The year end no 1 ranking is the most prestigious thing you can win in any one year

Blocker

Professional
The ATP tour is essentially a tennis event itself. In fact, it’s the biggest tennis event of the year. The person who finishes the year number 1 is the number 1 player in the world and the WORLD CHAMPION for that year. From 1 January, it starts all over again. Yes we have a rolling number 1 so we know who has had the best 12 months at any one time, but no trophies are given out for rolling number 1s.

The ATP describes the ATP rankings as follows:

“The year-end Emirates ATP Rankings is based on calculating, for each player, his total points from the four (4) Grand Slams, the eight (8) mandatory ATP World Tour Masters 1000 tournaments and the Barclays ATP World Tour Finals of the ranking period, and his best six (6) results from all ATP World Tour 500, ATP World Tour 250, ATP Challenger Tour and Futures tournaments. For every Grand Slam or mandatory ATP World Tour Masters 1000 tournament for which a player is not in the main draw, and was not (and, in the case of a Grand Slam, would not have been, had he and all other players entered) a main draw direct acceptance on the original acceptance list, and never became a main draw direct acceptance, the number of his results from all other eligible tournaments in the ranking period, that count for his ranking, is increased by one (1). In weeks where there are not four (4) Grand Slams and eight (8) ATP World Tour Masters 1000 tournaments in the ranking period, the number of a player’s best results from all eligible tournaments in the ranking period will be adjusted accordingly. Once a player is accepted in the main draw of one of these twelve (12) tournaments, as a direct acceptance, a qualifier, a special exempt or a lucky loser, or having accepted a wild card, his result in this tournament shall count for his ranking, whether or not he participates.”

Source: http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Rankings-FAQ.aspx#pointvalue

Therefore it can be seen that the year end number 1 ranking is a bigger achievement than winning any individual slam. Any half decent player can string 7 matches together. In fact, you can have 4 different players do it throughout the year. But only 1 player can finish the year as number 1 in the world. By the same token, all it takes is a couple of loose points or service games, a red hot opponent, an injury or just having a bad day and you can miss out on winning a slam. The race to number 1 allows for some upset losses, injuries and a bout of poor results/form but that means you must work harder later on in the year to make up for it if you want to finish number 1.

The number 1 ranking at year end is more important than total weeks at number 1. So if I finish the year number 1, the fact I finished number 1 is going to be more of an achievement than the 3-4 weeks that I’m number 1 whilst no events are on.

The season incorporates the slams, the WTF winner, the masters, and to a lesser extent the 500s and 250s. Your consistentcy and your ability to peak for the matches that count are taken into account. Your results on all surfaces are also taken into account, unlike an individual slam. So if you have finished the year number 1, you deserve to be the world champion.
The only thing that I can think of that would be seen as more prestigious than the year ending number 1 ranking is the CYGS. But the CYGS is so rare it’s rarely done. Every year, someone has the opportunity to win the year end number 1 ranking. It is an annual competition, it is up for grabs every year irrespective of who is playing and who is not.

No one thinks that an individual F1 grand prix is more important than the World Drivers championship, I see no difference with tennis.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
I actually somewhat agree with this, I think YE #1 is a huge accomplishment. If I was to rank just doing each achievement once in importance IMO it would be;

1) YE #1
2) 1 slam
3) YEC
4) Week at #1
5) Masters
 

MachiA.

Banned
Dear Blocker,

yes, it is like you said and as ATP is saying.

That is why Sampras is one of the GOATs and Federer is not.

KR
 

Blocker

Professional
Dear MachiA.

Gonzales is the goat. Sampras is not even in contention.

Yep, I did not mention one player's name in my OP, yet some will think I posted this to pump up Sampras.

Just for the record, Sampras does not hold the record for years ending number 1.
 

MonkeyBoy

Hall of Fame
Was just about to post: Pacho Gonzales is the GOAT.


On the subject of Sampas/Gonzales though, it is interesting how their careers are parallel in many ways. The biggest problem for both of them is the lack of slams on clay.
 
Last edited:

Flash O'Groove

Hall of Fame
Joke appart, the immense advantage of this year-end ranking is that it "equalize" the different format of competition across time. It doesn't matter if someone was number one because he won a World tour like Gonzales, because he won pro majors, or because he won some open majors. One man is better at the end of the calendar year, and the man who the better at the end of most year is Pancho Gonzales. Close second is Tilden, and third is the biggest beneficiary of the "eclated polarised playing condition no-dominant player era": Pete Sampras.

Federer, Laver, Nadal, Borg, Rosewall, Lendl, etc. are exposed for the mediocre player they are, with only between 3 to 5 years end top ranking.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Joke appart, the immense advantage of this year-end ranking is that it "equalize" the different format of competition across time. It doesn't matter if someone was number one because he won a World tour like Gonzales, because he won pro majors, or because he won some open majors. One man is better at the end of the calendar year, and the man who the better at the end of most year is Pancho Gonzales. Close second is Tilden, and third is the biggest beneficiary of the "eclated polarised playing condition no-dominant player era": Pete Sampras.

Federer, Laver, Nadal, Borg, Rosewall, Lendl, etc. are exposed for the mediocre player they are, with only between 3 to 5 years end top ranking.

None of those players mentioned won slams on all surfaces. They're disqualified. Federer is GOAT by default ;)
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Nadal is the only EVER to win slams on clay, grass and hardcourt in a calendar year. He did it in 2010.
Federer is the only one to win 3 slam in a year 3 times. He did it in 2004, 2006 and 2007.

Also Federer is the only one to reach all 4 slam finals in one year 3 times. 2006, 2007, 2009
 

reaper

Legend
Probably the player who most exemplifies the legitimacy of year end number one as the ultimate barometer is Caroline Wozniacki who was year end number 1 in 2011 and 2012.
 

NADALRECORD

Banned
I'm happy to agree with the OP, because Nadal is going to finish #1 in the world for a 4th year, this year. Win it again after this year and he's tied with Federer.
 

NADALRECORD

Banned
Jelena Jankovic was year end number 1 in 2008. Another great of the game.

Basically the same as when a player wins one slam (Wawrinka or Del Potro for example). One slam and one year-end #1 is about the same value (although I think one slam would get the player more hype).
 

Vcore89

Talk Tennis Guru
Unfortunately, Boris Becker said he would've loved being Wimbedon champion than World Number 1. He was willing to swap his very brief stint at the top of the world for a fourth Wimbledon title. Says a lot if you ask him and I concur.
 

akind

Banned
I think winning a Calendar Year Grand Slam (all four Slams in 1 year) is very prestigious.

Is it possible that a player wins a CYGS and then not ranked number 1 at the end of that year?
 

Wynter

Legend
Well if he played no other tournament and a guy Won every single masters etc;

You're chasing 8000 points
 
Top