Weeks at no.1 are nowhere near close slams

USO

Banned
Top players with a gazillion masters wont change a slam for 5 masters, but players that dont win many titles dont be so sure. 5 masters mean more money than winning 1 slam, and if you win several Masters in a row (like Ríos in 1998) it could mean world number 1. And getting to world number #1 with 0 slams is way better than winning 1 slam in your career but not getting to world #1.

Do you think Marcelo Ríos would like to change careers with Gaston Gaudio? I dont think so.
Yes Marcelo Rios would change his career with Gaston Gaudio. If Dominic Thiem didn’t win a slam before retiring he would have been forever disappointed despite all his other success. He has said it himself. Being a slam champion is the pinnacle of the sport.
 
Last edited:
Top players with a gazillion masters wont change a slam for 5 masters, but players that dont win many titles dont be so sure. 5 masters mean more money than winning 1 slam, and if you win several Masters in a row (like Ríos in 1998) it could mean world number 1. And getting to world number #1 with 0 slams is way better than winning 1 slam in your career but not getting to world #1.

Do you think Marcelo Ríos would like to change careers with Gaston Gaudio? I dont think so.
That is why RIOS is not considered TOP TIER player. We are talking of the BIG 3 here. They have money right now. At this point of their career their main GOAL is solidifying their LEGACY.
 

Heliath

New User
Yes Marcelo Rios would change his career with Gaston Gaudio. If Dominic Thiem didn’t win a slam before retiring he would have been forever disappointed despite all his other success. He has said it himself.
You are completely deluded if you think Marcelo Ríos would change careers with Gaudio. Reaching World Number 1 in your career is a far greater achievement than winning just 1 slam and having a mediocre career outside that 1 tournament that 1 year.

David Ferrer, with no world number 1, no slams and just 1 master, wouldnt change career with Gaudio. Im pretty sure he would take his 27 career titles and over 30 million dollars in prize money over Gaudio's career.

Also, the example was comparing just 1 slam to 5 masters, and you only need to look at the list of players that have managed to win 5 masters or more in their career. It isnt that long.
 

demrle

Professional
That’s just because they want to make top players enter other tournaments...
Another BS, of course, as 8(!) of possible 10 Masters are mandatory and they could make it 10, if they needed to. Not to mention the prize money at Masters being astronomical as well.

That’s just because they want to make top players enter other tournaments but the bottom line is the slams are by far the most important and you know it and all the players have said it. If someone makes it to number one but didn’t win a slam everyone looks at them as undeserving and a disappointment. Stop talking nonsense and move on.
Apart from the fact that this is not completely true, it is also irrelevant. "Everyone" can think whatever they want, but if their opinion isn't based on facts and logic, it has no merit. You diminishing the importance of other tournaments and especially the Masters while over proportionately hyping the slams is simply stupid. If for no other reason - seedings in slams are based on the results at other tournaments. You can forget qualifying for one let alone winning slams w/o success elsewhere. But don't let the facts and logic get in the way of your delusions.
 
Last edited:

USO

Banned
You are completely deluded if you think Marcelo Ríos would change careers with Gaudio. Reaching World Number 1 in your career is a far greater achievement than winning just 1 slam and having a mediocre career outside that 1 tournament that 1 year.

David Ferrer, with no world number 1, no slams and just 1 master, wouldnt change career with Gaudio. Im pretty sure he would take his 27 career titles and over 30 million dollars in prize money over Gaudio's career.

Also, the example was comparing just 1 slam to 5 masters, and you only need to look at the list of players that have managed to win 5 masters or more in their career. It isnt that long.
I will give you all another example. Serena Williams for many years was not number one while other lesser players were. That was because she was injured a lot and didn’t play much yet as soon as she entered a slam she was the woman to beat and the woman who ended up winning while other players accumulate points and got the number one ranking but were not necessarily better. Serena was in the eyes of everyone the best despite sometimes even being ranked number 10 due to not playing much or injuries. Another example of how rankings are irrelevant and how it’s about winning the slams.
 
Last edited:

lucky13

Rookie
You are completely deluded if you think Marcelo Ríos would change careers with Gaudio. Reaching World Number 1 in your career is a far greater achievement than winning just 1 slam and having a mediocre career outside that 1 tournament that 1 year.

David Ferrer, with no world number 1, no slams and just 1 master, wouldnt change career with Gaudio. Im pretty sure he would take his 27 career titles and over 30 million dollars in prize money over Gaudio's career.

Also, the example was comparing just 1 slam to 5 masters, and you only need to look at the list of players that have managed to win 5 masters or more in their career. It isnt that long.
in an interview from 2013, rafa has clearly stated that he sees 5 masters as a greater success than 1 slam. they asked him something before USO, maybe USO F, and he said kind of, slams are not everything in tennis, so if someone wins 1 slam and I have won,we say 5 masters during the year, so you will say he had better year than me? I do not think so!
 

Heliath

New User
That is why RIOS is not considered TOP TIER player. We are talking of the BIG 3 here. They have money right now. At this point of their career their main GOAL is solidifying their LEGACY.
Ríos is, for sure, considered a more top tier player than Gaudio.

Big 3 care about their legacy. Thats correct. Also Federer and Djokovic would have traded a Wimbledon and AO (respectively) to get an olympic gold medal. Does that mean that an olympic gold is worth more than a slam for everyone? Absolutely not. It all depends of what the players already achieved and what they want next.

So saying 1 slam > 5 masters its not just true for everyone.
 

demrle

Professional
No, that's not an accurate analogy, at all.

Of course strength of competition can be analysed as an important, but separate, factor.
However the point USO was making is that if Nadal gets 12,000 points and is world number 2, while Sampras gets 8,000 points and is world number 1, using the ranking as a comparator has no logic. This is because Nadal has actually done better than Sampras in matches he's played, but the distribution of points in matches neither player played in was different. So therefore it makes no logical sense to use this as a comparator.
That is distinct from judging competition in matches they did play in (your Thiem and Del Potro analysis), as for that you can take into account both performance of the relevant players and the competition. That's different from using a metric which gives importance to matches which neither player could influence at all.
Yes, it is a perfectly accurate analogy.

You are arguing, that the fact that you cannot control what is happening in the rest of the field in the battle for no.1 somehow diminishes the objective value of that achievement. But it is the same with slams. You can't control if the rest of the favorites will exit early or kill each other in previous rounds so you get a corps to play against in the finals. Or you'll have to play an ATG that had a walk in the park in previous rounds. Not all slam wins are the same and yet they all count the same. It's the same with weeks at #1.
 

Heliath

New User
I will give you another example. Serena Williams for many years was not number one while other lesser players were. That was because she was injured a lot and didn’t play much yet as soon as she entered a slam she was the woman to beat and the woman who ended up winning while other players accumulate points and got the number one ranking but were not necessarily better. Serena was in the eyes of everyone the best despite sometimes even being ranked number 10 due to not playing much or injuries. Another example of how rankings are irrelevant and how it’s about winning the slams.
But she already achieved world number one at that time. Once a player has been number one, the number of weeks really doesnt matter (unless you want to get the record). Someone that has been world number 1 for 40 weeks, wouldnt trade a slam to get extra 10 or 20 weeks. But if you have nothing, no number one, and no slams and you could choose between being the best player in the world (even for a short amout of time) or winning just 1 slam in your career and nothing else (basically Gaudio's career), players would certainly choose the first; being world number 1. Because that way better for your legacy.

In you example Serena was the best because she was injured and that affected her ranking, but she was still winning a lot of tournaments she participated, thats why she was still considered the favourite despite not being world number 1.

There is an interview of a very young Nadal, and they asked him what would be his main goal as a pro player and his answer was: became world number 1. Years later, when he already achieved that, then obviously his goals changed.
 

USO

Banned
But she already achieved world number one at that time. Once a player has been number one, the number of weeks really doesnt matter (unless you want to get the record). Someone that has been world number 1 for 40 weeks, wouldnt trade a slam to get extra 10 or 20 weeks. But if you have nothing, no number one, and no slams and you could choose between being the best player in the world (even for a short amout of time) or winning just 1 slam in your career and nothing else (basically Gaudio's career), players would certainly choose the first; being world number 1. Because that way better for your legacy.

In you example Serena was the best because she was injured and that affected her ranking, but she was still winning a lot of tournaments she participated, thats why she was still considered the favourite despite not being world number 1.

There is an interview of a very young Nadal, and they asked him what would be his main goal as a pro player and his answer was: became world number 1. Years later, when he already achieved that, then obviously his goals changed.
This thread is clearly about “weeks at number one” so obviously you agree with me. And again the fact that Serena was considered the favourite shows how the ranking is not really that important.
 

demrle

Professional
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.

Let's make sure the irony doesn't get lost on us: a diehard Fed fan downplaying the importance of weeks at #1

I mean you couldn't script this :-D

 
What would be the PRESENT GOALS of the Big 3 at this point of their careers? Bet you they will all say "To win more Slams possible". Novak is focusing on the Weeks at #1 because it is WITHIN reach. After that, more Slam wins is the TRUE goal of Novak nothing more, nothing less.
 

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
No, that's not an accurate analogy, at all.

Of course strength of competition can be analysed as an important, but separate, factor.
However the point USO was making is that if Nadal gets 12,000 points and is world number 2, while Sampras gets 8,000 points and is world number 1, using the ranking as a comparator has no logic. This is because Nadal has actually done better than Sampras in matches he's played, but the distribution of points in matches neither player played in was different. So therefore it makes no logical sense to use this as a comparator.
That is distinct from judging competition in matches they did play in (your Thiem and Del Potro analysis), as for that you can take into account both performance of the relevant players and the competition. That's different from using a metric which gives importance to matches which neither player could influence at all.
I think there is a confusion here on what #1 is meant to measure. It only means you are better than the rest in a given period of time.

in some cases you can be a very dominating #1 (say Novak in 2015) while in others the #1 is barely better than the #2 (say Nadal in 2019). But in all cases there are clear rules as to what it takes to be number 1 and players adjust accordingly.


so if Nadal in year X came in second with more points than Sampras needed in another year to reach number 1 that may tell us something about how close the top players finished. But in this example Sampras still comes out with a better result than Nadal, and that‘s directly comparable.
 

USO

Banned
Let's make sure the irony doesn't get lost on us: a diehard Fed fan downplaying the importance of weeks at #1. I mean you couldn't script this :-D

I am downplaying it only if slam titles are not equal. Comparing Fedal I would consider it as one of many other factors. But comparing Djokovic with Fedal is absurd at this point. It will be cute if Djokovic gets the record but if he doesn’t match them in slams it won’t matter much. The point of this thread is that slams are much more important than weeks at no.1.
 

USO

Banned
@USO The 1983 USO final was Connors vs. Lendl, Borg had been retired for 2 years by then. You’re referencing the 1981 USO final.
I just copied part of an article they are the ones who did the mistake, thanks for those who pointed that out... but the overall point about Borg's retirement is still valid... It's almost the equivalent of Federer deciding to retire after the 2009 AO or Nadal deciding to retire after the 2012 AO because they were upset that a rival was having the upper hand. But both of them kept fighting, turned things around and accomplished so much more and today they are GOATs. Borg just gave up, he shouldn't be rewarded for retiring early without a valid reason (like an injury for example).
 

demrle

Professional
...the fact remains that the slam race is infinitely more important.
...
I am downplaying it only if slam titles are not equal.
...
The point of this thread is that slams are much more important than weeks at no.1.
No Fed fan would have been cought dead saying anything like that back in 2016, when the slam count was Fed 17- Nadal 14, but the record of weeks at #1 seemed absolutely unbreakable. But yeah, keep deluding yourself and/or being dishonest.

...But comparing Djokovic with Fedal is absurd at this point. It will be cute if Djokovic gets the record but if he doesn’t match them in slams it won’t matter much. ...
Though Federer is still better than Djokovic, it is already pretty close or at the very least not absurd. And what do you mean by match "them". There's no "them", Rafa is breaking that tie sooner or later, only a totaly desperate Fed fan would expect anything different. That being said, I don't know if Novak will catch Rafa, but matching Roger is almost a given at this point.
 

USO

Banned
No Fed fan would have been cought dead saying anything like that back in 2016, when the slam count was Fed 17- Nadal 14, but the record of weeks at #1 seemed absolutely unbreakable. But yeah, keep deluding yourself and/or being dishonest.


Though Federer is still better than Djokovic, it is already pretty close or at the very least not absurd. What do you mean match "them". There's no "them", Rafa is breaking that tie sooner or later, only a totaly desperate Fed fan would expect anything different. That being said, I don't know if Novak will catch Rafa, but matching Roger is almost a given at this point.
I give Djokovic 1 more slam at the most. Keep dreaming if you think he will catch Federer! As for Nadal I love him as much as Federer so I’m not really worried. Fedal forever.
 

USO

Banned
No Fed fan would have been cought dead saying anything like that back in 2016, when the slam count was Fed 17- Nadal 14, but the record of weeks at #1 seemed absolutely unbreakable. But yeah, keep deluding yourself and/or being dishonest.


Though Federer is still better than Djokovic, it is already pretty close or at the very least not absurd. What do you mean match "them". There's no "them", Rafa is breaking that tie sooner or later, only a totaly desperate Fed fan would expect anything different. That being said, I don't know if Novak will catch Rafa, but matching Roger is almost a given at this point.
I give Djokovic 1 more slam at the most. Keep dreaming if you think he will catch Federer! As for Nadal I love him as much as Federer so I’m not really worried. Fedal forever. :cool:
 

daphne

Hall of Fame
Weeks at no.1 are nowhere near close slams


IF, weeks at No.1 are nowhere near, WHAT is between them? No. of puppies saved from starvation?
 

demrle

Professional
demrle said:
No Fed fan would have been cought dead saying anything like that back in 2016, when the slam count was Fed 17- Nadal 14, but the record of weeks at #1 seemed absolutely unbreakable. But yeah, keep deluding yourself and/or being dishonest.


Though Federer is still better than Djokovic, it is already pretty close or at the very least not absurd. What do you mean match "them". There's no "them", Rafa is breaking that tie sooner or later, only a totaly desperate Fed fan would expect anything different. That being said, I don't know if Novak will catch Rafa, but matching Roger is almost a given at this point.
I give Djokovic 1 more slam at the most. Keep dreaming if you think he will catch Federer! As for Nadal I love him as much as Federer so I’m not really worried. Fedal forever. :cool:
I wanted to write how you are at least a straight up delusional Fed fan, but before I do that - what about the part in red?
 

USO

Banned
I wanted to write how you are at least a straight up delusional Fed fan, but before I do that - what about the part in red?
When Federer had 17 slams he was clearly the GOAT because of those slams (leading Nadal by 3), I would have never used the weeks at no.1 as it had nothing to do with it. I’m using the same argument now with Fedal leading Djokovic by 3.
 
Last edited:

demrle

Professional
When Federer had 17 slams he was clearly the GOAT because of those slams (leading Nadal by 3), I would have never used the weeks at no.1 as it had nothing to do with it. I’m using the same argument now with Fedal leading Djokovic by 3.
Of course you wouldn't have used it, as you had the bigger GS gun to shoot at Nadal from. My point is, that weeks at #1 was hyped up to the hilt back then, while conveniently losing importance lately. On a weekly basis :-D
 

FrontHeadlock

Hall of Fame
But she already achieved world number one at that time. Once a player has been number one, the number of weeks really doesnt matter (unless you want to get the record). Someone that has been world number 1 for 40 weeks, wouldnt trade a slam to get extra 10 or 20 weeks. But if you have nothing, no number one, and no slams and you could choose between being the best player in the world (even for a short amout of time) or winning just 1 slam in your career and nothing else (basically Gaudio's career), players would certainly choose the first; being world number 1. Because that way better for your legacy.
I agree that #1 is something everyone wants to achieve, but that accruing weeks is very overrated.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Yes, we all know it's not bigger than slams, but it's still a significant achievement and an important criteria in evaluation a player's placement in ATG.
 

KG1965

Legend
Winning a lot of slams or being world number one for a long time are very different things: to be world number one requires a lot of continuity/consistency.
The slams are 4, being number one requires more continuity in 15-20 events.
It often happens that whoever wins the most slams is also the most continuous but this is not always the case.

Connors for example was more continuous than Borg in the years 1973-1983.
Jimmy was better than Borg in 1973 (Bjorn was too young).
In the 5 years that the american was ATP number one
- he was clearly ahead in 1974 and 1976,
- in 1975, 1977 and 1978 the two were very close but the american was slightly more continuous.
Then (1979-80) Bjorn prevailed.
But for much of 1982-83 Connors was again the best in the world (number of weeks not at the end of the year)

Lendl was also more consistent/continuous than Borg.
 
Last edited:

demrle

Professional
And you don't think this is a problem? How can it not have relevance to the GOAT debate? If a sport has changed significantly over time it is per definition impossible to proclaim someone GOAT. A GOAT debate that does not compare across eras is an oxymoron. It's a GOTP (greatest of time period) debate then.
Again, generally speaking in sports - yes, in this particular case - no. All the ex greats seem to agree that this is the strongest era ever, hence best player of this era = GOAT.

I'm challenging whether the GOAT debate even makes sense in such circumstances. I consider the conditions the different slams are played in different enough to not consider a slam a slam. I feel I have enough evidence to claim that they are. You can disagree with that or not. And with that assumption I feel the overall GOAT title has little value.
Also the Association of Swimming Professionals have normalized success. If you win you get a medal. It doesn't matter which discipline it is. However, I still find it ridiculous to proclaim someone the swimming GOAT if someone else is greater at 3/4 disciplines (given they have won the same amount of medals). Especially if the swimmer who's greatest in only one discipline is greatest in breaststroke :-D

But the problem is that H2H is often used after only counting title wins. Which means all other results are ignored.
Well, then we agree to disagree, as I consider the slams equal, all the swimming medals equal - even breaststroke :) and counting title wins as enough of a criterion to decide on GOAT (along with H2H as a tiebreaker).
 

RiverRat

Professional
Why should we be considering anyone GOAT who only meets half of the tennis challenges? There is an argument to be made that the best tennis player can play both singles and doubles. No matter how much either of the Big 3 focused on doubles, neither of them would ever measure up. There is an alternative. There is one who is rarely questioned as the greatest doubles player of all-time. He carried a mediocre player to multiple slam championships and even took another to a slam. He would have won each of the slams too, but Lendl, admittedly, "treed," and came back from two sets down in the final. Let me add, he also had arguably the best singles year in history that year, losing only three times (82-3), including that albatross of a French Open heartbreaker. The year was 1984 and the man was, wait for it...John McEnroe. https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1708407-ranking-the-10-most-dominant-seasons-in-tennis-history#:~:text=John McEnroe, 1984&text=His performance in the finals,82-3 record in 1984.
 
Last edited:

Marfrilau

Rookie
Again, generally speaking in sports - yes, in this particular case - no. All the ex greats seem to agree that this is the strongest era ever, hence best player of this era = GOAT.
Wait, so you apply one set of logic for any other sport and another for tennis? And your reason for this is based on a logical fallacy? I thought you wanted to base this discussion on sound logic. Also you seem to confuse greatness with who is better. If who is better was part of this discussion then Laver would have been out of the discussion a long time ago. The level of tennis has drastically increased since then. But level should not be a part of the GOAT discussion because if it were then it would be impossible to compare across eras.
Well, then we agree to disagree, as I consider the slams equal, all the swimming medals equal - even breaststroke :) and counting title wins as enough of a criterion to decide on GOAT (along with H2H as a tiebreaker).
And what is your logic for doing so? Other than it being easy and simplistic?
 

demrle

Professional
Wait, so you apply one set of logic for any other sport and another for tennis? And your reason for this is based on a logical fallacy? I thought you wanted to base this discussion on sound logic. Also you seem to confuse greatness with who is better. If who is better was part of this discussion then Laver would have been out of the discussion a long time ago. The level of tennis has drastically increased since then. But level should not be a part of the GOAT discussion because if it were then it would be impossible to compare across eras.

And what is your logic for doing so? Other than it being easy and simplistic?
I'm not confusing anything, you just choose to selectively read/understand the arguments. Again, and for the third time, GENERALLY it is not possible to compare across eras. Because GENERALLY sports have such a long history, that there are simply no living individuals who have seen it all so that they could compare the relative qualities of eras themself. Professional tennis doesn't have such a long history, and there are still many people who can give their competent opinion on the subject. And they are all in agreement, that this era is the strongest of them all. Which means that the greatest player of this era automatically becomes the greatest player of all times. What's so difficult to understand there?
And what is your logic for doing so? Other than it being easy and simplistic?
Tennis is a meritocracy. Games are won based on points, sets based on games, matches based on sets, tournaments based on matches, GOATness based on tournaments. Or should we account for the average top-spin rate on clay courts for one player and cross-reference it with the percentage of down the "T" serves on breakpoints in 3rd rounds of grand slams for the other.

It is not simplistic. It is realistic. Not everything has to be a pseudo-intellectual orgy. Unless you have an agenda.
 

RiverRat

Professional
Whether these are the best singles specialists of all-time, not tennis players, is moot. Their greatness would not be possible without the prior eras. Let me add that, if this is the greatest era, it has pathetic participation and media attention. In the 70s and 80s tennis was on the major networks every weekend. There was even celebrity-pro tennis on network channels. Hell, Bobby Riggs-Billy Jean King rivaled Ali-Fraser or another similar spectacle. Growing up in the 70s and 80s I saw some of the best athletes choosing to play tennis. Guys who played football and basketball were asking me for tips and taking up the game in the summer. Who do you think is responsible for creating the Big 3? It's the era of the 70s and 80s with their knowledge and expertise that developed, even after their bodies had failed them. So in the infamous words of Ellis Boyd Redding (Shawshank Redemption), "GOAT? It's just a f****g word. So you go on and stamp your form, sonny, and stop wasting my time. Because to tell you the truth, I don't give a sh*t."
 

Ogi44

Rookie
both sports illustrated and ny times mentioned that borg was only one major away from tying
Emerson when he won 81 RG. And that he tied laver with his 11th major. I was a kid in the 80s, and I was well aware the majors record was 12. Yeah I knew Emerson wasn’t goat, but it was still an important number. Lendl talked often about how majors were the only events that mattered. If he got to 12, trust me it would have been considered a pretty big deal.
I did say it was not the ONLY metric deciding who is better player. That was right approach then, and it is right approach now. Shall I write again: Slams are VERY important, but they are not the ONLY metric deciding who is greater.
 
I did say it was not the ONLY metric deciding who is better player. That was right approach then, and it is right approach now. Shall I write again: Slams are VERY important, but they are not the ONLY metric deciding who is greater.
Yes not only metric. But do you agree that Slam wins are the ULTIMATE metric?
 

Ogi44

Rookie
Yes not only metric. But do you agree that Slam wins are the ULTIMATE metric?
For the last 30 years yes. This is a general consesus how to compare players in last 3 decades. They knew it and played accordingly. But to compare Tilden, Gonzales, Rosewall,Laver, Borg and others who played in the past with Sampras, Nadal, Djokovic and Federer based only on majors is nonsense. There is no such thing as GOAT. Rosewall won 23 slams and Pro equivalents in 60s and 70s. In the past this tournaments had same quality field as slams today and it was three of them per year. 4 slams were open only to amateurs till 1968, and quality of competition can be compared to current ATP 250 if I am generous. Is Rosewall a GOAT then if we count only 4 strongest tournaments per year through history? If winning them is the ultimate metric, then answer must be yes.
 

jondice

New User
Weeks at number one is definitely a big deal, but it's not as pure a test as H2H for me.

If you end the season number 1 you get two months (about) of "free" time at number one. That's silly. You can end being number one, but not rack up 8 free weeks. There's also injuries, different points awarded to different tourneys played by different top players (which changes odds of any given player winning, but not points toward number one accrued), legally rigging the system (like Novak playing Vienna and not Paris or Rafa choosing to play Paris instead of resting) that has nothing to do with who is actually the best player in the world. There's just so much more wiggle room for the best player to NOT be number one or for the number one player to remain so unjustly, if legally.

Whereas in H2H? The best player of the two quite literally wins.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Weeks at number one is definitely a big deal, but it's not as pure a test as H2H for me.

If you end the season number 1 you get two months (about) of "free" time at number one. That's silly. You can end being number one, but not rack up 8 free weeks. There's also injuries, different points awarded to different tourneys played by different top players (which changes odds of any given player winning, but not points toward number one accrued), legally rigging the system (like Novak playing Vienna and not Paris or Rafa choosing to play Paris instead of resting) that has nothing to do with who is actually the best player in the world. There's just so much more wiggle room for the best player to NOT be number one or for the number one player to remain so unjustly, if legally.

Whereas in H2H? The best player of the two quite literally wins.
Even the H2H depends on several factors like surface, age and form.
 

lucky13

Rookie
Weeks at number one is definitely a big deal, but it's not as pure a test as H2H for me.

If you end the season number 1 you get two months (about) of "free" time at number one. That's silly. You can end being number one, but not rack up 8 free weeks. There's also injuries, different points awarded to different tourneys played by different top players (which changes odds of any given player winning, but not points toward number one accrued), legally rigging the system (like Novak playing Vienna and not Paris or Rafa choosing to play Paris instead of resting) that has nothing to do with who is actually the best player in the world. There's just so much more wiggle room for the best player to NOT be number one or for the number one player to remain so unjustly, if legally.

Whereas in H2H? The best player of the two quite literally wins.
this year is anomaly. ATP did a bit stupid with this year's system, but nole would be no1 regardless, which and even with an even larger margin in the normal ranking system. so normally you can not choose not to play but keep points. The ranking system is the best way to objectively show who is the best player in the world!
 

BGod

Legend
The Borg example to discount weeks at #1 is just as apt as counting Johan Kreik's 2 Slams ahead of Andy Roddick.

Fact is the ATP season is a long slog now. 4 Slams, 9 Masters, at least a few 500s and the WTF. Weeks at #1 are very much a marker.

Saying that I don't agree with the 100 weeks=1 Slam people. But 50 weeks of having the most points is indeed comparable to a favorable draw or hot streak at a Slam. It depends where the dice rolls.

But with Novak over Rafa you have 2>1 in 3 Slam seasons including 4 in a row. The dominance is clearly with Novak.
 

smash hit

Professional
With the current situation and the ranking as it is weeks at number one should be frozen until the ranking returns to normal. It is a great advantage to be able to retain points from last year while cherry picking other tournaments which will enable a player to add more points .It will be a false record.
 

demrle

Professional
With the current situation and the ranking as it is weeks at number one should be frozen until the ranking returns to normal. It is a great advantage to be able to retain points from last year while cherry picking other tournaments which will enable a player to add more points .It will be a false record.
Fail. Had the rankings been normal the whole time, Djokovic would have already beaten the record. Nothing false there.
 

TheGhostOfAgassi

Talk Tennis Guru
I'm a Djokovic fan, I have no doubt Djokovic will take this record, and I think time at #1 and YE#1s is the single most overrated stat in tennis.

It should not bear relevance in GOAT arguments
I agree. But if you compare Andy to Wawrinka and Andy has had weeks n 1, that counts I think and Andy had a better career than Wawrinka. If Novak gets to 20 and Fedal at 20 as well, but Novak w most weeks, I think Novak has had the best career.
 

Red Rick

Bionic Poster
I agree. But if you compare Andy to Wawrinka and Andy has had weeks n 1, that counts I think and Andy had a better career than Wawrinka. If Novak gets to 20 and Fedal at 20 as well, but Novak w most weeks, I think Novak has had the best career.
Well Djoko would lead Federer in all other stats most likely anyway, especially with a huge load of M1000s and higher overall win% and a few others. I guess you might want to look at is a tiebreaker, so maybe it would be fitting Djoko wins that over Fed
 

pj80

Hall of Fame
I agree. But if you compare Andy to Wawrinka and Andy has had weeks n 1, that counts I think and Andy had a better career than Wawrinka. If Novak gets to 20 and Fedal at 20 as well, but Novak w most weeks, I think Novak has had the best career.
Also Murray has more Masters titles then Stan which is often mentioned here along with weeks at number one when comparing Stan and Murray....so if Novak gets 20 with Fedal while leading Masters titles and weeks at number one it will be easy argument for better career
 

demrle

Professional
Not necessarily so.
In a Covid-free and/or common sense heavy world Nadal would have dropped 4720 points from Wimbledon, RG and USO, as opposed to 2900 for Djokovic. Points dropped for Rome+Canada for Nadal and Madrid+Cincinnati for Djokovic would have been a wash. So tell me, where would have Nadal made so much ground on Djokovic? Or would it have been Thiem, who would have caught Djokovic? The one who got burnt out after playing 13 matches since the tour restart?
 

demrle

Professional
Also Murray has more Masters titles then Stan which is often mentioned here along with weeks at number one when comparing Stan and Murray....so if Novak gets 20 with Fedal while leading Masters titles and weeks at number one it will be easy argument for better career
Weeks at #1 is already accounted for in tournament wins, as you get the first seed and easier draw thanks to it. YEC has no meaning by definition.
 
Top