Who will be the next no. 1?

Who will be the next no. 1?


  • Total voters
    90
#1
The Big 4 have had a strangle hold on the top 2 forever but it seems likely that at the very least we will have a new world no. 2 by the end of 2020 and a new number 1 shortly after that. Who will it be?
 
#10
Zverev probably, he has already shown highest level of consistency among new/next gen, and his GS portfolio will get much better in few years.

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk
 
#11
What an uninspiring list. Zverev by default, others are a mix of not ready any time soon or never going to be good enough.
Having said that, I suspect Djokovic will hold top spot for literally years, maybe 2 at least. No one is coming that will match his consistency sooner than that.
 
#16
What an uninspiring list. Zverev by default, others are a mix of not ready any time soon or never going to be good enough.
Having said that, I suspect Djokovic will hold top spot for literally years, maybe 2 at least. No one is coming that will match his consistency sooner than that.
I think it's possible that Zverev could become #1 if Novak gets another injury. He's already at 6k and has a lot of room to improve.
 
#20
I voted Thiem and here's why.

I have Novak winning the French but then I'm not sure. I still have Cilic winning it and the USO should be wide open again, I have Delpo winning it from last year but it remains to be seen how bad his injury problem is. Thiem is defending some big points but not at a lot of events. Basically 3 (Masters F & SF plus the French). He's got IW in his pocket for the long haul while he looks to maintain at Madrid and the French.

He missed Miami last year so those are free points.
Lost 2nd Round at Rome.
Lost 1st Round Wimbledon.
Missed Cincinnati after back to back quarters.
Lost 2nd Round at Shanghai.
Only won 1 match at WTF.

It might be asking a lot but I think given the right set of circumstances Thiem might get the #1 during clay season next year or shortly after the AO if Novak seriously slipped there.

Zverev is going to be the betting favourite but I just don't buy his slow progress all the way to #1, I think he'll have some gluts and not Slam ready yet.
 
#25
Zverev. It could be the first time in a while on the men's side that we get a majorless No. 1. He has week in, week out stability and he wins at the m1000 level with a very stron clay game (a necessity to rack up enough points).
 
#26
It should be Zverev. He now has the experience and consistency.
Thiem could sneak in before him with a clay Master, RG this year and if Djokovic, Nadal losing ground.
Tsitsipas has the potential but I feel he would need some painful losses and some poor results to gain another level. Which would take at least two years. Right now he is like a rich beautiful teenager who found that girls like him.
Khachanov, Medvedev and Coric right seem like a top 5-10 guys rather than top 4.
Nishikori I think would need no Djokovic into the picture and at least two Slams.
Until Shanghai last year, would have said Del Po to make a push but sadly no
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
#27
Djokovic's personal best: 16,950
Federer's personal best: 15,903
Nadal's personal best: 15,390
Murray's personal best: 12,685 (without Olympics points)

Will be interesting to see how many points will Zverev, Thiem, etc. achieve.
 
#28
Zverev. It could be the first time in a while on the men's side that we get a majorless No. 1. He has week in, week out stability and he wins at the m1000 level with a very stron clay game (a necessity to rack up enough points).
I have a feeling this year will be a big regress for Zverev. He won’t make much progress at the Slams but at the same time will not repeat his success at WTF and Masters. The next few weeks will already show if I’m correct.

He has to defend: Miami (600); Monte Carlo (360); Munich (250); Madrid (1000); Rome (600); Roland Garros (360). That’s 3170 points in total.

How things went on these days I can only expect maybe some QF results to be honest (apart from Munich of course where he is always able to win if he plays).
 
#29
The Big 4 have had a strangle hold on the top 2 forever but it seems likely that at the very least we will have a new world no. 2 by the end of 2020 and a new number 1 shortly after that. Who will it be?
in 2021 Rafa will be still winning Roland Garros (and hardly dropping a set) and winning a couple of clay masters each year too :)
the youngsters will fight over the leftovers, but none of them want to play Rafa, even on hardcourts they don't want anything to do with him (except for Kyrgios but, but Kyrgios isn't good enough to get the #1 ranking, and he couldn't even break Rafa's serve at Mexico and only got a look at one break point).
 
#30
I have a feeling this year will be a big regress for Zverev. He won’t make much progress at the Slams but at the same time will not repeat his success at WTF and Masters. The next few weeks will already show if I’m correct.

He has to defend: Miami (600); Monte Carlo (360); Munich (250); Madrid (1000); Rome (600); Roland Garros (360). That’s 3170 points in total.

How things went on these days I can only expect maybe some QF results to be honest (apart from Munich of course where he is always able to win if he plays).
Why do you think he is suddenly going to play poorly in M1000 after having such a good record at that tournament level?

I can't see the reasoning. I think through the season he will generally be strong in M1000 (particularly the clay events) like he usually is, give or take the odd shock loss.
 
#34
Yes. Even if Nadal were to skip all Masters 1000 on hard courts, he would still accumulate more points for Grand Slams performances than any other player not named Djokovic.
How does getting less points than Djokovic get Nadal to number 1? He needs to win Wimbledon to reclaim the number 1 ranking, something he hasn't done for 9 years.
 
#35
Why do you think he is suddenly going to play poorly in M1000 after having such a good record at that tournament level?

I can't see the reasoning. I think through the season he will generally be strong in M1000 (particularly the clay events) like he usually is, give or take the odd shock loss.
The problem with Zverev is that there are no shock losses because he can lose to anyone anyday. Also when he doesn’t repeat Miami and the clay season of last year, he is likely to lose his #3 or #4 seeding soon, which gives him more troubles in the draws. And then his confidence will go down when he thinks about his game not going nearer to the top, but rather downhill.

He just isn’t the player who is likely to have a career at the top with his playing style and lack of talent in many departments of the game. IMO he already has made big success out of it. So credit for that, but I don’t see him as a Slam winner or #1.
 
Last edited:

zalive

Hall of Fame
#36
From the players who already achieved something, I'd give best chances to Tsitsipas. He really has all it takes, technique, weapons, attacking and defense, the mentality too, and he seems fully commited to tennis.
It's still hard for me to tell about players like Auger-Aliassime and younger.

Yep. What happened to the Zverev hype btw? He was everybody’s favorite after the WTF
He's a great, really accomplished player, but I think Stefanos has even less limits than Alex. I'm not sure whether Zverev can further improve at all (aside of mentally), as he doesn't actually miss anything from technical or tactical standpoint, he really knows staff. Stefanos is still in the phase of improving his attacking game. He came to ATP mainly as a pusher, then showed his FH is a serious weapon, this season he's improved BH too and there's still space to make it a real weapon.
 
Last edited:

zalive

Hall of Fame
#37
As for Thiem, I think he'll still struggle with faster court conditions tho he has made some progress, and his consistency really improves too. He has additional space to improve but I'm not sure if he will succeed in improving.
 
#39
How does getting less points than Djokovic get Nadal to number 1? He needs to win Wimbledon to reclaim the number 1 ranking, something he hasn't done for 9 years.
Mathematically, Nadal does not need to win Wimbledon to be #1. Nadal has been #1 several times these last 9 years without winning Wimbledon.

Hypothetical (but unrealistic) scenario: Djokovic loses in the 3 R of Wimbledon to Isner, has an even worse clay season than in 2018 and loses in the second round of Cincinnati.

My point is not whether Nadal can or not be #1 again (I doubt it). My point is that Nadal does not need to win Wimbledon to be #1.
 
#41
Mathematically, Nadal does not need to win Wimbledon to be #1. Nadal has been #1 several times these last 9 years without winning Wimbledon.
Yes but I think he's retired or withdrawn before the start of something like 13 of his last 16 hard court tournaments, and that's an issue that doesn't appear to be going away. If he's a part time hard court player he needs to win Wimbledon to be number 1.
 

zalive

Hall of Fame
#42
Mathematically, Nadal does not need to win Wimbledon to be #1. Nadal has been #1 several times these last 9 years without winning Wimbledon.

Hypothetical (but unrealistic) scenario: Djokovic loses in the 3 R of Wimbledon to Isner, has an even worse clay season than in 2018 and loses in the second round of Cincinnati.

My point is not whether Nadal can or not be #1 again (I doubt it). My point is that Nadal does not need to win Wimbledon to be #1.
I don't think this thread was ever intended to be about Rafa or Novak :)
No matter how long they will last, they won't last forever. And fans will have to either get used to the fact, or stop watching tennis lol.
 
#43
Yes but I think he's retired or withdrawn before the start of something like 13 of his last 16 hard court tournaments, and that's an issue that doesn't appear to be going away. If he's a part time hard court player he needs to win Wimbledon to be number 1.
No, mathematically he does not need to win Wimbledon to be #1. If Djokovic gets injured and skips the rest of the season (as he did in 2017), Nadal does not need to win Wimbledon.

Or in this hypothetical (but unrealistic) scenario:
Djokovic loses in the 3 R of Wimbledon to Isner, has an even worse clay season than in 2018 and loses in the second round of Cincinnati.

My point is not whether Nadal can or not be #1 again (I doubt it). My point is that Nadal does not need to win Wimbledon to be #1.
 
#44
I don't think this thread was ever intended to be about Rafa or Novak :)
No matter how long they will last, they won't last forever. And fans will have to either get used to the fact, or stop watching tennis lol.
I replied to a fallacy argument that "Nadal needs to win Wimbledon to be #1". Which is mathematically incorrect.
 
#45
No, mathematically he does not need to win Wimbledon to be #1. If Djokovic gets injured and skips the rest of the season (as he did in 2017), Nadal does not need to win Wimbledon.

Or in this hypothetical (but unrealistic) scenario:
Djokovic loses in the 3 R of Wimbledon to Isner, has an even worse clay season than in 2018 and loses in the second round of Cincinnati.

My point is not whether Nadal can or not be #1 again (I doubt it). My point is that Nadal does not need to win Wimbledon to be #1.

P. S.: do not strategically cut my message to avoid responding the point of my message.
More technology than strategy. Didn't even know it was cut that way until you pointed it out.
 
#46
I replied to a fallacy argument that "Nadal needs to win Wimbledon to be #1". Which is mathematically incorrect.
Of course it's mathematically incorrect that Nadal needs to win Wimbledon to be number 1. He could dominate clay, lose early at Wimbledon, then win the Roger's Cup, Cincinatti, USO, Shanghai, Bercy, the WTF and Australian Open and reclaim the number 1 ranking. But how likely is a 33yo who is withdrawing from 75% of the hard court tournaments he enters over an 18 month period to have a dominant hard court run? From a practical standpoint he needs either to win Wimbledon or have Djokovic break down completely.
 
#47
Of course it's mathematically incorrect that Nadal needs to win Wimbledon to be number 1. He could dominate clay, lose early at Wimbledon, then win the Roger's Cup, Cincinatti, USO, Shanghai, Bercy, the WTF and Australian Open and reclaim the number 1 ranking. But how likely is a 33yo who is withdrawing from 75% of the hard court tournaments he enters over an 18 month period to have a dominant hard court run? From a practical standpoint he needs either to win Wimbledon or have Djokovic break down completely.
Very unlikely, if not impossible for Nadal to be #1 again, but that was not my point. My point was that Nadal does not need to win X tournament to be #1 again, he only needs to achieve more points than Djokovic.
 
Top