Is Fed's weeks-at-number-1 record safe?

Can Federer stave off the opposition?


  • Total voters
    93
  • Poll closed .

DSH

Hall of Fame
Sure Nadal is ahead in the race and will stay that way if he makes the final. Though I expect Djokovic to have a better second half to the season. I think he’ll break it.

Poor Fed fans Djokodal are going to catch all his big records :)

Es kann nicht sein!
:mad::confused::oops::sick::cry:
 

chimneysweep

Semi-Pro
Djokovic was always likely to take this one particular record. That has been obvious since 2015. It has actually taken him a lot longer than anticipated. The only surprise will be if he doesnt break it.
 

TripleATeam

Legend
Fedfans will gladly give away all the other records. Only Slam Total counts.
Fedfans don't really have a say in it, and the idea that only slams matter is wrong. I'll say that now, and if Nadal or Djokovic happen to pass Federer. Slam count is not the only thing to measure.

In the end, Federer will have all the consecutive records, Rafa will have the clay/surface dominance records, and Djokovic will have weeks at #1 and Masters. As for WTF and Slams, that's up in the air right now. (Of course there'll be other records all 3 have, but broadly speaking.)
 

chimneysweep

Semi-Pro
I'd be lying if I said it wasn't in jeopardy. It's all about Wimby and UO.
Even in the unlikely event Nadal wins either he is quite unlikely to end the year #1 over Djokovic, especialy considering how poor he is indoors. And absolutely nobody else is a remote threat to take #1 anytime soon.
 

Third Serve

Hall of Fame
Will you say that if Djokovic ends up with 20 GS ?
**21 GS. If he reaches 20, then a tiebreak (WTF, Masters, Weeks at No. 1, etc.) is basically required at that point. Djokovic would need to not only tie the slam record but pass it completely.
 

TripleATeam

Legend
**21 GS. If he reaches 20, then a tiebreak (WTF, Masters, Weeks at No. 1, etc.) is basically required at that point. Djokovic would need to not only tie the slam record but pass it completely.
Well, if only Slam Total counts, why do the lesser records need to be taken into account? Co-GOATs, (Hypothetically).
 

True Fanerer

G.O.A.T.
Even in the unlikely event Nadal wins either he is quite unlikely to end the year #1 over Djokovic, especialy considering how poor he is indoors. And absolutely nobody else is a remote threat to take #1 anytime soon.
If Federer wins Wimbledon, he's in the conversation. Other than that, I agree.
 

Imperator

Professional
**21 GS. If he reaches 20, then a tiebreak (WTF, Masters, Weeks at No. 1, etc.) is basically required at that point. Djokovic would need to not only tie the slam record but pass it completely.
That’s why I said 20. Because the other records would count, which wouldn’t be the case if Djokovic got to 21.
 

Third Serve

Hall of Fame
Well, if only Slam Total counts, why do the lesser records need to be taken into account? Co-GOATs, (Hypothetically).
I'll use Murray-Wawrinka to prove my point:

3 slams and 3 slams. About equal, right?

If you looked deeper, however, you'd notice that Murray has more Masters, a WTF, and some weeks at No. 1. His resume is greater than Wawrinka's but you can't tell that by looking at the slam count.

If two players have the same number of slams, then you have to bring out some more measuring sticks to work with if your main one doesn't work. There are some instances where the player with lesser slams is the greater player (Murray and Courier, probably) but they are rare. That's why the slam count is universally agreed upon as the first and foremost metric.
 

Red Rick

Talk Tennis Guru
The poll was made when he just came back to number 1, and he was over a year and a half away from the record then. It would have given a different result if created now.
Almost nothing has changed since then. As soon as Djoko got his mojo back the record was in huge danger, if only because Federer and Nadal are older, more declined and nobody else could take it from Djokovic before the record is broken.

Really this should've been very clear before Djoko got #1 back and in fact it should've been clear when Djoko beat Nadal at Wimbledon last year.
 

TripleATeam

Legend
I'll use Murray-Wawrinka to prove my point:

3 slams and 3 slams. About equal, right?

If you looked deeper, however, you'd notice that Murray has more Masters, a WTF, and some weeks at No. 1. His resume is greater than Wawrinka's but you can't tell that by looking at the slam count.

If two players have the same number of slams, then you have to bring out some more measuring sticks to work with if your main one doesn't work. There are some instances where the player with lesser slams is the greater player (Murray and Courier, probably) but they are rare. That's why the slam count is universally agreed upon as the first and foremost metric.
Ideally, you're right, but someone who thinks a player with 1 slam and nothing else is better than a player with 0 slams, 7 Masters, 2 WTFs, and a YE#1 is already working with a messed-up definition of "greater".
 

chimneysweep

Semi-Pro
If Federer wins Wimbledon, he's in the conversation. Other than that, I agree.
In the 2019 race points he would be behind Djokovic even winning Wimbledon; and fairly far behind given that it would be a miracle if Djokvoic isnt in the final given his comical remaining draw (IIRC Fed was close to 2000 points behind post RG). He hasnt been in a U.S Open final in forever now (Djokovic will probably be atleast in the finals, like he is nearly every year), and while unlike Nadal both should do quite well indoors, Djokovic is much more likely to play more regularly and stay healthy/consistent over the entire remaining 5 months at this stage of the game. 38 year old Federer is very unlikely to even play all the Masters, which Djokovic almost certainly will.

Anything is possible of course but IMO Federer returning to #1 ever again at this point is even less likely than Nadal getting there in time, and Nadal getting to #1 before next winter if he somehow had an amazing first 4 months of next year and Djokovic falters badly (no real chance to gain it before Djokovic gains the mark if he hasnt before then with the second half clay season points Nadal defends), is unlikely.
 

TripleATeam

Legend
Almost nothing has changed since then. As soon as Djoko got his mojo back the record was in huge danger, if only because Federer and Nadal are older, more declined and nobody else could take it from Djokovic before the record is broken.

Really this should've been very clear before Djoko got #1 back and in fact it should've been clear when Djoko beat Nadal at Wimbledon last year.
Really, it should have been clear from that moment, but yet people can't see things when they're staring them in the face. Case in point: https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/djokovic-v-nadal-race-to-ye-1-2018.624285/

People thought I was insane for even considering Novak potentially able to win #1. Strange how quickly they changed their tune.
 

Red Rick

Talk Tennis Guru
Really, it should have been clear from that moment, but yet people can't see things when they're staring them in the face. Case in point: https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/djokovic-v-nadal-race-to-ye-1-2018.624285/

People thought I was insane for even considering Novak potentially able to win #1. Strange how quickly they changed their tune.
This gem

Nadal vs nobody. Race to Year Ending #1.

Djokovic vs Federer. Race to Year Ending #2.
 

Third Serve

Hall of Fame
Ideally, you're right, but someone who thinks a player with 1 slam and nothing else is better than a player with 0 slams, 7 Masters, 2 WTFs, and a YE#1 is already working with a messed-up definition of "greater".
But those kinds of players are pretty rare, like I mentioned. Murray is probably the biggest example I can think of as he's quite a bit better than some players with 3-4 slams. There may be a few more players but I'm sure the list is pretty small.
 

TripleATeam

Legend
But those kinds of players are pretty rare, like I mentioned. Murray is probably the biggest example I can think of as he's quite a bit better than some players with 3-4 slams. There may be a few more players but I'm sure the list is pretty small.
Of course it's rare, but then the question comes down to are slams just REALLY valuable, or are they the be-all, end-all? If someone says the latter, then they must admit that a fluke slam winner is better than a consistent, but unlucky player. I, personally, rate Federer's 6 WTF titles as greater than 1 slam, so if Rafa gets 21, I'd still consider him behind Federer on account of him never having won that.
 

TripleATeam

Legend
I prefer these.
From the moment I saw the OP and the title I knew this would be BS. Djokovic will be fortunate to add 1,500 points more until the end of 2018
I'm still yet to be convinced by him. I know it sounds strange considering he just won a slam, but he lacks power and intensity. I always believed he'd start performing better through the Asian swing and indoors, and baring Wimbledon, it seems that it may end up being that way. He will not end #1, that is a pipe dream by people who are still yet to learn to be realistic, but he should finish top 3.
 

chimneysweep

Semi-Pro
Ideally, you're right, but someone who thinks a player with 1 slam and nothing else is better than a player with 0 slams, 7 Masters, 2 WTFs, and a YE#1 is already working with a messed-up definition of "greater".
I dont know. It isnt quite to this extreme but I have argued in the distant past Chang with 6 Masters to Kafelnikov's 0, or Stich who has a slam final on every surface + YEC title + multiple Master should be considered equal or better despite 1 slam to Kafelnikov's 2 and been shot down repeatedly.
 

TripleATeam

Legend
I dont know. It isnt quite to this extreme but I have argued in the distant past Chang with 6 Masters to Kafelnikov's 0, or Stich who has a slam final on every surface + YEC title + multiple Master should be considered equal or better despite 1 slam to Kafelnikov's 2 and been shot down repeatedly.
I could see the argument for Chang. Maybe not so much for Stich. Even so, that doesn't disprove my point. Some people will claim slam count is the only thing that matters. At that point, you can't argue with them because they won't budge. All you can do is bring up a hypothetical example, and see what they say. If they reject the premise that a player with 0 slams, 7 Masters, 2 WTFs, and a YE#1 is better than someone with only 1 slam, then you've discovered what they believe and you can't really continue arguing. If they accept that premise, then you just need to find how valuable they consider a slam. 6 Masters, 2 WTF and a YE#1? 7 Masters, 1 WTF, and 20 weeks at #1? Push the envelope until you've figured out how much a slam could potentially be worth, then you can potentially find an example of that in the real world.

For instance, if they say 4 WTF ~= 1 slam, then you can say: "Okay, so if Nadal passes Federer, you'll still have Federer as the GOAT until Nadal hits 22 slams. Is that right?" However, some people just won't agree with you no matter what, and you just have to accept that.
 

chimneysweep

Semi-Pro
I could see the argument for Chang. Maybe not so much for Stich. Even so, that doesn't disprove my point. Some people will claim slam count is the only thing that matters. At that point, you can't argue with them because they won't budge. All you can do is bring up a hypothetical example, and see what they say. If they reject the premise that a player with 0 slams, 7 Masters, 2 WTFs, and a YE#1 is better than someone with only 1 slam, then you've discovered what they believe and you can't really continue arguing. If they accept that premise, then you just need to find how valuable they consider a slam. 6 Masters, 2 WTF and a YE#1? 7 Masters, 1 WTF, and 20 weeks at #1? Push the envelope until you've figured out how much a slam could potentially be worth, then you can potentially find an example of that in the real world.

For instance, if they say 4 WTF ~= 1 slam, then you can say: "Okay, so if Nadal passes Federer, you'll still have Federer as the GOAT until Nadal hits 22 slams. Is that right?" However, some people just won't agree with you no matter what, and you just have to accept that.
I agree that all things matter. However all the major fan bases have their inconsistency, and it is blatant and jarring. Federer fans were at first seemingly valid in being annoyed with Nadal fans who say "if Nadal gets to 20 he is better since he has just as many slams and the head to head puts him ahead, the rest doesnt matter". This shows the bias of some Nadal fans. However there are now many of these same Federer fans who are saying Djokovic needs to pass (not even tie) Federer in slams, despite that he would almost certainly be dusting him in every other stat at his current rate; in the hypothetical scenario he ever tied/passed him in slams. That is biased and extreme double standards too. And Djokovic fans are just as bad with their insisting Djokovic be over Nadal once he was within 3 slams, but saying he should be over Sampras once he was at 12, and skewing all else that is important. Many Federer fans are dismissive of Masters titles importance and the Olympics (although I can understand the Olympics), and head to heads with major rivals. Nadal fans are laughably dimissive of the YEC (little wonder why) and surface versatililty.

So whether it is only about slams, or how much other things matter strictly depends who your favorite is for a lot of people it seems.
 

True Fanerer

G.O.A.T.
In the 2019 race points he would be behind Djokovic even winning Wimbledon; and fairly far behind given that it would be a miracle if Djokvoic isnt in the final given his comical remaining draw (IIRC Fed was close to 2000 points behind post RG). He hasnt been in a U.S Open final in forever now (Djokovic will probably be atleast in the finals, like he is nearly every year), and while unlike Nadal both should do quite well indoors, Djokovic is much more likely to play more regularly and stay healthy/consistent over the entire remaining 5 months at this stage of the game. 38 year old Federer is very unlikely to even play all the Masters, which Djokovic almost certainly will.

Anything is possible of course but IMO Federer returning to #1 ever again at this point is even less likely than Nadal getting there in time, and Nadal getting to #1 before next winter if he somehow had an amazing first 4 months of next year and Djokovic falters badly (no real chance to gain it before Djokovic gains the mark if he hasnt before then with the second half clay season points Nadal defends), is unlikely.
Fed is in it for the slams and all the trophies now really. I wonder if winning Wimbledon would make him think about the rankings. I'm not sure. Probably not since he would have added to his slam count. Then again, it may make him hungry and confident. Djokovic has a lot to defend after Wimbledon. Cinci, UO, Paris final, Shanghai, WTF final. He would have to struggle though for Fed to have a chance.
 

chimneysweep

Semi-Pro
Fed is in it for the slams and all the trophies now really. I wonder if winning Wimbledon would make him think about the rankings. I'm not sure. Probably not since he would have added to his slam count. Then again, it may make him hungry and confident. Djokovic has a lot to defend after Wimbledon. Cinci, UO, Paris final, Shanghai, WTF final. He would have to struggle though for Fed to have a chance.
I mean if he really cares about the weeks at #1 record he might adjust his schedule.

I agree with you though he is all about the slams at this point. so that is less likely. And frankly I dont consider the weeks at #1 record even that hugely important (JMO) and I am not sure whether Federer even does or not. If he won Wimbledon and adjusted his schedule to make a big push to try and catch Djokovic at #1, we would obviously be wrong on that. I am much more interested in if Djokovic can pass Sampras's Years ending at #1 (6) than that. And whether he can tie or pass the YEC record. And whether he can catch or pass the most U.S Open records currently tied with Connors/Fed/Sampras or if Federer can at some point too. For me those things are all above the weeks at #1, just my opinion again. Who knows what Fed or even Djokovic think.
 

TripleATeam

Legend
I agree that all things matter. However all the major fan bases have their inconsistency, and it is blatant and jarring. Federer fans were at first seemingly valid in being annoyed with Nadal fans who say "if Nadal gets to 20 he is better since he has just as many slams and the head to head puts him ahead, the rest doesnt matter". This shows the bias of some Nadal fans. However there are now many of these same Federer fans who are saying Djokovic needs to pass (not even tie) Federer in slams, despite that he would almost certainly be dusting him in every other stat at his current rate; in the hypothetical scenario he ever tied/passed him in slams. That is biased and extreme double standards too. And Djokovic fans are just as bad with their insisting Djokovic be over Nadal once he was within 3 slams, but saying he should be over Sampras once he was at 12, and skewing all else that is important.

So whether it is only about slams, or how much other things matter strictly depends who your favorite is for a lot of people it seems.
Of course they do, but mostly when talking about specific members of each group compared to others.

For instance, one person in the Federer fanbase might say slams are everything, conclusively, and another may claim slams are just very important, but other things matter. While Federer is ahead in slams, both of them agree that Federer is greater than Nadal, but as soon as Nadal surpasses Federer, then you get a discrepancy. The one that believes slams are everything suddenly believes Nadal is better (or changes their views) while the one that believes slams don't conclusively tell the whole story will claim Federer is still greater.

Same goes for the Djokovic fanbase. There are some more metered Djokovic fans, and other more rabid ones. Again, same for Nadal.

Of course, there are the fans that change their minds as soon as the old criteria no longer suit them, but at that point, nothing can convince them - they're just looking for reasons why their favorite tennis player is the best.
 

MeatTornado

Legend
Sometimes I wonder if Federer things of Roddick and just thinks to himself "I used to beat him so easily, but I miss the challenge now"
I still can't believe how sad the tour is that Roddick and his 3-21 are now a high bar for today's top 10 to aspire to vs Federer in his mid-30s.
 
Almost nothing has changed since then. As soon as Djoko got his mojo back the record was in huge danger, if only because Federer and Nadal are older, more declined and nobody else could take it from Djokovic before the record is broken.

Really this should've been very clear before Djoko got #1 back and in fact it should've been clear when Djoko beat Nadal at Wimbledon last year.
Djoko just got back to top 10 and won his first tournament in a year when he won Wimbledon. And he needed a 31-2 run as well as Nadal's injury collapse for him to get back to #1 as quickly as he did. Not to mention we forget how quickly he lost it three years ago to Murray, when he looked untouchable absolutely everywhere.

If he doesn't look threatened after the next Australian Open, I think he will be pretty much guaranteed to break the record. Once again he has left a lot of room for improvement in the first three Masters, and my bet is he wouldn't waste that opportunity.
 

True Fanerer

G.O.A.T.
I mean if he really cares about the weeks at #1 record he might adjust his schedule.

I agree with you though he is all about the slams at this point. so that is less likely. And frankly I dont consider the weeks at #1 record even that hugely important (JMO) and I am not sure whether Federer even does or not. If he won Wimbledon and adjusted his schedule to make a big push to try and catch Djokovic at #1, we would obviously be wrong on that. I am much more interested in if Djokovic can pass Sampras's Years ending at #1 (6) than that. And whether he can tie or pass the YEC record. And whether he can catch or pass the most U.S Open records currently tied with Connors/Fed/Sampras or if Federer can at some point too. For me those things are all above the weeks at #1, just my opinion again. Who knows what Fed or even Djokovic think.
I believe the UO record is beyond his reach imo only because the UO has been so tough for him to capitalize even though he is always in the running. He's lost in the finals so many times. The WTF are within his grasp to tie atleast and YE#1 is something he can do as well. We'll just have to see. One of these young guns has to step up!!
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
Djoko just got back to top 10 and won his first tournament in a year when he won Wimbledon. And he needed a 31-2 run as well as Nadal's injury collapse for him to get back to #1 as quickly as he did. Not to mention we forget how quickly he lost it three years ago to Murray, when he looked untouchable absolutely everywhere.

If he doesn't look threatened after the next Australian Open, I think he will be pretty much guaranteed to break the record. Once again he has left a lot of room for improvement in the first three Masters, and my bet is he wouldn't waste that opportunity.
Is he playing chess and that confident that he can defend a lot of his points the rest of the year so he tanked the 1st three Masters this year so he could gain next year and give him a chance to break the record? :unsure:
 
Is he playing chess and that confident that he can defend a lot of his points the rest of the year so he tanked the 1st three Masters this year so he could gain next year and give him a chance to break the record? :unsure:
Can't rule anything out. :p And it feels like it's been a long while since he did well during the Sunshine Double.

But honestly I think he is more focused on Slams than before when he could afford to go all out in any event. He knows the chances are limited. Hopefully he takes some more, starting with this week...
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
Can't rule anything out. :p And it feels like it's been a long while since he did well during the Sunshine Double.

But honestly I think he is more focused on Slams than before when he could afford to go all out in any event. He knows the chances are limited. Hopefully he takes some more, starting with this week...
I really hope so but it still feels so far away so trying not to think about it. I do think his focus is more on Slams now though.[/QUOTE]
 
Beginning to look like Djoker will have to claw his way back next year.

Could be a tall order at 33.

Not just anyone can be the GOAT, after all! ;):whistle:
 
Top