Most underrated YE ranking??

BGod

Legend
So many to choose from that a poll didn't seem wise.

To clarify, point to a YE rank you think was way lower than the quality displayed by said player or where lower tier titles had lesser players above.

Some examples:

Borg in 81 wins a Slam and makes the other 2 Finals (AO not being heavily contested those days). Granted he played almost nothing else but that type of display at the Majors ending YE 4th just seems silly, with Lendl & Connors finishing ahead with 1 Slam Final between them.

Rafter in 01 of course made the legendary Wimbledon Final against Goran but also lost in the AO SF. Along with this he appeared in all 4 of the North American Masters events and no others having 2 Finals, a SF and QF. He finished ranked 7th behind the likes of Grosjean and Kafelnikov who made no Slam Finals nor won a Masters.

Krajicek in 96 was the man who beat Sampras in between 7 titles at Wimbledon. He also made a Final at a Masters, SF at the WTF and had another deep run at a Slam getting to the QF. He finished 7th and more importantly well behind #2 Chang who made 2 Slam Finals and won a single Masters but not much else. It's not to pile on Chang but that behind him 4 additional guys finished ahead of Krajicek.

Mecir in 1989 had a lot of early round exits but he did make a Slam Final and win a Masters to finish 18th?????
 

Sunny014

Legend
You need to respect the ability of collecting points instead of dominating the field.
Thats a bit tough.
I only respect power or a show of force.
Only reason why I respect the Bull is because of his brutal dominance on 1 surface for more 15 years, otherwise going by his weeks at 1 and other records he looks like a third wheel, however his clay power is what makes him really special.

So how can I respect his points collecting? :unsure:
 

Nole Slam

G.O.A.T.
Thats a bit tough.
I only respect power or a show of force.
Only reason why I respect the Bull is because of his brutal dominance on 1 surface for more 15 years, otherwise going by his weeks at 1 and other records he looks like a third wheel, however his clay power is what makes him really special.

So how can I respect his points collecting? :unsure:
Lol. Good response.
 

Backspin1183

G.O.A.T.
Probably Nadal in 2017. It was impressive how he barely got that YE #1 vs Clayless Federer.
How is Nadal 2017 underrated? Everyone knew he was gonna be year end #1 when he won US Open, his 2nd Slam title of the year. Federer knew he couldn't compete on clay and chose his battles wisely. It was a very smart scheduling from Fed team. It paid off for him too.
 

Sunny014

Legend
Had Martin Del Potro not eliminated Federer at the USO then 2017 would have been Federer's yet another 3 slam year.
 

Nole_King

Professional
Had Martin Del Potro not eliminated Federer at the USO then 2017 would have been Federer's yet another 3 slam year.
Federer injured his back in Toronto and that really put his chances at USO to bed. He struggled against nobodies in the earlier rounds and Del Potro simply put him out of his misery at USO. If by miracle he would have progressed further he had really very low chances against Nadal.
 

Sunny014

Legend
Federer injured his back in Toronto and that really put his chances at USO to bed. He struggled against nobodies in the earlier rounds and Del Potro simply put him out of his misery at USO. If by miracle he would have progressed further he had really very low chances against Nadal.
Federer defeated Nadal 4 out of 4 times they met in 2017, AO, IW, Miami, Shanghai .... all big tournament and all won in straight sets at the AO.... Fed was at his clutchy best and Nadal was at his worst ever since..... no way was Nadal winning if they met again at the USO that year
 

Backspin1183

G.O.A.T.
He would have thrashed your guru in the semis, thats what I meant.

Your guru is extremely lucky, F0 2011 he won because of Fed beating Novak, USO 2017 he won because Potro beating Fed...
Who the heck is a guru? Federer since 2008 hasn't won a single title at the US Open. He is very beatable and got beat handily by Del Potro.
 

Sunny014

Legend
Nadal lost the edge he had over Federer due to his own footspeed going down + Fed changing raquet + Fed's new backhand .... culmination of all these factors meant Nadal was impotent vs Federer outside clay
 

Sunny014

Legend
Who the heck is a guru? Federer since 2008 hasn't won a single title at the US Open. He is very beatable and got beat handily by Del Potro.
Novak stopped him in 2010, 2011 and 2015

In 2011 had Novak not stopped him then your guru was gonna lose in the final :D he lost to novak anyway
 

Backspin1183

G.O.A.T.
Novak stopped him in 2010, 2011 and 2015

In 2011 had Novak not stopped him then your guru was gonna lose in the final :D he lost to novak anyway
Nobody's my guru. Is Federer your guru? Have you even seen him in person? Federer was stopped simply because he wasn't good enough. Someone else was always better than him every year since 2008.
 

Sunny014

Legend
Nobody's my guru. Is Federer your guru? Have you even seen him in person? Federer was stopped simply because he wasn't good enough. Someone else was always better than him every year since 2008.
I have no guru, I follow no one.
Of course I consider Federer the GOAT but that is just my opinion.

Federer was the best in 09, 12 and also in 2017, plus his successors were luck to not have zoning ATGs aged 5-6 years younger below them, had that been the case then all of them would have retired with15 slams or lesser.

By the way, Nadal is your guru, you are a big fanatic of Nadal I guess
 

Nole_King

Professional
Federer defeated Nadal 4 out of 4 times they met in 2017, AO, IW, Miami, Shanghai .... all big tournament and all won in straight sets at the AO.... Fed was at his clutchy best and Nadal was at his worst ever since..... no way was Nadal winning if they met again at the USO that year
Yes. And he was fit and healthy in those 4 matches. He really was in a bad shape in the hard court swing leading up to USO
 

boredone3456

G.O.A.T.
2017 should gone to Federer
It is sad that Nadal got the YE1
Hard to be #1 when you skip a huge chunk of the season which includes several masters and a major. Forces you to be absolutely perfect everywhere else. The rankings are about consistency and points earned across ALL events. You cannot just win a couple majors and expect to be right at the top anymore.

Like, I'll give Clijsters as an Example. in 2010 she won the US Open and YEC. Everyone says that made her Yr End #1 and the rankings (which gave it to Woz) were wrong. However Clijsters outside of those 2 events lost in the 3rd round of the AO, skipped the French, lost in the QF of Wimbledon. She won Miami and Cincy...

Woz overall won more points at the majors not skipping any, won the Canadian Open, the China Open, Tokyo, finalist at IW and the YEC. Woz was basically undefeated after Wimbledon except for 2 match losses that year (USO to Zvonareva, YEC to Clijsters). Clijsters had a major but Woz accumulated points everywhere else.

You could argue Clijsters was the actual best player on the tour, but the rankings do by points earned, and Woz did that.

I think 2017 was a similar thing on the meds side...cant be #1 if you miss a giant chunk of the year.
 

NAS

Hall of Fame
There is no underrated ranking atleast from 2000 onwards, points have been alloted, you have to win those matches to win respective points.
Only thing I have said for long time that Slam has been underrated by atp, so you can say more points should be alloted to slam
 

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
Thats a bit tough.
I only respect power or a show of force.
Only reason why I respect the Bull is because of his brutal dominance on 1 surface for more 15 years, otherwise going by his weeks at 1 and other records he looks like a third wheel, however his clay power is what makes him really special.

So how can I respect his points collecting? :unsure:
Lol what? He was in the AO final, won the FO, Wimby QFs, won the US Open, and other masters o_O he was a couple service holds from a 3 slam year and double career slam.
 

Turing

Rookie
Sampras 1999. Dominant WB and YEC win and would have been the favorite for the USO if not for injury. Clearly better than Kafelnikov who had over 30 losses and maybe better than Agassi too, at least certainly in the big matches. Arguably should have been his seventh straight YE #1 instead of only #3.
 

NAS

Hall of Fame
Sampras 1999. Dominant WB and YEC win and would have been the favorite for the USO if not for injury. Clearly better than Kafelnikov who had over 30 losses and maybe better than Agassi too, at least certainly in the big matches. Arguably should have been his seventh straight YE #1 instead of only #3.
Sampras missed two slam that year along side his bad performance on clay( 2 nd round lost in Rome and RG), and other bad performance in Iw and Miami . Basically around 6 month was over and he was still struggling in earlier rounds. His first tournament win came in Queens so his ranking was going to take hit.
 
Sampras 1999. Dominant WB and YEC win and would have been the favorite for the USO if not for injury. Clearly better than Kafelnikov who had over 30 losses and maybe better than Agassi too, at least certainly in the big matches. Arguably should have been his seventh straight YE #1 instead of only #3.
Well if he didn't have to withdraw from the U.S Open due to injury, it probably would have been his 7th straight YE#1. As it was, by missing the U.S Open, there is no possible logical argument he had a better year than Agassi with 2 slam wins and a slam runner up, and solid showings at each of the 5 biggest events of the year, but I can see the subjective argument that Sampras was clearly the better player with his personal ownage of Agassi across all surfaces minus clay. And with Agassi's U.S Open having the minor asterisk of the dominant player that summer Sampras, who owned Agassi at the U.S Open, withdrawing. Even as it was he clearly should have finished #2 over Kafelnikov with his Wimbledon, YEC, and significant non slam tournament titles.
 

gjm127

Professional
2017 should gone to Federer
It is sad that Nadal got the YE1
Indeed, he deserved it. But on second thought, you can't skip an entire surface and still expect to have YE #1. Not sure if the math checks out but had he at least played and reached 4R at 1 Masters and 4R at RG, he'd obtained YE #1 in 2017.
 
Indeed, he deserved it. But on second thought, you can't skip an entire surface and still expect to have YE #1. Not sure if the math checks out but had he at least played and reached 4R at 1 Masters and 4R at RG, he'd obtained YE #1 in 2017.
He also blew it at the U.S Open. Given his performances vs Nadal that year, it was his to win, and instead giving up a quarterfinal showing vs Nadal winning there. By that point Nadal had 2 slams as well, but a 3rd slam final, and a more active schedule. He was always going to come out on top then.

Back on top though Wozniacki finishing 2011 as YE#1 over Kvitova was RIDICULOUS. Kvitova not only won a slam, the YEC, much bigger events, but won 1 more tournament, and even had a better W-L % so the argument Wozniacki was so much more consistent even goes down the drain. There is no argument for Wozniacki YE#1 over Kvitova this year, it was the most bogus one in history. Thankfully the tennis governing bodies all basically overrules it with the ITF, WTA, Tennis Magazine, French Tennis Magazine, and everyone else giving Player of the Year to Kvitova, the one time a YE#1 was literally swept by one other person in all Player of Year awards. Basically abolishing Wozniacki's so called YE#1 for 2011 as if it never existed at all, which it really didn't. It is one reason I don't think Wozniacki is even a lack for the Hall of Fame as some do, considering she basically has only 1 real YE#1, not 2, and everyone including Hall of Fame voters think that way. Kvitova meanwhile with 2 Wimbledons and being the real YE#1 of 2011 is a lock for the Hall of Fame, and I would bet money on it.
 

duaneeo

Legend
Hard to be #1 when you skip a huge chunk of the season which includes several masters and a major. Forces you to be absolutely perfect everywhere else. The rankings are about consistency and points earned across ALL events. You cannot just win a couple majors and expect to be right at the top anymore.
I agree. Rafa was the deserved YE#1.
 
Top