Which player that reached #1 had the weakest resume or competition to justify their ranking?

[BladeDaywalker]

I am going to only focus on the Open Era

Here is the list of all players who reached #1 in the Open Era

Is there anyone who stick out in term of being the weakest:

 

[yossarian]

Connors in 5

 

[Deleted member 748597]

Mad Lad soon.

 

[EllieK]

Andy Roddick, Pat Rafter, Kafelnikov, Rios

 

[EllieK]

Mad Lad soon.

Don’t know that he will get there without some clay points.

 

[Nadal>>>>>Federer]

Andy Murray. He killed his body just to get to #1 and that was just barely over the last half of 2016 and did so with virtually no big 3. It is a travesty that he has more than 1 week at #1

 

[TripleATeam]

Inb4 Novak

 

[Phoenix1983]

Surely it's Rios, the only one without a slam.

 

[Tshooter]

 

[Thriller]

Safina.

 

[TripleATeam]

I wouldn't call any of the 70s or 80s #1s weak. They had to go through many ATGs and surface specialists. Maybe the first two #1s if you had to choose among them, but I'd really look to the 90s. It's got to be Muster, Rios, or Moya.

Personally I'd say Rios because the other two were just clay specialists who happened to rack up enough points to reach #1. That's not against them, they were able to take advantage, and needed to win a slam to do it. Rios somehow had a lull in the tour where absolutely no one was dominant, which allowed him to somehow hit #1 without a slam.

 

[Mediterranean Might]

Andy Murray. He killed his body just to get to #1 and that was just barely over the last half of 2016 and did so with virtually no big 3. It is a travesty that he has more than 1 week at #1

You'd really put Murray behind Rios? Come on

 

[Phoenix1983]

I wouldn't call any of the 70s or 80s #1s weak. They had to go through many ATGs and surface specialists. Maybe the first two #1s if you had to choose among them, but I'd really look to the 90s. It's got to be Muster, Rios, or Moya.

Personally I'd say Rios because the other two were just clay specialists who happened to rack up enough points to reach #1. That's not against them, they were able to take advantage, and needed to win a slam to do it. Rios somehow had a lull in the tour where absolutely no one was dominant, which allowed him to somehow hit #1 without a slam.

Agree - also, Moya wasn't just a clay court specialist. He reached a slam final on hard (AO 1997) before doing it on clay, losing only to PETE.

 

[ZanderGoga]

Most of them were greats, incl many all time greats. The rest belong in the Hall of Very Good.

Except Rios. Who was really just a guy, and happened to get hot during a lull. There was never an era in tennis where he was a threat to so much as win a slam. The only time he got to a final, it was a loss to the single worst grand slam winner in the history of professional tennis.

If you put all the #1's in time machines, and have them play tournaments against each other for the rest of eternity, Rios almost never gets out of the first round, and certainly never wins.

 

[NAS]

I think this type of thread was already done by @tonylg some month back

 

[BeatlesFan]

I wouldn't call any of the 70s or 80s #1s weak.

Nor would anyone with a beating pulse then say so. Yeah, Borg, Newk, Jimbo and Nastase were "weak." What a laugh.

 

[NAS]

Rios has the weakest resume as being without the slam but as in old thread I will say again during the 52 week stretch when players become no.1 Moya was holding only two title ,one slam and master( other slam result, 2nd round, first round, semi).
Rios was holding three master and AO final.
Rafter was holding 5 titles including one slam and 2 Master.
Kaflikinov was holding one slam and I think 3 small titles( overall 4)
If Med become number 1 , he will be holding 3 master title, yec and two slam final points.
So for 52 weeks stretch it is between Moya and Kaflikinov.

 

[Beckerserve]

Mad Lad soon.

That just cannot happen as it would be beyond a joke.

 

[Beckerserve]

Rios by a distance.

 

[Tshooter]

I think this type of thread was already done by @tonylg some month back hundreds if not thousands of times on TTW.

Edited for clarity.

 

[Third Serve]

Wouldn't this be Rios?

 

[SonnyT]

Is Stan the best player never ranked #1? He's never been in the top2!

 

[tonylg]

Edited for clarity.

Don't rain on my parade!

 

[James P]

Mad Lad soon.

He's already accomplished more than Rios

 

[Sampras-Bruguera 1993]

Roddick.. Yea you can knock Rios but dude had far more talent and overall ability than Roddick ever did. LOL Once you got Roddick's serve back in play and zeroed in on it, it was pretty much over for that boy

 

[tonylg]

Rios has the weakest resume as being without the slam but as in old thread I will say again during the 52 week stretch when players become no.1 Moya was holding only two title ,one slam and master( other slam result, 2nd round, first round, semi).
Rios was holding three master and AO final.
Rafter was holding 5 titles including one slam and 2 Master.
Kaflikinov was holding one slam and I think 3 small titles( overall 4)
If Med become number 1 , he will be holding 3 master title, yec and two slam final points.
So for 52 weeks stretch it is between Moya and Kaflikinov.

I can see the logic of your argument, but I still think Moya and Kafelnikov having a slam puts them ahead of Rios (and potentially Medvedev). Rafter does not belong anywhere near this discussion.

I also think people love to exaggerate Rios' talent. People have been saying he had a great net game. A few drop volleys does not a great net game make. I also can't help but wonder if he slipped through drug testing in 88.

Unless Medvedev gets past ********, Rios is easily the worst number 1 in the open era (and the stats back it up).

 

[Nadal>>>>>Federer]

You'd really put Murray behind Rios? Come on

Rios is a travesty in his own right. 100X more talented than Mugray

 

[Mainad]

Andy Murray. He killed his body just to get to #1 and that was just barely over the last half of 2016 and did so with virtually no big 3. It is a travesty that he has more than 1 week at #1

He notched up 2 big victories against a Big 3 player (2016 Rome in the 1st half of the season) and again in the #1 title match at the WTF so quit talking crap!

 

[Mainad]

Rios is a travesty in his own right. 100X more talented than Mugray

Lol and a 1000X less accomplished.

 

[Mainad]

Is Stan the best player never ranked #1? He's never been in the top2!

Undoubtedly. It must be unprecedented that a multi-Slam champion like him never even made it to #2 in the rankings.

 

[TimHenmanATG]

Novak.

Barring the fluke 2011 season, he's never once been dominant enough to justify holding the no. 1 spot for any meaningful length of time.

 

[Sunny014]

Roddick.. Yea you can knock Rios but dude had far more talent and overall ability than Roddick ever did. LOL Once you got Roddick's serve back in play and zeroed in on it, it was pretty much over for that boy

You sound like Petehammer.

 

[Third Serve]

Novak.

Barring the fluke 2011 season, he's never once been dominant enough to justify holding the no. 1 spot for any meaningful length of time.

I’d say winning four Slams in a row is pretty dominant but that’s just me.

 

[Third Serve]

You sound like Petehammer.

It’s been too long...

 

[Sunny014]

@topic

Isn't it bad for Sampras's resume that Rios actually became 1 ?

Can't believe it is bad for Rios that he is a weak 1 and not for Sampras who allowed Rios to be 1 ? If at all this is a feather in Rios's cap that he was 1 or else it raises questions on Sampras and Agassi.

 

[TimHenmanATG]

I’d say winning four Slams in a row is pretty dominant but that’s just me.

You neglected to acknowledge the confounding variable of the "weak era".

 

[Third Serve]

You neglected to acknowledge the confounding variable of the "weak era".

He played the good tennis to win those Slams though. Just because he played in a weaker era (and still, that mostly applies to 2016 rather than 2015) doesn’t mean it was the weak era that allowed him to win what he won. I can’t see many people taking down AO 2016 Djokovic or (less so) W 2015 Djokovic, weak era or not.

Now, if he was playing shoddy tennis against generally weaker opponents like he did the last two Australian Opens, you’d have a solid case that the weak era massively benefitted him.

 

[TimHenmanATG]

He played the good tennis to win those Slams though. Just because he played in a weaker era (and still, that mostly applies to 2016 rather than 2015) doesn’t mean it was the weak era that allowed him to win what he won. I can’t see many people taking down AO 2016 Djokovic or (less so) W 2015 Djokovic, weak era or not.

Oh yes, when Djokovic went into "Lance Armstrong" mode.

It must have been quite an imPEDiment for Novak to keep up that relentless run.

 

[Third Serve]

Oh yes, when Djokovic went into "Lance Armstrong" mode.

It must have been quite an imPEDiment for him to keep at that relentless run.

You think the other top players aren’t doping?

 

[TimHenmanATG]

You think the other top players aren’t doping?

I don't think they take them quite as obviously as that...

 

[NAS]

Rios is a travesty in his own right. 100X more talented than Mugray

Err No

 

[PMChambers]

Competition wise 98-01. Resume going to be someone in same era as there was no dominations of Majors and Masters.
Probably go Moya, but there are 6 players in that period who where No.1 exclusively.
Rios is other obvious one but be bounced in couple times. Although 2001 - 2004 wasn't great, there where some dangerous streaky players around. 1998-06 feels a bit like now to me off clay.

 

[Fabresque]

Rios was terrible. In most eras he’d struggle to get inside the top five. Lucked out big time when he made number 1.

Idk why anyone’s saying Roddick. If it weren’t for Federer, he’d have like 4-5 more slams to his name. He got unlucky.

 

[TheNachoMan]

Murray was #1 for a large chunk of 2017 when he was losing to mugs. He deserved to be #1 but when he got there he was awful.

 

[Gizo]

Rios 'only' had 22 wins vs. top 10 players during his career, with just 4 in 1998.

Firstly I know that the rankings of opponents beaten certainly don't always provide the full context, particularly when it to comes to players that tumbled down the rankings after injury problems (and many elite players suffered injury problems during the 90s), specialists on a particular surface etc. Agassi was ranked at no. 31 when Rios beat him in the 1998 Miami final, but of course he was certainly no ordinary world no. 31. But it still paints the picture that he wasn't exactly beating the best players in the world on a regular basis including during his best years.

Secondly I know that he had a noticeably shorter career than almost all the other players to reach world no. 1 - I think that only Rafter who was hindered by injury problems during his career played in fewer matches in total. However his W/L % vs. top 10 players was also lower than that of any of the other world no. 1 players apart from Roddick I think, who played in considerably more matches against top 10 opponents during his career (110 with a 37-73 record) than he did (61 with a 22-39 record).

 

[NAS]

Rios was terrible. In most eras he’d struggle to get inside the top five. Lucked out big time when he made number 1.

Idk why anyone’s saying Roddick. If it weren’t for Federer, he’d have like 4-5 more slams to his name. He got unlucky.

Find me time after 1995 when a winner of three master title and slam finalist was not in top five( in given 52 weeks period)

 

[SonnyT]

The Connors-Borg-Mac-Lendl all made #1. The Sampras-Courier-Agassi made #1; Chang left out. Of course, the Big4 all made #1; albeit Murray just barely, and paid dearly for it ever since!

What chances do you give the Thiem-Med-Tsisipas-Zverev quartet all make #1? I think quite a lot actually, above 60%!

 

[NatF]

Some of the late 90's guys, Rios, Kafelnikov, Moya - all those guys didn't have particularly impressive runs when they hit number one IIRC. The weakest YE #1 actually belongs to Sampras in 1998 though lol. In terms of actual careers it's obviously Rios by virtue of being slamless.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Safina.

She won Rome and Madrid!

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Rios of course. Did well in the clay masters but had a lulsworthy loss at '97 RG to Alami, and the sunshine double in '98 was quite dominant but he didn't have a single steady opponent, facing Kordope, Comebackassi and Rusedski lol. Of course the one slam final he made was a wretched loss to Korda.