Weeks at no. 1 is a deceiving stat

[ledwix]

Ranking is one of the least deceiving achievements. There are breaks at every point in the season. For players with enough weeks at the top (100+), it balances out. They can be looked at in combination with years at #1 for context.

Titles can be much more deceiving. Ferrer won the most titles in the world in 2012 with 7. He wasn't anywhere near the best player.

Even slam titles can be deceiving, since they require a decent player to get hot for one week basically. Weeks at #1 looks at average playing level using a large number of matches.

 

[PeterHo]

Some criteria gets weighted more than others.

Usually Slam count is at the top of the list. But other criteria can offset that. There is no exact science or formula to determine GOAT.

Many rankings out there will list Steffi Graf as the WTA GOAT of all time. She has the most Slams at 22. But other sources will recognize Navratilova as the WTA GOAT because of Martina's overall achievements, despite having only 18 Slams.

Both Graf and Navratilova have a dead-even H2H record at 9-9.

The only problem with Federer is his lousy H2H record against Nadal. Previous generation GOAT of their eras are pretty much undisputed because the top guy also had a favorable H2H over their top rival.

Look at every era in modern times. The guy with the most slams also had favorable H2H against their nearest rival

Sampras > Agassi
Lendl > McEnroe
Borg > Connors
Laver > Rosewall

Therefore, Federer's situation is unprecedented.

To me, slam count, even time at no.1 is not necessarily the best measure for GOAT.

Records that stand the test of time are what the GOAT shouLD have.

If I break a 100m sprint record only to have somebody else breaking mine after a few years, then I'm nowhere near GOAT status.

That's why lavers calendar year slam record is so impressive. It stands the test of time. Federers slam count, wks no.1 doesnt look as safe.

 

[Gary20]

People always use this as an important measure for goat bull$hit and whatnot, but think about this:

The rankings of the players on a weekly basis depends on the spacing out of the tournaments. Sometimes it is simply not feasible for the world no. 1 to be overtaken racist the upcoming tournaments may just be ATP 250s that none of the top dogs play.

Also, ending the year as world no.1 all but guarantee another 10 weeks at world no.1 at least. From when the WTF finishes to the conclusion of the Australian Open the following year, the only way the world no.1 can be surpassed is from Davis Cup (that is if any of the players viaing for world no.1 are actually playing in the DC final) or from some ATP 250s in the lead-up to the Australian Open (where none of the top players play more than 1 of these events).

See how the rankings are so dependent on the calendar?

There is also the matter if the world no.1 is so far ahead of everyone and has a very sharp, sudden and sustained decline in performance, their ranking will not drop enough points have wen loss. This can mean the world no. 1 can remain as world no.1 without really being the current best player in the world.

He was no world no. 1, but Gulbis this at Roland Garros came in with a year-to-date record of 3W 12L yet found himself as the no.24 seed, only because of his semi-final feat the previous year. This is an example of a player's decline not keeping up with their ranking, resulting in a big misrepresentation.

Ultimately weeks at no.1 is irrelevant as nobody knows without looking up who was no.1 for how long. Ive no clue how long Hewitt was no.1 for, i know he won 2 Majors.

Majors are the ultimate Yardstick. Within that is CGS and CYGS and Channel Slam.

 

[Gary20]

To me, slam count, even time at no.1 is not necessarily the best measure for GOAT.

Records that stand the test of time are what the GOAT shouLD have.

If I break a 100m sprint record only to have somebody else breaking mine after a few years, then I'm nowhere near GOAT status.

That's why lavers calendar year slam record is so impressive. It stands the test of time. Federers slam count, wks no.1 doesnt look as safe.

But three of the 4 Majors were on grass, so its not like it would be now winning on 4 distinct surfaces with different charecteristics.

 

[PeterHo]

But three of the 4 Majors were on grass, so its not like it would be now winning on 4 distinct surfaces with different charecteristics.

I'm not sure how distinct the surfaces are these days, espescially when one style of play (baseline) can win you all 4 slams.

A record is a record. You can put asterisks to lavers record, the same can be done to anybody else's, feds 17 slams against weak competition, sampras 14 without a RG, Nadal 14 with mostly RG, etc etc.

It doesn't change the fact that laver has done what everybody else has failed to in the past 60+years and counting. Borg, sampras, fed, Nadal, Nole none of them.

If feds no.1 weeks and slam record gets broken, each by a different player, then fed will have no great record left. That's the reality.

So nobody is really goat in this generation until their records stands the test of time. As of now, laver is leading by a mile.

 

[Dedans Penthouse]

Federer > Sampras !

Well played ol' fanboy!!! You #1 poster!
​

Don't come on the forum for a few weeks, then see this. Like a broken record, programmed to say the same things over and over again. Must utter these things in his sleep.

Hi Laurie,
TMF's only connection to tennis is with respect to being a fanboy, and a very unlearned one at that. He cannot comprehend people appreciating all of the greats of the game but instead thinks that tennis knowledge *cough* is centered around idolizing one player and one player only - the mark of an insecure fanboy incapable of seeing the forest for the trees. What's more amusing is that he thinks these childish "one player > another player" type of fanboy posts are capable of getting a rise out of people when he doesn't realize that he has no tennis credibility whatsoever to begin with......or to put it into the words of "the 5th Beatle" Billy Preston: "nothing from nothing means nothing."

sidebar (you can't quit attempting to follow this TMF, I'm running a 'tennis-related' question by Laurie which of course excludes you--so for now, goodbye "#1 poster!"):

Laurie, looking at your avatar, the somewhat 'egg' shape of that racquet's head would suggest something in the Kneissel/Puma line of racquet frames? I'm thinking specifically the Puma Boris Becker Super? I played with that frame years ago and loved it (50 graphite/50 fiberglass with that 'telescopic' handle you could adjust). kind regards : )

​

 

[TMF]

h 2 h

Benthic organisms > ambergris > pond scum > dedans peehouse​

Fix it for you.

 

[Dedans Penthouse]

.
Fix it for you.

Should read 'fixed' as in: "the world would've been a better place if only your mother was fixed."​

 

[Bukmeikara]

Very persuasive and insightful argument. 10/10.

Okay

I'm not sure how distinct the surfaces are these days, espescially when one style of play (baseline) can win you all 4 slams.

A record is a record. You can put asterisks to lavers record, the same can be done to anybody else's, feds 17 slams against weak competition, sampras 14 without a RG, Nadal 14 with mostly RG, etc etc.

It doesn't change the fact that laver has done what everybody else has failed to in the past 60+years and counting. Borg, sampras, fed, Nadal, Nole none of them.

If feds no.1 weeks and slam record gets broken, each by a different player, then fed will have no great record left. That's the reality.

So nobody is really goat in this generation until their records stands the test of time. As of now, laver is leading by a mile.

Laver has won 4 Slams with 16 mens draw's, meaning that he won 16 matches for his Grand Slam ... now you have to win 28 matches against a far better opposition. Past the 1st/2nd round every player has his own team of coaches and physios. See the difference? Laver was best of his generation but what Federer, Nadal and Djokovic achieved recently is far more difficult than the Calendar Grand Slam in 1969 ..

 

[abmk]

^^
he won 26 matches actually, 5 at the AO and 7 each at the others ...

while its more difficult to achieve the CYGS now due to 3 different surfaces are compared to 2 then, lets not denigrate that achievement by Laver ...

 

[Gary20]

I'm not sure how distinct the surfaces are these days, espescially when one style of play (baseline) can win you all 4 slams.

A record is a record. You can put asterisks to lavers record, the same can be done to anybody else's, feds 17 slams against weak competition, sampras 14 without a RG, Nadal 14 with mostly RG, etc etc.

It doesn't change the fact that laver has done what everybody else has failed to in the past 60+years and counting. Borg, sampras, fed, Nadal, Nole none of them.

If feds no.1 weeks and slam record gets broken, each by a different player, then fed will have no great record left. That's the reality.

So nobody is really goat in this generation until their records stands the test of time. As of now, laver is leading by a mile.

What about Nadal's achievement in 2010 of winning three Majors on three different suraces. That has never been done, probably never will be.

 

[Fedinkum]

I agreed with OP. The current ranking system often does not reflect the state of the current player.

 

[PeterHo]

Okay


Laver has won 4 Slams with 16 mens draw's, meaning that he won 16 matches for his Grand Slam ... now you have to win 28 matches against a far better opposition. Past the 1st/2nd round every player has his own team of coaches and physios. See the difference? Laver was best of his generation but what Federer, Nadal and Djokovic achieved recently is far more difficult than the Calendar Grand Slam in 1969 ..

a record is a record. when you go into deeper analysis, you can say, 1969 had poor competition, on and on.

the fact is laver achieved the CYGS by completely dominating every single opponent. this is what actually matters. he totally dominated everybody in one year. borg, sampras, fed, nadal, none of whom can completely dominate everybody in one year.

CYGS means completely dominating every single opponent at the biggest events in one calendar year. thats all it means. and this doesn't change regardless of format/no. of matches played, surfaces, weak/strong competitor etc etc.

the record hasn't been matched for 60+ years. its even harder to break.

 

[PeterHo]

What about Nadal's achievement in 2010 of winning three Majors on three different suraces. That has never been done, probably never will be.

its impressive, but same with federer's records, we'll need to wait and see how long the record is held.

i do think, however, nadal has one record that will stand the test of time, ie. 9 RG. it is probably harder to win 10 RG than 18 grand slams.

 

[dadadas]

I can agree that we shouldn't use precisely the number of weeks being number 1 to have a say that someone performs better than the other by just a margin of only 9-10 weeks of number 1 , but still if there is a large gap in weeks being number 1 between two guys like about 30 to 40 weeks than its really worth consideration.

 

[dadadas]

its impressive, but same with federer's records, we'll need to wait and see how long the record is held.

i do think, however, nadal has one record that will stand the test of time, ie. 9 RG. it is probably harder to win 10 RG than 18 grand slams.

18 Grands slams are hard as hell. Its takes like a 2004 Federer, a 2006 Federer, a 2007 Federer, a 2010 Nadal, a 2011 Djokovic and a 2015 Djokovic. 10 years of playing with 6 of it being totally dominant.

 

[PeterHo]

18 Grands slams are hard as hell. Its takes like a 2004 Federer, a 2006 Federer, a 2007 Federer, a 2010 Nadal, a 2011 Djokovic and a 2015 Djokovic

its hard as hell, but 10 RG is probably harder.

in WTA, there are 4 players with 18+ slams.

nobody has won 10 slams at one venue.

that shows the difference in difficulty.

 

[dadadas]

its hard as hell, but 10 RG is probably harder.

in WTA, there are 4 players with 18+ slams.

nobody has won 10 slams at one venue.

that shows the difference in difficulty.

It really depends though. Its clearly HARDER for Nadal himself to get 18 slams than get almost 10 French Open. And what is harder for Nadal is clearly gonna be MUCH harder for players

 

[DerekNoleFam1]

I agreed with OP. The current ranking system often does not reflect the state of the current player.

To an extent I agree, Murray held 2 of the 4 Slams after 2013 Wimby, but still some 3000 points behind.

He is unlucky to never have held the top spot, when many others have held it with only 1.(and that includes Djoker).

After the 2013 USO, Nadal was similarly then holder of 2 Slams, but took another month to take the top spot.
).

McEnroe also had YE#1 in 1982 with a Slamless year, while Connors had won 2. (neither contested the AO, so it was in essence still only best of 3 Slams)

There is no perfect system, and weeks at number 1 is just one of many factors that determine a career.

 

[RoddickAce]

The issue with the ranking point delay goes both ways.

Ie: On the way up, the "best player" is ranked lower due to not having won as much yet. Let's say Djoker is at #2 after winning the AO and Fed lost in R1, but Fed is still at #1 because he won Wimbledon, FO and USO in the prior year. Fed has declined dramatically but still maintained his #1 ranking due to the ranking points he earned in the previous year, ie: the "flaw" you mentioned. Although Djoker is currently the best player, he is at number #2, missing the weeks at #1.

Now Djoker goes on to win Wimbledon, FO and USO and becomes #1. He then loses in R1 of the AO in the next year, but Rafa wins AO. Djoker maintains his #1 ranking although Rafa is now the "best player"...etc.

So the net result of weeks at #1 would not really be that much different from the truth, barring rare situations with the ranking points.

 

[Gary Duane]

Some criteria gets weighted more than others.

Usually Slam count is at the top of the list. But other criteria can offset that. There is no exact science or formula to determine GOAT.

Many rankings out there will list Steffi Graf as the WTA GOAT of all time. She has the most Slams at 22. But other sources will recognize Navratilova as the WTA GOAT because of Martina's overall achievements, despite having only 18 Slams.

Both Graf and Navratilova have a dead-even H2H record at 9-9.

The only problem with Federer is his lousy H2H record against Nadal. Previous generation GOAT of their eras are pretty much undisputed because the top guy also had a favorable H2H over their top rival.

Look at every era in modern times. The guy with the most slams also had favorable H2H against their nearest rival

Sampras > Agassi
Lendl > McEnroe
Borg > Connors
Laver > Rosewall

Therefore, Federer's situation is unprecedented.

Borg/Connors also has a several year gap, close to 4 years. Not so simple to analyze as Connors dominated in the beginning, the Borg started winning more, but by no means everything, then Connors could not longer beat Borg starting in 1979.

It's not so easy as just looking at a total. Timing and surface needs to be examined to.

Within any given calendar year the H2H record for THAT YEAR also has to show a big difference in ranking.

Nadal's supposed H2H dominance up to 2008 gave him wins on clay but in no way threatened Fed's dominance.

In 2008 the H2H was directly responisible for Nadal taking over #1. That's where the H2H mattered because it was a direct result in change of ranking.

 

[Max G.]

All stats are deceiving.

So what? Stats can help put together an overall picture of a player's career. But no single number really encompasses it. Not H2H, not weeks/years at #1, not Slams won... but all together, those paint a pretty good picture.