Who Would Have Been the "Real" #1 if Novak Had Lost the 2011 Wimbledon Final?

[Im(moral) Winner]

Novak would have still been the #1 player even if he had lost to RAFA in the 2011 Wimbledon final but in your opinion who would have been the "real" #1 player in the world had it happened? Since some give extra value for slams.
Tournaments in that period:
2010 Canada: Nole SF, RAFA SF
2010 Cincinnati: Nole QF, RAFA QF
2010 USO: Nole F, RAFA W
2010 Shanghai: Nole SF, RAFA 3R
2010 Paris Bercy: Nole 3R, RAFA DNP
2010 World Tour Finals: Nole SF, RAFA F
2011 AO: Nole W, RAFA QF
2011 Indian Wells: Nole W, RAFA F
2011 Miami: Nole W, RAFA F
2011 Monte Carlo: Nole DNP, RAFA W
2011 Madrid: Nole W, RAFA F
2011 Rome: Nole W, RAFA F
2011 RG: Nole SF, RAFA W
2011 W:´Nole F, RAFA W

Also:
Novak: Beijing, Dubai and Serbia Open titles, Basel final and Davis Cup victory for whatever it's worth
RAFA: Tokyo and Barcelona titles, Doha SF, Queen's QF

H2H had RAFA won Wimbledon
4-3 for Novak

 

[Backspin1183]

Still Djoker as he would still have been a 2 Slam winner and had won overall more titles than Nadal in 2011.

I consider that season to be his very best, even over 2015. Simply because Nadal was very good that year and Novak still played better than him. 2011 Nadal would have been year end #1 in any other season IMO.

 

[Tennis_Freak99]

He still would have been the 'Real #1' because he claimed it after winning the SF against Tsonga. He would have more points.

QED

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

Still Djoker as he would still have been a 2 Slam winner and had won overall more titles than Nadal in 2011.

I consider that season to be his very best, even over 2015. Simply because Nadal was very good that year and Novak still played better than him. 2011 Nadal would have been year end #1 in any other season IMO.

This situation is before the 2011 USO so RAFA would lead the slams 3-1. Unless you're referring to Novak's two AOs (2008 and 2011)

 

[Backspin1183]

This situation is before the 2011 USO so RAFA would lead the slams 3-1. Unless you're referring to Novak's two AOs (2008 and 2011)

I see. Nadal might have been considered still the "real #1" by many fans in that scenario. But it wouldn't have stayed that way by September when Djoker would win US Open over Nadal. So, even if Nadal still looked better on paper before the USO, it would not have remained that way for long. He would have been the "real #1" for just 2 months.

 

[mike danny]

I see. Nadal might have been considered still the "real #1" by many fans in that scenario. But it wouldn't have stayed that way by September when Djoker would win US Open over Nadal. So, even if Nadal still looked better on paper before the USO, it would not have remained that way for long. He would have been the "real #1" for just 2 months.

Except if Rafa had won Wimb over Novak, he might have won the USO too.

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

Except if Rafa had won Wimb over Novak, he might have won the USO too.

Yeah and maybe Novak's mentality could have taken a dent not gotten the USO SF win over Fed to even make the final. But my question doesn't take account whatever happens after Wimbledon. Just the 52 weeks up to it.

 

[mike danny]

Yeah and maybe Novak's mentality could have taken a dent not gotten the USO SF win over Fed to even make the final. But my question doesn't take account whatever happens after Wimbledon. Just the 52 weeks up to it.

Rafa, IMO. I don't care what the rankings say. 3 slams in the last 52 weeks to just 1 is too big of a gap to ignore.

 

[Deleted member 770948]

Rafa by a gigantic margin.
Its not even close.
Slams are all that matters.
Only talk about non-slam results if 2 players are tied in the slam race.

 

[RaulRamirez]

I don't get the premise. Novak won both Wimbledon and the US Open decidedly. In the OP, you show Rafa having won the US Open as well. Why not just show him winning the AO as well?

 

[mike danny]

I don't get the premise. Novak won both Wimbledon and the US Open decidedly. In the OP, you show Rafa having won the US Open as well. Why not just show him winning the AO as well?

You missed the point.

Novak became no.1 in 2011 before the Wimb final was even played. Even if he had lost it, he still would have been no.1 on Monday.

Basically, at that point, Nadal would have been the holder of 3 slams in the last 52 weeks, while Novak only of 1 and yet would have still trailed Novak in the rankings.

 

[Sabrina]

After Wimbledon 2013, even if you reversed the AO 2013 Final result so that Murray would be the holder of 3 slams (US, Wim and AO), Djokovic of course none but Novak would still be world no.1.

 

[RaulRamirez]

You missed the point.

Novak became no.1 in 2011 before the Wimb final was even played. Even if he had lost it, he still would have been no.1 on Monday.

Basically, at that point, Nadal would have been the holder of 3 slams in the last 52 weeks, while Novak only of 1 and yet would have still trailed Novak in the rankings.

I think I'm glad I missed the OP's point, if it's that silly.

So, we're conjecturing about who would people have considered to be the (mid-year) #1 based on overturning the results of a match that wasn't particularly close? Even if that happened, the answer is simple: whoever had more ranking points.

 

[Tennis_Freak99]

I think I'm glad I missed the OP's point, if it's that silly.

So, we're conjecturing about who would people have considered to be the (mid-year) #1 based on overturning the results of a match that wasn't particularly close? Even if that happened, the answer is simple: whoever had more ranking points.

Exactly....I don't understand the point of dealing with hypotheticals to such an extent. Certain Fed fans just want to pull Djokovic down with whatever absurd logic they can find!

 

[Tennis_Freak99]

Except if Rafa had won Wimb over Novak, he might have won the USO too.

And on what basis? Did that happen in reality? No right?

What's the point of such hypotheticals, they sound so silly. I understand to certain extent the discussion of hypothetical matchups...but this is really stupid

 

[mike danny]

And on what basis? Did that happen in reality? No right?

What's the point of such hypotheticals, they sound so silly. I get to certain extent the discussion of hypothetical matchups...but this is really stupid

Because if he had somehow beaten Novak at Wimb, he would have had more confidence heading into the USO.

Of course, he would have had to play magnitudes better than he did to win Wimb, but it's not a poor assessment overall.

 

[mike danny]

And on what basis? Did that happen in reality? No right?

What's the point of such hypotheticals, they sound so silly. I understand to certain extent the discussion of hypothetical matchups...but this is really stupid

I don't think it is. This makes more sense than all the hypothetical match-ups.

When a guy has 3 slams in the last 52 weeks vs just 1 slam for the other guy, it's not as clear cut the latter is the definitive no.1.

 

[Sabrina]

I don't think it is. This makes more sense than all the hypothetical match-ups.

When a guy has 3 slams in the last 52 weeks vs just 1 slam for the other guy, it's not as clear cut the latter is the definitive no.1.

Do you realize that after Wimbledon 2013 even if you reversed the AO 13 Final result, Djokovic would still be no.1 (even though he did not hold any GS), while Murray was holding 3 GS at that time.

 

[Tennis_Freak99]

I don't think it is. This makes more sense than all the hypothetical match-ups.

When a guy has 3 slams in the last 52 weeks vs just 1 slam for the other guy, it's not as clear cut the latter is the definitive no.1.

Rankings are based on points, that's the rule....In that hypothetical scenario where Rafa wins all 3 slams in 2011, if he was on such a confidence roll, why won't he win Montreal and Cincinnati? Won't he capture the #1 back then? Why does he have to lose both these tournaments and win only USO? Lol i haven't this kinda selective confident performances.

See, that's the flawed logic I just proved wrong

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

Rankings are based on points, that's the rule....In that hypothetical scenario where Rafa wins all 3 slams in 2011, if he was on such a confidence roll, why won't he win Montreal and Cincinnati? Won't he capture the #1 back then? Why does he have to lose both these tournaments and win only USO? Lol i haven't this kinda selective confident performances.

See, that's the flawed logic I just proved wrong

In this thread's scenario he's holding the 2010 USO and he would hold RG and Wimbledon 2011

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

Do you realize that after Wimbledon 2013 even if you reversed the AO 13 Final result, Djokovic would still be no.1 (even though he did not hold any GS), while Murray was holding 3 GS at that time.

That's a more interesting scenario but there are too many variables from after AO till Wimbledon, while this dependant on one match and it was known it wouldn't change the rankings

 

[mike danny]

Rankings are based on points, that's the rule....In that hypothetical scenario where Rafa wins all 3 slams in 2011, if he was on such a confidence roll, why won't he win Montreal and Cincinnati? Won't he capture the #1 back then? Why does he have to lose both these tournaments and win only USO? Lol i haven't this kinda selective confident performances.

See, that's the flawed logic I just proved wrong

You misunderstood.

At that very moment, as things were, if Novak had lost just the Wimb final, he would habe been no.1 despite Rafa at that point holding the last 3 slams: USO 2010, FO 2011 and Wimb 2011.

 

[Tennis_Freak99]

You misunderstood.

At that very moment, as things were, if Novak had lost just the Wimb final, he would habe been no.1 despite Rafa at that point holding the last 3 slams: USO 2010, FO 2011 and Wimb 2011.

Okay so answer this doubt of mine: Was Federer the real #1 of 2017? He won the same number of slams as Rafa, won more titles, more master and held a 3-0 H2H that year.

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

Okay so answer this doubt of mine: Was Federer the real #1 of 2017? He won the same number of slams as Rafa, won more titles, more master and held a 3-0 H2H that year.

*4-0
But this thread is similar to that question and the CYGS vs all masters, just with different title hauls.

 

[Tennis_Freak99]

The point being, rankings are not just about slams. There is a purpose we have other tournaments. The 'GOAT' race has made the thought process of some of y'all so narrow, everything is not about slams

 

[zagor]

The real #1 is the computer #1, period.

Now the best player for a specific period is a different question, in that regard I value slams above everything else and would have seen the Nadal as the best player in the world at that moment had he won that Wimbledon final.

 

[Tennis_Freak99]

*4-0
But this thread is similar to that question and the CYGS vs all masters, just with different title hauls.

That's fine. But you didn't say who was the 'real #1' according to your definition in this thread. The 2017 scenario is not even hypothetical

 

[mike danny]

Okay so answer this doubt of mine: Was Federer the real #1 of 2017? He won the same number of slams as Rafa, won more titles, more master and held a 3-0 H2H that year.

4-0 H2H, but that's besides the point.

I am only talking about at that moment in July 2011 after 52 weeks, not the 2011 season as a whole.

2017 Fed didn't win more slams than Nadal.

 

[Tennis_Freak99]

4-0 H2H, but that's besides the point.

I am only talking about at that moment in July 2011 after 52 weeks, not the 2011 season as a whole.

2017 Fed didn't win more slams than Nadal.

Same number of slams but a better season than Nadal, yet Nadal was #1 and YE-1?

 

[RaulRamirez]

...not sure why I'm wasting my time on this thread, but I'm stubborn.

What is the greater point of this thread: I'm all for subtleties and nuance, but not this obscure coding.

a. that 52-week rankings don't always tell the true story of who's #1 at a point in time?
b. that hypothetically we can propose hypothetical results to win a hypothethical hypothesis?

 

[Tennis_Freak99]

b. that hypothetically we can propose hypothetical results to win a hypothethical hypothesis?

Thank you

I try to stay away from such convos sometimes XD

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

...not sure why I'm wasting my time on this thread, but I'm stubborn.

What is the greater point of this thread: I'm all for subtleties and nuance, but not this obscure coding.

a. that 52-week rankings don't always tell the true story of who's #1 at a point in time?
b. that hypothetically we can propose hypothetical results to win a hypothethical hypothesis?

Basically a) This is jut a question to the posters who would they consider the better player in timeframe even if the ATP says the other one is #1 with concrete examples.
Inspired the CYGS vs all masters and this thread The Coronation of Earth's Mightiest Warrior: 2011 Wimbledon SF vs "L'Artiste" Jo-Wilfried Tsonga
where tudwell reminded me about the situation

What's crazy is he still would have been number one even if he lost to Nadal in the final – Nadal with three majors in the last 52 weeks would have been number two in the world. That's how dominant Djokovic was in the first six months of 2011.

This isn't really that different from the other hypothetical threads here.

 

[beard]

Fedr...

 

[RaulRamirez]

Basically a) This is jut a question to the posters who would they consider the better player in timeframe even if the ATP says the other one is #1 with concrete examples.
Inspired the CYGS vs all masters and this thread The Coronation of Earth's Mightiest Warrior: 2011 Wimbledon SF vs "L'Artiste" Jo-Wilfried Tsonga
where tudwell reminded me about the situation


This isn't really that different from the other hypothetical threads here.

I guess that's damning with faint praise.

But okay, to your main point, that scenario would have presented a rarity, but the points/ranking system is quite transparent, and as such, it's fair - no matter who the names were in question. This one got me (and despite that I'm a big Rafa fan, which is immaterial) because the match in question wasn't particularly close, and it's not even the year-end ranking being discussed. I do tend to value years at #1 more than weeks, but that's a whole other kettle of fish.

 

[JasonZ]

Agassi lost wimbledon final 1999 in 3 to Sampras and right after took the number 1 spot from Sampras. Absolutely legit.

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

Agassi lost wimbledon final 1999 in 3 to Sampras and right after took the number 1 spot from Sampras. Absolutely legit.

Meh, both held a slam at the time

 

[The Guru]

Was Djokovic the real YE #1 in 2016? No. Everyone knows the rules and Murray earned it fair and square just as Novak would've had he lost to Nadal. If you're asking who's 12 month performance added more to legacy then the answer is Nadal pretty clearly.

 

[DSH]

Nadal would have been number 1, morally.
Djokovic the number 1 in the ranking.