weeks at No. 1

jimbo333

Hall of Fame
How connors and lendl spent so many weeks as No. 1 compared to nadal while winning less slams than nadal

Jimmy won over 100 tournaments between about 1973 and 1986 (more than anyone in the open era).

And Because if Connors had played the French Open at his peak (he reached 4 semis, and 3 quarters AFTER his best 5 years amazingly), and if he had played the Australian Open more than twice (with a record of 1 win and 1 final), he would have probably won at least 12 Grand Slam tournaments, more than Nadal's current total!

Jimmy was playing in the hardest open eras (70's and 80's), in my opinion he is the third best player of all time (after Federer and Laver), a very underrated player and career by some.
 
Last edited:

itrium84

Hall of Fame
The agenda is to minimize Roger's achievements, as usual. The only argument they have is pure conjecture, but facts/data doesn't have merit(lol). However anyone in their right mind knows facts/numbers are the only objective answer to a debate. Speculation can support both sides and it only goes around in circles. Pointless !
So... What do factual 335>310 numbers mean to you, without speculation?
 

Milanez82

Hall of Fame
It is easy, I have explained already several times.

In totally polarized conditions (with different competitive game styles) you would expect the top players winning a LOWER nº of GS (than in an era of homogeneous conditions and one unique game style), BUT if a player is "the best of the era" for many years, he will be nº1 for many many weeks too.

In another words, polarized conditions and competitive styles VS homogeneous conditions and one unique competitive style, impacts the nº of total GS won by the top players, BUT it does NOT affect the nº of years (or weeks) at nº1 in the same way.

Again, the decathlon exmple:

A man who is the best at decathlon can very well be the nº1 (at decathlon) for many years, but he will never win, say, 8 or 9 out of the 10 decathlon events (in each decathlon competition) all the time (in fact not even once has that happened) because such 10 events in one decathon are vastly different.

On the other hand, if we create a "homogeneous decathlon", consisting of 10 times running the 100 m race in each "homogeneous decathlon competition", then the best at that (currently Ussain Bolt) not only will he be the best (at that thing) during many years (like the previous example), but he will also win 9 or 10 out of the 10 exactly identical 100 m races of each "homogeneous decathlon competition".

I hope this makes you understand why polarized conditions and styles VS homogeneous conditions and style, affects tremendously the nº of GS won by the best player (players) of the era, BUT it does NOT affect the same way the years (or weeks) at nº1 by the best player of the era.

Lendl and Connors dominated given eras (that is why they were nº1 for so long), but in their respective eras it was much more difficult to win different GS, that were played on totally vastly polarized conditions, against players with totally different playing styles each suited to specific conditions.

In the current era, not only Nadal, but also Djokovic will get to 10+ GS soon but neither will get to 200+ weeks at nº1 (probably not even 150+ weeks at nº1).

In short, trying to compare numbers from different eras is, most of the times, senseless.
Funny that both went past 200 weeks and Djokovic might do double that
 

daphne

Hall of Fame
Great post. Federer dominated the tour makes it really hard for any player to reach #1. Nadal holds the record for the most weeks(160) at #2 because Roger was too dominant. Had Nadal was playing in any of the previous era, those 160 weeks at #2 would sure be #1. Since 2003, for the player to reach #1 he had to be a mulitple slam winners(12-month stretch), unlike in the past decades when a player only needed to win one slam to be #1(eg Sampras in 1998 ). Even a non-slam winner Rios managed to be #1(LOL). Based on their results, Nadal would have more multiple year end #1, Del Potro 2009, Fed 2008, 2010 and 2012, Murray 2012...all would be good enough to end the year # in the previous generations.

With that being said, being ranked #1 in this era is much, much tougher thus more impressive than in the past. The level of accomplishment has to be much greater to earn the #1 ranking(and year end #1).
335!
 

daphne

Hall of Fame
It is easy, I have explained already several times.

In totally polarized conditions (with different competitive game styles) you would expect the top players winning a LOWER nº of GS (than in an era of homogeneous conditions and one unique game style), BUT if a player is "the best of the era" for many years, he will be nº1 for many many weeks too.

In another words, polarized conditions and competitive styles VS homogeneous conditions and one unique competitive style, impacts the nº of total GS won by the top players, BUT it does NOT affect the nº of years (or weeks) at nº1 in the same way.

Again, the decathlon exmple:

A man who is the best at decathlon can very well be the nº1 (at decathlon) for many years, but he will never win, say, 8 or 9 out of the 10 decathlon events (in each decathlon competition) all the time (in fact not even once has that happened) because such 10 events in one decathon are vastly different.

On the other hand, if we create a "homogeneous decathlon", consisting of 10 times running the 100 m race in each "homogeneous decathlon competition", then the best at that (currently Ussain Bolt) not only will he be the best (at that thing) during many years (like the previous example), but he will also win 9 or 10 out of the 10 exactly identical 100 m races of each "homogeneous decathlon competition".

I hope this makes you understand why polarized conditions and styles VS homogeneous conditions and style, affects tremendously the nº of GS won by the best player (players) of the era, BUT it does NOT affect the same way the years (or weeks) at nº1 by the best player of the era.

Lendl and Connors dominated given eras (that is why they were nº1 for so long), but in their respective eras it was much more difficult to win different GS, that were played on totally vastly polarized conditions, against players with totally different playing styles each suited to specific conditions.

In the current era, not only Nadal, but also Djokovic will get to 10+ GS soon but neither will get to 200+ weeks at nº1 (probably not even 150+ weeks at nº1).

In short, trying to compare numbers from different eras is, most of the times, senseless.
335!
 

nolefam_2024

Talk Tennis Guru
With Medvedev and Tsitsipas flopping in Cincy, that probably has given Novak free ride till AO 2022. Very close to 350 weeks at number 1 but after that it will become hard.
 

BGod

G.O.A.T.
With Medvedev and Tsitsipas flopping in Cincy, that probably has given Novak free ride till AO 2022. Very close to 350 weeks at number 1 but after that it will become hard.

Try Wimbledon 2022. Med & Tsit will be defending a lot of points first half of season. Unless one of them wins both Slams then Novak has nothing to worry about.

If Djokovic wins USO & AO he will keep #1 until at least after USO22. Remember he can always rack up points playing in Masters & 500s he didn't play in 2021.
 

mattennis

Hall of Fame
When I wrote those posts in this thread 8 years ago I could not envision that a succession of such weak generations was coming up... that enabled Novak Djokovic to keep on the throne longer than any player before (since Pancho Gonzales).

But he has all the merit because he was able to stay fit and healthy during all these years...so props to him!

Anyway I mantain my "decathlon reasoning" as the best explanation of what has happened in tennis in the last 20 years ( now complemented with the atrocious weak new generations that have come up in the last 10 years).
 

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
When I wrote those posts in this thread 8 years ago I could not envision that a succession of such weak generations was coming up... that enabled Novak Djokovic to keep on the throne longer than any player before (since Pancho Gonzales).

But he has all the merit because he was able to stay fit and healthy during all these years...so props to him!

Anyway I mantain my "decathlon reasoning" as the best explanation of what has happened in tennis in the last 20 years ( now complemented with the atrocious weak new generations that have come up in the last 10 years).
There was a time when 3 of the 4 slams were grass. Only two surfaces. So the “decathlon theory” should apply there even more
 

mattennis

Hall of Fame
By the way, I still don't have a "best explanation" on why the last few new generations have been so mediocre... it is probably a conjunction of several facts...
 

mattennis

Hall of Fame
There was a time when 3 of the 4 slams were grass. Only two surfaces. So the “decathlon theory” should apply there even more

It kind of apply there as well, because Pancho Gonzales, Ken rosewall and Rod Laver won each around 20 Mayors or "equivalent" in that epoch (50s and 60s) even though the tour was so different back then, with professionalism separated from amatteurism.
 

nolefam_2024

Talk Tennis Guru
When I wrote those posts in this thread 8 years ago I could not envision that a succession of such weak generations was coming up... that enabled Novak Djokovic to keep on the throne longer than any player before (since Pancho Gonzales).

But he has all the merit because he was able to stay fit and healthy during all these years...so props to him!

Anyway I mantain my "decathlon reasoning" as the best explanation of what has happened in tennis in the last 20 years ( now complemented with the atrocious weak new generations that have come up in the last 10 years).
Novak's name has been synonymous with no. 1 ranking. It will be very weird when someone else becomes no. 1. He has been our world no. 1 since 2011.
 
Top