Most weeks at #1 decided by a single match?

[TripleATeam]

Hey, everyone. I'm looking for a certain statistic - as it says in the title.

Clearly there's been many times that the ATP #1 and #2 were incredibly close, and had one match been reversed, the #2 would be ahead of the #1.

I'm not sure where to start finding the information, but the first place I thought of was 2013 - US Open final. With the 1600 point differential a win for Novak would make there, he would have remained #1 until the AO, which was 3 months. On top of that, he could have reclaimed the #1 position as early as May then, gaining 20 or so weeks of #1 for hypothetically winning that match.

However, it doesn't need to be just winning #1 - you can also say the biggest loss. Say there was Player A with a steady 4000 points, and several players kept on getting 3990 at different times, but Player A stayed #1 for 52 weeks. Then had Player A lost a tournament one round earlier, then Player A would have lost out on 52 weeks of #1 because of the one match.

Ideas?

 

[HetTheGreaterer]

Wimbledon 2008

 

[BGod]

Yeah I get what the OP is asking. It probably does boil down to Federer at the 2008 Wimbledon. Although I believe he officially lost his #1 status after losing early in Cincinnati. That one match really fried him for the rest of the year actually as the drops in Canada and Cincy were pretty big.

But back to the point, defending his title at Wimbledon would have resulted in Federer keeping his #1 until the AO at least but it's hard to ignore the mental boost it would have given him. He probably does better at Can-Cincy and the WTF. If he does, losing the 2009 AO won't be enough to drop him to #2 and he keeps the #1 until at least Wimbledon 2009. It could easily be argued this one match cost Federer 6 consecutive YE #1s.

 

[TripleATeam]

Yeah I get what the OP is asking. It probably does boil down to Federer at the 2008 Wimbledon. Although I believe he officially lost his #1 status after losing early in Cincinnati. That one match really fried him for the rest of the year actually as the drops in Canada and Cincy were pretty big.

But back to the point, defending his title at Wimbledon would have resulted in Federer keeping his #1 until the AO at least but it's hard to ignore the mental boost it would have given him. He probably does better at Can-Cincy and the WTF. If he does, losing the 2009 AO won't be enough to drop him to #2 and he keeps the #1 until at least Wimbledon 2009. It could easily be argued this one match cost Federer 6 consecutive YE #1s.

That's quite a long time, but I'm not going to talk about the mental factor, because then we're factoring other matches - not just the one.

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

What about the 2016 ATP Finals' final?

 

[NoleFam]

2012 Wimbledon SF. When Federer won that match, he caused Djokovic to lose about 1280 points and winning the title pushed him to #1, and the week after next he passed Sampras for the all time record. Had Djokovic won that match he may not have lost that ranking for the entire year and Federer would not have passed the record until 2018, when he got the #1 ranking again.

 

[Deleted member 743545]

Wimbledon 2018 SF. Had Nadal won that match he would have probably ended the year at No.1

 

[TripleATeam]

What about the 2016 ATP Finals' final?

I considered it, but you have to remember the AO was just a few weeks later, and Novak would have lost the #1 there. Murray had a strong back half of 2016, so Djokovic would fall off first regardless.

 

[George Turner]

Guga kuerten got to number one by winning the world tour finals in 2000, beating Sampras and Agassi. He would hold number one for the vast majority of 2001, a total of 43 weeks.

On the flipside, Pat Rafter had a one week reign as world number one. That "record" will never be beaten.

 

[fezer]

US Open 85 Final & US Open 88 Final

 

[KG1965]

Hey, everyone. I'm looking for a certain statistic - as it says in the title.

Clearly there's been many times that the ATP #1 and #2 were incredibly close, and had one match been reversed, the #2 would be ahead of the #1.

I'm not sure where to start finding the information, but the first place I thought of was 2013 - US Open final. With the 1600 point differential a win for Novak would make there, he would have remained #1 until the AO, which was 3 months. On top of that, he could have reclaimed the #1 position as early as May then, gaining 20 or so weeks of #1 for hypothetically winning that match.

However, it doesn't need to be just winning #1 - you can also say the biggest loss. Say there was Player A with a steady 4000 points, and several players kept on getting 3990 at different times, but Player A stayed #1 for 52 weeks. Then had Player A lost a tournament one round earlier, then Player A would have lost out on 52 weeks of #1 because of the one match.

Ideas?

Number 2 at the end of the year for a single match. Wooooow.

Recently I don't know, maybe the final YEC between Murray-Djokovic 2016.

In 1975 the distance between Connors and Vilas is minimal (42,72-42,52).
Determinant of a defeat to Stockholm in the first round of Vilas v the british unknown Stilwell (62 62).

Also in 1977 it repeats itself. The difference between is minimal (59,80-57,50).
Vilas should have won the v Tanner the final at the Australian Open at the start of the year.

In 1978 the decisive match is the final at Flushing Meadows.
In the case of Borg's victory, the Swede would have passed Jimbo (88,50-79,00).

In 1982 the decisive match is probably the Wembley final.
McEnroe wins. If he won, Connors would have finished the year at number 1.

These 4 cases are (not casually) years in which ATP ranking doesn't recognize number one at the end of the year a player who is generally recognized:
- 1977 Connors and not Vilas
- 1978 Connors and not Borg
- 1982 McEnroe and not Connors
1975 is different because Ashe is too late and the duel is strangely Vilas-Connors.

Probably there will be other cases, just see the margin laughable between number 1 and 2.
Sampras v Agassi 1995 ?

 

[Red Rick]

What about the 2016 ATP Finals' final?

Murray could've lost it in Australia already I believe. In that regard it wasn't bigger than any WTF decisive for YE#1.

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

Murray could've lost it in Australia already I believe. In that regard it wasn't bigger than any WTF decisive for YE#1.

I was thinking that the outcomes would remain the same with Novak not being able to defend his AO and sunshine double points

 

[Fedeonic]

I think that the Roland Garros 2010 QF, Federer vs Söderling, almost made Federer fell short of the 286 weeks at N°1 from Sampras by just one week. Also based on the Madrid 2010 final Roger lost against Nadal which reduced the difference by 800 points.

 

[underground]

Not the most weeks but the2018 IW Final had a pretty huge significant (and direct) impact.

Fed blew 3 MPs. Had he won, he would have been guaranteed #1 until Rome. Rafa ended up losing in the QFs in Madrid, so Fed would have held on to #1 until Halle. Fed also won Stuttgart (where he lost in the 1R the previous round), which cancels out the points he dropped off from losing to Coric in the Halle final. So Fed holds on to #1 until the end of Wimbledon.

Literally no speculation or implication of results following thereafter. By missing out on one point, Fed threw away 4 months worth of #1.

 

[Mainad]

Hey, everyone. I'm looking for a certain statistic - as it says in the title.

Clearly there's been many times that the ATP #1 and #2 were incredibly close, and had one match been reversed, the #2 would be ahead of the #1.

I'm not sure where to start finding the information, but the first place I thought of was 2013 - US Open final. With the 1600 point differential a win for Novak would make there, he would have remained #1 until the AO, which was 3 months. On top of that, he could have reclaimed the #1 position as early as May then, gaining 20 or so weeks of #1 for hypothetically winning that match.

However, it doesn't need to be just winning #1 - you can also say the biggest loss. Say there was Player A with a steady 4000 points, and several players kept on getting 3990 at different times, but Player A stayed #1 for 52 weeks. Then had Player A lost a tournament one round earlier, then Player A would have lost out on 52 weeks of #1 because of the one match.

Ideas?

How about the 2016 WTF Final between the #1 and #2 ranked players? Whoever won the match ended up as #1.

 

[TripleATeam]

How about the 2016 WTF Final between the #1 and #2 ranked players? Whoever won the match ended up as #1.

Novak was defending the AO in 2017, so with both Murray and Novak dropping out early, Murray gained 800 points on Novak.

Following the WTF, Murray had 400 points more than Djokovic. With a reversed score, Novak would have gained 500 points and Andy would have lost 500. That means 600 points in Nole's favor.

However, Novak was defending 2000 points to Andy's 1200. Neither was able to defend them, so Novak would have lost the #1 there or during the Sunshine double.

 

[Mainad]

Novak was defending the AO in 2017, so with both Murray and Novak dropping out early, Murray gained 800 points on Novak.

Following the WTF, Murray had 400 points more than Djokovic. With a reversed score, Novak would have gained 500 points and Andy would have lost 500. That means 600 points in Nole's favor.

However, Novak was defending 2000 points to Andy's 1200. Neither was able to defend them, so Novak would have lost the #1 there or during the Sunshine double.

That's all as maybe but the fact remains that the race for #1 came down to the outcome of the 2016 WTF final.

 

[DSH]

What would have happened if Nadal had won Wimbledon 2007 in relation to being number 1?.

 

[TripleATeam]

That's all as maybe but the fact remains that the race for #1 came down to the outcome of the 2016 WTF final.

Oh yeah, but that isn't what I'm asking. I'm asking for most time earned/lost at #1 as a result of a single match, assuming all else remained the same.

2008 Wimbledon: Not sure the points system back then - I can't find a source. I just need the runner-up scores at grand slams to evaluate. Liberal estimate - 4 months, 16 weeks for Federer.
2012 Wimbledon: 12 weeks for Djokovic.
2013 USO: 20 weeks for Djokovic.
2014 Wimbledon: 9 weeks or so for Fed.
2016 WTF: 11 weeks or so for Djokovic.
2017 USO: If Nadal lost in the final, Federer would have picked up a dozen or so weeks throughout 2018.

That's all I've got (estimates and all) until I can find a good source to see points at any point without the hassle of the ATP site not allowing me to move forward/backward week by week.

 

[DSH]

Oh yeah, but that isn't what I'm asking. I'm asking for most time earned/lost at #1 as a result of a single match, assuming all else remained the same.

2008 Wimbledon: Not sure the points system back then - I can't find a source. I just need the runner-up scores at grand slams to evaluate. Liberal estimate - 4 months, 16 weeks for Federer.
2012 Wimbledon: 12 weeks for Djokovic.
2013 USO: 20 weeks for Djokovic.
2014 Wimbledon: 9 weeks or so for Fed.
2016 WTF: 11 weeks or so for Djokovic.
2017 USO: If Nadal lost in the final, Federer would have picked up a dozen or so weeks throughout 2018.

That's all I've got (estimates and all) until I can find a good source to see points at any point without the hassle of the ATP site not allowing me to move forward/backward week by week.

you forgot rg 2009!.

 

[MeatTornado]

Not the most weeks but the2018 IW Final had a pretty huge significant (and direct) impact.

Fed blew 3 MPs. Had he won, he would have been guaranteed #1 until Rome. Rafa ended up losing in the QFs in Madrid, so Fed would have held on to #1 until Halle. Fed also won Stuttgart (where he lost in the 1R the previous round), which cancels out the points he dropped off from losing to Coric in the Halle final. So Fed holds on to #1 until the end of Wimbledon.

Literally no speculation or implication of results following thereafter. By missing out on one point, Fed threw away 4 months worth of #1.

If Novak continues to walk all over the field indefinitely, I bet this might go down as one of the biggest blown opportunities of all time.

He's going to at least get close to Fed's 310. He's already at 239. With even more points to gain from IW thru RG, he's virtually a lock already to end the year #1, barring injury. That would take him into the 280s by the time AO 2020 rolls around.

Ironically, after relying on Novak to protect his slam count from Rafa, Fed might have to rely on Rafa to prevent Novak from taking his weeks at #1 record. The only remote threat of someone surpassing Novak atm is if Nadal kicks it into gear and grabs those points his missed out on last year.

 

[DSH]

If Novak continues to walk all over the field indefinitely, I bet this might go down as one of the biggest blown opportunities of all time.

He's going to at least get close to Fed's 310. He's already at 239. With even more points to gain from IW thru RG, he's virtually a lock already to end the year #1, barring injury. That would take him into the 280s by the time AO 2020 rolls around.

Ironically, after relying on Novak to protect his slam count from Rafa, Fed might have to rely on Rafa to prevent Novak from taking his weeks at #1 record. The only remote threat of someone surpassing Novak atm is if Nadal kicks it into gear and grabs those points his missed out on last year.

Many people thought the same thing that would happen in the 2016 season, especially after winning the French Open.
now with 32 years, is he a lock to end as number 1?.

 

[BGod]

Not the most weeks but the2018 IW Final had a pretty huge significant (and direct) impact.

Fed blew 3 MPs. Had he won, he would have been guaranteed #1 until Rome. Rafa ended up losing in the QFs in Madrid, so Fed would have held on to #1 until Halle. Fed also won Stuttgart (where he lost in the 1R the previous round), which cancels out the points he dropped off from losing to Coric in the Halle final. So Fed holds on to #1 until the end of Wimbledon.

Literally no speculation or implication of results following thereafter. By missing out on one point, Fed threw away 4 months worth of #1.

Wooooooow. I still haven't watched that match. I will this week.

 

[MeatTornado]

Many people thought the same thing that would happen in the 2016 season, especially after winning the French Open.
now with 32 years, is he a lock to end as number 1?.

That's why I said if he continues to walk all over them. He's been doing that for 7-8 months straight with no signs of slowing down. With so many points in his pocket and so many more to gain, it's going to take a gargantuan effort to pass him any time soon.

The odds of another 2016 happening seems quite low. The chances of an elbow injury, a motivational lull and a personal crisis happening at the same time again seems very unlikely.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Wooooooow. I still haven't watched that match. I will this week.

It was a good fight, dramatic and serve-dominant as we like, too. Looked like an amazing comeback for Federer and then Delpo broke back and Fed came undone in the final tiebreak, ****tiest TB I've seen him play lol.

 

[underground]

Wooooooow. I still haven't watched that match. I will this week.

Lol don’t.

Fed on his 3rd MP. BH DTL, gets a short mid court reply from Delpo, instead of flicking the BH cross court for a winner, he tries one of those fancy drop shots, executed terribly and got passed.

Ensuing TB was a joke, definitely had a DF from Fed.

 

[ADuck]

If Novak continues to walk all over the field indefinitely, I bet this might go down as one of the biggest blown opportunities of all time.

He's going to at least get close to Fed's 310. He's already at 239. With even more points to gain from IW thru RG, he's virtually a lock already to end the year #1, barring injury. That would take him into the 280s by the time AO 2020 rolls around.

Ironically, after relying on Novak to protect his slam count from Rafa, Fed might have to rely on Rafa to prevent Novak from taking his weeks at #1 record. The only remote threat of someone surpassing Novak atm is if Nadal kicks it into gear and grabs those points his missed out on last year.

You guys have a real dilemma on your hands

Btw, hypothetically how would Rafa block Novak from No.1 whilst Novak blocks Rafa from slams? Seems impossible.

 

[MeatTornado]

Ensuing TB was a joke, definitely had a DF from Fed.

Two, actually.

 

[TripleATeam]

you forgot rg 2009!.

Fair enough, but that's 8 weeks, no? I think by August, Federer had a 1800 point lead on Nadal. Even with a finals loss to Soderling, Federer would have lost less than 1000, as that was what a slam was worth back then. I was going to count RG 2009, but because Nadal lost early, we couldn't take many points away from Federer with a 2009 finals loss.

 

[Djokovic2015]

Oh yeah, but that isn't what I'm asking. I'm asking for most time earned/lost at #1 as a result of a single match, assuming all else remained the same.

The problem is for some of these scenarios all else CAN'T stay the same due to the fact that these changes would force other changes based on new match-ups and completely different draws.

For example lets say Wimb 2012 SF Djokovic beats Federer. We immediately arrive at an impasse in regards to all else remaining the same because we now have a Murray vs Djokovic title match that was won by Federer in reality. Furthermore, this result would change the seedings for USO meaning Fed never faces Berdych in the QF and Murray/Djoko wind up on the same side of the draw and can't meet in the finals.

Maybe now Murray wins Wimb and Fed wins USO and Fed gets #1 after USO instead of Wimb. Or maybe Murray wins both Wimb+USO and finishes the year as #1. Or maybe Djoko beats Murray under the roof at the Wimb final and also beats him in a less windy SF at USO, and has a 3 slam year to not only shore up #1 for 2012, but have a much bigger lead on Nadal for 2013.

The Fed 18 IW scenario has the least headaches extrapolating since it was a final so no new matches are created and Fed also didn't play any clay tournaments so no seedings would have been changed to warp the draws.

 

[TripleATeam]

The problem is for some of these scenarios all else CAN'T stay the same due to the fact that these changes would force other changes based on new match-ups and completely different draws.

For example lets say Wimb 2012 SF Djokovic beats Federer. We immediately arrive at an impasse in regards to all else remaining the same because we now have a Murray vs Djokovic title match that was won by Federer in reality. Furthermore, this result would change the seedings for USO meaning Fed never faces Berdych in the QF and Murray/Djoko wind up on the same side of the draw and can't meet in the finals.

Maybe now Murray wins Wimb and Fed wins USO and Fed gets #1 after USO instead of Wimb. Or maybe Murray wins both Wimb+USO and finishes the year as #1. Or maybe Djoko beats Murray under the roof at the Wimb final and also beats him in a less windy SF at USO, and has a 3 slam year to not only shore up #1 for 2012, but have a much bigger lead on Nadal for 2013.

The Fed 18 IW scenario has the least headaches extrapolating since it was a final so no new matches are created and Fed also didn't play any clay tournaments so no seedings would have been changed to warp the draws.

Assume they lose in the next round rather than the previous.