both. So, nobody gets penalized. You have nr.1 who didn't win a major, but were very consistent, but you also have guys who won majors, but were never consistent and nr.1. But we value both those guys.

So, if you still don't see the hype with weeks nr.1, then you need to reconsider your logic. We have the same thing in skiing, for example or ski jumping. We value medals, but we also value consistency, so you can be nr.1 without the most gold medals.

But, the best thing is being the leader in both categories. That's why most people consider Federer the greatest along with his genius effortless playing style.

 

[OrangePower]

Yes, that is true. but that is not what I said, there can only be one ATP YE#1, technically so it is harder by default, but there can only be one June 30 ATP No.1 and one 32 week No.1 as well so that doe not make it more important than a GS it makes it harder yes. There can be two YE#1 as the ITF are considered a more correct measure of YE#1. Historically there have been individual YE#1 systems consider higher value than ATP such as "Bud Collins"? YE rankings. To be honest I never reviewed his listings as they where very US orientated (considered US based competitions including invitationals very highly).

Having said that, my comment to the poster who called everyone ignorant for his lack of understanding, was whether it was of high importance or prestige. In response to his comment "who" does not care about ATP rankings this include the ITF group who do their own review, Don Budge, Fred Perry, Lew Hoad, John McEnroe, Ivan Lendl, Matts Willander & Tony Trabert, include players who did not game the APT system, Lendl who played 2 masters in 90, Sampras and Agassi who never played a full ATP major season. Nearly all player from 68-90 including Borg and Connors, both of which where banned at ITF tourneys for scheduling choices. Probably Djokovic who was voted No1 by ITF but not ATP. The genral viewing public who count Wim wins as the be end to end all of tennis (PS: I don't endorse this at all but it's the reality of the big events over sporting accomplishments).

anyway my point is ATP YE#1 is not very prestigious and does not always representr the best player of the year. Though in recent times especially with compulsory masters has been quiet accurate.

I think your point about there being potential for only one YE#1 per year (and similarly potential for just one week 32 #1 per year) is well taken. This is an arbitrary constraint.

So I prefer to consider the less restrictive achievement of having reached #1 at any time. In theory a player has 52 opportunities per year to do this, although in practice it's maybe more like 40 since there are some 'dead' weeks. Of course these opportunities are not mutually independent. But still, there are only four opportunities to get a major.

And yet - only 25 players have been able to reach ATP #1 since 1973, versus 44 slam winners.

Perhaps if you include ITF #1 the number grows a bit, but I doubt it. I will stand corrected though - are there any ITF #1 players who did not reach ATP #1 at some point as well, even if just for a week? (1973 onwards of course.)

As far as whether ATP YE#1 is very prestigious or not, that is a subjective matter. Objectively, all we can say is that going from never being #1 to having reached #1 (for any week at all) is harder than going from no majors to having won at least one major.

 

[jg153040]

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.

Are you 90's clay little brother? You sound like him .

Yeah, Fed is now only goat. Without Rafa, Fed would be ultra goat, I agree.

And you think Sampras and Rafa would win 11 majors in Fed's era? No way. Sampras was weak on clay, so he still wouldn't have those streaks. Rafa is losing to guys like Rosol, so he still couldn't have those streaks.

Even if Sampras and Rafa were playing in 2003-2007, they still wouldn't win as much as Federer and deep down you know that.

 

[kandamrgam]

What's so special about YE #1 and weeks at no. 1?.

I just don't get the hype.

For sure, there's the "being best of the entire sports" for so many week achievement, that's true. But seriously, how is being #1 really that big of an achievement when the #2 guy might in reality be just a few points off from the #1.

Hypothetical scenario here for 200 weeks of play in the ATP calendar:

A guy, suppose Mr. X is #1 in the ATP rankings for 100 weeks while another guy, Mr. Y, is #2 for all these same weeks, always very close to the Mr. X but not quite good enough to make it to #1.

Now after these 100 weeks are over, another new player Mr. Z comes in and starts dominating the sport, at the same time Mr. X declines BIG TIME and never stays in the top 5 again. Yet. Mr. Y who is only mid-way through his prime doesn't decline a lot, and still gives tough competition Mr. Z but is once again, like he was previously with Mr. X never quite good enough to displace Mr. Z (maybe a few weeks here and there, but overall among the 100 weeks that follow, he only leads for 20 weeks and the rest of the weeks he's at number 2.).

So here we have a scenario where among the same 200 weeks played:

Amount of times spent as #1
Mr. X : 100 weeks.
Mr. Y: 30 weeks.
Mr. Z: 70 weeks.

Amount of time spent as #2
Mr. X: 5 weeks.
Mr. Y: 170 weeks.
Mr. Z: 30 weeks.

Amount of time spent as #3
Mr. X: 15 weeks.
Mr. Y: N/A
Mr. Z: 5 weeks.

Amount of spent as #4 or lower
Mr. X: 80 weeks.
Mr. Y: N/A
Mr. Z: 95 weeks.



So basically you have a scenario in which three guys were at the pinaccle of the sport for 200 weeks but among these Mr. Y racked up the most slams (he racked up slams during both the era of Mr. X and Mr. Z), was in the top 2 for all of these 200 weeks, when Mr.X/Mr.Z performed much worse except for the periods during which they #1. Yet Mr. Y has significantly lower #1's than Mr. X and Mr. Z.


Now, let's assume that this 200 weeks constituted their entire tennis career. Basically it might be achievements for Mr. X and Mr. Z to have more time as #1 than Mr. Y. But care to explain to me how they are better than Mr. Y based on this factor (weeks at #1) alone, when it is clear that it is Mr. Y who performed the best among them (without falling apart) during this entire stretch of 200 weeks.

OP, you make a valid point. But still no.1 matters. Anomalies exist for every metric.. It is for that reason we consider a multitude of metrics to assess quality.

Consider GS titles - even if a player wins 20 GS, one can argue he was merely a GS player who wasn't fit to win Bo3 matches, hence not true GOAT. Or one can say all his titles came from clay, so GS tally is not all.

Consider win % - one can expose it the same way.

The point you raise, though an excellent one, is still just another way of saying no.1 is not everything. You're basically raising a consistency question. That is, being a no.1 for 4 years and then suddenly going downwards is not a hallmark of a truly great player. True, but that will be exposed if you consider win %.

Bottom line is everything matters. Like GS tally, win % in prime years, rankings, no. of tour championships and other mandatory tournaments won, ATP points held (another highly underrated aspect, my personal fav) except h2h

 

[kandamrgam]

And lets be honest, nobody in their right mind would call Gonzalez or Baghdatis "weak" opponents if they could actually remember the runs of form they were on. That's garbage.

And at the time of AO 2004, Federer was in the process of reversing bad H2H's with Nalbandian AND Hewitt. The mental side of Federer's win at the AO in 2004 should not be underestimated, especially in the case of Nalbandian. And on top of those wins, he then beat Ferrero and Safin, and he beat Murray for his title in 2010 and a red hot Davy in the QF's.

Do I need to say more?

I dont want to argue anything on weak era now (no time for all that), but I will slightly correct you on one thing.

Runs of form is not a final indicator of quality. Any GS final will have two dogs in their best shape. When it is a GS, the last two standing will be in hot form. The problem with lesser players is that they dont show a big match mentality/temperament. In other words they will easily buckle under the pressure of a final.

For eg, Soderling was red hot in RG 09. Guess what happened in the final. Or RG 2010. He didnt play his best in the final. Berdych 2010 W is another case. It would have been easily the case for Wawrinka this year at AO as well had Nadal not been injured terribly. Why does it often happens that upsets happen in earlier stages of GS, but lesser in finals of Slams?

There are rare exceptions though. Del Potro in 09, or Cilic in 2014 would have taken down anyone. I do not rate Gonzalez's and Baghdatis's level as highly. Here is another way of asking it. Would Federer want to meet an in form Gonzalez or a Djokovic in lesser form (I will exclude Nadal here for not making it obvious) in a Slam final? That answers it.

 

[ALCARAZWON]

"But a social media page on tennis updates recently tried to subdue the fans’ excitement by posting a new stat showing Bill Tilden (1893-1953) to be the player holding the record, with 723 weeks as World No. 1. Tilden is supposedly followed by Rod Laver at 452 weeks and Tony Wilding at 378 weeks. According to this list, Novak Djokovic is only in fourth place."

"Digging up graves to ensure you dim his light" - Novak Djokovic's fans rubbish new stat suggesting he is far from the most weeks at No. 1 record

Novak Djokovic’s fans are both amused and annoyed at the emergence of a new statistic which suggests that the Serb is still far from becoming the tennis player with the most weeks as World No.

www.sportskeeda.com

 

[Matrix968]

"But a social media page on tennis updates recently tried to subdue the fans’ excitement by posting a new stat showing Bill Tilden (1893-1953) to be the player holding the record, with 723 weeks as World No. 1. Tilden is supposedly followed by Rod Laver at 452 weeks and Tony Wilding at 378 weeks. According to this list, Novak Djokovic is only in fourth place."

"Digging up graves to ensure you dim his light" - Novak Djokovic's fans rubbish new stat suggesting he is far from the most weeks at No. 1 record

Novak Djokovic’s fans are both amused and annoyed at the emergence of a new statistic which suggests that the Serb is still far from becoming the tennis player with the most weeks as World No.

www.sportskeeda.com

This thread is a pure diamond, credit to you for digging it up, I'll explain why later...
Regarding the link you posted in attempt to diminish Novak's record, it's *rap, data from the period without established ranking system are worthless, completely without merit.
In my opinion, you are younger than Tilden's grand grandchildren, stop wasting your time digging useless stats, better focus on providing healthy support to your fave he's got plenty of time and potential to break some of those verifiable records.
Now, I was enjoying reading the whole thread, especially the parts where few of today's promoters of elegant play, endorsements and Rolex adds lovers, fiercely defend the importance of weeks at #1 as extremely important part in determining the overall player's success in the race to the GOAT status.
@TMF Good job bro, I'll like each one of your posts...

 

[ALCARAZWON]

^ Now that's what I call insecure.
Matrix, I never even mentioned Djokovic, or the silly "goat status" that doesn't even exist.
You know what does exist? Everything Rod Laver achieved, and Tilden and everyone else in tennis history.

 

[big ted]

its like Borg said to McEnroe when he talked him into playing Australia in 85 to get the #1 ranking back (which didn't work btw)...

if you're not #1 it doesn't matter what # you are...

 

[Matrix968]

^ Now that's what I call insecure.
Matrix, I never even mentioned Djokovic, or the silly "goat status" that doesn't even exist.
You know what does exist? Everything Rod Laver achieved, and Tilden and everyone else in tennis history.

You are way off calling me insecure, I just gave you few good advices and stated facts, no pun intended...
It's a fact that back in the time ranking system never existed, best players in a year were woted by journalists or few tennis "specialists", best achievements in a year not granting 52 weeks by default, therefore the list you published is not accurate. Reason you posted it is well known, please don't consider knowledgeable posters here a bunch of dumb baboons.
I'm well aware of Laver achievements, in my opinion he's Roger's and Rafa’s equal, very high on my list, probably the only one I'm ready to compare to Novak, due to his unique accomplishments.
I don't wanna discuss Tilden neither as a tennis player nor a decent human being, if you know tennis history, you'll know why...
Main point of my reply was to convince you to channel your energy toward love for the tennis game and support to your fave, not toward hate for the other tennis legends.
Are we cool?

 

[esvc]

 

[Ogi44]

You are way off calling me insecure, I just gave you few good advices and stated facts, no pun intended...
It's a fact that back in the time ranking system never existed, best players in a year were woted by journalists or few tennis "specialists", best achievements in a year not granting 52 weeks by default, therefore the list you published is not accurate. Reason you posted it is well known, please don't consider knowledgeable posters here a bunch of dumb baboons.
I'm well aware of Laver achievements, in my opinion he's Roger's and Rafa’s equal, very high on my list, probably the only one I'm ready to compare to Novak, due to his unique accomplishments.
I don't wanna discuss Tilden neither as a tennis player nor a decent human being, if you know tennis history, you'll know why...
Main point of my reply was to convince you to channel your energy toward love for the tennis game and support to your fave, not toward hate for the other tennis legends.
Are we cool?

You just didnt understand his original intention in digging it out. He is one of this insecure Rafa fans with 50th double account thinking how smart he is by not mentioning Novak directly, but trying to diminish him never the less.

You have two types of Novak haters here, one which I preffer, who say it openly, and others like this “smart ass” thinking I am so clever not to show my colors, but on the end looking more stupid anyway because they are not that clever as they think they are.

 

[ALCARAZWON]

You are way off calling me insecure, I just gave you few good advices and stated facts, no pun intended...
It's a fact that back in the time ranking system never existed, best players in a year were woted by journalists or few tennis "specialists", best achievements in a year not granting 52 weeks by default, therefore the list you published is not accurate. Reason you posted it is well known, please don't consider knowledgeable posters here a bunch of dumb baboons.
I'm well aware of Laver achievements, in my opinion he's Roger's and Rafa’s equal, very high on my list, probably the only one I'm ready to compare to Novak, due to his unique accomplishments.
I don't wanna discuss Tilden neither as a tennis player nor a decent human being, if you know tennis history, you'll know why...
Main point of my reply was to convince you to channel your energy toward love for the tennis game and support to your fave, not toward hate for the other tennis legends.
Are we cool?

Both of your rambling posts reek of insecurity and immaturity, because all I did was post historical stats.
No matter how much you dislike them, they exist and should be posted on all threads about "weeks at #1".
We aren't judging who the better player is (nobody will ever be able to establish who the "goat" of tennis is), just posting stats.
And what's that nonsense you said about "dumb baboons"?
You really have a wild imagination.
Talk about channeling energy in the wrong direction, you are a great example of that.

 

[ALCARAZWON]

You just didnt understand his original intention in digging it out. He is one of this insecure Rafa fans with 50th double account thinking how smart he is by not mentioning Novak directly, but trying to diminish him never the less.

You have two types of Novak haters here, one which I preffer, who say it openly, and others like this “smart ass” thinking I am so clever not to show my colors, but on the end looking more stupid anyway because they are not that clever as they think they are.

Stats are there to be posted, not to trigger.
Your lack of self-control is your own shortcoming, not mine.
And your effort to diminish history, has no impact.
Hundreds and thousands and millions of years after you and silly old Matrix are gone, stats will still exist.

 

[Matrix968]

You just didnt understand his original intention in digging it out. He is one of this insecure Rafa fans with 50th double account thinking how smart he is by not mentioning Novak directly, but trying to diminish him never the less.

You have two types of Novak haters here, one which I preffer, who say it openly, and others like this “smart ass” thinking I am so clever not to show my colors, but on the end looking more stupid anyway because they are not that clever as they think they are.

I did bro, mentioned it twice... I'm not gonna bother myself responding to any of his posts in the future, hopeless case, he definitely passed the point of no return...