Was there any group as Consistent in the Year End Rankings?

[kishnabe]

Federer has been year end number one in 2004,05,06,07,09!
Nadal year end 2008,2010.

Federer and Nadal have been trading world number one and two rankings in 2008,2009 and 2010.

Djoker been number 3 in year end tankings since 2007-2010
Murray has been year end number 4 ranking since 2008-2010!

Was there any group as consistent in the year end rankings!

 

[The-Champ]

the historians in the former pro section can answer that better.

 

[timnz]

Federer - Top 2 Eight Years in a Row

Best statistic?

Federer - Year end in top 2 - Eight Years in a Row!

2003 - Number 2
2004 - Number 1
2005 - Number 1
2006 - Number 1
2007 - Number 1
2008 - Number 2
2009 - Number 1
2010 - Number 2

(Now comparison wise - he still has to catch Tilden and Rosewall - who were at least 10 years as top 2 players each - but still great).

 

[Bryan Swartz]

There's never been a Top 4 that remained intact in the Year-End as long as Federer/Nadal/Murray/Djokovic. In different orders, but the same four for multiple years running. The ATP site had something on it after the WTF.

 

[Eternally_damned]

Doesn't that mean this is the strongest era?

 

[Bryan Swartz]

No. You can't compare eras. For example, your logic is probably that it shows these four players are better than any previous top four. It could also be argued that it's proof of weakness, in that for an extended period of time there hasn't even been one(Soderling was darn close this year) player who could break in. I.e., those four stay at the top because of the weakness of the rest of the field.

There's really no good way to decide in favor of one or the other -- you can only compare vs. the existing era for this reason.

 

[kishnabe]

The best bet would be Borg, Connors, McEnroe and Lendl!

 

[dandelion_smiley]

The best bet would be Borg, Connors, McEnroe and Lendl!

We looked at the rankings a bit differently back then than we do now. Say, it's 1981 (all 4 are on tour). Borg has 11 Slams, Connors 5, McEnroe 4 and Lendl 0. Lendl didn't become the Lendl we know untill 1984, 1985 really. Very rarely it happens that 4 guys are at the peak of their powers, if 2 are it's great (vide Borg-Connors 1978, Sampras-Agassi 1995)

As for today's players, Murray can still go on and rack a couple of majors in the future and that won't surprise anyone, Djokovic could win a few. After all is said and done in about 10 years people will start talking about this era being the toughest.

 

[TheMagicianOfPrecision]

Edberg Wilander Lendl and Becker finished top 4 for a lot of years, but Federer Nadal are even more consistent than those guys

 

[OrangeOne]

We looked at the rankings a bit differently back then than we do now. Say, it's 1981 (all 4 are on tour). Borg has 11 Slams, Connors 5, McEnroe 4 and Lendl 0. Lendl didn't become the Lendl we know untill 1984, 1985 really. Very rarely it happens that 4 guys are at the peak of their powers, if 2 are it's great (vide Borg-Connors 1978, Sampras-Agassi 1995)

As for today's players, Murray can still go on and rack a couple of majors in the future and that won't surprise anyone, Djokovic could win a few. After all is said and done in about 10 years people will start talking about this era being the toughest.

Waaay too much logic to bring to this debate

Seriously, good post.

Also, I'll say again, any post that assumes "weak era" because some people win a lot equally assumes that those players would be seen as better if they lost more. Stupid.

 

[dlk]

Waaay too much logic to bring to this debate

Seriously, good post.

Also, I'll say again, any post that assumes "weak era" because some people win a lot equally assumes that those players would be seen as better if they lost more. Stupid.

Yeah, you can't argure with that logic. It's mindboggling.