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

Can Federer stave off the opposition?


  • Total voters
    93
  • Poll closed .

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
1 difference,
2 young nextgen ATGs were consistently chasing and halting fed in his race, whereas djoker's whole next and next-to-next gen is useless
Yes, but RF had the weak era to hold the spot while being totally unchallenged.

The Big 3 era means the pie gets split in 3 parts. Weak era RF took the whole thing.
 

Aneto

Semi-Pro
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.
And 7 Master 1000 more?? Don’t count?
 
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:
I'm glad to know that Djokovic is at least guaranteed to overtake Lendl and Connors (he tied Connors this week) and so will be in third place in this category before he loses the top spot. Unless Nadal picks up some crazy schedule, Djokovic has four more weeks at #1 guaranteed, which would put him at 272 weeks. If Djokovic does keep playing this season, he'll likely but not definitely get a few more in, so be on about 275. It does look like Nadal will end the year #1.

By the way, how do you feel about wanting Nadal to get the year-end #1 position? Surely you are ambivalent about it. I know you want Federer to end up with most weeks at #1, and Nadal overtaking Djokovic would help with that. But it also means Nadal becoming #1 again. And in my opinion, the year-end #1 position is also significant. It would be Nadal's fifth time as year-end #1, tying both Federer and Djokovic. Maybe you don't care about year-end #1 and that would definitely ease the dilemma. I can understand wanting Nadal to get the #1 back early in the new year, say after Australia, which could happen if, say, Djokovic loses the Australian Open final to Federer. By then, Djokovic would have about 20 more weeks at #1 and so be at around 288 weeks, which would see him move past Sampras and into second place, but still 22 weeks behind Federer. Wouldn't that be preferable? Of course, the downside is that Djokovic would then move ahead of Federer for year-ends at #1 at 6-5. And it might be cutting things a bit close for comfort.
 
I'm glad to know that Djokovic is at least guaranteed to overtake Lendl and Connors (he tied Connors this week) and so will be in third place in this category before he loses the top spot. Unless Nadal picks up some crazy schedule, Djokovic has four more weeks at #1 guaranteed, which would put him at 272 weeks. If Djokovic does keep playing this season, he'll likely but not definitely get a few more in, so be on about 275. It does look like Nadal will end the year #1.

By the way, how do you feel about wanting Nadal to get the year-end #1 position? Surely you are ambivalent about it. I know you want Federer to end up with most weeks at #1, and Nadal overtaking Djokovic would help with that. But it also means Nadal becoming #1 again. And in my opinion, the year-end #1 position is also significant. It would be Nadal's fifth time as year-end #1, tying both Federer and Djokovic. Maybe you don't care about year-end #1 and that would definitely ease the dilemma. I can understand wanting Nadal to get the #1 back early in the new year, say after Australia, which could happen if, say, Djokovic loses the Australian Open final to Federer. By then, Djokovic would have about 20 more weeks at #1 and so be at around 288 weeks, which would see him move past Sampras and into second place, but still 22 weeks behind Federer. Wouldn't that be preferable? Of course, the downside is that Djokovic would then move ahead of Federer for year-ends at #1 at 6-5. And it might be cutting things a bit close for comfort.
I had kind of begun resigning myself to conceding this one...

So, pleasant surprise that it may not be snatched away after all. Not that its legitimacy couldn't be challenged fairly easily, but it would certainly be cleaner this way. :)

View this "weeks" record as more significant than the YE#1 prize, as it is a stand-alone.

Regardless, the four-and-a-half year unbroken stretch at numero uno will always remain special.
 

GabeT

Legend
And in my opinion, the year-end #1 position is also significant.
It’s very significant. In many ways more important than weeks at #1. Almost every sport has seasons and players and teams strive to be the best in a particular season. Jmac mentioned during the Nadal match, when they were talking about criteria on who is the best player, that YE1 is a key one on par with slams. He said “that’s what we all strive for”.

Tennis has a unusual system, which due to the seedings requires knowing rankings throughout the year. But that doesn’t detract from the key objective any sports person has of being the best in a given season. An ITF World Champion, for example, is determined by the results from a whole calendar year.
 
It’s very significant. In many ways more important than weeks at #1. Almost every sport has seasons and players and teams strive to be the best in a particular season. Jmac mentioned during the Nadal match, when they were talking about criteria on who is the best player, that YE1 is a key one on par with slams. He said “that’s what we all strive for”.

Tennis has a unusual system, which due to the seedings requires knowing rankings throughout the year. But that doesn’t detract from the key objective any sports person has of being the best in a given season. An ITF World Champion, for example, is determined by the results from a whole calendar year.
In Nadal's case, it's a broken barometer.

Because of all the recuperative breaks interspersed throughout his career.

Other players didn't have this advantage. So, for him, the weeks at #1 is more reflective of who he is as a player.
 

GabeT

Legend
In Nadal's case, it's a broken barometer.

Because of all the recuperative breaks interspersed throughout his career.

Other players didn't have this advantage. So, for him, the weeks at #1 is more reflective of who he is as a player.
Don’t follow your logic. For Nadal to win the YE1 he has to comply with the exact same rules as any other player. The fact that he’s been injured doesn’t change anything other than, of course, reducing his opportunities to reach #1.
 
Don’t follow your logic. For Nadal to win the YE1 he has to comply with the exact same rules as any other player. The fact that he’s been injured doesn’t change anything other than, of course, reducing his opportunities to reach #1.
That "recuperative breaks" bit may aid your comprehension.

Best.
 
Djoker to take over at numero uno on Monday. He's currently sitting at 223 weeks.

Federer's held the spot for just less than six years: 310 weeks.

Assuming Federer does not return to the pole position in his career, Djokovic would need to add 88 weeks (87 to tie) at the top spot to overtake him.

Is the buffer enough? :eek:

"I'm swimming with my clothes on, man. Do I look worried to you?"
Look what you did to Federer. Now, it looks like that he'll lose the weeks at number as well by 2020. And it's all your fault !!!;)
 
2004-2007 the weakest era of all time.
No it isn't..
Weakest era is 2014-19 in which djok won his 10 slams...
Weakiest of weak era in which he feasted on pigeons murray, gasquet, anderson, delpo, raonic, dimitrov etc & crapdal, old-erer etc.
When fedal upped their level again in 2017, he ran away like a coward... Compared to which, fedal took 13 losses to him combined when he was on peak of his powers....
 
@CYGS Just because we don't spread trolling full of hatred like you, it doesn't mean we're not capable of that. We definitely are, but our respect for djok is too much to do such an unclassy act, unlike you djok fans (90%) who are just full of hatred towards roger & vomit venoms 24×7.
Just get a life, man. I'm sure djok won't give a sh*t about you guys and probably will be ashamed..
 
No it isn't..
Weakest era is 2014-19 in which djok won his 10 slams...
Weakiest of weak era in which he feasted on pigeons murray, gasquet, anderson, delpo, raonic, dimitrov etc & crapdal, old-erer etc.
When fedal upped their level again in 2017, he ran away like a coward... Compared to which, fedal took 13 losses to him combined when he was on peak of his powers....
Sorry to troll you like this Djok..
But your fanbase starts this first
 

alexio88

Hall of Fame
When fedal upped their level again in 2017, he ran away like a coward...
:-D:-Dcoward really? he had a serious injury that's the only reason for his awful 2017 season(had been prolonged to up to 2018 also), yea, he was so coward that came back in 2018 and demolished the field (no matter fed or nadal), coward lol, just refresh your memory ..wimby18 and wimby19 and you will get who is the real coward
 
:-D:-Dcoward really? he had a serious injury that's the only reason for his awful 2017 season(had been prolonged to up to 2018 also), yea, he was so coward that came back in 2018 and demolished the field (no matter fed or nadal), coward lol, just refresh your memory ..wimby18 and wimby19 and you will get who is the real coward
Read everything
 
In Nadal's case, it's a broken barometer.

Because of all the recuperative breaks interspersed throughout his career.

Other players didn't have this advantage. So, for him, the weeks at #1 is more reflective of who he is as a player.
You are FUNNY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So, being injured, and not playing for a long time, it's actually beneficial???

Way to go fella, way to go!!!

Don't forget to mention your opinion to Andy Murray, he'll be forever grateful to you.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
2015-19 in which djok has taken advantage is much much weaker than so called weak era of 2004-06...
It is somewhat less weak, actually.

It's rather complicated. 2003-2006 had a denser field outside the top 10, but 2015-2019 has a better field in the top 5.

So it;s quite difficult to compare.

But yeah, if you mean LostGen, sure, they stink.
 
@FedFosterWallace

Why have you so far failed to draw attention to Bull's undisputed status as GSOAT (greatest sidekick of all time)? In case you doubt me, here is the list of most weeks as #2.

1. Bull: 326 weeks
2. Federer: 218 weeks
Nobody else has more than 200 weeks as #2. That is, Bull has been #2 for about one and a half times as long as Federer, and for more than 1.6 times as long as anyone else. This means that his status in this particular category is secured.
 
@FedFosterWallace

Why have you so far failed to draw attention to Bull's undisputed status as GSOAT (greatest sidekick of all time)? In case you doubt me, here is the list of most weeks as #2.

1. Bull: 326 weeks
2. Federer: 218 weeks
Nobody else has more than 200 weeks as #2. That is, Bull has been #2 for about one and a half times as long as Federer, and for more than 1.6 times as long as anyone else. This means that his status in this particular category is secured.
 
Top