Lack of relationship between weeks #1 and Slam Titles

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
You obviously haven't read my responses properly. I countered plenty, you just don't like the fact I was doing so.

tumblr_nfq8s9Gdbx1qcluu2o1_500.gif
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
+1 to those good luck wishes. Hope it goes well MN. It's good you're excited about the interview.
 

Cortana

Legend
Nadal is the odd one, not Djokovic. Djokovic has half the GS titles of Federer and half weeks at #1.

Nadal has 14 GS titles and only 141 weeks and no WTF. That just means that he isn't a complete player like Djokovic or Federer. He is dominating at 1 GS, that's all.
 

Russeljones

Talk Tennis Guru
Nadal is the odd one, not Djokovic. Djokovic has half the GS titles of Federer and half weeks at #1.

Nadal has 14 GS titles and only 141 weeks and no WTF. That just means that he isn't a complete player like Djokovic or Federer. He is dominating at 1 GS, that's all.

Is this sarcasm meant to emphasize the misunderstanding of others? Of so, well done.
 

BGod

G.O.A.T.
If we're having any kind of points system, I give the same to the Tour Finals as a Slam because of the round robin format and the competition you're facing. Five matches against Top 8 players. Even if it has been downgraded to a best of 3 set affair.

So:

WTF & Slam=10 Points
ATP 1000= 4 Points
Every 10 Weeks at #1 (fractional application)=3 Point

Roger Federer: 230+92+90.6=412.6
Rafael Nadal: 140+108+42.3=290.3
Novak Djokovic: 120+96+44.7=260.7


I think one can play around with how to value weeks at #1 but ultimately I think it shouldn't be given too much considering winning tournaments will inevitably help you get that ranking. As far as giving points for weeks at #2, I'd say it be 1 point for every 10 and then 0.5 for #3.

I wouldn't give anything for weeks at #4 or #5 because at that point, getting titles means you are having a good draw or unexpected results, and that's your reward. Weeks in the top 3 is about consistency.
 
Top