Sometimes time at number 1 doesn't reflect career achievement

GrandSlam24

Semi-Pro
It's actually quite clear:
Whoever has the most points according to the current system is number 1.
Otherwise you are ITF PLAYER OF THE YEAR or something similar. The most successful GS player.
 

CHillTennis

Hall of Fame
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, but 1982 is often said to be another year when the rankings were messed up.
Yes. Back in the 1970s, the tennis ranking system worked quite differently from what we have today. I believe they worked off of the player's average results.

So they would look at the players best results at 14 events and would use that as a way to determine their ranking.

Let's say that you played 18 events in one year. You lost 4 times in the first round and made the finals in the other 14 events.

The ATP would calculate your ranking and since very few players are able to reach 14 finals, in the same year, it would more than likely mean that you would finish as the #1 player in the world.

This is the reason that Jimmy Connors enjoyed such a lengthy run as the number one player in the world. Even though he had years like 1975 and 1977 where he didn't win any grand slam titles.

His overall results were extremely consistent. So he simply remained as the #1 player.

What hurt Vilas in 1977 was that he had a poor showing at Wimbledon. If the surface had been slower, like it is today, he would have almost certainly been ranked #1 that year.

I still feel that the ATP needs to retro-actively correct the ranking and acknowledge Vilas as being a former world #1.

He was the best player of that particular season.
 

NoleFam

Bionic Poster
Laughs. It's before I was born too. :-D

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.
Well one could say the same for 2016. It was 2 Slams, a Slam final, and 4 Masters versus 1 Slam, 2 Slam finals, 3 Masters and ATP Finals. There's always a loophole in the system which is why Lendl and Murray got YE #1's. Anybody would take Becker and Djokovic's seasons over theirs though but Lendl and Murray earned the YE #1 because they had the points. Connors' situation is different because I think the ranking system was flawed during his time.
 
Last edited:

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Well one could say the same for 2016. It was 2 Slams, a Slam final, and 4 Masters versus 1 Slam, 2 Slam finals, 3 Masters and ATP Finals. There's always a loophole in the system which is why Lendl and Murray got YE #1's. Anybody would take Becker and Djokovic's seasons over theirs though but Lendl and Murray earned the YE #1 because they had the points. Connors' situation is different because I think the ranking system was flawed during his time.

Don't forget Murray defending his Olympic title in 2016. True, by then the ATP no longer awarded points for it but it still remains a notable achievement to rank with the other big titles he won that year giving him 6 big titles along with Djokovic.
 

GrandSlam24

Semi-Pro
In the end, the rules are the same for everyone (except for Novak in 2020 and 2022) and everyone tries to become No. 1 according to these rules. It doesn't work any other way. You still keep the big titles. But you're not necessarily the better player in any given year.
 

timnz

Legend
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.
Yes, same number of slam wins. However, in an era when Indoor tennis was an important part of the calendar , Becker had 5 Major Indoor titles (3 WTF, 1 WCT Final, 1 Grant Slam Cup) and Edberg 1 (WTF). And the aforementioned 25-10 H2H. Edberg was in 3 Wimbledon Finals, Becker in 7. Becker also had a superior H2H over best of 5 sets as well. THe only area that Edberg had a superior record was on clay (and that not considerably).

Edberg was a wonderful player, no doubt, but Becker had his number on most occasions. Becker's worst loss against Edberg was when he was half-asleep (Becker had a lot of sleep issues) playing Edberg in the 1990 Wimbledon final and he still took it to 5.
 
In the end, the rules are the same for everyone (except for Novak in 2020 and 2022) and everyone tries to become No. 1 according to these rules. It doesn't work any other way. You still keep the big titles. But you're not necessarily the better player in any given year.
What were the different rules for Novak?
 
Yes, same number of slam wins. However, in an era when Indoor tennis was an important part of the calendar , Becker had 5 Major Indoor titles (3 WTF, 1 WCT Final, 1 Grant Slam Cup) and Edberg 1 (WTF). And the aforementioned 25-10 H2H. Edberg was in 3 Wimbledon Finals, Becker in 7. Becker also had a superior H2H over best of 5 sets as well. THe only area that Edberg had a superior record was on clay (and that not considerably).

Edberg was a wonderful player, no doubt, but Becker had his number on most occasions. Becker's worst loss against Edberg was when he was half-asleep (Becker had a lot of sleep issues) playing Edberg in the 1990 Wimbledon final and he still took it to 5.

You wrote this as though I don’t know these facts. I assure you that I followed the era very closely at the time. I am not at all convinced by your arguments and will grant only that Becker’s record was marginally better. A few things:

1) To count H2H as weighing so heavily in career achievements strikes me as a mistake, especially when you are discounting rankings achievements. I agree with you that accomplishments in slams matters more than rankings. But I think that rankings matters much more than H2H. Yes, Becker had a dominant H2H over Edberg. Edberg, though, was some way ahead in rankings achievements. To me, that is significantly more important.
2) Edberg had a 3-1 lead in slam H2H. I would say he won four of their five most important matches, including also the YEC final of 1989. Too bad for Becker that he failed to prepare properly for the Wimbledon 1990 final. But that is part of the game.
3) At least if counting how Olympics medals tables are counted, Edberg had a better record than Becker at every slam other than Wimbledon and a better record than him overall at the slams, reaching more finals, more semi-finals, and more quarter-finals (11 > 10; 19 > 18; 26 > 23). Becker made just three non-Wimbledon GS finals; Edberg made eight. Becker’s superior Wimbledon record does make it close overall.
4) Becker did have much the better indoor record. Agreed. And on that basis, I will accept him as being ahead overall. But I think it was very close and I think that was the consensus at the time.

If you think the gap is wider, so be it.
 
Last edited:

timnz

Legend
You wrote this as though I don’t know these facts. I assure you that I followed the era very closely at the time. I am not at all convinced by your arguments and will grant only that Becker’s record was marginally better. A few things:

1) To count H2H as weighing so heavily in career achievements strikes me as a mistake, especially when you are discounting rankings achievements. I agree with you that accomplishments in slams matters more than rankings. But I think that rankings matters much more than H2H. Yes, Becker had a dominant H2H over Edberg. Edberg, though, was some way ahead in rankings achievements. To me, that is significantly more important.
2) Edberg had a 3-1 lead in slam H2H. I would say he won four of their five most important matches, including also the YEC final of 1989. Too bad for Becker that he failed to prepare properly for the Wimbledon 1990 final. But that is part of the game.
3) At least if counting how Olympics medals tables are counted, Edberg had a better record than Becker at every slam other than Wimbledon and a better record than him overall at the slams, reaching more finals, more semi-finals, and more quarter-finals (11 > 10; 19 > 18; 26 > 23). Becker made just three non-Wimbledon GS finals; Edberg made eight. Becker’s superior Wimbledon record does make it close overall.
4) Becker did have much the better indoor record. Agreed. And on that basis, I will accept him as being ahead overall. But I think it was very close and I think that was the consensus at the time.

If you think the gap is wider, so be it.
Fair points. And yes your point 4 does encapsulate the main area of difference.
 

Moose Malloy

G.O.A.T.
Damn, so many posters in this thread weren't even born in the 80s. I posted this in 2008(yeah the '89 rankings have been debated forever), it might clear things up:

In the 80s they had the 'Nabisco Grand Prix' points race, in which all the tournaments gave points, in which the top 8 qualified for the Year end Masters. It was completely separate from the ATP ranking, as were WCT events(which had some of the biggest events of that time, in terms of prize money, & attracted great fields)

The ATP wasn't really one unified tour in the 80s, many had conflicting interests. 1990 is when the real ATP tour was launched.
I have a lot of Masters matches from the 80s on tape, both the commentators & the tournament officials(during trophy presentations) seemed to pretend the ATP ranking didn't exist that week, only acknowledging the Grand Prix points race, which often generated a very different list.

All this info makes it sorta clear why the ATP ranking wasn't considered a big deal(like Connors' streak at #1 pre Fed) by players of that time, so many events weren't even counted towards it. It also may explain some strange year end #1's over the years(Mac in '82, Connors in '77, etc)

Money was probably a bigger motivation than ranking points back then. Its funny, Becker received more money than Edberg at the trophy presentation(like 100,000 more) for the '89 Masters(despite losing the final) since he finished higher in the Grand Prix Race. The prize money for winning the Masters was only 200,000 but Becker got another 500,000 for finishing 2nd in the race that year. 500,000 was a much bigger purse than you got for winning a major in 1989. Even without ranking points, the Masters was a big deal to the players of the time, because of the money. Now money alone isn't enough to ensure players take a tournament seriously.

I wonder if Lendl would have stayed #1 longer had they counted points for the Masters in the 80s, considering Wilander only passed him after winning his 3rd major in '88.

I have an old tennis magazine for the 1990 Year End Championship, much was made of the fact that ATP points were offered that year for the 1st time.

Also I have the Year in Review Tennis magazine for 1989, they listed the final ATP rankings & Grand Prix rankings for 1989.

the atp ranking(it was based on an average, I averaged out all the points listed for these players for 1989 on the website, not counting the 0 listed for WCT events & the Masters, & the numbers do match):

Lendl 213.214 from 15 events
Becker 189.916 from 12 events
Edberg 150.857 from 15 events

Grand Prix Race(which counts all events played)

Lendl 9,831
Becker 7,039
Edberg 6,355

Since 1990 was the 1st year they used the new system that counted best 14, I assume the 1989 Masters was counted for some players on Jan 1 of 1990.

Under both ranking systems, Lendl had a big lead over Becker. But Edberg gets closer with the 'race' system(not surprising since he won the Masters that year) I'm curious as to how different the atp ranking for that year would be if the Year End Masters was included(in which Becker made the final)
 

GrandSlam24

Semi-Pro
Damn, so many posters in this thread weren't even born in the 80s. I posted this in 2008(yeah the '89 rankings have been debated forever), it might clear things up:

In the 80s they had the 'Nabisco Grand Prix' points race, in which all the tournaments gave points, in which the top 8 qualified for the Year end Masters. It was completely separate from the ATP ranking, as were WCT events(which had some of the biggest events of that time, in terms of prize money, & attracted great fields)

The ATP wasn't really one unified tour in the 80s, many had conflicting interests. 1990 is when the real ATP tour was launched.
I have a lot of Masters matches from the 80s on tape, both the commentators & the tournament officials(during trophy presentations) seemed to pretend the ATP ranking didn't exist that week, only acknowledging the Grand Prix points race, which often generated a very different list.

All this info makes it sorta clear why the ATP ranking wasn't considered a big deal(like Connors' streak at #1 pre Fed) by players of that time, so many events weren't even counted towards it. It also may explain some strange year end #1's over the years(Mac in '82, Connors in '77, etc)

Money was probably a bigger motivation than ranking points back then. Its funny, Becker received more money than Edberg at the trophy presentation(like 100,000 more) for the '89 Masters(despite losing the final) since he finished higher in the Grand Prix Race. The prize money for winning the Masters was only 200,000 but Becker got another 500,000 for finishing 2nd in the race that year. 500,000 was a much bigger purse than you got for winning a major in 1989. Even without ranking points, the Masters was a big deal to the players of the time, because of the money. Now money alone isn't enough to ensure players take a tournament seriously.

I wonder if Lendl would have stayed #1 longer had they counted points for the Masters in the 80s, considering Wilander only passed him after winning his 3rd major in '88.

I have an old tennis magazine for the 1990 Year End Championship, much was made of the fact that ATP points were offered that year for the 1st time.

Also I have the Year in Review Tennis magazine for 1989, they listed the final ATP rankings & Grand Prix rankings for 1989.

the atp ranking(it was based on an average, I averaged out all the points listed for these players for 1989 on the website, not counting the 0 listed for WCT events & the Masters, & the numbers do match):

Lendl 213.214 from 15 events
Becker 189.916 from 12 events
Edberg 150.857 from 15 events

Grand Prix Race(which counts all events played)

Lendl 9,831
Becker 7,039
Edberg 6,355

Since 1990 was the 1st year they used the new system that counted best 14, I assume the 1989 Masters was counted for some players on Jan 1 of 1990.

Under both ranking systems, Lendl had a big lead over Becker. But Edberg gets closer with the 'race' system(not surprising since he won the Masters that year) I'm curious as to how different the atp ranking for that year would be if the Year End Masters was included(in which Becker made the final)
Lendl simply won more points and Becker won one more Slam.
What's the problem?
I myself was born in 1975.
But my country no longer exists.
 

thrust

Legend
Yes, same number of slam wins. However, in an era when Indoor tennis was an importantE part of the calendar , Becker had 5 Major Indoor titles (3 WTF, 1 WCT Final, 1 Grant Slam Cup) and Edberg 1 (WTF). And the aforementioned 25-10 H2H. Edberg was in 3 Wimbledon Finals, Becker in 7. Becker also had a superior H2H over best of 5 sets as well. THe only area that Edberg had a superior record was on clay (and that not considerably).

Edberg was a wonderful player, no doubt, but Becker had his number on most occasions. Becker's worst loss against Edberg was when he was half-asleep (Becker had a lot of sleep issues) playing Edberg in the 1990 Wimbledon final and he still took it to 5.
Edberg has 72 weeks at #1. Becker has- 12
Edberg has 2 YE rankings at #1, Becker - 0
Edberg beat Becker in 2 of the 3 Wimbledon finals they played and in the only FO they played. Becker may have had the higher peak, but Edberg had more consistency at a high level.
 
Venus only had 11 weeks in her entire career.
Weeks at no.1 is a totally red herring stat. Ye1 is more important.
The irony of weeks at no.1 is while somemof the anti nadal press pack use his relative lack of weeks at no.1 as a reason to not have him as their goat, and also until he got a double career slam also considered a double career slam hugely important, these same members of the press insisted Serena was female goat despite graf having more weeks at no.1 and an actial calendar slam, a golden one at that.
Not debating whomis or isnt goat, but the hypocrisy of using weeks at no.1 as some sort of yardstick is fanciful due to the inconsistency of how it is used as a meaningful stat.
 
Edberg has 72 weeks at #1. Becker has- 12
Edberg has 2 YE rankings at #1, Becker - 0
Edberg beat Becker in 2 of the 3 Wimbledon finals they played and in the only FO they played. Becker may have had the higher peak, but Edberg had more consistency at a high level.
I think Edberg was greater as he was more complete across the surfaces as the above you have stated shows. However i think becker generally is seen as greater and is and was far more widely known than edberg globally.
 

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
Weeks at no.1 is a totally red herring stat. Ye1 is more important.
The irony of weeks at no.1 is while somemof the anti nadal press pack use his relative lack of weeks at no.1 as a reason to not have him as their goat, and also until he got a double career slam also considered a double career slam hugely important, these same members of the press insisted Serena was female goat despite graf having more weeks at no.1 and an actial calendar slam, a golden one at that.
Not debating whomis or isnt goat, but the hypocrisy of using weeks at no.1 as some sort of yardstick is fanciful due to the inconsistency of how it is used as a meaningful stat.
Sometimes weeks are literally all about timing. In Novak's case, even over a decade ago, as you can see from the OP that was already his story.
 

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
Sometimes weeks are literally all about timing. In Novak's case, even over a decade ago, as you can see from the OP that was already his story.
Lol

10 seasons over 10000 pts vs 5 for Nadal

It matches with weeks. In Nadal's case it's all about getting injured overplaying on clay
 

timnz

Legend
Edberg has 72 weeks at #1. Becker has- 12
Edberg has 2 YE rankings at #1, Becker - 0
Edberg beat Becker in 2 of the 3 Wimbledon finals they played and in the only FO they played. Becker may have had the higher peak, but Edberg had more consistency at a high level.
I disagree 7 Wimbledon finals vs 3, 5 indoor majors vs 1 Shows a lot more consistency. Anyway, each to their own opinion.
 
Last edited:

JasonZ

Hall of Fame
Edberg has 72 weeks at #1. Becker has- 12
Edberg has 2 YE rankings at #1, Becker - 0
Edberg beat Becker in 2 of the 3 Wimbledon finals they played and in the only FO they played. Becker may have had the higher peak, but Edberg had more consistency at a high level.
no edberg did not have more consistency at the highest level. their consistency was pretty equal but small advantage becker. same number of slams, nearly same number of slam finals, but becker has more wtf.
 

thrust

Legend
no edberg did not have more consistency at the highest level. their consistency was pretty equal but small advantage becker. same number of slams, nearly same number of slam finals, but becker has more wtf.
Then why did Becker never have a YE at #1 or only 12 weeks at #1?
 

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
Implicit in all this discussion is the idea that winning slams is the single most important measure of a player’s career. That’s true today but wasn’t so in the past. So another reason we can’t compare across time? Imperfect as it may be at least time at #1 is something that can be compared across eras.
 

timnz

Legend
Implicit in all this discussion is the idea that winning slams is the single most important measure of a player’s career. That’s true today but wasn’t so in the past. So another reason we can’t compare across time? Imperfect as it may be at least time at #1 is something that can be compared across eras.
Becker said in 1988 that Winning the Masters was a big deal for him.
 

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
Becker said in 1988 that Winning the Masters was a big deal for him.
Right, the relative importance of other tournaments has changed a lot. As I recall Rome used to be seen as almost as important as RG or at least a lot closer than today, where many call it a “warmup” event.
 

thrust

Legend
Because whether you get to YE number 1 is conditional to the performances of those competing against you at the time.
True, but Becker played against the same players that Edberg did yet never ended a year at #1 and only had 12 weeks at #1, which is far inferior to Stefan's record.
 

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
True, but Becker played against the same players that Edberg did yet never ended a year at #1 and only had 12 weeks at #1, which is far inferior to Stefan's record.
No way Becker deserve to have many weeks at number 1. Number 1 is about domination and consistency.
 

DSH

Talk Tennis Guru
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.
Edberg's last chance was the 1994 Australian Open when he lost in the semi-finals in incredible fashion to Todd Martin.
If he had won, he would have faced Sampras in the decisive match.
He would not have been the favorite but he had nothing to lose against the American player.
:)
 

DSH

Talk Tennis Guru
Laughs. It's before I was born too. :-D

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.
Boris Becker was also a finalist in the 1989 Masters Cup, a better performance than Ivan Lendl, who lost in the semi-finals.
8-B
 

CHillTennis

Hall of Fame
Edberg's last chance was the 1994 Australian Open when he lost in the semi-finals in incredible fashion to Todd Martin.
If he had won, he would have faced Sampras in the decisive match.
He would not have been the favorite but he had nothing to lose against the American player.
:)
Edberg had a good record against Sampras on hard courts. He beat him twice during the late stages of a grand slam.
 

timnz

Legend
Yes. Back in the 1970s, the tennis ranking system worked quite differently from what we have today. I believe they worked off of the player's average results.

So they would look at the players best results at 14 events and would use that as a way to determine their ranking.

Let's say that you played 18 events in one year. You lost 4 times in the first round and made the finals in the other 14 events.

The ATP would calculate your ranking and since very few players are able to reach 14 finals, in the same year, it would more than likely mean that you would finish as the #1 player in the world.

This is the reason that Jimmy Connors enjoyed such a lengthy run as the number one player in the world. Even though he had years like 1975 and 1977 where he didn't win any grand slam titles.

His overall results were extremely consistent. So he simply remained as the #1 player.

What hurt Vilas in 1977 was that he had a poor showing at Wimbledon. If the surface had been slower, like it is today, he would have almost certainly been ranked #1 that year.

I still feel that the ATP needs to retro-actively correct the ranking and acknowledge Vilas as being a former world #1.

He was the best player of that particular season.
If the ATP didn’t change a thing in the 1970s but simply issued its rankings list once a week like they do now, Vilas would have been number 1 part of 1975 and part of 1976
 

timnz

Legend
True, but Becker played against the same players that Edberg did yet never ended a year at #1 and only had 12 weeks at #1, which is far inferior to Stefan's record.
1990s Lendl was not as dominant as 1980s Lendl (Edberg was YE#1 in 1990 and 1991)
 

Drob

Hall of Fame
Then why did Becker never have a YE at #1 or only 12 weeks at #1?

Boris was ATP Player of the Year in 1989. A lot of knowledgeable folks consider him year-end No. 1 for 1989, and others (fewer) give him Co-No. 1 for '89. There are good arguments for either No. 1 or Co w Lendl.
 

Drob

Hall of Fame
If the ATP didn’t change a thing in the 1970s but simply issued its rankings list once a week like they do now, Vilas would have been number 1 part of 1975 and part of 1976
Does that not but show how weak and flawed the points system was in those days?
 

Drob

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

Maybe.

And maybe Becker's achievements are not generally understood in full. Led Germany to second straight Davis Cup on immaculate record and complete straight-set domination of Edberg and Wilander in WGF.

But maybe Lendl's achievements deserve some credit. Awesome 105-10 match record. Champion at 15 tournaments, including one Slam. That's a heck of a workload. Boris 67-9 and 5 tournament titles, including of course two Slams. Also effective "individual champion" at the World Team Cup - a big clay event at the time, similar to today's ATP Cup.

Both are worthy. I prefer the "Co" designation for both. If forced to choose one, I would go w Becker. Ergo my comment that Becker in truth was a year-end No. 1.
 

timnz

Legend
Does that not but show how weak and flawed the points system was in those days?
The weird thing is that the atp right now could show what the unreported rankings would have been if they were issued weekly, but the refuse to do so
 
Top