Weeks at no.1 are nowhere near close slams

King No1e

G.O.A.T.
Djokovic and his fans seem to be hyping up the weeks at no.1 now that he seems out of the slam race but the fact remains that the slam race is infinitely more important.

An obvious example is Borg only having 109 weeks at no.1 while Connors has 268 and Lendl has 270. However I have never heard anyone rank them higher despite this huge difference in weeks at no.1 simply because the slams are 11-8-8. Djokovic's weeks at no.1 are nice but if he wants to be in the GOAT debate he will have to do better than 20-20-17.

In the case of comparing Fedal the weeks at no.1 is definitely a factor just like other things like WTF, h2h, Olympics, Slam finals, Masters 1000... That's because they are tied at 20. But with Djokovic what he needs is the slams and I have a feeling that the way he is hyping up the weeks at no.1 shows that he doesn't believe in winning the slam race anymore. He will need at last 19 slams at this point to get into the GOAT conversation with Fedal, but I don't count Fedal out yet because they might add to their total.

I just want to set the record straight about Fedal vs Djokovic. Right now he is a distant third and the USO and FO were a much bigger deal than him playing Vienna for the weeks at no.1. Much MUCH bigger deal.

I think Connors should rank right up there with Borg, not just for the Weeks at #1 stat, but also for the total career titles record and winning Slams on all 3 surfaces while Borg never got one on HC. Not to mention his consistency records.
 

Ogi44

Rookie
Obviously it's nowhere near as important as they want it to be. The Connors/Lendl comparison with Borg absolutely shows that it's never been a significant GOAT metric. Borg won more slams than those guys, despite having far less weeks at no.1, yet Connors and Lendl never were held up as being as great as Borg because they had far more weeks at no.1. It was never even a thing to be honest.

Trying to stuff weeks at no.1 as a significant GOAT metric is a recent invention created by Federer fans to act as insurance when they were not certain if Nadal would catch him for the slam record. Novak fans jumped on that bandwagon when they realised he could overtake Federer in that metric. Suddenly it's the "2nd most important GOAT metric after slams". LOL!

It's all a bit of a comedy, but you just have to laugh and play along.
After Borg’s Wimbledon win, McEnroe got the best of Borg at their next three Grand Slam meetings. After the increasingly frustrated Swede fell at the U.S. Open Final in 1983, he’d had enough. He left professional tennis abruptly.

It was a bizarre moment for the sport. A luminary of the game just walked off the court, avoided the press, and left for the airport. Announcing his retirement, he explained to the New York Times days later: “When you go out on the court, you should say this is great, I’m going to hit the tennis ball, I’m going to try to win every point, and I like to make a good shot,” Borg said. “If you don’t think and feel that, it’s very difficult to play.”


It has nothing to do with the slam record or any other record. He just mentally was not there anymore. Of course you knew that but you tried to re-write history in order to make a point. Please don't do that anymore it's disrespectful.
We both know what I mean. Find me one article quoting Borg or anyone else talking about slam count as a sole measurment stick of tennis greatness, as you and some others are trying to imply now. Simply this is a recency bias created to hype certain players, but please be objective and just acknowledge it. Greatness of tennis players in the past were not measured ONLY by slam count and that is a fact. Borg or Laver or anyone else in 70s or 80s didnt care that Emerson had most slams, and surely he was not GOAT before Sampras by any means. That was my point which you conveniently simpflified in order to fit your narative.
 
Last edited:

Beckerserve

Legend
Djokovic and his fans seem to be hyping up the weeks at no.1 now that he seems out of the slam race but the fact remains that the slam race is infinitely more important.

An obvious example is Borg only having 109 weeks at no.1 while Connors has 268 and Lendl has 270. However I have never heard anyone rank them higher despite this huge difference in weeks at no.1 simply because the slams are 11-8-8. Djokovic's weeks at no.1 are nice but if he wants to be in the GOAT debate he will have to do better than 20-20-17.

In the case of comparing Fedal the weeks at no.1 is definitely a factor just like other things like WTF, h2h, Olympics, Slam finals, Masters 1000... That's because they are tied at 20. But with Djokovic what he needs is the slams and I have a feeling that the way he is hyping up the weeks at no.1 shows that he doesn't believe in winning the slam race anymore. He will need at last 19 slams at this point to get into the GOAT conversation with Fedal, but I don't count Fedal out yet because they might add to their total.

I just want to set the record straight about Fedal vs Djokovic. Right now he is a distant third and the USO and FO were a much bigger deal than him playing Vienna for the weeks at no.1. Much MUCH bigger deal.

Weeks at no.1 is irrelevant as i proved a while back with logic. YE1 is all that counts ranking wise. But Majors is the be all and end all we have always been told.
If not then Nadal was GOAT in 2010.
 

FrontHeadlock

Hall of Fame
Weeks at No. 1 are important, but:
  1. They can be grossly misleading, so you have to take them with a grain of salt and analyze the circumstances in which they were earned
  2. They are downstream from titles, so they are and always will be a secondary statistic
  3. At a certain point, more weeks at No. 1 doesn't really move the needle. While there is a big difference between 100 weeks and 0 weeks, there is far less of a practical difference between 300 weeks and 200 weeks.
 

Beckerserve

Legend
Please we both know what I mean. Find me one article quoting Borg or anyone else talking about slam count as a sole measurment stick of tennis greatness, as you and some others are trying to imply now. Simply this is a recency bias created to hype certain players, but please be objective and just acknowledge it. Greatness of tennis players in the past were not measured ONLY by slam count and that is a fact. Borg or Laver or anyone else in 70s or 80s didnt care that Emerson had most slams, and surely he was not GOAT before Sampras by any means. That was my point which you conveniently simpflified in order to fit your narative.
Yes. Back then H2H was massive especially at the biggest events. So by that metric Nadal has been the alpha for a decade. Which is what his fans were saying for years. Nice to see that narrative now being pushed.
 

Beckerserve

Legend
Weeks at No. 1 are important, but:
  1. They can be grossly misleading, so you have to take them with a grain of salt and analyze the circumstances in which they were earned
  2. They are downstream from titles, so they are and always will be a secondary statistic
  3. At a certain point, more weeks at No. 1 doesn't really move the needle. While there is a big difference between 100 weeks and 0 weeks, there is far less of a practical difference between 300 weeks and 200 weeks.
Becker 12 weeks at no.1 Courier 56 weeks. Would love a poll as to who people think was better.
 

FrontHeadlock

Hall of Fame
Becker 12 weeks at no.1 Courier 56 weeks. Would love a poll as to who people think was better.
Well this is a good example. Becker for the prime of his career was behind both Edberg and Lendl. Nobody would rank Courier ahead of either of them, so I'm not sure why Becker should lose ground TO COURIER because of weeks at No. 1.

Likewise, Becker has more of every category of tournament wins (6 Majors to 3, 3 YEC to 0, 49 titles to 23). Since weeks at No. 1 is a downstream, secondary statistic, it shouldn't even be discussed as between them.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
Dearie me, the OP's frustration that Djokovic is getting closer to Federer's weeks at #1 record is almost palpable. It sounds like he/she is saying "how dare Djokovic have the temerity to aim for such a huge record when he doesn't even have the slam record" which to any sane person is quite obviously ludicrous.

And lol@ him being a distant third to Fedal.
 

Beckerserve

Legend
Well this is a good example. Becker for the prime of his career was behind both Edberg and Lendl. Nobody would rank Courier ahead of either of them, so I'm not sure why Becker should lose ground TO COURIER because of weeks at No. 1.

Likewise, Becker has more of every category of tournament wins (6 Majors to 3, 3 YEC to 0, 49 titles to 23). Since weeks at No. 1 is a downstream, secondary statistic, it shouldn't even be discussed as between them.
And most people have Becker ahead of Edberg. Why? Because of h2h. Again weeks at no.1 never mentioned. 25-10 h2h is too big to overlook.
 

Beckerserve

Legend
Dearie me, the OP's frustration that Djokovic is getting closer to Federer's weeks at #1 record is almost palpable. It sounds like he/she is saying "how dare Djokovic have the temerity to aim for such a huge record when he doesn't even have the slam record" which to any sane person is quite obviously ludicrous.

And lol@ him being a distant third to Fedal.
Well 3 Majors is some way behind to be fair. He is as close to Sampras as Fedal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: USO

James P

Legend
Thanks for stating the obvious, I guess. I don't think anyone rates Weeks at #1 as higher in precedent than Slams.
 

FrontHeadlock

Hall of Fame
And most people have Becker ahead of Edberg. Why? Because of h2h. Again weeks at no.1 never mentioned. 25-10 h2h is too big to overlook.
I'd probably rank Edberg ahead but only slightly. Becker's resume is way too grass/carpet heavy.

Edberg has one more Major final, but more importantly he has a final at RG and a Masters title on clay. Also 2 YE #1 to 0.
 

Beckerserve

Legend
I'd probably rank Edberg ahead but only slightly. Becker's resume is way too grass/carpet heavy.

Edberg has one more Major final, but more importantly he has a final at RG and a Masters title on clay. Also 2 YE #1 to 0.
That really grates me. But you are of course correct. Most have Becker ahead so i smile and agree. Privately though what you have said is spot on. Boris for me got shown up on outdoor hard courts by thay glorious American generation of Sampras Courier Agassi and Chang. At the time i got so frustrated.
 

FrontHeadlock

Hall of Fame
That really grates me. But you are of course correct. Most have Becker ahead so i smile and agree. Privately though what you have said is spot on. Boris for me got shown up on outdoor hard courts by thay glorious American generation of Sampras Courier Agassi and Chang. At the time i got so frustrated.
They are really close. There are arguments either way, and none of them are "correct".
 

USO

Banned
Well 3 Majors is some way behind to be fair. He is as close to Sampras as Fedal.
You are right. If Djokovic fans say that Djokovic is up there with Fedal despite being 3 slams behind then the rest of the planet can say that Sampras is up there with Djokovic despite being 3 slams behind. Djokovic fans must now admit that Djokovic is not necessarily greater than Sampras. I look forward to their admission. :cool:
 

FrontHeadlock

Hall of Fame
You are right. If Djokovic fans say that Djokovic is up there with Fedal despite being 3 slams behind then the rest of the planet can say that Sampras is up there with Djokovic despite being 3 slams behind. Djokovic fans must now admit that Djokovic is not necessarily greater than Sampras. I look forward to their admission. :cool:
For me Djokovic's resume on clay is so much better than Pete's that it's not close. Also many more Major finals.
 
I know I'm stepping on everyones toes here, but stay with me for a second please. Let's take a step back and look at how hilarious the situation is:

- Rafa fans claiming all of a sudden that slams are the be-all end-all, H2H not that important any more suddenly and if it is, then strictly in slams
- Novak fans claiming all of a sudden that Weeks at #1 is at least equally important as slams, nobody mentions Olympic gold which Rafa has and Novak would be ready to kill for
- Roger fans, knowing all to well that both records will be gone in no time, running between the two like headless chickens, trying to sidestep the hole that they dug themselves by hyping both records up while they seemed unbreakable

I mean, it's priceless, we should honestly enjoy it all! :-D
Best post in this thread.

Close thread please //
 

Beckerserve

Legend
But Sampras wasn't 3rd best in his era like Djokovic.
Absolutely key point. Nobody owned Sampras on any surface. He beat Courier and Bruguera on clay for instance.
On his best surface (grass) he was almost as dominant as Nadal is on clay.
 
  • Like
Reactions: USO

octogon

Hall of Fame
And most people have Becker ahead of Edberg. Why? Because of h2h. Again weeks at no.1 never mentioned. 25-10 h2h is too big to overlook.

Keep puncturing the myth about how "important" weeks at no.1 is to GOAT/greatest discussions. Way too many examples given of players with many more weeks at no.1, who are are not considered greater than some with less weeks at no.1.

It truly is a recent thing designed to pump up Fed, then Djoker. I refuse to fall for it
 

Beckerserve

Legend
Keep puncturing the myth about how "important" weeks at no.1 is to GOAT/greatest discussions. Way too many examples given of players with many more weeks at no.1, who are are not considered greater than some with less weeks at no.1.

It truly is a recent thing designed to pump up Fed, then Djoker. I refuse to fall for it
Well the killer blow is Rios v Rafter. Wonder how many have Rios as an ATG.
 

lucky13

Rookie
nole has everything more than sampras but rafa only has slems more than nole, everything else is in nole's advantage!
the fact is that sampras still has some important things over rafa but not over nole!

sampras vs nole vs rafa (the best results in bold, second best underlined):
slams: 14 - 17 -20
YE # 1: 6 - 6 - 5
weeks as no1: 286 - 305 * - 209
WTF + OG: 5 - 5 - 1
masters: 11 - 36 - 35
CGS: 0 - 1 - 1
golden masters: 0 - 2 - 0
(masters: 5/9 - 9/9 x 2 - 7/9)
best season: noles 2015
points record: nole 16950
4 slams in a row: nole
 

octogon

Hall of Fame
nole has everything more than sampras but rafa only has slems more than nole, everything else is in nole's advantage!
the fact is that sampras still has some important things over rafa but not over nole!

sampras vs nole vs rafa (the best results in bold, second best underlined):
slams: 14 - 17 -20
YE # 1: 6 - 6 - 5
weeks as no1: 286 - 305 * - 209
WTF + OG: 5 - 5 - 1
masters: 11 - 36 - 35
CGS: 0 - 1 - 1
golden masters: 0 - 2 - 0
(masters: 5/9 - 9/9 x 2 - 7/9)
best season: noles 2015
points record: nole 16950
4 slams in a row: nole

Lendl has many more things over Borg, including weeks at no.1, several more WTFs.

Guess what the entire universe thinks:

Borg>Lendl

The only number that matters for Borg and Lendl is 11>8.

And right now the only number that matters for Rafa and Novak is 20>17


It's about slams. Nole can have all the weeks at no.1, or career Golden Masters or WTFs he wants, but the world will still see Rafa as greater if he has more slams. If Nole and his fans want to live vicariously through secondary and less important records and titles, that is their choice. But it has not helped other players in the past be seen as greater than their peers, and it won't help Novak.

It may seem like a bitter pill to swallow, but that has always been how the game works. A 3 slam difference between Rafa and Novak might as well be an Ocean at this point in terms of ultimate greatness.
 
Last edited:

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
I know I'm stepping on everyones toes here, but stay with me for a second please. Let's take a step back and look at how hilarious the situation is:

- Rafa fans claiming all of a sudden that slams are the be-all end-all, H2H not that important any more suddenly and if it is, then strictly in slams
- Novak fans claiming all of a sudden that Weeks at #1 is at least equally important as slams, nobody mentions Olympic gold which Rafa has and Novak would be ready to kill for
- Roger fans, knowing all to well that both records will be gone in no time, running between the two like headless chickens, trying to sidestep the hole that they dug themselves by hyping both records up while they seemed unbreakable

I mean, it's priceless, we should honestly enjoy it all! :-D
Popcorn for sure lol
 

RaulRamirez

Hall of Fame
"Djokovic and his fans seem to be hyping up the weeks at no.1 now that he seems out of the slam race but the fact remains that the slam race is infinitely more important.
An obvious example is Borg only having 109 weeks at no.1 while Connors has 268 and Lendl has 270. However I have never heard anyone rank them higher despite this huge difference in weeks at no.1 simply because the slams are 11-8-8. Djokovic's weeks at no.1 are nice but if he wants to be in the GOAT debate he will have to do better than 20-20-17."

There's nothing factual about your first statement, even if most would agree. You should know the difference between opinion and fact -- how old are you?
There were other factors influencing YE#1 back in those days. Yes, 11-8 (and 8) is a big factor in Borg being held in such high regard, but it's not the only thing.


"In the case of comparing Fedal the weeks at no.1 is definitely a factor just like other things like WTF, h2h, Olympics, Slam finals, Masters 1000... That's because they are tied at 20. But with Djokovic what he needs is the slams and I have a feeling that the way he is hyping up the weeks at no.1 shows that he doesn't believe in winning the slam race anymore. He will need at last 19 slams at this point to get into the GOAT conversation with Fedal, but I don't count Fedal out yet because they might add to their total."

It's so nice that you can get into Novak's mindset. I don't really care about what you think is the GOAT conversation. Imposing opinions as if they are facts did not work on me past the age of 8 or so.
My educated guess is that Novak is going after after what is realistically on the horizon. I tend to value years at #1 moreso than weeks at #1, but both have value. He has a great chance to go ahead of both Roger and Rafa in years (though not yet clinched) and a pretty good chance of staying at #1 beyond Roger's 310 weeks. Both are big milestones that have been achieved over a career.

I agree to the extent that number of "slams" is the biggest single factor, but not to the extent that they are, essentially, the only factor and that the totality of everything else is just a tiebreaker.


I just want to set the record straight about Fedal vs Djokovic. Right now he is a distant third and the USO and FO were a much bigger deal than him playing Vienna for the weeks at no.1. Much MUCH bigger deal.

I'm a big Rafa fan, but your posts are all emotion and trollery over anything valuable; it's a chore and an embarrassment to read them.




[/QUOTE]
 

USO

Banned
"Djokovic and his fans seem to be hyping up the weeks at no.1 now that he seems out of the slam race but the fact remains that the slam race is infinitely more important.
An obvious example is Borg only having 109 weeks at no.1 while Connors has 268 and Lendl has 270. However I have never heard anyone rank them higher despite this huge difference in weeks at no.1 simply because the slams are 11-8-8. Djokovic's weeks at no.1 are nice but if he wants to be in the GOAT debate he will have to do better than 20-20-17."

There's nothing factual about your first statement, even if most would agree. You should know the difference between opinion and fact -- how old are you?
There were other factors influencing YE#1 back in those days. Yes, 11-8 (and 8) is a big factor in Borg being held in such high regard, but it's not the only thing.


"In the case of comparing Fedal the weeks at no.1 is definitely a factor just like other things like WTF, h2h, Olympics, Slam finals, Masters 1000... That's because they are tied at 20. But with Djokovic what he needs is the slams and I have a feeling that the way he is hyping up the weeks at no.1 shows that he doesn't believe in winning the slam race anymore. He will need at last 19 slams at this point to get into the GOAT conversation with Fedal, but I don't count Fedal out yet because they might add to their total."

It's so nice that you can get into Novak's mindset. I don't really care about what you think is the GOAT conversation. Imposing opinions as if they are facts did not work on me past the age of 8 or so.
My educated guess is that Novak is going after after what is realistically on the horizon. I tend to value years at #1 moreso than weeks at #1, but both have value. He has a great chance to go ahead of both Roger and Rafa in years (though not yet clinched) and a pretty good chance of staying at #1 beyond Roger's 310 weeks. Both are big milestones that have been achieved over a career.

I agree to the extent that number of "slams" is the biggest single factor, but not to the extent that they are, essentially, the only factor and that the totality of everything else is just a tiebreaker.


I just want to set the record straight about Fedal vs Djokovic. Right now he is a distant third and the USO and FO were a much bigger deal than him playing Vienna for the weeks at no.1. Much MUCH bigger deal.

I'm a big Rafa fan, but your posts are all emotion and trollery over anything valuable; it's a chore and an embarrassment to read them.
A player's ranking position depends mostly on how everyone else have distributed points amongst themselves. This is outside a players' control and therefore an illogical metric.

For example, let's say Nadal gets 12,000 ATP points in a year, but finishes the year world number 2 because another player gets 13,000. Meanwhile Sampras gets 8,000 points in a year, but finishes world number 1 as both world number 2 and 3 have only 6,000 points.
It makes zero logical sense to use ranking as the comparator. Why should we judge Sampras's year as better than Nadal's, given Nadal has won more ATP points in that year? :unsure:
 
Last edited:

FrontHeadlock

Hall of Fame
I think Connors should rank right up there with Borg, not just for the Weeks at #1 stat, but also for the total career titles record and winning Slams on all 3 surfaces while Borg never got one on HC. Not to mention his consistency records.
Lol, I mean, try not to be misleading here: Borg played a Major on hardcourt a total of FOUR times during his entire career, and he made the Finals three times.

Let's not act like he had a 15-year career where he played a Major on hardcourts 2x per year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: USO

FrontHeadlock

Hall of Fame
Lendl has many more things over Borg, including weeks at no.1, several more WTFs.

Guess what the entire universe thinks:

Borg>Lendl

The only number that matters for Borg and Lendl is 11>8.

And right now the only number that matters for Rafa and Novak is 20>17


It's about slams. Nole can have all the weeks at no.1, or career Golden Masters or WTFs he wants, but the world will still see Rafa as greater if he has more slams. If Nole and his fans want to live vicariously through secondary and less important records and titles, that is their choice. But it has not helped other players in the past be seen as greater than their peers, and it won't help Novak.

It may seem like a bitter pill to swallow, but that has always been how the game works. A 3 slam difference between Rafa and Novak might as well be an Ocean at this point in terms of ultimate greatness.
People also intuitively understand that Borg retired way too early at age 26, was 11-5 in Major finals whereas Lendl was 8-11, and Borg played at the AO once his entire career, so for all intents and purposes he played on a 3-Major tour.
 

RaulRamirez

Hall of Fame
A player's ranking position depends mostly on how everyone else have distributed points amongst themselves. This is outside a players' control and therefore an illogical metric.

For example, let's say Nadal gets 12,000 ATP points in a year, but finishes the year world number 2 because another player gets 13,000. Meanwhile Sampras gets 8,000 points in a year, but finishes world number 1 as both world number 2 and 3 have only 6,000 points.
It makes zero logical sense to use ranking as the comparator. Why should we judge Sampras's year as better than Nadal's, given Nadal has won more ATP points in that year? :unsure:
I think that's a more interesting discussion point, but I don't think I agree here. I think there is value to winning the most points in a given calendar year -- reaching #1 is a big deal. Now, I tend to put more value on the year-end rankings more so than the 52-week rolling weeks, as there is something to be said for being the best in a given year. I don't think that the sheer number of points it takes to finish atop matters nearly as much as finishing on top. To me, 8,000 points in, say, 1999, is not the same as 8,000 in, say, 2019.

(I did a poor job explaining that, and there may be a mathematical or statistical term that does so. )
 

demrle

Professional
A player's ranking position depends mostly on how everyone else have distributed points amongst themselves. This is outside a players' control and therefore an illogical metric.

For example, let's say Nadal gets 12,000 ATP points in a year, but finishes the year world number 2 because another player gets 13,000. Meanwhile Sampras gets 8,000 points in a year, but finishes world number 1 as both world number 2 and 3 have only 6,000 points.
It makes zero logical sense to use ranking as the comparator. Why should we judge Sampras's year as better than Nadal's, given Nadal has won more ATP points in that year? :unsure:
This is, of course, just another spin. Same logic can be applied to all categories, slams included.

Example: Thiem and Delpo have won one slam each, moreover the same slam, USO. However, Thiem won the tournament in which the no.1 seed Djokovic exited early, world no.2 Nadal and no.4 Federer didn't even play and he played headcases Medvedev and Zverev in the semi-final and final, while Delpo beat 23-year-old 6-time-slam-winner Rafa and 28-year-old 15-time-slam-winner Roger (who, oh BTW, won 19 out of last 21 slams and all 3 previous slams that year).

You sure you want to enter the minefiled of achievement-relativization? As a Fed fan? Seriously?
 
Last edited:

DSH

G.O.A.T.
After Borg’s Wimbledon win, McEnroe got the best of Borg at their next three Grand Slam meetings. After the increasingly frustrated Swede fell at the U.S. Open Final in 1983, he’d had enough. He left professional tennis abruptly.

It was a bizarre moment for the sport. A luminary of the game just walked off the court, avoided the press, and left for the airport. Announcing his retirement, he explained to the New York Times days later: “When you go out on the court, you should say this is great, I’m going to hit the tennis ball, I’m going to try to win every point, and I like to make a good shot,” Borg said. “If you don’t think and feel that, it’s very difficult to play.”


It has nothing to do with the slam record or any other record. He just mentally was not there anymore. Of course you knew that but you tried to re-write history in order to make a point. Please don't do that anymore it's disrespectful.
It was 1981!
:whistle:
 

lucky13

Rookie
it's clear that you can not compare things just like that. weeks vs slams. clear that a couple of weeks may not be able to compete for a slam. but if we say 50 weeks and a slkam. it's a whole year of being the best player in the world vs a single tournament. clear that the record holding of both has a special heavy.
 

lucky13

Rookie
This is, of course, just another spin. Same logic can be applied to all categories, slams included.

Example: Thiem and Delpo have won one slam each, moreover the same slam, USO. However, Thiem won the tournament in which the no.1 seed Djokovic exited early, world no.2 Nadal and no.4 Federer didn't even play and he played headcases Medvedev and Zverev in the semi-final and final, while Delpo beat 23-year-old 6-time-slam-winner Rafa and 28-year-old 15-time-slam-winner Roger (who, oh BTW, won 19 out of last 21 slams and all 3 previous slams that year).

You sure you want to enter the minefiled of achievement-relativization? As a Fed fan? Seriously?
we do not have to look for any hypothetical situation when we have a real one. everyone has seen muzza as the best player in 2016 even though he won "only" one slam against noles 2! and that nole had better h2h that year (3-2) and that nole won both slams finals they meet in (AO and RG, 2-0 in slams h2h too). and even though the points margin was so small that muzza secured YE # 1 in the last match of the season and saved an MB in match before. it is even the case that muzza sacrificed his career for this no1.
 

weakera

G.O.A.T.
Djokovic and his fans seem to be hyping up the weeks at no.1 now that he seems out of the slam race but the fact remains that the slam race is infinitely more important.

An obvious example is Borg only having 109 weeks at no.1 while Connors has 268 and Lendl has 270. However I have never heard anyone rank them higher despite this huge difference in weeks at no.1 simply because the slams are 11-8-8. Djokovic's weeks at no.1 are nice but if he wants to be in the GOAT debate he will have to do better than 20-20-17.

In the case of comparing Fedal the weeks at no.1 is definitely a factor just like other things like WTF, h2h, Olympics, Slam finals, Masters 1000... That's because they are tied at 20. But with Djokovic what he needs is the slams and I have a feeling that the way he is hyping up the weeks at no.1 shows that he doesn't believe in winning the slam race anymore. He will need at last 19 slams at this point to get into the GOAT conversation with Fedal, but I don't count Fedal out yet because they might add to their total.

I just want to set the record straight about Fedal vs Djokovic. Right now he is a distant third and the USO and FO were a much bigger deal than him playing Vienna for the weeks at no.1. Much MUCH bigger deal.

Co-sign this straight up HURRICANE of fax (facts)
 
  • Like
Reactions: USO

demrle

Professional
we do not have to look for any hypothetical situation when we have a real one. everyone has seen muzza as the best player in 2016 even though he won "only" one slam against noles 2! and that nole had better h2h that year (3-2) and that nole won both slams finals they meet in (AO and RG, 2-0 in slams h2h too). and even though the points margin was so small that muzza secured YE # 1 in the last match of the season and saved an MB in match before. it is even the case that muzza sacrificed his career for this no1.
This is an arbitrary statement. I for one didn't see Murray as the better player. He and Djokovic were equally good in my eyes. But Djokovic was in a slump the second part of the year and the recency bias did its job well.
 

lucky13

Rookie
nole was injured at the end of the year (2016). it also affected the whole of next year when he refused to have surgery.

certain circumstances and 1 ball can easily determine a slam but much more is needed to determine if one becomes no1. you have to be consistent for a whole year and play well on all surfaces. thiem won slam recently, while fed and rafa were gone and nole was knocked out by accident. nole on the other hand could have 19 slams if the ball did not hit the judge and if wimbl was not suspended due to corona. so he has "only" one slam this year even though in practice he was beaten in only one match throughout the season but is still clearly the best player this season as his ranking, shows even though slams were evenly distributed by three players!
 
Last edited:

Heliath

New User
Dude nobody is denying the importance of Slams as the pinnacle.

Weeks at No 1, one of the GOAT records, is a suitable tiebreaker for Slams. Hence Fed leads Rafa for now
Nobody is saying that the weeks record compensates for Novak's 3 less slams atm.

Also it seems like you are seeking validation for this, as if you don't believe it completely yourself ;)

Tbh, between players that have played in the same era and have played a gazillion matches, H2H is as an important tiebreaker as weeks at #1, probably even more.
 

Marfrilau

Rookie
Tbh, between players that have played in the same era and have played a gazillion matches, H2H is as an important tiebreaker as weeks at #1, probably even more.
Is it though? Imagine two players each winning 20 GS. They won them in the same time span. One leads in H2H 20-10. Who's greater? Now what if I told you that the player who has 10 wins against the other reached the final every time. Who's greater now? In this case it must mean that the guy with the inferior H2H always reached the final whereas the other player didn't. Should the player with the better H2H really be rewarded for that?
 

demrle

Professional
certain circumstances and 1 ball can easily determine a slam...
As evidenced by the US Open throat job, aka throat gate
certain circumstances and 1 ball can easily determine a slam but much more is needed to determine if one becomes no1. you have to be consistent for a whole year and play well on all surfaces.
Results at slams starkly influence the rankings, so that one ball you're talking about could determine a lot in the rankings too. Alternatively, if you get to no.1 with little to no success at slams, it's also worth shajt
nole on the other hand could have 19 slams if the ball did not hit the judge and if wimbl was not suspended due to corona. so he has "only" one slam this year even though in practice he was beaten in only one match throughout the season but is still clearly the best player this season as his ranking, shows even though slams were evenly distributed by three players!
2020 season is an aberration and should be no reference point in any discussion
 

Heliath

New User
Is it though? Imagine two players each winning 20 GS. They won them in the same time span. One leads in H2H 20-10. Who's greater? Now what if I told you that the player who has 10 wins against the other reached the final every time. Who's greater now?
If they both have the same slams, then yes, the guy with a 20-10 lead in the H2H is greater. That difference is too big, we are talking about double the wins. Just think about how would you feel watching them play through the years. When they played you would always favour the guy winning 2 out of 3 times.
 
Top