Amitabh_Tennis
New User
I feel weeks at 1 is a very overrated stat.
Hewitt with 80 weeks and Murray with 40 weeks have more weeks at 1 than Boris Becker who has just 12 and never ended the year as 1 while Hewitt did twice and Murray did once, does that make them better players than Boom Boom? Absolutely no, Boris is in a higher tier than both of them - Period !
Assuming 2 players have won 4 slams in their career, one of them won all 4 in an year and another won 1 slam for 4 years, both of them should be equally great because if you can win 4 in an year then why can't you win more after that ? Did you win in a vacuum ? Such questions might come, so concentrated dominance is actually a direct indicator of weak eras. A normal athlete is supposed to win some, then have injuries, then come back and win more, thats how Sampras and Nadal won their titles, even Novak (though he has some concentrated dominance on his resume) also won his titles. Same for Serena, she too won like that.
Nadal has a 16 years and 7 Months gap between his 1st and last grand slam title, this is the biggest margin in ATP and the second highest of all time behind the legendary Serena Williams (17-18 years gap between 1st and last) who is the colossus of our era. So Nadal's 21 slams should logically put him ahead of Federer's 20 despite Federer having 237 weeks at 1 and overall 310. At this point even Nole's 365 weeks at 1 with 20 slams is not greater than Nadal's 21, now whether Nadal's 0 WTFs (while Fed has 6 and Nole has 5) nullified his 1 slam advantage ? Maybe it does, but that still doesn't prove that concentrated dominace in not overrated. A guy who can win 12 slams in 4-5 years should win 15 more after that (in the next 10 years of his off peak) since he is that great and has an insane peak level, so what happened to his off peak level ?
So what are your thoughts ? Will concentrated dominance compensate for wininng in bits and pieces ? I think no.
Hewitt with 80 weeks and Murray with 40 weeks have more weeks at 1 than Boris Becker who has just 12 and never ended the year as 1 while Hewitt did twice and Murray did once, does that make them better players than Boom Boom? Absolutely no, Boris is in a higher tier than both of them - Period !
Assuming 2 players have won 4 slams in their career, one of them won all 4 in an year and another won 1 slam for 4 years, both of them should be equally great because if you can win 4 in an year then why can't you win more after that ? Did you win in a vacuum ? Such questions might come, so concentrated dominance is actually a direct indicator of weak eras. A normal athlete is supposed to win some, then have injuries, then come back and win more, thats how Sampras and Nadal won their titles, even Novak (though he has some concentrated dominance on his resume) also won his titles. Same for Serena, she too won like that.
Nadal has a 16 years and 7 Months gap between his 1st and last grand slam title, this is the biggest margin in ATP and the second highest of all time behind the legendary Serena Williams (17-18 years gap between 1st and last) who is the colossus of our era. So Nadal's 21 slams should logically put him ahead of Federer's 20 despite Federer having 237 weeks at 1 and overall 310. At this point even Nole's 365 weeks at 1 with 20 slams is not greater than Nadal's 21, now whether Nadal's 0 WTFs (while Fed has 6 and Nole has 5) nullified his 1 slam advantage ? Maybe it does, but that still doesn't prove that concentrated dominace in not overrated. A guy who can win 12 slams in 4-5 years should win 15 more after that (in the next 10 years of his off peak) since he is that great and has an insane peak level, so what happened to his off peak level ?
So what are your thoughts ? Will concentrated dominance compensate for wininng in bits and pieces ? I think no.
