The weeks at #1 kings

Pheasant

Legend
The players that have held the record for weeks at #1 during my time of following tennis are:

Connors at 268
Lendl at 270
Sampras at 286
Federer at 310
Djokovic at 397+

These 5 players spent a large chunk of their prime years at #1. What I'm curious about is how they did against the world #1 when they weren't ranked #1 for all of those weeks.

Of this group, here are the players with the most wins vs world #1:

Djokovic: 16-18, .471
Lendl: 14-17, .452
Federer: 10-20, .333
Sampras: 6-7, .462
Connors: 5-30, .143

I find Lendl's 14 wins and Djoker's 16 wins vs world #1 quite impressive, especially since they were the record holders for being #1 in that metric.
 

Pheasant

Legend
Here's the breakdown of their records vs world #1:

Djokovic was:
10-7 vs Nadal
3-9 vs Federer
1-1 vs Murray
2-1 vs Alcaraz

Lendl was:
11-6 vs McEnroe
1-5 vs Borg
2-4 vs Edberg
0-2 vs Sampras

Federer was:
3-6 vs Nadal
5-11 vs Djoker
1-2 vs Hewitt
0-1 vs Ferrero
1-0 vs Roddick

Sampras was:
2-3 vs Agassi
2-1 vs Courier
1-0 vs Becker
1-0 vs Safin
0-1 vs Edberg
0-1 vs Lendl
0-1 vs Hewitt

Connors was:
0-10 vs Lendl
0-7 vs Borg
4-9 vs McEnroe
1-2 vs Nastase
0-1 vs Edberg
0-1 vs Courier

Their longest winning streak vs world #1
Lendl 7
Djoker 5
Connors 3
Sampras 3
Federer 1
 

Neptune

Hall of Fame
My boy McEnroe was in the supreme struggle for #1 in the early-to-mid 1980s. World #1 switched hands a ton. From 9/13/1982 to 8/13/1984(98 weeks), world #1 changed hands 20 times, meaning that the average reign was only 4.9 weeks.
The early Big 4 era, McEnroe and Borg in the middle, tougher to stay #1
 

Pheasant

Legend
The early Big 4 era, McEnroe and Borg in the middle, tougher to stay #1
That era was absolutely brutal. I really wish that Borg would have stuck around to experience the peak years of McEnroe and Lendl. That would have been very interesting. McEnroe and especialy Lendl presented a massive road block for Wilander(20 career weeks at #1) and Becker(12 career weeks at #1). I remember an interview when Becker said how badly he wanted the #1 ranking.
 

Milanez82

Hall of Fame
That era was absolutely brutal. I really wish that Borg would have stuck around to experience the peak years of McEnroe and Lendl. That would have been very interesting. McEnroe and especialy Lendl presented a massive road block for Wilander(20 career weeks at #1) and Becker(12 career weeks at #1). I remember an interview when Becker said how badly he wanted the #1 ranking.
Maybe he realized he couldn't keep up after losing Wimb and USO to McEnroe in 4 and Lendl pushing him 5 at RG.

He certainly was burned out, lacked the will to train enough(and his superior training is what certainly gave him the advantage) so it was clear he couldn't keep up his level.
Plus, McEnroe was maybe reaching a higher level already.

Though i find it unlikely he could lose to the likes of 17yr Wilander in 82 or Noah in 83 at Rolland Garros, when you consider he only played 1 official tournament in 82, that would be a tough title to defend.
He did beat Vilas in an invitational few weeks earlier for a huge purse that was double what Rolland Garros champ got in 1982 and considering Villas played final at RG, he certainly still had it to rule on clay with the right motivation. (beating up on same old guys on clay with laughable money earned for it wasn't exactly right motivation, nor winning another RG)
 

The Sinner

Semi-Pro
That era was absolutely brutal. I really wish that Borg would have stuck around to experience the peak years of McEnroe and Lendl. That would have been very interesting. McEnroe and especialy Lendl presented a massive road block for Wilander(20 career weeks at #1) and Becker(12 career weeks at #1). I remember an interview when Becker said how badly he wanted the #1 ranking.
Isn't it crazy how Becker was only 12 weeks at No1? Goes to show the strength of that era (80s).
 
The players that have held the record for weeks at #1 during my time of following tennis are:

Connors at 268
Lendl at 270
Sampras at 286
Federer at 310
Djokovic at 397+

These 5 players spent a large chunk of their prime years at #1. What I'm curious about is how they did against the world #1 when they weren't ranked #1 for all of those weeks.

Of this group, here are the players with the most wins vs world #1:

Djokovic: 16-18, .471
Lendl: 14-17, .452
Federer: 10-20, .333
Sampras: 6-7, .462
Connors: 5-30, .143

I find Lendl's 14 wins and Djoker's 16 wins vs world #1 quite impressive, especially since they were the record holders for being #1 in that metric.
I know he’s not part of this group, but Becker was a stout 19-17 vs. #1. He basically played better against the best players compared with the scrubs he always lost to.
 

Djokodalerer31

Hall of Fame
That era was absolutely brutal. I really wish that Borg would have stuck around to experience the peak years of McEnroe and Lendl. That would have been very interesting. McEnroe and especialy Lendl presented a massive road block for Wilander(20 career weeks at #1) and Becker(12 career weeks at #1). I remember an interview when Becker said how badly he wanted the #1 ranking.

He wouldn't have played beyond 1985 likely, maybe not even beyond 1984! 1985 is when drastic change in racquet technology was introduced, which helped power players like Lendl to take over, no way all those wooden racquet players could have kept up still playing with old equipment and kit! But if he kept up the same pace for another 3 years beyond 1981 i certainly can see him adding 3 or 4 slams more in that span!
 

Neptune

Hall of Fame
Becker was a big-time slayer of monsters. He was a more consistent version of Marat Safin. The guy could bring it against the best. But he'd have his lapses as well.
True, his overall win% 76.91% is great, but behind the early big 4 by quite a margin (all above 81.5%), that limited him to achieve even more.
 

Pheasant

Legend
He wouldn't have played beyond 1985 likely, maybe not even beyond 1984! 1985 is when drastic change in racquet technology was introduced, which helped power players like Lendl to take over, no way all those wooden racquet players could have kept up still playing with old equipment and kit! But if he kept up the same pace for another 3 years beyond 1981 i certainly can see him adding 3 or 4 slams more in that span!
That sounds about right. I'd guess that he'd have sneaked in a USO, 2 more FO, and one more Wimbledon titles for good measure, then called it a day.
 

Pheasant

Legend
True, his overall win% 76.91% is great, but behind the early big 4 by quite a margin (all above 81.5%), that limited him to achieve even more.
I dug into this more. Most of the time, you really don't face people ranked in the top 20 to reach the QF of a tourney. I.e, you really need to mop up on the guys ranked 21-100 to reach the QF. In Becker's case, 89.5% of the time, he faced a player ranked outside the top 20 in rounds prior to the QF. Once Becker got to the QF, he was very deadly. But his problem was getting there. What's interesting is that Becker has a better winning pct vs the top 5 than Djoker, Federer, Nadal, and Lendl. However, here's how they fared vs guys ranked 21-100:

overall vs players ranked 21-100:
Djoker: 561-60, .903; best streak was 81 straight wins
Nadal: 586-67, .895; best streak was 33 straight wins
Federer: 708-97, .880; best streak was 128 straight wins
Lendl: 543-95, .851; best streak was 50 straight wins
Becker: 355-90, .797; best streak was 19 straight wins

Now granted, the surfaces were far more polarized in the 1980s and 1990s. This fact, along with the primitive rackets, allowed far more upsets, due to far more surface specialists. So we can see why the Big 3 avoided large upsets far more often. However, Lendl is from the old era and he absolutely slaughters Becker in this metric.

Becker was a serious baller, however. That guy could bring it against the best like a legend. His downfall was against lesser players.
 

Pheasant

Legend
He couldn't win USO in his best days, how would he sneak in one
1982-83 was a big window, which would have had 30-31 year old Connors vs 26-27 year old Borg. People forget that Borg starting owning Connors in 1979 by going 10-0 vs Connors; including straight set blowouts in 3 finals(hard court, grass, and carpet), along with 2 other straight set blowouts in the semis. I like Borg's chances a lot in that matchup. In 1981, Borg beat the 29 year-old Connors in straight sets at the USO. McEnroe was in bad form those two years. He was pushed to 5 sets to somebody named Gene Mayer before getting destroyed in straight sets by Lendl in 1982. The following year, he needed 5 sets in the 1st round to beat Waltke, then was beaten in 4 sets by Scanlon. So that leaves Lendl as his biggest obstacle, IMHO. I think that Borg steals one of those USO titles.

To me, Borg at the USO was a lot like Federer at the FO. If you get the best that are even slightly out of form, then a title can happen. Borg's opportunity from 1982-83 at the USO was kind of like Federer's opportunity at the FO. Mac was way out of form. Connors, although still very good, wasn't at his peak and Borg was owning him at the time.
 

Milanez82

Hall of Fame
We need to take 1982 as is, Borg didn't play an atp tournament until Monte Carlo and was going to play at best RG, Wimbledon, USO and a few more tournaments if allowed.

He would be most likely a weaker player in 1982 USO then he was in 81 while Connors was in a really fine form that year winning Wimb and USO and he took Borg to 5 sets in Wimb81, even was up 2-0 despite Borg going for his 6th straight Wimb.

In 83 i could see Borg reclaiming his top form and having a real shot at USO.

In any case its a big what if. Laver won 4 slams in 1968 and then never again so past results certainly aren't a given for future.
 
Top