Ye#1 2020. How big is this for each of the big 3's legacy? ...

Federer winning it has less chances than someone like thiem, Medvedev so don't count him to have as much chances as nadal or djokovic. Regarding your question nadal, djokovic won't be having it as easy as last 3 years as I expect some new gen guy to challenge them for top spot.
 

kevaninho

Hall of Fame
Federer winning it has less chances than someone like thiem, Medvedev so don't count him to have as much chances as nadal or djokovic. Regarding your question nadal, djokovic won't be having it as easy as last 3 years as I expect some new gen guy to challenge them for top spot.
It will definitely be more interesting this year, as I don't see the full year Masters/slams domination happening anymore.
Nadals grip of winning most of the clay tournaments is in doubt, and Djokovic gave up a fair chunk of his HC Masters and indoor domination.

I still think they take at least 3 of the slams ( The big 3 ). But the Masters etc will be shared around younger, hungrier lions.
 

guitarra

Professional
Nadal and Djokovic have much bigger chances than Fed. But I truly hope it’s none of them but some younger player: Thiem, Tsitsipas or Medvedev
 

buscemi

Hall of Fame
Pretty huge in my mind. I see years at #1 as the second most important statistic behind number of Majors. Given that there's a decent chance that Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic could end up with a similar number of Majors, if any of them could add a sixth year-end #1 in 2020, that would be huge.

In terms of likelihood of finishing #1 in 2020, I'd say Djokovic=Nadal>>>Federer>>>>>>anyone else. The only players who finished year-end #1 in the first year they won a Major were Connors, Hewitt, and Roddick, and the only players to win multiple Majors in their first year winning a Major were Connors and Vilas. So, while I could see a Next Gen player (or two) winning a Major, it's tough to see one of them doing well enough throughout the year to finish #1 (barring significant injuries to Djokovic, Nadal, and Federer, which is certainly possible).
 

Yugram

Hall of Fame
Regarding OPs question, judging by 3 previous seasons, Nadal has the best chances as he’s the most consistent Slam performer, also entering 2020 perfectly healthy and with high confidence. Djokovic is right after him, he can still afford a more taxing schedule than Nadal, just couldn’t capitalize on it this year.

Rest of the field has major vulnerabilities during the season that in my opinion wouldn’t allow them to contend for YE#1.
 

daggerman

New User
Regarding OPs question, judging by 3 previous seasons, Nadal has the best chances as he’s the most consistent Slam performer, also entering 2020 perfectly healthy and with high confidence. Djokovic is right after him, he can still afford a more taxing schedule than Nadal, just couldn’t capitalize on it this year.

Rest of the field has major vulnerabilities during the season that in my opinion wouldn’t allow them to contend for YE#1.

How can Nadal be the most consistent recent slam performer when Djokovic has won 4 of the last 6 slams?
 

King No1e

Legend
Here's another hot take: Nick Kyrgios isn't near as talented as people make him out to be. He's pretty talented, big server with good net skills, but other than that, he just hits unnecessary tweeners that most players could pull off in practice if they weren't serious. Dimitrov, Shapo, Tsitsipas, even Zverev are all more talented than Kyrgios.
 

Third Serve

Hall of Fame
Here's another hot take: Nick Kyrgios isn't near as talented as people make him out to be. He's pretty talented, big server with good net skills, but other than that, he just hits unnecessary tweeners that most players could pull off in practice if they weren't serious. Dimitrov, Shapo, Tsitsipas, even Zverev are all more talented than Kyrgios.
Anything anyone says about Nick Kyrgios is a hot take, to be quite honest.
 

Beacon Hill

Hall of Fame
A few players from the new generation might win some of the important tournaments, but that might just spread the points out, and the Big 3 will still come out on top. I don't see just one new player consistently winning.
 
It will definitely be more interesting this year, as I don't see the full year Masters/slams domination happening anymore.
Nadals grip of winning most of the clay tournaments is in doubt, and Djokovic gave up a fair chunk of his HC Masters and indoor domination.

I still think they take at least 3 of the slams ( The big 3 ). But the Masters etc will be shared around younger, hungrier lions.
I don’t see Rafa doing any worst on clay, in fact I see him doing better. What young guy is doing good on clay? Thiem? He has never done really well except RG. Zverev? Doubt it.

I see Rafa having a better year on clay and a similar HC year. I think he or Djoker finish number 1. Rafa has really grown into one of the best HC players on tour. I see him doing things that will put many Fed fans (myself) into depression. Well, I like Rafa, but I do see Rafa having a stellar year much like this year.

He is going in with a lot of confidence and a renewed strength in all surfaces I have not seen from him in a while.
 

kevaninho

Hall of Fame
I don’t see Rafa doing any worst on clay, in fact I see him doing better. What young guy is doing good on clay? Thiem? He has never done really well except RG. Zverev? Doubt it.

I see Rafa having a better year on clay and a similar HC year. I think he or Djoker finish number 1. Rafa has really grown into one of the best HC players on tour. I see him doing things that will put many Fed fans (myself) into depression. Well, I like Rafa, but I do see Rafa having a stellar year much like this year.

He is going in with a lot of confidence and a renewed strength in all surfaces I have not seen from him in a while.
I don't think its straight forward.
Yes, Nadal should have a better clay season, but nothing is a given. Its a case of taking it one tournament at a time. Lets remember he did have some injury stuff this season as well, which has been every season since 2014 really. Theres nothing to then suggest he will waltz through 2020 unscathed , although I agree his form when 'on' , has been great.
 

Karma Tennis

Hall of Fame
None of them achieved it in the Open Era though.
Laver completed the Double in 1969. The Open Era began in mid 1968.

If you mean neither of them achieved both GRAND SLAMS in the Open Era, that is true.

But you can only defeat the competition you are presented with. And the fact remains, Emerson and Laver have two of each of the Trophies in their Trophy Cabinet. :)
 

buscemi

Hall of Fame
Disagree. It matters a lot. Year end 1 shows who is the best of the best that season. Has always mattered.
Agreed. Carlos Moya spent weeks at #1 in 1999 but finished year-end #5 in 1998 and year-end #23 in 1999. And Ferrero spent weeks a #1 in 2003 but was year-end #4 in 2002 and #3 in 2003. Years at #1 are OK but often give us an incomplete picture of the player's performance in the 2 years covered by the weeks at #1. Meanwhile, we know that the player who finished year-end #1 was the best player that year.
 

buscemi

Hall of Fame
#6 would mean more to Nadal given his deficit in weeks at 1.
It might depend on how 2020 goes. If Nadal keeps #1 all the way through, say, the 2021 French Open, he'd be right there w/Djokovic at weeks at #1 in addition to having the 6 years at #1. But if the #1 ranking is more like a hot potato in 2020, Nadal could get a 6th year-end #1 while having a significant deficit in weeks at #1.
 

Karma Tennis

Hall of Fame
YE#1 tends to reflect success at the Bigger Tournaments inc. Majors and Masters 1000 events.

A few years ago Wozniacki was #1 in the World for a long period and had not won a Major Title.
 

RaulRamirez

Hall of Fame
Most would agree that # of majors (slams) is the most important factor in GOATology. Years at #1 is one of the other factors, with lots of disagreement over how much status it confers

In general, yes, I think it's important to add another YE#1, but can't assign a weight to it. I also slightly prefer it to "weeks". One factor is that it's hard to get YE#1 without winning at least one major.
 

buscemi

Hall of Fame
Care to elaborate? What's different about 95 & 19?
In 1995, Agassi was #1 for 32 weeks vs. 20 weeks for Sampras, but Sampras finished year-end #1. I vastly prefer Sampras's year-end #1 ranking.

In 2019, Djokovic will have been #1 for, what, 43 weeks vs. 9 weeks for Nadal, but Nadal will finish year-end #1. I prefer Nadal's year-end #1 ranking.

The same goes for 1988. Lendl was #1 for 38 weeks or so vs. 14 weeks or so for Wilander, but Wilander finished year-end #1. I vastly prefer Wilander's year-end #1 ranking.
 

DSH

Hall of Fame
YE #1 really doesn't matter all that much.

Who racks up the most weeks at #1 throughout the season will mean more.

Does the best player of the year mean nothing to you?
:oops::rolleyes:o_O

Who was the best of the 2017 season, Murray who was the one who accumulated more weeks in the number 1 that year thanks to what he did the previous season or Nadal who was, in fact, the player who accumulated more points for what he did that same season and ended up as the best player of the year (before mentioning Federer, don't do it, by not participating the Swiss in the clay season, he was perfectly disqualified from being)?
:D
 

EasyGoing

Professional
I see a lot of people still think of tennis as a seasonal sport; this is not football or NBA. Players try to win tournaments, not finish the season 1st. The no. 1 spot is rolling, and effectively denotes the best player in the last 12 months. It is impossible to claim a YE 1 is in any way a bigger achievement than any other week at no. 1.

This is because any week at no. 1 means you had to be the best or most consistent player in the last 12 months prior to that week. Which means this time period includes results from all the same tournaments as Year End no. 1. Why would a tournament win at Cincinnati 2018 have less value than a win there in 2019?

Also, no tennis player strives to be the YE 1 like football teams try to win the league by finishing 1st on last matchday or NBA teams trying to win the very last game of the finals. Tennis players try to peak for slams. Therefore, more weeks at no. 1 means more time as the best player in the world. YE 1 just means you were best at the end of that particular year, and might give you bragging rights for the season, but is a much less accurate indicator of time spent as the best player in the world.
 

buscemi

Hall of Fame
I see a lot of people still think of tennis as a seasonal sport; this is not football or NBA. Players try to win tournaments, not finish the season 1st. The no. 1 spot is rolling, and effectively denotes the best player in the last 12 months. It is impossible to claim a YE 1 is in any way a bigger achievement than any other week at no. 1.

This is because any week at no. 1 means you had to be the best or most consistent player in the last 12 months prior to that week. Which means this time period includes results from all the same tournaments as Year End no. 1. Why would a tournament win at Cincinnati 2018 have less value than a win there in 2019?

Also, no tennis player strives to be the YE 1 like football teams try to win the league by finishing 1st on last matchday or NBA teams trying to win the very last game of the finals. Tennis players try to peak for slams. Therefore, more weeks at no. 1 means more time as the best player in the world. YE 1 just means you were best at the end of that particular year, and might give you bragging rights for the season, but is a much less accurate indicator of time spent as the best player in the world.
Player A and Player B are tied at #2 at the end of 2023. Player A wins the 2024 Australian Open to take the #1 ranking and holds it all the way until WTF, where Player B performs better to finish year-end #1. Player B then quickly loses #1 in 2025 when he loses early and Player C takes the title and the #1 ranking. Outside of 2024, Player A and Player B have identical careers. This is an apples-to-apples comparison, and it makes it clear that years at #1 >>> weeks at #1.

I’d also disagree with your point that players don’t care about year-end #1. It clearly mattered a lot to, say, Murray in 2016 and Kuerten in 2000.
 

weakera

Legend
It might depend on how 2020 goes. If Nadal keeps #1 all the way through, say, the 2021 French Open, he'd be right there w/Djokovic at weeks at #1 in addition to having the 6 years at #1. But if the #1 ranking is more like a hot potato in 2020, Nadal could get a 6th year-end #1 while having a significant deficit in weeks at #1.
There's really very little way for Nadal to both claim a 6th YE1 next year and lose weeks to Djokovic in weeks at 1.
 

buscemi

Hall of Fame
There's really very little way for Nadal to both claim a 6th YE1 next year and lose weeks to Djokovic in weeks at 1.
I don't think it's especially likely, but, for instance, Djokovic could win the Australian Open while Nadal loses in the QF, and then Djokovic could win Indian Wells or Miami to take #1 and hold it for a good chunk of the year before Nadal re-takes it and finishes year-end #1.
 

weakera

Legend
I don't think it's especially likely, but, for instance, Djokovic could win the Australian Open while Nadal loses in the QF, and then Djokovic could win Indian Wells or Miami to take #1 and hold it for a good chunk of the year before Nadal re-takes it and finishes year-end #1.
Nadal has a ton of points to makeup in clay season relative to his usual output. The scenario you describe is highly unlikely.
 

buscemi

Hall of Fame
Nadal has a ton of points to makeup in clay season relative to his usual output. The scenario you describe is highly unlikely.
Agreed. I'm not saying it's likely at all. I'm just saying that if this happened, I would prefer Nadal's 6th year-end #1 ranking to Djokovic's lead in weeks at #1.
 

GabeT

Legend
I see a lot of people still think of tennis as a seasonal sport; this is not football or NBA. Players try to win tournaments, not finish the season 1st. The no. 1 spot is rolling, and effectively denotes the best player in the last 12 months. It is impossible to claim a YE 1 is in any way a bigger achievement than any other week at no. 1.
this is completely false.

players aim to be YE1. Plenty of examples of that as well as many interviews. They want to be remembered as the best in a given year.

yes, there is a season in tennis. Again, just listen to what players say.

the rolling #1 is simply the result of the need to have seeds. Take that away and the weeks at # 1 disappear.

ye1 and weeks at # 1 are both relevant, that‘s how tennis is structured today.
 
Last edited:

MeatTornado

Legend
In 2019, Djokovic will have been #1 for, what, 43 weeks vs. 9 weeks for Nadal, but Nadal will finish year-end #1. I prefer Nadal's year-end #1 ranking.
Does the best player of the year mean nothing to you?
:oops::rolleyes:o_O

Who was the best of the 2017 season, Murray who was the one who accumulated more weeks in the number 1 that year thanks to what he did the previous season or Nadal who was, in fact, the player who accumulated more points for what he did that same season and ended up as the best player of the year (before mentioning Federer, don't do it, by not participating the Swiss in the clay season, he was perfectly disqualified from being)?
:D
The question was about how this impacts the Big 3's legacy in particular. Right now there is a race for Fed's overall time at #1 record.

For 2019, Novak definitely comes out the victor because those 43 weeks have put him within striking distance of one of the biggest records in the sport. Let's say Nadal finishes 2020 as #1 again to take the lead for most seasons at #1. That's still a lesser record than if Novak becomes the all-time leader in time at #1.

In a vacuum, sure, I guess I'd rather be #1 in December than some random week in the middle of June. But that's not really the question here.
 

Zebrev

Hall of Fame
Federer will claim it, and I'm not kidding.

The reason I believe this is that I believe 2020 will be a heavily split year.

One bjg prediction I have for the year is that Nadal and Djokovic will both falter. They have been too consistent for the past couple years, and that has to change sometimes.

Federer didn't have an easy time in his thrities, and I think reality will bite for Novakodal this year.

So why do I think Federer will be on top? Because he has not won anything major in a little while, and I think he will know its now or never. If Djokovic or Nadal drop out early, Federer will see his chance and take it.

He is still a phenomenal athlete, and his expereince of late-tournament pressure will see him through against the youngsters.

Federer will win 1 - 2 majors in 2020, plus Olympics and at least one masters, I think.
 
Top