Sometimes time at number 1 doesn't reflect career achievement

[The_Order]

On the other hand, you can't say that being injured on healthy is only a matter of luck. It'is also a matter of managing the calendar and the efforts a player put in a match. Nadal plays each a year a very packed clay court seasons, he wins or reaches the final of every tournament he enters, and he plays each matches like a final. He didn't skip a clay masters 1000 tournaments since 2006, he skiped Barcelone only once.

Yeah and which years did he get injured? Only 2009 and 2012. Out of all the years in his career, I'm putting that to him being unlucky.

Each years, Nadal chooses to win as many tournaments, to book as many ranking points as possible on the short european clay court season. That's a choice, and it's a risky one. Worse, when he has superficials injuries, he ignores them and plays as much as if he was well rested. In RG 2012, he was recieving injections in his knees during RG to be able to play. I don't see any bad luck in him being injured after that. He took the risk, he made the choice. If he had been more careful during this part of the year, Nadal would certainly have been a lot less injured. He would as well have won a lot less titles and won a lot less ranking points.

Of course he decided to play through the pain he had to it was a major and he was in good form wouldn't you? It's unlucky that he got injured in the first place and required the injections in the first place.

Now imagine if someone decided to play the same schedule than Nadal does in the indoor seasons. There are a lot of ranking points to win, a lot of titles to win. Beijing, then Shanghaï, the Basel, then Paris, then London. Imagine that good indoor players like Federer, Murray or Djokovic is in the final of each of these tournament, like Nadal is in the clay swing. Would you call them unlucky to be injured at the end of such an effort?

Yes. First of all, clay matches are gruelling, and generally take longer. Nadal's pretty much got through the whole clay swing in every year of his career since 2005 except for 2 years. Those are an anomaly. Look at this year, his knee is probably more injury prone than ever now, yet he made it to the final of every clay event, had an epic RG SF and still got through relatively unscathed in the sense that he's not taking time off.

indoor matches generally don't last as long as the rallies are normally shorter. Also, no majors involved there as well.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

Yeah and which years did he get injured? Only 2009 and 2012. Out of all the years in his career, I'm putting that to him being unlucky.

Of course he decided to play through the pain he had to it was a major and he was in good form wouldn't you? It's unlucky that he got injured in the first place and required the injections in the first place.

Yes. First of all, clay matches are gruelling, and generally take longer. Nadal's pretty much got through the whole clay swing in every year of his career since 2005 except for 2 years. Those are an anomaly. Look at this year, his knee is probably more injury prone than ever now, yet he made it to the final of every clay event, had an epic RG SF and still got through relatively unscathed in the sense that he's not taking time off.

indoor matches generally don't last as long as the rallies are normally shorter. Also, no majors involved there as well.

So it was not a question of good luck or bad luck. He decided to give it all for a RG because it's a major that he could win and took the risk to be injured. And it happened. It's not bad luck. It's a choice. A unlucky player is a player who take all the care he can to prevent to getting injured and finish injured nonetheless.

Del Potro was unlucky when he got hurt in 2010. Since then he hasn't been unlucky. He has been careless, playing too much for his wrist. It's the same for Nadal. These guys know the risk of injuries for playing to much, as they have been injured in the past. Yet they choose to play a lot, those greedy players.

By the way I would consider that Nadal has been very lucky to be injured only twice, considering his feet problem, his knees problem and the packed schedule he impose to himself each years.

 

[JMR]

Nadal was unlucky to get injured.

No. Even if we give 100 percent credence to everything the Nadal camp has asserted regarding Nadal's knee problems (and I admit that may be logically impossible, since some of the pronouncements have contradicted each other), it's clear that the cause of the infirmities has been stress and overuse, not a sudden, unexpected, unlucky "injury" on the court. A player who slips on a piece of loose grass or clay and twists his ankle, requiring a six-week rehab, is unlucky. A player who slowly and painfully wears away his joints by choosing to play a punishing, grinding style that requires constant running in order to earn points cannot be described as unlucky. There is a direct, foreseeable connection between the style of play, the schedule, and the resulting knee problems. Nadal's own doctors predicted pain for him years in advance.

 

[The_Order]

You're a lousy excuse-making whiner. Don't forget Federer's mono which allowed Nadal to get the #1 ranking in the first place. See, excuses are a dime a dozen. Everybody can make them. Fact is, 302>102. Deal with it 8)

Yeah good point, except his mono case was very minor and he was well over it by the time the clay season started along with the Nadal beatings :lol:

You need to deal with the fact that your boy couldn't beat Nadal since WIM07

 

[Eragon]

Yeah good point, except his mono case was very minor and he was well over it by the time the clay season started along with the Nadal beatings :lol:

You need to deal with the fact that your boy couldn't beat Nadal since WIM07

He still has 17 Slams and 302 weeks at #1. I guess Nadal needs to deal with being Davydenko's whipping boy on Hardcourts? He doesn't even have the Slam record to console himself with

 

[The_Order]

He still has 17 Slams and 302 weeks at #1. I guess Nadal needs to deal with being Davydenko's whipping boy on Hardcourts? He doesn't even have the Slam record to console himself with

Yeah, I'm sure Nadal's HC record against Davydenko is bothering him.

But not as much as Fed's overall h2h record against Nadal bothers him :lol:

Never forget:

"Oh God! It's killing me.... hmmmpphhh" - Roger Federer :grin:

 

[Eragon]

Yeah, I'm sure Nadal's HC record against Davydenko is bothering him.

But not as much as Fed's overall h2h record against Nadal bothers him :lol:

Never forget:

"Oh God! It's killing me.... hmmmpphhh" - Roger Federer :grin:

You know as well as I do that Federer was worried about never going past Sampras's 14. But hey, troll on.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

No. Even if we give 100 percent credence to everything the Nadal camp has asserted regarding Nadal's knee problems (and I admit that may be logically impossible, since some of the pronouncements have contradicted each other), it's clear that the cause of the infirmities has been stress and overuse, not a sudden, unexpected, unlucky "injury" on the court. A player who slips on a piece of loose grass or clay and twists his ankle, requiring a six-week rehab, is unlucky. A player who slowly and painfully wears away his joints by choosing to play a punishing, grinding style that requires constant running in order to earn points cannot be described as unlucky. There is a direct, foreseeable connection between the style of play, the schedule, and the resulting knee problems. Nadal's own doctors predicted pain for him years in advance.

Great post.

 

[The_Order]

You know as well as I do that Federer was worried about never going past Sampras's 14. But hey, troll on.

No, he was worried and sooking over the fact that it was Nadal who had beaten him in 3 of the last 4 major finals. He embarrassed him at RG, took Wimbledon from him and then took the AO away as well. The goat couldn't find a way to beat Nadal :lol:

 

[Eragon]

The goat couldn't find a way to beat Nadal :lol:

Just like Nadal couldn't find a way to beat Davydenko :lol: Nadal, the Olympic Champion, couldn't get the better of Davydenko, the WTF Champion. 6-1 on Hardcourts 8)

 

[The_Order]

Great post.

LOL because its the same rubbish you spout.

According to you Nadal is lucky he hasn't been injured every year after the clay season from 2005-2013. LOL that's 9 seasons and only 2 of them where he had to take time off.

Ridiculous. It makes MUCH more sense that he was unlucky in 2009 and 2012 rather than lucky in 2005,2006,2007,2008,2010,2011 & 2013.

 

[The_Order]

Just like Nadal couldn't find a way to beat Davydenko :lol: Nadal, the Olympic Champion, couldn't get the better of Davydenko, the WTF Champion. 6-1 on Hardcourts 8)

What's the h2h at the majors?

It's not 6-2 like it is with Nadal owning Federer is it? :lol:

 

[Eragon]

What's the h2h at the majors?

It's not 6-2 like it is with Nadal owning Federer is it? :lol:

You're so ignorant, it's not even funny. It's 8-2 for Nadal at the Slams. I'm done talking with someone who knows so little about Tennis. Not to mention, a troll. I'm gonna put you on ignore for your next troll-post. Goodbye.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

LOL because its the same rubbish you spout.

According to you Nadal is lucky he hasn't been injured every year after the clay season from 2005-2013. LOL that's 9 seasons and only 2 of them where he had to take time off.

Ridiculous. It makes MUCH more sense that he was unlucky in 2009 and 2012 rather than lucky in 2005,2006,2007,2008,2010,2011 & 2013.

I think it was well explained, especially the part where he links the fragile body with the chance of getting injured by playing a lot.

I don't think I said that he should have been injured each years. I said that with what he imposes to his body, he could have been injured more often. His injuries are not a matter of luck, but of care. I agree that Nadal is unlucky to have bad feet, but knowing that, he has made choice which led him to being injured twice. He could have been injured more, and he certainly regret these choice when he will be older.

 

[The_Order]

You're so ignorant, it's not even funny. It's 8-2 for Nadal at the Slams. I'm done talking with someone who knows so little about Tennis. Not to mention, a troll. I'm gonna put you on ignore for your next troll-post. Goodbye.

Oh 8-2, :lol:

I was thinking of the outdoor HC h2h between them :grin:

 

[kiki]

Guys like Rios got there.It means number one can explain what a tough and what a weak era is all about...

 

[Eragon]

Guys like Rios got there.It means number one can explain what a tough and what a weak era is all about...

So Sampras played in a weak era, eh?

 

[Alex78]

perhaps RF, RN, ND, AM is a start of another great era. it's hard to tell though, and it'll be hard to live up to.

That's true, and I don't want to take anything away from these four.
My point, though, is that these four have been largely "unmolested" when it comes to grand slam trophies by any other players since, well, 2005 (RF, RN), respectively, 2008, with only one single exception (Delpo at USO in 2009). So beyond these 4, the field is practically barren with regard to true contenders/challengers. And that is a stark contrast to the 80ies/early 90ies, where you just had a lot more major threats. - To think of it, I even left out a guy like Wilander... Or a Muster... Or someone like Sergi Bruguera. All truly great players, not just "good" players, such as Ferrer, Tsonga, or Berdych. These three players share exactly 0 gs trophies, and I'm not sure how many finals they have between them (could it be 2 (Tsonga 1, Berdych 1)?).

 

[The_Order]

That's true, and I don't want to take anything away from these four.
My point, though, is that these four have been largely "unmolested" when it comes to grand slam trophies by any other players since, well, 2005 (RF, RN), respectively, 2008, with only one single exception (Delpo at USO in 2009). So beyond these 4, the field is practically barren with regard to true contenders/challengers. And that is a stark contrast to the 80ies/early 90ies, where you just had a lot more major threats. - To think of it, I even left out a guy like Wilander... Or a Muster... Or someone like Sergi Bruguera. All truly great players, not just "good" players, such as Ferrer, Tsonga, or Berdych. These three players share exactly 0 gs trophies, and I'm not sure how many finals they have between them (could it be 2 (Tsonga 1, Berdych 1)?).

Ferrer has a GS final as well to his resume.

But the reason there aren't players getting to slam finals is purely because they can't overcome the big 4 in the semi's. Their level of play is too much to get through and most have to potentially beat 3 of them to win a major.

Tell me which of Wilander, Muster, Llendl etc would beat 3 of the big 4 in a row? who's beating Nadal at RG? beating Novak at AO? beating Federer and Murray at Wimbledon? Or any combination of the big 4 at the USO?

They could do it, but not on a consistent basis especially if they have to deal with an on fire Del Potro, Tsonga or Berdych who can just hit players off the court on a given day...

 

[Alex78]

Ferrer has a GS final as well to his resume.

Of course, thanks for correcting me here!

But the reason there aren't players getting to slam finals is purely because they can't overcome the big 4 in the semi's. Their level of play is too much to get through and most have to potentially beat 3 of them to win a major.

Tell me which of Wilander, Muster, Llendl etc would beat 3 of the big 4 in a row? who's beating Nadal at RG? beating Novak at AO? beating Federer and Murray at Wimbledon? Or any combination of the big 4 at the USO?

They could do it, but not on a consistent basis especially if they have to deal with an on fire Del Potro, Tsonga or Berdych who can just hit players off the court on a given day...

That's actually not the point at all - I'm not comparing players across eras, but only within. And here, you have a much, much higher density at the top in the 80ies/early 90ies. My "proof" is the number of different gs trophy winners during that era, compared to the small elite club that's been winning gs titles since, well, the 2005 FO.

Edit: So basically, you could say that today you have the BIG 4 (only truly since the 2013 USO, and I'm not even sure if we can still call it the BIG 4 (Federer...)), whereas in that past era, you had something like the BIG 6, maybe even 7 at any given time.

 

[THE FIGHTER]

What the hell does his ability have to do with him getting injured?

The AO matches with Verdasco and Federer obviously took their toll and then the match with Novak in Madrid was probably the final nail in the coffin, it was only a matter of time after that one.

Now, those guys were playing top level tennis, Nadal is probably the only one at the time who would've won those 3 matches. There is not a chance in hell anybody would have the ability to win those matches and avoid getting into marathons in them.

Nadal was unlucky to get injured.

dude, staying injury free is under a player's control. he had the ability to ease off the gas, but instead went full throttle during the first half of the year. this pattern has shown itself many times in rafa's career. goes balls to the wall, spending every ounce of energy he has, and either becomes burnt out or injured afterwards.

you think rafa's injuries are beyond his control, they arent. his style of play directly dictates his injuries. his situation wasnt a freak injury like muster's. if you dont know what im referring to educate yourself, and hopefully you see a difference.
you're either really daft, or you're trolling.

 

[THE FIGHTER]

That's true, and I don't want to take anything away from these four.
My point, though, is that these four have been largely "unmolested" when it comes to grand slam trophies by any other players since, well, 2005 (RF, RN), respectively, 2008, with only one single exception (Delpo at USO in 2009). So beyond these 4, the field is practically barren with regard to true contenders/challengers. And that is a stark contrast to the 80ies/early 90ies, where you just had a lot more major threats. - To think of it, I even left out a guy like Wilander... Or a Muster... Or someone like Sergi Bruguera. All truly great players, not just "good" players, such as Ferrer, Tsonga, or Berdych. These three players share exactly 0 gs trophies, and I'm not sure how many finals they have between them (could it be 2 (Tsonga 1, Berdych 1)?).

i agree, i doubt anyone in the top ten now will be challenging these guys too much. but consider the age disparity between borg/connors and stich/ivanisevic. that's a huge amount of time between those champions. borg won his last slam in 84, while ivanisevic won his lone slam in 2001. that's 17 years apart.

hypothetically, if federer were to have won his last slam in 2012, we should wait until 2029 to make a fair comparison between the golden era from borg to ivanisevic to the possible golden era of today.

 

[egn]

In eras where competition and talent is deep I think number 1 plays a huge role. Lendl's number 1 reign is impressive largely because of how he did it, consistency and dominance of the tour. A lot of guys show up big at the largest events, but Lendl showed up every week. It's the reason guys like Wilander and Becker have less weeks at number 1. They had the talent and game but lacked the consistency.

Getting to number 1 and maintaining it are two different things. Just getting there shows a very good player, but not a great. Guys like Rafter, Roddick, Rios and Safin got there for just having small dominate bursts but not maintaining such a level. The ones who hold onto and maintain it go out there and consistently win to stay at that top spot. Just look at the Edberg/Becker debates. Most people rank Edberg ahead of Becker? Even though Becker dominated their h2h. Why? Edberg got to number 1 and held it, he was top of the tour for two straight years, won numerous titles and was consistently the best. Becker finsihed behind him both those years winning far less titles and that was why. However in the end Becker actually has more career titles, but Edberg had that period where he was the best.

Personally a lot of stock is put into "majors" and less into other things. Prior to the 90s majors just held different priorities. Mac/Connors/Borg never touched the Aussie and hell skipped the French a handful of times as well. You had majors changing surfaces in the 70s and 80s hurting a handful of guys. Put the Aussie open on hardcourts in all of the 80s and I imagine Lendl winds up in double digit majors. If Borg had more years of clay in the US Open I'm sure he'd have won one. Let's not forget had Mac/Borg/Connors showed up in Australia in the 70s things would be immensely different there. Had Lendl not cared about the box set and known that people were judging based on total major counts it'd be different as well. If majors gave bigger prize purses and didn't ban people for contracts it'd be different as well.

As better and better ranking lists come out determining number 1 for each year end it starts to show who is more important. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_number_one_male_tennis_player_rankings

 

[storypeddler]

I wish the majors were worth 2500 points. Serena should have ended #1 last year. The greatest injustice in tennis I must say.

It is her choice to not play more tournaments. She makes the decisions that determine her missing the #1 spot.

 

[TMF]

Nadal spent a record number of weeks at number 2, and was always a thorn in Federer's side. That has to be taken into account. Djokovic spent huge parts of his career at number 3 and number 4, clearly behind Nadal and Federer for years.

Nadal has 102 weeks at #1, so you think Sampras wouldn't get 102 weeks had he met prime Federer ?

Nadal was at #2 for 160 consecutive weeks, had there was no Federer, those 160 weeks would translate to #1 and his overall #1 would be 160 + 102(currently) = 272 weeks.

That's 286 weeks for Pete to Nadal 272 weeks. Very close, and Nadal can possibly break his record in the future.

 

[Alex78]

i agree, i doubt anyone in the top ten now will be challenging these guys too much. but consider the age disparity between borg/connors and stich/ivanisevic. that's a huge amount of time between those champions. borg won his last slam in 84, while ivanisevic won his lone slam in 2001. that's 17 years apart.

hypothetically, if federer were to have won his last slam in 2012, we should wait until 2029 to make a fair comparison between the golden era from borg to ivanisevic to the possible golden era of today.

Naah, what I mean is more like you had, for an extended period of time, a larger group of players at the very top - not the same players all the time, but more like a large group at the start of the era, then some guys (like Borg, Connors) dropping out due to age, getting replaced with new ones (Lendl, Wilander, Becker, Edberg), then guys dropping out again (McEnroe), new ones entering (Agassi, Courier, Sampras, list is really long), so that you never had just three or maybe four great players, which is what you have today. And like I wrote, even today everyone will acknowledge that Federer is way past his prime. But the fact he won gs titles between 2004 and 2012 is very impressive (so is Nadal winning between 2005 and 2013!) because in that time span, many other players entered and completely left the top sphere.

 

[storypeddler]

Ferrer has a GS final as well to his resume.

But the reason there aren't players getting to slam finals is purely because they can't overcome the big 4 in the semi's. Their level of play is too much to get through and most have to potentially beat 3 of them to win a major.

Tell me which of Wilander, Muster, Llendl etc would beat 3 of the big 4 in a row? who's beating Nadal at RG? beating Novak at AO? beating Federer and Murray at Wimbledon? Or any combination of the big 4 at the USO?

They could do it, but not on a consistent basis especially if they have to deal with an on fire Del Potro, Tsonga or Berdych who can just hit players off the court on a given day...

People fail to point out the other side of the equation, however. If you had Federer Nadal or Djokovic or Murray---any one of them---playing at the same time as Lendl, Connors, McEnroe, Becker, Muster, Wilander, you wouldn't automatically see the current star making every final then either. When you have to win 3 or 4 big matches in a row against very strong opponents, it is always possible to either simply have a somewhat off day and get beaten or just wear down and have little left at the end for the final opponent.

One can certainly argue that we are in the greatest era of men's tennis ever with the greatest parity---but there have been a number of periods in tennis history when the very same argument could have been made with a lot of evidence to support it, That's what makes these periods so much fun to watch.

With all due respect to current fans of current stars (and I love Rafa, and have huge respect for Roger, Nole, and Andy), I absolutely don't believe any of our current big 4 would dominate a group like Sampras, Edberg, Agassi, Courier, Chang, Ivanisevich, Bruguera, Kuerten, etc. It simply wouldn't happen. They would get their share of slams, but domination would not occur. Too many great players to beat for any one man to own the tour regardless of how good he is.

 

[powerangle]

Nadal has 102 weeks at #1, so you think Sampras wouldn't get 102 weeks had he met prime Federer ?

Nadal was at #2 for 160 consecutive weeks, had there was no Federer, those 160 weeks would translate to #1 and his overall #1 would be 160 + 102(currently) = 272 weeks.

That's 286 weeks for Pete to Nadal 272 weeks. Very close, and Nadal can possibly break his record in the future.

psst....160 + 102 = 262 (not 272).

But your point still stands of course.

 

[THE FIGHTER]

Naah, what I mean is more like you had, for an extended period of time, a larger group of players at the very top - not the same players all the time, but more like a large group at the start of the era, then some guys (like Borg, Connors) dropping out due to age, getting replaced with new ones (Lendl, Wilander, Becker, Edberg), then guys dropping out again (McEnroe), new ones entering (Agassi, Courier, Sampras, list is really long), so that you never had just three or maybe four great players, which is what you have today. And like I wrote, even today everyone will acknowledge that Federer is way past his prime. But the fact he won gs titles between 2004 and 2012 is very impressive (so is Nadal winning between 2005 and 2013!) because in that time span, many other players entered and completely left the top sphere.

ahh, i see. yeah, it's very impressive in that regard. and while i agree '04/'05-2013 has been impressive, i'd have to change my view and say that it's very possible that the continuation of this era wont live up to the 80's/90's in that regard. like you pointed out, players have already come and gone in the span of fedal's long dominace, so in a sense this era has already failed to do so.

 

[Smasher08]

Hewitt has 80 weeks at No. 1, and two year-ends, but only two slams. Becker had 12 weeks at No. 1, and no year-ends, but six slams.

Proof of STRONG GENERATIONS, no?

 

[THE FIGHTER]

People fail to point out the other side of the equation, however. If you had Federer Nadal or Djokovic or Murray---any one of them---playing at the same time as Lendl, Connors, McEnroe, Becker, Muster, Wilander, you wouldn't automatically see the current star making every final then either. When you have to win 3 or 4 big matches in a row against very strong opponents, it is always possible to either simply have a somewhat off day and get beaten or just wear down and have little left at the end for the final opponent.

One can certainly argue that we are in the greatest era of men's tennis ever with the greatest parity---but there have been a number of periods in tennis history when the very same argument could have been made with a lot of evidence to support it, That's what makes these periods so much fun to watch.

With all due respect to current fans of current stars (and I love Rafa, and have huge respect for Roger, Nole, and Andy), I absolutely don't believe any of our current big 4 would dominate a group like Sampras, Edberg, Agassi, Courier, Chang, Ivanisevich, Bruguera, Kuerten, etc. It simply wouldn't happen. They would get their share of slams, but domination would not occur. Too many great players to beat for any one man to own the tour regardless of how good he is.

this makes for really interesting food for thought. topics of specialization come to mind.

while this may only relate to one aspect out of many, i saw a bolleteri instructional vid featuring agassi a short while ago where agassi talks about the importance of a developing a weapon (singular). he mentions it's important to have a shot you can rely on, to build your points around. naturally this notion has been around for a long time, but it felt so antiquated hearing it now after so many years. the top 4, have all made strides to develop multiple weapons, to round themselves out as opposed to agassi's more polarized approach. with this along with the idea of court homogenization in mind, i feel like the 90's had a field that was more polarized to one specialty or another while the field is more rounded-out now.

would a well rounded game do as well in the 90's? would a more polarized/specialized game do as well now? interesting stuff.

 

[Alex78]

this makes for really interesting food for thought. topics of specialization come to mind.

while this may only relate to one aspect out of many, i saw a bolleteri instructional vid featuring agassi a short while ago where agassi talks about the importance of a developing a weapon (singular). he mentions it's important to have a shot you can rely on, to build your points around. naturally this notion has been around for a long time, but it felt so antiquated hearing it now after so many years. the top 4, have all made strides to develop multiple weapons, to round themselves out as opposed to agassi's more polarized approach. with this along with the idea of court homogenization in mind, i feel like the 90's had a field that was more polarized to one specialty or another while the field is more rounded-out now.

would a well rounded game do as well in the 90's? would a more polarized/specialized game do as well now? interesting stuff.

Yeah, I saw the same Bolletieri/Agassi vid!
And that's an excellent aspect pointed out by you - players developing multiple weapons today, with the top guys having basically no weakness left.
Maybe there are simply less individuals being able to achieve this pinnacle? And that could very well be the direct consequence of surface homogenization. That, and the fact that all top players are physically in such top shape.

 

[FedExpress]

LOL because its the same rubbish you spout.

According to you Nadal is lucky he hasn't been injured every year after the clay season from 2005-2013. LOL that's 9 seasons and only 2 of them where he had to take time off.

Ridiculous. It makes MUCH more sense that he was unlucky in 2009 and 2012 rather than lucky in 2005,2006,2007,2008,2010,2011 & 2013.

But Nadal did have significant injuries in a lot of those years.

2005 & 2006: Major foot injury. Thought he would have to retire. Misses WTF and AO.
2008: Retires in Paris and misses WTF
2010: Retires vs Murray at AO
2011: Gives a w/o to Murray in Miami SFs

Okay, so in 2010/11 the injuries were not so significant, but the 2005/6 and 2008 injuries were fairly big and certainly not "unlucky". They came after he had his biggest seasons at the time.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Don't get me wrong getting and staying at number 1 for a long period of time is an important achievement - but time there doesn't always reflect what is actually happening completely in a career.

Case in point...if Djokovic continues to hold number 1 until the end of the year - that means he will exceed Nadal in number of weeks and no. of year ends as number 1, even though he has won only 1/2 the slams (if he doesn't win the US open this year). Even if he doesn't end the year at number 1, in 12 weeks time (at the time of writing he is currently on 91 weeks and Nadal's total is 102 weeks) he has a decent chance of exceeding Nadal's total. Hence, only 1/2 the slams but longer at number 1.

Again, time at number 1 is important to your career CV - however time there doesn't reflect exactly what was going on in your career in terms of Slam wins.

(Having said this I think that Nadal is likely to get back to number 1, even later this year).

Djokovic now has 200 more weeks than Nadal

He has 14 more big titles.

Way more semis and finals

As per you he should be ahead of Nadal in weeks. I think weeks at number 1 is good enough criteria. Why would we skip it.

 

[timnz]

Don't get me wrong getting and staying at number 1 for a long period of time is an important achievement - but time there doesn't always reflect what is actually happening completely in a career.

Case in point...if Djokovic continues to hold number 1 until the end of the year - that means he will exceed Nadal in number of weeks and no. of year ends as number 1, even though he has won only 1/2 the slams (if he doesn't win the US open this year). Even if he doesn't end the year at number 1, in 12 weeks time (at the time of writing he is currently on 91 weeks and Nadal's total is 102 weeks) he has a decent chance of exceeding Nadal's total. Hence, only 1/2 the slams but longer at number 1.

Again, time at number 1 is important to your career CV - however time there doesn't reflect exactly what was going on in your career in terms of Slam wins.

(Having said this I think that Nadal is likely to get back to number 1, even later this year).

Who had the better career? roddick or Becker? Roddick had more weeks at number 1.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Who had the better career? roddick or Becker? Roddick had more weeks at number 1.

Both have mediocre numbers at weeks at number 1.

 

[Mainad]

Who had the better career? roddick or Becker? Roddick had more weeks at number 1.

Becker obviously had the better career but Roddick did better with the #1 ranking chalking up an extra week (13 v 12) and achieving the coveted year-end #1 spot (2003) which poor Becker never managed.

Becker had an amazing career but with 2 notable gaps being the only ATG never to be ranked year-end #1 and the only one never to win a title on clay.

 

[GrandSlam24]

For me personally, the No. 1 position sometimes counts more than a big title. Because the position shows the average performance of a player. There are not only Grand Slams. I count 4 months at No. 1 as a Grand Slam title. That's my formula. Even if the player has won 0 Grand Slams.
You want to be the best in the world for as long as possible. Not consecutively, but as often as possible.

 

[timnz]

Becker obviously had the better career but Roddick did better with the #1 ranking chalking up an extra week (13 v 12) and achieving the coveted year-end #1 spot (2003) which poor Becker never managed.

Becker had an amazing career but with 2 notable gaps being the only ATG never to be ranked year-end #1 and the only one never to win a title on clay.

I used that example to illustrates the OPs point is that sometimes time at number 1 doesn’t correlate to achievement. Another Becker example is against someone he had a 25-10 head to head Edberg. Edberg had 2 YE number 1s and 72 weeks but Becker’s cv of achievement is significantly better than edberg’s

 

[nolefam_2024]

I used that example to illustrates the OPs point is that sometimes time at number 1 doesn’t correlate to achievement. Another Becker example is against someone he had a 25-10 head to head Edberg. Edberg had 2 YE number 1s and 72 weeks but Becker’s cv of achievement is significantly better than edberg’s

Edberg retired in 1996. He effectively stopped being slam contender by 1993? Becker won AO 1996. So he was 1 slam behind Edberg since 1992 to 1995.

It's Becker's own issues which kept him out of ranking.

 

[helterskelter]

I used that example to illustrates the OPs point is that sometimes time at number 1 doesn’t correlate to achievement. Another Becker example is against someone he had a 25-10 head to head Edberg. Edberg had 2 YE number 1s and 72 weeks but Becker’s cv of achievement is significantly better than edberg’s

I suppose that there are ways in which you could define "significantly" that might make me agree with the bolded statement, but sans explicit definition I think it is an overstatement, and not just because I was/am an Edberg fan.

 

[CHillTennis]

Becker obviously had the better career but Roddick did better with the #1 ranking chalking up an extra week (13 v 12) and achieving the coveted year-end #1 spot (2003) which poor Becker never managed.

Becker had an amazing career but with 2 notable gaps being the only ATG never to be ranked year-end #1 and the only one never to win a title on clay.

Becker got screwed in 1989. There's no way that Lendl was the best player of that season. We all know that it was Boris.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Becker got screwed in 1989. There's no way that Lendl was the best player of that season. We all know that it was Boris.

What happened in 1989? It is before I was born.

 

[helterskelter]

Becker got screwed in 1989. There's no way that Lendl was the best player of that season. We all know that it was Boris.

I don't think that is so clearcut. (I did at the time, so perhaps I shouldn't second-guess myself decades after the fact). Lendl did win double the number of tournaments that Becker won, 10-5. Becker did beat him at both Wimbledon and the US Open and so led the slam count 2-1. If it were 2-0, I think that would be decisive. At 2-1, I'm not so sure.

 

[helterskelter]

What happened in 1989? It is before I was born.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Grand_Prix_(tennis)#Grand_Prix_rankings.

Long story short:

Slam titles: 2-1 Becker (Wimbledon and US Open v Australian Open)
Slam H2H: 2-0 Becker (Wimbledon SF + US Open F)
Overall titles: 10-5 Lendl (Becker: Milan, Philadelphia, Wimbledon, US Open, Paris Bercy; Lendl: Australian Open, Scottsdale, Miami, Forest Hills, Hamburg, Queen's, Canada, Bordeaux, Sydney, Stockholm)
N.B. No other matches between them that year.

Please note that it was the year before the ATP was formed and so the year before they started talking about the "Super 9" (the precursor to the MS series). Nowadays, some like to talk about the tour as though there was always a very clear distinction between the second tier of events and everything else. I don't think that that was how people talked about it in 1989. Bear in mind that I was 10 at the start of 1989 and 11 by the end of it. I did follow the tennis tour extremely closely, though - much more so than I do nowadays.

Becker did outperform Lendl in four of the five biggest events. In my view, if Becker had won the Tour Finals final against Edberg, which he lost, then it would be a clear case for Becker. Having lost that final, I now think it can be argued either way - though, as I said before, I didn't think that at the time, and my general belief is that the standards of the day must be determinative, so that I shouldn't really second-guess myself after the fact.

Oh, and Becker almost singlehandedly let West Germany to the Davis Cup title, beating Wilander and Edberg hollow in the final and also participating in the winning doubles match. (Carl-Uwe Steeb lost both his singles matches, so without Becker, probably no DC title for West Germany). That was a big deal at the time, though it didn't affect the rankings.

 

[nolefam_2024]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Grand_Prix_(tennis)#Grand_Prix_rankings.

Long story short:

Slam titles: 2-1 Becker (Wimbledon and US Open v Australian Open)
Slam H2H: 2-0 Becker (Wimbledon SF + US Open F)
Overall titles: 10-5 Lendl (Becker: Milan, Philadelphia, Wimbledon, US Open, Paris Bercy; Lendl: Australian Open, Scottsdale, Miami, Forest Hills, Hamburg, Queen's, Canada, Bordeaux, Sydney, Stockholm)
N.B. No other matches between them that year.

Please note that it was the year before the ATP was formed and so the year before they started talking about the "Super 9" (the precursor to the MS series). Nowadays, some like to talk about the tour as though there was always a very clear distinction between the second tier of events and everything else. I don't think that that was how people talked about it in 1989. Bear in mind that I was 10 at the start of 1989 and 11 by the end of it. I did follow the tennis tour extremely closely, though - much more so than I do nowadays.

Becker did outperform Lendl in four of the five biggest events. In my view, if Becker had won the Tour Finals final against Edberg, which he lost, then it would be a clear case for Becker. Having lost that final, I now think it can be argued either way - though, as I said before, I didn't think that at the time, and my general belief is that the standards of the day must be determinative, so that I shouldn't really second-guess myself after the fact.

Thank you for the detailed response. Yes I am not sure why Becker is always used as example of ranking having issues. He did not dominate other two as much as he should.

 

[Phoenix*]

Being #1 is the most telling goat metric.

You're good enough -> you're winning -> you're #1 [Djokovic] [Federer & Sampras as the past goats]
You're not good enough -> you're not winning -> you're not #1 [Nadal]

Simple and effective reasoning. Can't be cheated by specializing on a fringe surface too - you gotta be the top dog on the majority of the tour.

 

[CHillTennis]

What happened in 1989? It is before I was born.

Laughs. It's before I was born too.

Ivan Lendl finished the 1989 season ranked number one in the world. The reason why I said that Boris got screwed that year is because he managed to win Wimbledon and the US Open (defeating Lendl in the final.) Boris also made the semis at the French Open (losing to Edberg.)

Given all that Boris was able to achieve during that season, it's kind of ridiculous that Lendl finished the year ranked number one.

It's kind of like how Connors finished 1977 as the world #1, even though Guillermo Vilas won two grand slam titles, Borg won Wimbledon, and Connors didn't win any slams.

 

[GrandSlam24]

1989 felt like Becker's best year.
But there was never a chance of 1st place.
Lendl simply won MORE. And scored points.

 

[helterskelter]

Laughs. It's before I was born too.

Ivan Lendl finished the 1989 season ranked number one in the world. The reason why I said that Boris got screwed that year is because he managed to win Wimbledon and the US Open (defeating Lendl in the final.) Boris also made the semis at the French Open (losing to Edberg.)

Given all that Boris was able to achieve during that season, it's kind of ridiculous that Lendl finished the year ranked number one.

It's kind of like how Connors finished 1977 as the world #1, even though Guillermo Vilas won two grand slam titles, Borg won Wimbledon, and Connors didn't win any slams.

To my mind, 1977 shows the ranking system to be flawed to a much greater extent than 1989. (Then again, 1977 is - just - before I was born, too, whereas I remember 1989 well).

I was alive but not following tennis in 1982, which is often said to be another year when the rankings were messed up.