If Medvedev somehow finishes 2021 as #1, will it be the most ridiculous men's year end #1 ever ?

McEnroeisanartist

Hall of Fame
If Medvedev somehow finishes 2021 as #1, will it be the most ridiculous men's year end #1 ever?

Honorable mentions:

Connors - 1977, 1978
McEnroe - 1982
 

mehdimike

Professional
Well if he was he would likely take another 2 masters or so.
He would have 1 slam + 1 final. 4 masters so it wouldn’t be that bad.
Djokovic has 3 slams but only has a 250 title so while everyone would prefer 3 slams he’s been non existent outside them
Plus 1 WTF maybe?!
 

goldengate14

Semi-Pro
If Medvedev somehow finishes 2021 as #1, will it be the most ridiculous men's year end #1 ever?

Honorable mentions:

Connors - 1977, 1978
McEnroe - 1982
No as he earned it by getting the points.
He would prefer Djokovics year presumably even if Ye1 as Djokovic will have had a greater (albet ultimately devastatingly anti-climatic) year.
But a greater year does not mean being the best player that year.
However as Mededev as to defend the YEC there is more chance of him being no.3 than no.1.
 

DjokoLand

Hall of Fame
No as he earned it by getting the points.
He would prefer Djokovics year presumably even if Ye1 as Djokovic will have had a greater (albet ultimately devastatingly anti-climatic) year.
But a greater year does not mean being the best player that year.
However as Mededev as to defend the YEC there is more chance of him being no.3 than no.1.
The last sentence is why I never go by rankings I go by the race. Med is 2000 down on Djokovic and 600 above Tsitsipas. Based on Med level on HC for 3 years there is no way he doesn’t finish top 2 and if Djokovic decides to skip or **** around in masters Med can definitely catch him
 

MeatTornado

G.O.A.T.
Unless Novak doesn't play the fall, doesn't Med basically need to win IW, Paris and the YEC to have a chance at this?
 

James P

G.O.A.T.
Unless Novak doesn't play the fall, doesn't Med basically need to win IW, Paris and the YEC to have a chance at this?
Basically

If Djokovic didn’t play IW and Paris then Med won both they be level in the race. Med might play some 250/500 to close the gap ?
Overall Djokovic really only need a masters or go deep enough twice to get it
Medvedev is indeed playing the Moscow 250 later on this year.
 

jorjipy

Rookie
Connors ahead of Vilas and Borg in '77 was pretty wild.
Not really……Connors was runner up at the two slams he played that year. He also won the two biggest indoors events, the WCT and the Masters. Vilas won nothing off clay and even the French he won was close to worthless with neither Borg or Connors in the event. Overall, Connors had the best year, big results on multiple surfaces
 

Tshooter

G.O.A.T.
Not really……Connors was runner up at the two slams he played that year. He also won the two biggest indoors events, the WCT and the Masters. Vilas won nothing off clay and even the French he won was close to worthless with neither Borg or Connors in the event. Overall, Connors had the best year, big results on multiple surfaces
(y)
 
Last edited:
If Medvedev somehow finishes 2021 as #1, will it be the most ridiculous men's year end #1 ever?

Honorable mentions:

Connors - 1977, 1978
McEnroe - 1982
Ridiculing a newly-minted Grand Slam winner who defeated a GOAT candidate while putting down two other all time greats of the game.

Your threads are without exception, steaming piles of fanboy bile.

#myfavouritemaletennisidolisbetterthanyoufavouritermaletennisidol
 

Milanez82

Hall of Fame
Not really……Connors was runner up at the two slams he played that year. He also won the two biggest indoors events, the WCT and the Masters. Vilas won nothing off clay and even the French he won was close to worthless with neither Borg or Connors in the event. Overall, Connors had the best year, big results on multiple surfaces
Villas beat Connors in Masters, beat him in Us Open final, plus won RG and played final of AO on grass
Borg beat Connors in Wimbledon final
 

goldengate14

Semi-Pro
The last sentence is why I never go by rankings I go by the race. Med is 2000 down on Djokovic and 600 above Tsitsipas. Based on Med level on HC for 3 years there is no way he doesn’t finish top 2 and if Djokovic decides to skip or **** around in masters Med can definitely catch him
How many points is Meddy defending between now and end of season?
 

gadge

Professional
No it wouldn’t be. Because he won a slam and reached another final along with a couple of masters titles. He bothered to play the full year on tour and Novak didn’t. If he does reach world no.1 then he’d totally deserve it.

No one who gets world no.1 are undeserving of their ranking. It reflects their consistency across a year on the tour. Even Wozniaki and Safina deserved their no.1 rankings when they got them.
 

Devtennis01

G.O.A.T.
Nope. The other candidate was nowhere to be seen outside of the slams, Rome and Belgrade. He certainly knows how the rankings work, too.
 

boredone3456

G.O.A.T.
I have said this many times....The Rankings are about the entire season and not just the 2 months of it populated by the majors. If you win 3 majors and still somehow are not number 1 you clearly weren't doing anything anywhere else.

However at this point Med isn't even number 1 yet so people need to relax. Djokovic can show up and make the QF or SF of both IW and Paris and play a match at the WTF and I think Secure the ranking at this point?
 

BauerAlmeida

Professional
Not really……Connors was runner up at the two slams he played that year. He also won the two biggest indoors events, the WCT and the Masters. Vilas won nothing off clay and even the French he won was close to worthless with neither Borg or Connors in the event. Overall, Connors had the best year, big results on multiple surfaces

Lol. Nothing "off-clay" is meaningless if he won two slams on the surface. Especially considering har-tru and red clay are vastly different. And he won one of them beating Connors himself. Connors won no slams. Borg one and Vilas two. There's no possible scenario in which a player with no slams had a better season with one with two. Connnors better than Borg? Borg better than Vilas? We can argue. Connors better than Vilas? No chance at all. Especially considering the slams Vilas won were RG and USO, unlike the following years where he won the AO which was slightly inferior. He also made the AO final that year, so that means he had more finals than Connors. More GS titles, more GS finals and more overall titles. As well as the longest match-winning streak in the open era.
 

RaulRamirez

Legend
It would be a bit unusual, but deserved just the same - if he pulls it off. As long as it's objective and transparent to all.

The two questions, of course (along with their levels of play):.
How much does Med want to push for it?
How important is it for Novak to stay in front?
 

T007

Professional
If Medvedev somehow finishes 2021 as #1, will it be the most ridiculous men's year end #1 ever?

Honorable mentions:

Connors - 1977, 1978
McEnroe - 1982
Add 2016 murray to that list. The guy was ready to go under the knife playing 5 weeks Indoor tennis to seal year end No 1.
 

Rebel-I.N.S

Professional
Add 2016 murray to that list. The guy was ready to go under the knife playing 5 weeks Indoor tennis to seal year end No 1.
Murray’s still went down to the final match of the season though at the WTF - and he had to beat Djokovic to do it.
 

jorjipy

Rookie
Lol. Nothing "off-clay" is meaningless if he won two slams on the surface. Especially considering har-tru and red clay are vastly different. And he won one of them beating Connors himself. Connors won no slams. Borg one and Vilas two. There's no possible scenario in which a player with no slams had a better season with one with two. Connnors better than Borg? Borg better than Vilas? We can argue. Connors better than Vilas? No chance at all. Especially considering the slams Vilas won were RG and USO, unlike the following years where he won the AO which was slightly inferior. He also made the AO final that year, so that means he had more finals than Connors. More GS titles, more GS finals and more overall titles. As well as the longest match-winning streak in the open era.
Perhaps you are young? Aussie Open in 1977 was basically a 250….did Borg play it? Did Connors? No

French was equally meaningless without Borg and Connors

there were two real slams in those days, Wimbledon and the US. I would argue that making the final of both is as good as winning just 1…..the fact is that in those days the Masters was huge, and it was what decided the number 1 ranking for the year of 1977. Connors won it. I don’t think someone who never in his career made the semis of Wimbledon can be a genuine number 1…..
 
Last edited:

jorjipy

Rookie
Villas beat Connors in Masters, beat him in Us Open final, plus won RG and played final of AO on grass
Borg beat Connors in Wimbledon final
Not sure you realise how meaningless the Aussie and the French were in those days…..like totally meaningless. The facts are that Vilas won 4 slams in his career…..3 of which featured neither Connors or Borg in the draw, and the other had Borg retire early in the tournament when he was a heavy favourite for the event. Look at it this way, Connors wins the fifth set of the Wimbledon final, he is Wimbledon, WCT, and Masters champion and a soaring number 1…..in the end, he is a legit but not soaring number 1 on points and overall consistency.
 

Milanez82

Hall of Fame
Not sure you realise how meaningless the Aussie and the French were in those days…..like totally meaningless. The facts are that Vilas won 4 slams in his career…..3 of which featured neither Connors or Borg in the draw, and the other had Borg retire early in the tournament when he was a heavy favourite for the event. Look at it this way, Connors wins the fifth set of the Wimbledon final, he is Wimbledon, WCT, and Masters champion and a soaring number 1…..in the end, he is a legit but not soaring number 1 on points and overall consistency.
Look at this way, Connors didn't win 5th set of Wimbledon final
Stick to facts buddy, not some dream bs
 

Imperator

Hall of Fame
Medvedev himself admitted it would be almost impossible to get YE#1 so he's not really aiming for it. I don't know whether someone made a thread about that interview.
 

jorjipy

Rookie
Look at this way, Connors didn't win 5th set of Wimbledon final
Stick to facts buddy, not some dream bs
I will stick with the facts that the computer got it right. How about that? And that Vilas was not number 1 for even a week in 1977 or any year, let alone a year end number 1
 

BauerAlmeida

Professional
Not sure you realise how meaningless the Aussie and the French were in those days…..like totally meaningless. The facts are that Vilas won 4 slams in his career…..3 of which featured neither Connors or Borg in the draw, and the other had Borg retire early in the tournament when he was a heavy favourite for the event. Look at it this way, Connors wins the fifth set of the Wimbledon final, he is Wimbledon, WCT, and Masters champion and a soaring number 1…..in the end, he is a legit but not soaring number 1 on points and overall consistency.
Calling the French meaningless is a total load of bollocks. The AO was a bit below the others as it was said, but even if you ignore it Vilas won TWO slams, NONE of the being the AO and Connors won ZERO. If Vilas had won one of the French/USO + AO it would already be enough for him to be above Connors. Winning both RG and USO puts him above Borg too, who won Wimbledon. Connors not playing RG is irrelevant because if he didn't beat him at the USO then he certainly doesn't beat him at RG. And what happened the other years is irrelevant too, because nobody is arguing about their careers. World Tennis Magazine also gave Vilas the #1 when Borg lost to Connors at the Masters as the dispute was between Vilas and Borg. It's funny that the argument for Connors was him reaching finals, but not an argument for the guys he lost to. Connors lost to Vilas himself at the USO, and even lost to him at the Masters as well. If he had played RG he would have lost to him there too.

1977:

1- Vilas
2- Borg
3- Connors
 

jorjipy

Rookie
The French was meaningless before 1979….. before then it never had all the top players entered. Example, Laver in the early 70s played the Italian which was on after the French and demolished the French winner of that year Kodes. Laver didn’t bother with the French, he had WCT events with bigger prize money on offer during the same weeks.
The world number 1 of 1974-78 didn’t bother playing the French, even Borg didn’t bother playing it in 1977, it only became prestigious from 1979 when basically everyone played it. And the same is true of the women’s event…..1976, 77, 78, where were Evert and Navratilova and Goolagong? They didn’t bother playing the French. It had basically no cache.

I am not here to argue but to educate. Think whatever you want, but tennis in the 1970s was all about Wimbledon, the US open and prize money. For example, in 1970 and 71, Laver doesn’t win any slams but leads the prize money lists. That’s why he was considered number 1 by most for that time.
 

Daniel Andrade

Hall of Fame
The French was meaningless before 1979….. before then it never had all the top players entered. Example, Laver in the early 70s played the Italian which was on after the French and demolished the French winner of that year Kodes. Laver didn’t bother with the French, he had WCT events with bigger prize money on offer during the same weeks.
The world number 1 of 1974-78 didn’t bother playing the French, even Borg didn’t bother playing it in 1977, it only became prestigious from 1979 when basically everyone played it. And the same is true of the women’s event…..1976, 77, 78, where were Evert and Navratilova and Goolagong? They didn’t bother playing the French. It had basically no cache.

I am not here to argue but to educate. Think whatever you want, but tennis in the 1970s was all about Wimbledon, the US open and prize money. For example, in 1970 and 71, Laver doesn’t win any slams but leads the prize money lists. That’s why he was considered number 1 by most for that time.
what`s the relation between this and the thread.
 

ConnorH

New User
Perhaps you are young? Aussie Open in 1977 was basically a 250….did Borg play it? Did Connors? No

French was equally meaningless without Borg and Connors

there were two real slams in those days, Wimbledon and the US. I would argue that making the final of both is as good as winning just 1…..the fact is that in those days the Masters was huge, and it was what decided the number 1 ranking for the year of 1977. Connors won it. I don’t think someone who never in his career made the semis of Wimbledon can be a genuine number 1…..
But someone who never won a single match at Wimbleton was #1
 

jorjipy

Rookie
But someone who never won a single match at Wimbleton was #1
Haha no, Muster wasn’t a real number, nor Moya or Rios or Kuerten or Kafelnikov….anyone who knows tennis knows they weren’t the best player in the world. I was just referring to Vilas in this thread but it applies to all those players. But please, you will get me in trouble for not sticking to thread topic…! I gotta be careful on here
 

Milanez82

Hall of Fame
I will stick with the facts that the computer got it right. How about that? And that Vilas was not number 1 for even a week in 1977 or any year, let alone a year end number 1
So now you have revealed your lack of knowledge
Rankings weren't updated weekly back then nor was there a computer to update it, it was all done manually and updated exactly 32 times that year, with many weeks missing.

Also back then there were two tennis circuits going on, Connors was only placed 8th on Grand Prix and 3rd on WCT rankings(with 2 titles, Alabama and St Louis) with ATP doing a combination of rankings based on some averages.

If you dig up the actual year end ATP ranking, Villas actually had double the points but Connors had higher average per tournament awarding him barely ye no1.

Basically Villas was punished for entering and winning so many smaller tournaments.
If they counted a set of best of 18 tournaments like they do now, he would have been a clear no 1.
 

jorjipy

Rookie
That’s why rankings were better then. Way more accurate. I am happy with the average determining the ranking. It was the abomination of counting only your best tournaments that saw players like Kafelnikov become number 1 as they played so many and chucked away a lot of first round losses. As for the circuits, that’s why Nastase has 4 Masters - Connors didn’t bother playing that circuit and therefore the Masters until 1977….. first time he played it, he won!

Congratulations, you made me cry! But I lived through all that period, you taught me nothing.
 
Top