If Nole ends up 6 times as Year-end No. 1 what would that mean for his legacy?

Emiliano55

Professional
I think Novak has a real chance of surpassing Federer at YEN1 and most World tour finals.

However, given he achieves that, I don't think that really modifies his legacy a lot.
 
D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
That would likely mean that he at least reached double digit slam titles, which put him in a very elite group of legends such as Federer, Nadal, Sampras, Borg and Laver.

I would say if he manages to do 6 YE number 1s, then he has had a great career, and will go down as an ATG.
 

powerangle

Legend
It would be great (as a fan) if he does it, but let's take it one year at a time. Even this year (even though it looks nearly a lock) isn't completely guaranteed. A lot of tennis left to be played, as they say...
 

5555

Hall of Fame
True, but he will still be short of Laver and Renshaw. And he will only equal Sampras who did this like twenty years back.

And that's a fact.
It's a fact that at 6 Nole will have more than Federer.

Doesn't he have to do two more AFTER this year? At 29/30? Nah. Not happening. Sorry friends.
In 2014 Federer at age 33 was No. 2. In 2017 Nole will turn 30. If Federer can play so good at 33 why Nole can not at 30?

Regarding level of competition, in 2014 the only player above Federer was an all-time great in his prime. Will Nole in 2017 compete with a player who is as good as himself now? Murray? Dimitrov? Raonic? Nishikori? Who?
 
Last edited:

BGod

Legend
It depends on the seasons really. Djokovic by the ATP rankings finished 2nd in 2013, so he'd need this season and two more. If a player wins #1 in an easy year and ends #2 in a tight year, the two are not the same.

Djokovic
#1x 3 (going onto 4)
#2x 1
#3x 4

Federer
#1 x 5
#2 x 5
#3 x 1

So even if Djokovic gets to 6 year end #1s, I won't really care to put that above Federer being Top 2 for 10 seasons.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
It's a fact that at 6 Nole will have more than Federer.
But Nole doesn't even have 5 yet.

Next thing you will say if Nole has 18, slams, 303 weeks #1, 7 WTF....blah blah blah.


You are so insecure !
 

AngieB

Banned
It won't mean anything until it is a reality. Given #Novak's ability to #major in #minors, he might we be able to utlitize the ranking system in a way that is positive to his legacy. Perhaps into a 6th YE #1. #GirlBye

#AngiesLyst
 

reaper

Legend
I don't think it will happen. If it did happen, I don't think it will mean anything for Djokovic's legacy. He's already got an outstanding career record, but a legacy? If anything, his legacy will be emphasis on flexibility and all round agility, not just speed and fitness....but that has nothing to do with being 6 times YE number 1.
 

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
I don't think it will happen. If it did happen, I don't think it will mean anything for Djokovic's legacy. He's already got an outstanding career record, but a legacy? If anything, his legacy will be emphasis on flexibility and all round agility, not just speed and fitness....but that has nothing to do with being 6 times YE number 1.
I don't think it will happen either, but come on, how can you say it won't mean anything for his legacy. He would have dominated more than Federer! That would be an incredible accomplishment. And he would have to do it by being number 1 at 30.
 

Gazelle

G.O.A.T.
I don't think it will happen either, but come on, how can you say it won't mean anything for his legacy. He would have dominated more than Federer! That would be an incredible accomplishment. And he would have to do it by being number 1 at 30.
No he wouldn't. Winning 3 slams a year three times with nearly double amounts of number 2 player, that is called dominance. Ending YE1 with only one slam and a slight margin above number 2 player who is way past his prime, is not dominance. Not all YE1's are equal. Those of Fed and Nadal are far more impressive than Djoks, except for 2011.
 

Cup8489

G.O.A.T.
It's a fact that at 6 Nole will have more than Federer.



In 2014 Federer at age 33 was No. 2. In 2017 Nole will turn 30. If Federer can play so good at 33 why Nole can not at 30?

Regarding level of competition, in 2014 the only player above Federer was an all-time great in his prime. Will Nole in 2017 compete with a player who is as good as himself now? Murray? Dimitrov? Raonic? Nishikori? Who?
Djokovic does not have the same offensive capability that Federer does.. and he will inevitably begin to slow down and become less effective on defense.

Also.. being number 2 is not even remotely the same as finishing YE #1 twice. Sorry. Who is the oldest to finish YE#1? That will shed light on the topic.. but I don't think anyone has done it over 30 IIRC.
 

AngieB

Banned
That he had less YE no. 1 than Pancho or Tilden or Laver, but more than Sampras or Fed or Nadal.
I wonder when someone was going to look past 1968. It doesn't happen often enough in this forum. Most of these kids don't know tennis existed before #PeteSampras. #GirlBye

#AngiesLyst
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
I wonder when someone was going to look past 1968. It doesn't happen often enough in this forum. Most of these kids don't know tennis existed before #PeteSampras. #GirlBye

#AngiesLyst
There was no official ranking system during those days. Ranking was purely based on opinion, interpretation and even debatable.

When the system was established, it's official and indisputable.

Year End #1
1. Sampras 6
2. Federer 5
= Connors 5
4. McEnroe 4
= Lendl 4
6. Nadal 3
= Novak Djokovic 3
 

kandamrgam

Hall of Fame
Regarding level of competition, in 2014 the only player above Federer was an all-time great in his prime. Will Nole in 2017 compete with a player who is as good as himself now? Murray? Dimitrov? Raonic? Nishikori? Who?
He

 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
No he wouldn't. Winning 3 slams a year three times with nearly double amounts of number 2 player, that is called dominance. Ending YE1 with only one slam and a slight margin above number 2 player who is way past his prime, is not dominance. Not all YE1's are equal. Those of Fed and Nadal are far more impressive than Djoks, except for 2011.
But if Novak finishes with 6 YE#1, the record books will simply show that number and nobody will care about how he achieved them.
 

AngieB

Banned
There was no official ranking system during those days. Ranking was purely based on opinion, interpretation and even debatable.

When the system was established, it's official and indisputable.

Year End #1
1. Sampras 6
2. Federer 5
= Connors 5
4. McEnroe 4
= Lendl 4
6. Nadal 3
= Novak Djokovic 3
Which is why the current statistic, "Weeks at Number One" is historically incomplete because it only incorporates 40 years of tennis history. #GirlBye to your #Wikipedia trash.

Also, #ITF-sanctioned grand slam events are required for #ITHOF induction. "Weeks at number one" is a hollow statistic. Even if it had been dated prior to #1973, you could be #1 for 100 weeks and not get into the #ITHOF without an #ITF-Sanction grand slam win.

#AngiesLyst
 
Last edited:

kandamrgam

Hall of Fame
But if Novak finishes with 6 YE#1, the record books will simply show that number and nobody will care about how he achieved them.
Your point = Nole has better extended dominance.
Gazelle's point = Roger has better concentrated dominance.

Both have its merits.
 
Last edited:

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
No he wouldn't. Winning 3 slams a year three times with nearly double amounts of number 2 player, that is called dominance. Ending YE1 with only one slam and a slight margin above number 2 player who is way past his prime, is not dominance. Not all YE1's are equal. Those of Fed and Nadal are far more impressive than Djoks, except for 2011.
Please stop. This is nonsense. All YE1 are the same. Dominance means winning against your peers. If Nole managed to be the world's best player for six years it would be something even Federer couldn't accomplish.
 

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
There was no official ranking system during those days. Ranking was purely based on opinion, interpretation and even debatable.

When the system was established, it's official and indisputable.

Year End #1
1. Sampras 6
2. Federer 5
= Connors 5
4. McEnroe 4
= Lendl 4
6. Nadal 3
= Novak Djokovic 3

Exactly.

10 chars
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
There was no official ranking system during those days. Ranking was purely based on opinion, interpretation and even debatable.

When the system was established, it's official and indisputable.

Year End #1
1. Sampras 6
2. Federer 5
= Connors 5
4. McEnroe 4
= Lendl 4
6. Nadal 3
= Novak Djokovic 3
#1/rankings was considered before computerized rankings also.
 
Last edited:

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Which is why the current statistic, "Weeks at Number One" is historically incomplete because it only incorporates 40 years of tennis history. #GirlBye to your #Wikipedia trash.

Also, #ITF-sanctioned grand slam events are required for #ITHOF induction. "Weeks at number one" is a hollow statistic. Even if it had been dated prior to #1973, you could be #1 for 100 weeks and not get into the #ITHOF without an #ITF-Sanction grand slam win.

#AngiesLyst
Did you understand what I just wrote?

There's no ranking system, meaning there's no method in a way to rank the player, whether if it's weeks at #1 or YE #1. Some argue X player, some argue for Y player, and some even say both X and Y player should share the #1 for that particular year.

An established ranking system is set for all players know ahead of time, their goal and what it takes to reach #1. It's clear and precise.


Chang only won 1 slam but made the HOF, but there are multi-slam winners never make it. Slam isn't everything, but other achievements combined gets you in the HOF.
 

AngieB

Banned
Did you understand what I just wrote?

There's no ranking system, meaning there's no method in a way to rank the player, whether if it's weeks at #1 or YE #1. Some argue X player, some argue for Y player, and some even say both X and Y player should share the #1 for that particular year.

An established ranking system is set for all players know ahead of time, their goal and what it takes to reach #1. It's clear and precise.


Chang only won 1 slam but made the HOF, but there are multi-slam winners never make it. Slam isn't everything, but other achievements combined gets you in the HOF.
I understood what you wrote, but you don't understand tennis history.

The ranking system you reference doesn't encompass all of tennis history, it only references 42 years. That being said, you cannot refer to those leading "Weeks at Number One" statistics since 1973 as being the best throughout #ALL of the entirety of tennis history. There were players like #Tilden, #Gonzales and #Laver who were referred to as the World's Best for more years than #Sampras and #Federer prior to #1973..

FYI, it doesn't matter if it's 1929, 1949, 1969, 1979, 1999, or 2015. Every tennis players goal then and now is to win grand slam tournaments. The ranking system exists for its chief purpose, which is to seed players for #ITF-sanctioned GrandSlam events.

Stop using #Wikipedia as an ignorant tool, by which you use to stain the history of tennis by your third-world bias. #GirlBye

#AngiesLyst
 

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
Not all YE1's are equal. Those of Fed and Nadal are far more impressive than Djoks, except for 2011.

It's a good idea to check the numbers before posting. Nole actually had a better dominance in his YE1s than Nadal. I've looked up the % difference for each player with the number 2 in the years they won the YE1. So, for example, Nadal in 2010, his best year in terms of points difference, got 36% more points than the number 2. But Nole in 2011 (his best year) won 42% more points. Full list:

Nadal (2008 ) : 26%
Nadal (2010 ): 36%
Nadal (2013 ): 6%
Nole (2011 ): 42%
Nole (2012 ) : 26%
Nole (2014 ) : 16%

You can see that Nole beats Nadal in two of the three years and ties in the third.

And we don't know how the year will end but right now, on points for 2015, Nole has 69% more points than the number 2 (Murray)!!
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
It's a good idea to check the numbers before posting. Nole actually had a better dominance in his YE1s than Nadal. I've looked up the % difference for each player with the number 2 in the years they won the YE1. So, for example, Nadal in 2010, his best year in terms of points difference, got 36% more points than the number 2. But Nole in 2011 (his best year) won 42% more points. Full list:

Nadal (2008 ) : 26%
Nadal (2010 ): 36%
Nadal (2013 ): 6%
Nole (2011 ): 42%
Nole (2012 ) : 26%
Nole (2014 ) : 16%

You can see that Nole beats Nadal in two of the three years and ties in the third.

And we don't know how the year will end but right now, on points for 2015, Nole has 69% more points than the number 2 (Murray)!!
Thanks for working these stats out mate. That's one Gazelle I now see wounded. :grin:
 

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
Thanks for working these stats out mate. That's one Gazelle I now see wounded. :grin:
Federer had two monster years, 2006 and 2004, where he won 87% and 73% more points than the number 2 (his other three YE1s are similar to Nole's three). That was truly incredible. Nole so far this year comes close to that record but we will have to see how the year ends.
 

tennis_commentator

Hall of Fame
Rankings are meaningless to me, because Nadal is regularly injured - almost every year of his career (including the years he finished #1).
Heck, he didn't even play the Australian Open in 2013, and still finished #1!
And he had knee treatment just after winning 2010 Wimbledon!
And had to skip the 2008 World Tour Finals because of severe knee pain.
 

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
Rankings are meaningless to me, because Nadal is regularly injured - almost every year of his career (including the years he finished #1).
Heck, he didn't even play the Australian Open in 2013, and still finished #1!
And he had knee treatment just after winning 2010 Wimbledon!
And had to skip the 2008 World Tour Finals because of severe knee pain.
Excuses, excuses. If he doesn't have the physical conditions too bad. It's a requirement.
 

timnz

Legend
Not too bad for me though, because I don't value rankings, just slams (slams won, and whether or not you have a Career Grand Slam or a Double Career Grand Slam).
You are very much entitled to your opinion. I am just curious as to why. Do you mind sharing your reasons? Doesn't that make all of the tennis calendar except 8 weeks a year redundant? Asking in full respect of your opinions.
 

gcollins

New User
Some of the answers to this thread are projectile vomit worthy.

I don't know why anyone would go around bashing Novak for anything he's managed to do. (The AO is a lesser major, he hasn't dominated as much, etc) because when you say those things you're essentially saying "I'm a rabid Fed or Nadal fan and will do anything to uphold my chosen favorite's place."

A major is a major. (at least in this era, when the Australian is compulsory.) Beating Federer, both before he got old, and now that he is... and Nadal, both before and after his injuries, is STILL relevant. Djokovic is at the VERY least worthy of the ATG conversation, and if he bags a French, even if he NEVER wins another title after that, he won't be totally out of place in the GOAT discussion. At his current level, it would be silly to say he'd never win another, though.

He's reached the Semi's or better in 19 of the last 20 slams. Until this year, essentially the only obstacle in his way of the French was the single greatest clay court player in the Open Era. He has 5 straight SF or better at Wimbledon, and EIGHT straight at the US Open.

Even IF he's declining, and a player as fit as Novak is unlikely to decline rapidly, 1-2 more majors is almost certain, and 3-4 is a definite possibility.

Worst case: 8 slams, no French, 4 YECs.
Likely: 10 slams, no French, 4+ YECs.
Best Case: 12 slams, French, 5+ YECs.

In what way is ANY of these possibilities not worthy of ATG status? In what way is the best case not worthy of GOAT discussion?
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
It's a good idea to check the numbers before posting. Nole actually had a better dominance in his YE1s than Nadal. I've looked up the % difference for each player with the number 2 in the years they won the YE1. So, for example, Nadal in 2010, his best year in terms of points difference, got 36% more points than the number 2. But Nole in 2011 (his best year) won 42% more points. Full list:

Nadal (2008 ) : 26%
Nadal (2010 ): 36%
Nadal (2013 ): 6%
Nole (2011 ): 42%
Nole (2012 ) : 26%
Nole (2014 ) : 16%

You can see that Nole beats Nadal in two of the three years and ties in the third.

And we don't know how the year will end but right now, on points for 2015, Nole has 69% more points than the number 2 (Murray)!!
Where is Gazelle? Can't see him.

Where is he?
 

reaper

Legend
A legacy is something handed down from the past. Being world number 1 six years in a row isn't a legacy, because it has nothing specific about it other than the fact of the achievement. There are players with a legacy: Nadal, Conners and perhape Hewitt for their emphasis on a fighting style of play. Federer for the memory of the classical beauty of his style. Mcenroe for the ferocity of his temper. There hasn't been much that's been idiosyncratic about the way Djokovic has dominated the sport, so his legacy is less noteworthy, irrespective of the facts of his achievement. The one legacy he might leave is his emphasis on flexibility and agility, which he seems to have taken to a higher level than anyone else. That's something that might be carried into the future from his style of play. The rest of it is very effective, but not particularly memorable.
 

5555

Hall of Fame
But Nole doesn't even have 5 yet.
I said "if".

You are so insecure !
You are so insecure about Federer still having more Year-end No. 1 than Nole by the time they both retire.

Djokovic does not have the same offensive capability that Federer does.. and he will inevitably begin to slow down and become less effective on defense.
We are not talking about Nole at 33 but 30.

Also.. being number 2 is not even remotely the same as finishing YE #1 twice. Sorry. Who is the oldest to finish YE#1? That will shed light on the topic.. but I don't think anyone has done it over 30 IIRC.
What about level of competition?

You are delusional if you believe Nadal is more likely than Nole to be Year-end No . 1 in 2017.

He doesn't have six yet, so it's not a fact.
If Nole ends up with 6, it is a fact that he will have more than Federer.

THis is like arguing with a child.
This is a personal attack. I have reported you.
 
Last edited:

kandamrgam

Hall of Fame
I said "if".



You are so insecure about Federer still having more Year-end No. 1 than Nole by the time they both retire.



We are not talking about Nole at 33 but 30.



What about level of competition?



You are delusional if you believe Nadal is more likely than Nole to be Year-end No . 1 in 2017.



If Nole ends up with 6, it is a fact that he will have more than Federer.



This is a personal attack. I have reported you.
I'm offended by underlines. I have reported you.
 

5555

Hall of Fame
Djokovic does not have the same offensive capability that Federer does.. and he will inevitably begin to slow down and become less effective on defense.

Also.. being number 2 is not even remotely the same as finishing YE #1 twice. Sorry. Who is the oldest to finish YE#1? That will shed light on the topic.. but I don't think anyone has done it over 30 IIRC.
We are not talking about Nole at 33 but 30.

What about level of competition?
Cup8489, you've lost the argument.
 
Top