If Murray or Federer wins AO, would you consider them the real number 1?

[Towser83]

Djokovic will be number 1 no matter what now, but if either Federer or Murray won the title that player would have 2 slams to Djokovic's 0. In fact Djokovic would outrank a player with 2 slams AND 2 players with one slam.

Would have been slightly amusing if Murray had been in Djokovic's half and taken him out, won the title and still been number 3 with 2 slams, Federer 2 with one slam, Nadal 5 with one slam and Djokovic number 1 with none.

Especially in the case of Federer who has the same amount of masters and more overall titles, it would be bizarre should he somehow win and still be ranked below Djokovic (even with Djokovic's WTF win) but even Murray would have 2 slams and 1 final.

Has there even been a case before of a player with 2 slams eing ranked below a player with no slams and the no slam guy being number 1?

 

[6-1 6-3 6-0]

No, I'd consider them as whatever ranking they have after the end of the tournament. Not very complicated. And ranking is just a number for ego inflation (no surprise that federer wanted to get back to being number one in the world); a multiple-slam winner being lower-ranked is more impressive, especially if he is still winning at least one slam per year.

 

[joeri888]

Wondered this myself, but I guess not. They both have a strong case (with Murray winning 2 slams + gold+ wimbledon final and Fed 2 slams + silver + WTF final) but I just trust the rankings. If Murray wins it, he's bound to be no. 1 soon, so he can wait. If Fed wins it, it's more a testimony to how good he still is and that its amazing that he's still just as good as those other two. But Djokovic will have made (if he beats Ferrer) 6 of the last 7 slam finals, has won way more MS tournaments than Murray, has the WTF.

Sure it's debatable, but I like to follow the rankings. Slams are most important but not all that matters.

 

[joeri888]

No, I'd consider them as whatever ranking they have after the end of the tournament. Not very complicated. And ranking is just a number for ego inflation (no surprise that federer wanted to get back to being number one in the world); a multiple-slam winner being lower-ranked is more impressive, especially if he is still winning at least one slam per year.

Why is it more impressive to win a slam ranked say, hypothetically, ranked 2 than ranked 1?

 

[Flash O'Groove]

I like the current ranking system. It reward consistency as well as it reward victory. I think that it is a good measure of who is number one for the last 52 weeks. Majors are a good bunch of the tennis season, but they are not everything.

 

[6-1 6-3 6-0]

Why is it more impressive to win a slam ranked say, hypothetically, ranked 2 than ranked 1?

I meant below the #2 rank, since you don't get special seeding privileges just for having a certain number of points.

 

[joeri888]

I meant below the #2 rank, since you don't get special seeding privileges just for having a certain number of points.

Okay, I thought everything had to be about Nadal, but he won most of his slams ranked 2 or 1.

 

[augustobt]

No, I'd consider them as whatever ranking they have after the end of the tournament. Not very complicated. And ranking is just a number for ego inflation (no surprise that federer wanted to get back to being number one in the world); a multiple-slam winner being lower-ranked is more impressive, especially if he is still winning at least one slam per year.

That's not actually truth (as many things that you say). The ranking shows who is more consistent during the period of one year. If you're low ranked and wins a slam (with no variety of tournaments) that indicates that your game doesn't have a lot of variety.

 

[librarysteg]

No, I'm not a fan of the "real" number 1 debate. I think the system works pretty well, and if the current number 1 doesn't deserve to be there, they'll fall from the spot pretty quickly.

 

[Towser83]

I meant below the #2 rank, since you don't get special seeding privileges just for having a certain number of points.

true.. like 3 of Djokovic's slams, 2 of Federers and 1 of Nadal's. And Murray and delpo with theirs.

 

[Clarky21]

Why do you think either one of them are going to win it? Lance is going to win it with no problem.

 

[Towser83]

Personally if Murray had the last 2 slams and djokovic none, i would have a hard time looking at Novak as the best player in the world. and i am no fan of Murray. but that's just me.

 

[Towser83]

Why do you think either one of them are going to win it? Lance is going to win it with no problem.

Its a hypothetical question and you thought he was gonna win the US open too.

 

[zagor]

I don't like looking at it that way, who's currently holding slams, it just needlessly complicates things IMO.

I tend to look at the given calendar year, the real #1 for me is the player with most slam titles in a given year, if two or more players are equal in their slam count for the year I compare # of masters titles (including WTF), maybe if they reached another slam final that year etc.

 

[always_crosscourt]

Why do you think either one of them are going to win it? Lance is going to win it with no problem.

Lance is retired from cycling, you mug - he ain't winning anything.

 

[heninfan99]

No. The system works well but this week Stan is #1 in our hearts.

 

[Vrad]

Longevity and the ability to play through the tennis schedule matters a lot in defining tennis rankings and achievements. The rankings capture this effect very well, which is why I won't consider either of them as being better than Novak.

 

[rafafan20]

If Murray beats Djokovic yes, because thats two GS final wins in a row. Federer maybe not as much because he has lost to Djokovic more recently.

 

[abmk]

If Murray beats Djokovic yes, because thats two GS final wins in a row. Federer maybe not as much because he has lost to Djokovic more recently.

murray lost to djokovic @ the YEC as well ...

both murray and fed have beaten djoker @ the last major matches they've played against him ( USO and Wimbledon respectively )

 

[Warmaster]

The cheeky 1000 points he picked up in Toronto are paying dividends!

 

[Hood_Man]

There was an interesting scenario back in 2011 where if Djokovic had won Rome and Nadal had lost before the final, Djokovic could have been #1 ahead of a guy defending 3 majors.

I don't really have a problem with the system, these scenarios just make it a little bit more interesting.

Also, Djokovic won the WTF, so it's all good

 

[ARFED]

I think that Sampras first became number 1 around april 1993. At that time he didn`t hold any slams and Courier was the title holder of RG and the AO

 

[joeri888]

I think it might become a bit stranger if Fed now wins AO, Rotterdam, Dubai and Indian Wells. Same goes for Muzza but he'd be no. 1 by then. I think it's a bit weirder if the guy being no. 2 won everything recently.

 

[Surecatch]

I tend to think in terms of what I believe in my own mind vs. what the results of the latest tournament say. Right now I believe Djokovic is the best player in tennis and I'll likely think that even if he loses in the final. Fed' is one very small half step behind and then Murray is a solid number three. Aussie results aren't going to matter to me in terms of those "rankings."

 

[kishnabe]

Nope...this isn't a special case like the WTA.

 

[Gonzo_style]

As someone already said, if one of them wins AO, he will soon become the number one, so that "real #1 at the moment" thing is not so important...

 

[Phoenix1983]

I think that Sampras first became number 1 around april 1993. At that time he didn`t hold any slams and Courier was the title holder of RG and the AO

- In 1977, Connors was ranked No 1 ahead of Vilas who had won 2 slams.
- In 1982, McEnroe was ranked No 1 ahead of Connors who had won 2 slams.

 

[merlinpinpin]

Djokovic will be number 1 no matter what now, but if either Federer or Murray won the title that player would have 2 slams to Djokovic's 0. In fact Djokovic would outrank a player with 2 slams AND 2 players with one slam.

Would have been slightly amusing if Murray had been in Djokovic's half and taken him out, won the title and still been number 3 with 2 slams, Federer 2 with one slam, Nadal 5 with one slam and Djokovic number 1 with none.

Especially in the case of Federer who has the same amount of masters and more overall titles, it would be bizarre should he somehow win and still be ranked below Djokovic (even with Djokovic's WTF win) but even Murray would have 2 slams and 1 final.

Has there even been a case before of a player with 2 slams eing ranked below a player with no slams and the no slam guy being number 1?

It would give some here ammunition to start threads about Novakoline Djokzniacki, so this might actually be fun.

 

[veroniquem]

The only thing that really matters is to finish the season as the #1 or alternately to have the most weeks at #1 within the season. AO is way too early in the year to make any kind of definitive statement about that.

 

[Warmaster]

As someone already said, if one of them wins AO, he will soon become the number one, so that "real #1 at the moment" thing is not so important...

That might not be true for Federer who is defending Rotterdam, Dubai, IW and Madrid. It's very unlikely he'll defend all those titles.

Some people forget how good Federer was after the AO last year. I remember a lot of people laughing at the Federer for #1 thread when he was racking up the points in those tournaments, but those points are the reason he got back to #1 in the first place.

In fact, if you think about it, it's quite likely Murray will become #2 before RG, unless Federer wins the AO.

 

[Warmaster]

The only thing that really matters is to finish the season as the #1 or alternately to have the most weeks at #1 within the season. AO is way too early in the year to make any kind of definitive statement about that.

It doesn't really matter when you have a rolling 52 week ranking system. If you're #1 you were the best player of the past year (=52 weeks). In this regard the YE #1 is a bit overrated imo, it's just a point in time just like any other date.

 

[veroniquem]

As someone already said, if one of them wins AO, he will soon become the number one, so that "real #1 at the moment" thing is not so important...

Not necessarily. Fed has tons of points to defend after AO. Not that it matters really because I don't think Fed will win the AO.

 

[heftylefty]

Nope...this isn't a special case like the WTA.

Quote for making sense. The men's No.1 is a real Number One.

 

[Goosehead]

tennis isnt just about the 4 majors..

the masters tourneys and atp500/250 tourneys make up the tennis cake,

so..'the real no1' is 'the no1' we get as it is. :neutral:

 

[Monsieur_DeLarge]

I think that Sampras first became number 1 around april 1993. At that time he didn`t hold any slams and Courier was the title holder of RG and the AO

At the end of that year Courier was #3 behind Michael Stich, even though the American's slam showings had been W-F-F-R16 compared to the German's SF-R16-QF-1R (and Courier had beaten him in that lone semi appearance).

They tweaked the rankings system pretty soon afterwards.


Regards,
MDL

 

[Towser83]

If Murray beats Djokovic yes, because thats two GS final wins in a row. Federer maybe not as much because he has lost to Djokovic more recently.

Well Murray lost his last match to Djokovic as well (in fact last 2 matches) and Federer beat Murray in their last slam meeting.

If Federer won the AO on the ranking which is based on the last 52 weeks this is what the titles would look like

Slams-

Federer - 2
Murray - 1
Djokovic 0

Masters

Federer - 3
Djokovic - 3
Murray - 0

500s

Federer - 2
Djokovic - 1
Murray - 0

total titles

Federer - 7
Djokovic - 6
Murray - 4

Other titles

Djokovic - WTF
Murray - Olympic Gold
Federer - Olympic silver

 

[tennis_badger]

not really, for me its who finish the year end (the race point), obviously with fed nit picking his tournament and nadal only plays clay makes it harder.

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

Djokovic is the real #1. The ranking system is fine as is. I might beef up Grand Slam points to 2500 if I could but it's okay, it looks fair to me.

 

[always_crosscourt]

John Isner may not be number one in terms of ranking - but he sure was near number one in 2012 in terms of service games held. In fact, he was number two.

When his serve is firing, he is an unstoppable force.

 

[Carsomyr]

I think the system is fine as is, as there haven't really been any occasions when the "wrong guy" was #1 at the end of the season since 1990 (before that, though, is another story).

However, I think you could still make the case that if either Murray or Federer wins the AO, they would be the de facto best player; they'd have two majors, far and away the most important titles in tennis, to Djokovic's goose egg.