Year end #1 more important and relevant than weeks at #1

[chjtennis]

tennis is actually quite different, and the analogy pointless, since tennis rankings operate on a rolling last--52--week basis, while F1 standings begin anew each year. So total weeks at number 1 would be all but meaningless in F1 since it would only be based on a race or two at the start of the season, while rankings in tennis are always meaningful since they're always based on the past year.

You are absolutely right. F1 doesn't rank drivers according to their points collected over previous 52 week period. The whole ranking resets every single year and the tennis-like ranking is meaningless because dominant driver changes every year due to the performance of the cars. In tennis, as long as the player plays well, he will remain high up in the ranking.

 

[RF-18]

Yes, YE#1 > Weeks at number one.

 

[RF-18]

If you had to chose between narrowly leading the field for 40 weeks and finishing the year second, or narrowly trailing the number 1 spot for 40 weeks and finishing the year number 1, what would you choose? This is a rhetorical question, so to all you trolls, don't bother answering.

It's all about the YE#1.

That is all.

Pretty easily the YE#1. People seem to misunderstand the rankings, it doesn't matter if you have been #1 most part of the season, it is about who has been the best from January 1st to november. So if you overtake someone at the end of the year and end up with the YE#1, that means you've been the better player across the tournaments over a year. Pretty simple.

Look at Djokovic, he was #1 almost the whole time in 2016, but at the end it was about who got the YE#1, and it was Murray.

YE#1 gives you the status of champion of the tennis world. That is pretty huge. Weeks at #1 is also important though, but YE#1 is bigger. You are the best.

 

[buscemi]

Pretty easily the YE#1. People seem to misunderstand the rankings, it doesn't matter if you have been #1 most part of the season, it is about who has been the best from January 1st to november. So if you overtake someone at the end of the year and end up with the YE#1, that means you've been the better player across the tournaments over a year. Pretty simple.

Look at Djokovic, he was #1 almost the whole time in 2016, but at the end it was about who got the YE#1, and it was Murray.

YE#1 gives you the status of champion of the tennis world. That is pretty huge. Weeks at #1 is also important though, but YE#1 is bigger. You are the best.

Right, and in the scenario at hand, it's really just the order of results that leads to Player A having more weeks at #1 than Player B, who finishes the year at #1. Imagine two scenarios:

Player A: Comes into 2020 hot on the heels of the #1 player in the world, wins the Australian Open to take over #1, holds onto the #1 ranking throughout the year despite some very good but not great results, including a somewhat early loss at the U.S. Open, and then finally loses the #1 ranking after a poor performance at WTF.

Player B: Comes into 2025 hot on the heels of the #1 player in the world, loses somewhat early at the Australian Open to remain #2, stays at #2 for most of the year, despite great results for most of the rest of the year, including a U.S. Open win, and then finally takes over the #1 ranking at WTF.​

Player A has many more weeks at #1, but Player B finished his year at #1. But Player A's additional weeks at #1 aren't really that meaningful; it's just that his great results came early in the year while Player B's great results came later in the year.

 

[tenisdecente]

The YE#1 is just a measure in the final part of the year. It means the same to be #1 in the 15th week, or in the last week of the year, thing is people give more weight to the fact that who ends with the YE#1 was more consistent in a calendar year. A #1 in a random week does no have that detail

 

[Fiero425]

The YE#1 is just a measure in the final part of the year. It means the same to be #1 in the 15th week, or in the last week of the year, thing is people give more weight to the fact that who ends with the YE#1 was more consistent in a calendar year. A #1 in a random week does no have that detail

Only in this era can you win more Masters & majors events, but still wind up being #2 in the world!

 

[Thorondor]

Being no. 1 at the end of the year gives you a few extra free weeks as no. 1 after the season ends. So, in a way, weeks at no. 1 already factors in the prestige of ending the year as no. 1. Year end no. 1 is only useful when comparing players in a specific calendar year. In the end, weeks at no. 1 (along with dates for those weeks) is what matters.

 

[buscemi]

The YE#1 is just a measure in the final part of the year. It means the same to be #1 in the 15th week, or in the last week of the year, thing is people give more weight to the fact that who ends with the YE#1 was more consistent in a calendar year. A #1 in a random week does no have that detail

I would disagree with this. The best example is Edberg and Becker. Edberg was year-end #1 in 1990. During two separate periods in 1991, Becker took over the #1 ranking from Edberg, but Edberg finished 1991 as #1. Under the thinking that weeks at #1 during the year are the same as a week at #1 in the last week of the year, Becker's weeks at #1 in 1991 are just as valuable as Edberg's weeks at #1 at the end of 1990 and 1991. But I don't see how that makes sense. Edberg's weeks at #1 at the end of 1990 and 1991 mean that he was the best player in the world in 1990 and 1991. Conversely, Becker's weeks at #1 in 1991 just mean that he was the best player over the course of a combination of weeks in 1990 and 1991 while, in reality, he was the 2nd best player in 1990 and the 3rd best player in 1991 (because Courier passed him as well). I therefore see relatively little value in Becker's weeks at #1 in 1991 and relatively great value in Edberg's year-end #1 ranking in 1990 and 1991, which backs up the claim in the OP.

 

[KINGROGER]

Thing is Federer has 237 consecutive weeks, as well as more weeks total which outranks Sampras' extra year end number 1.

 

[Thorondor]

I would disagree with this. The best example is Edberg and Becker. Edberg was year-end #1 in 1990. During two separate periods in 1991, Becker took over the #1 ranking from Edberg, but Edberg finished 1991 as #1. Under the thinking that weeks at #1 during the year are the same as a week at #1 in the last week of the year, Becker's weeks at #1 in 1991 are just as valuable as Edberg's weeks at #1 at the end of 1990 and 1991. But I don't see how that makes sense. Edberg's weeks at #1 at the end of 1990 and 1991 mean that he was the best player in the world in 1990 and 1991. Conversely, Becker's weeks at #1 in 1991 just mean that he was the best player over the course of a combination of weeks in 1990 and 1991 while, in reality, he was the 2nd best player in 1990 and the 3rd best player in 1991 (because Courier passed him as well). I therefore see relatively little value in Becker's weeks at #1 in 1991 and relatively great value in Edberg's year-end #1 ranking in 1990 and 1991, which backs up the claim in the OP.

The problem with your argument is that you are arguing that year end no. 1 is more important by assuming that it is more important in the first place. That's circular reasoning.

 

[Incognito]

302 + 5 > 287 + 6.

Also Pete is a FO slam virgin , so he doesn't even enter the debate here

At least he made 1 semifinal at the Clay major


Before 90's clay comes in I might as well write the following: "Pete lost to people better than Nadal like Galo Blanco. Federer would have lost as well LMFAO".


Love you 90's clay a.k.a Pete Sampras

 

[Incognito]

/delete

 

[buscemi]

The problem with your argument is that you are arguing that year end no. 1 is more important by assuming that it is more important in the first place. That's circular reasoning.

Circular reasoning would be saying that year-end #1 is more important because year-end #1 is more important. I'm saying that year-end #1 is more important because it establishes the best player in the world for a season of tennis. If someone asks about the best player in the world in 1991, (almost) anyone is going to answer Stefan Edberg because he was year-end #1 in 1991. He was literally the best player in the world. Conversely, (almost) nobody is going to answer Becker despite the fact that he was #1 for two separate stretches in 1991. Becker's weeks at #1 simply aren't as important as Edberg's year-end #1 ranking.

 

[Thorondor]

Circular reasoning would be saying that year-end #1 is more important because year-end #1 is more important. I'm saying that year-end #1 is more important because it establishes the best player in the world for a season of tennis. If someone asks about the best player in the world in 1991, (almost) anyone is going to answer Stefan Edberg because he was year-end #1 in 1991. He was literally the best player in the world. Conversely, (almost) nobody is going to answer Becker despite the fact that he was #1 for two separate stretches in 1991. Becker's weeks at #1 simply aren't as important as Edberg's year-end #1 ranking.

Your argument was that Becker's weeks at #1 are less valuable simply because he was not no. 1 at the year-week weeks of 1990 and 1991. That argument is assuming his ranking at year end is more important than his ranking at other times of the year (when he was #1).

And yes, the definition of year-end #1 is best player in the world for that year. The topic, though, is which is more important. Disregarding every week at #1 that's not year-end vs. summing every week at #1 including those at year-end.

 

[buscemi]

Your argument was that Becker's weeks at #1 are less valuable simply because he was not no. 1 at the year-week weeks of 1990 and 1991. That argument is assuming his ranking at year end is more important than his ranking at other times of the year (when he was #1).

And yes, the definition of year-end #1 is best player in the world for that year. The topic, though, is which is more important. Disregarding every week at #1 that's not year-end vs. summing every week at #1 including those at year-end.

I'm not disregarding every week at #1 that's not year-end, though. I'm just saying that those weeks are less important than the year-end #1 ranking. Edberg finishing year-end #1 in 1991 means that he was the best player in the world in 1991. That's a significant achievement and allows him to be compared with all of the other players in tennis history who were the best players in the world during other years.

On the other hand, Becker being #1 in July 1991 just means that he had the best results from August 1990-July 1991. But he didn't play as well during the first half of 1990 and the second half of 1991, which is why he finished #2 and #3 in those respective years. Becker reaching #1 over a 52 week span that spans 2 years is nice, but it doesn't have much historical significance. You see plenty of people asking things like, "Who was better, Player A in Year B or Player X in Year Y?" But you don't see anybody really asking, "Was Becker's 52 week period from August 1990-July 1991 better than Ferrero's 52 week period from October 2002-September 2003?"

 

[MasterZeb]

No one remembers who led the the F1 drivers championship, they only remember who won it. Tennis is no different, unless of course you're a keyboard warrior.

Irrelevant point and comparison. Tennis and F1 have comletely different formats. Formula one is drivers fighting it out throughout the year to achieve that one main reward. More of a marathon. Tennis however has many tournaments a year, with the 4 grand slams being spread across the season. More like many short sprints.
At the end of the season, the drivers get the world championship, which is their goal throughout the season which eclipses any race trophy, yes. But in tennis, would a Year end number one trophy eclipse a Grand slam title? Grand slams are the prime goal of every player.

 

[MasterZeb]

I believe this is possible, but that Federer must go to another gear and reclaim some of that 2015 movement. No outstanding contender this year, at least so far? Less than 10k ranking points might crack it. Very doable.

Very early to judge now. All very dependent of Murrovic. Whether they had a slight slip up due to just getting outplayed/court speed surprise, or they're not in as good a form. All up in the air. Dubai and Indian Wells will be very important

 

[-NN-]

Very early to judge now. All very dependent of Murrovic. Whether they had a slight slip up due to just getting outplayed/court speed surprise, or they're not in as good a form. All up in the air. Dubai and Indian Wells will be very important

Yeah, although Murray is in a rare spot right now and isn't usually above much more than 10k ranking points. I'd be highly surprised if he maintained 12k. Djokovic, when he's rolling on default prime form, is above 10k in yearly quality, for sure. Fed needs a very good year to get to 10k and something like 8k is more likely, but he's the one off to a flyer of a start,

 

[TheMusicLover]

Must be a joke, this.

It's well possible for a player to get to #1 at the WTF in November, and lose it again directly after the AO in January directly thereafter. Oh wait... it nearly happened a couple of weeks ago, if Djok hadn't followed Murray's suit (or vice versa).

I'd surely value the fellow who made it to #1 the predecessing 50 weeks' achievements before that WTF a lot more than the guy who managed the YE #1, lasting for merely four weeks or so...

 

[Thorondor]

I'm not disregarding every week at #1 that's not year-end, though. I'm just saying that those weeks are less important than the year-end #1 ranking. Edberg finishing year-end #1 in 1991 means that he was the best player in the world in 1991. That's a significant achievement and allows him to be compared with all of the other players in tennis history who were the best players in the world during other years.

On the other hand, Becker being #1 in July 1991 just means that he had the best results from August 1990-July 1991. But he didn't play as well during the first half of 1990 and the second half of 1991, which is why he finished #2 and #3 in those respective years. Becker reaching #1 over a 52 week span that spans 2 years is nice, but it doesn't have much historical significance. You see plenty of people asking things like, "Who was better, Player A in Year B or Player X in Year Y?" But you don't see anybody really asking, "Was Becker's 52 week period from August 1990-July 1991 better than Ferrero's 52 week period from October 2002-September 2003?"

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. You make some good points, but I've found that ultimately people ask how long a player was ranked #1, rather than exactly when. As I mentioned in a previous post, year end #1 gives players several extra free weeks as #1 after the season ends. This is all summed up in the weeks at #1 stat. I'm just arguing that of the two, weeks at #1 is objectively and statistically more useful in determining which player was ranked #1 for the longest.

 

[buscemi]

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. You make some good points, but I've found that ultimately people ask how long a player was ranked #1, rather than exactly when. As I mentioned in a previous post, year end #1 gives players several extra free weeks as #1 after the season ends. This is all summed up in the weeks at #1 stat. I'm just arguing that of the two, weeks at #1 is objectively and statistically more useful in determining which player was ranked #1 for the longest.

Thanks for the response. In the end, this is usually more academic than anything else, right? I can think of only two examples where a player has more weeks at #1 than another player and fewer years at #1: (1) Agassi and Hewitt; and (2) Federer and Sampras. Are there any others?

 

[Deleted member 307496]

I think consecutive weeks matter quite a lot, especially if one ranks as the best player in the world for an entire calendar year, including the YE #1.

 

[Thorondor]

Thanks for the response. In the end, this is usually more academic than anything else, right? I can think of only two examples where a player has more weeks at #1 than another player and fewer years at #1: (1) Agassi and Hewitt; and (2) Federer and Sampras. Are there any others?

None that come to mind. Thankfully they correlate fairly well, so it doesn't matter too much. As a statistician, it probably bothers me more than it should.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Thanks for the response. In the end, this is usually more academic than anything else, right? I can think of only two examples where a player has more weeks at #1 than another player and fewer years at #1: (1) Agassi and Hewitt; and (2) Federer and Sampras. Are there any others?

But all of those players besides Agassi arguably had their own "era" of sorts (Agassi was sandwiched between two eras really) that allowed them to carry that stat anyway. For example, in 2006 Federer ranked at #1 the whole entire year -- in 1994, Sampras ranked at #1 the whole entire year and in 2002, Hewitt ranked at #1 the whole entire year. Doesn't that mean that their "extra" weeks are justified seeing as they were ranked in the 1st spot the entire year anyway?

 

[buscemi]

Must be a joke, this.

It's well possible for a player to get to #1 at the WTF in November, and lose it again directly after the AO in January directly thereafter. Oh wait... it nearly happened a couple of weeks ago, if Djok hadn't followed Murray's suit (or vice versa).

I'd surely value the fellow who made it to #1 the predecessing 50 weeks' achievements before that WTF a lot more than the guy who managed the YE #1, lasting for merely four weeks or so...

Let's put this to test with a reasonable scenario for how this would work. Player A contends for the #1 ranking in 2020/2021, and Player B contends for the #1 ranking in 2030/2031. In each year, no player wins more than 1 Major. In 2020 and 2030, Player A and Player B both accomplish the following: Australian QF, French SF, Wimbledon F, U.S. Open title. Player A wins WTF while Player B loses in the SF. Both finish #2.

In 2021, Player A wins the Australian, loses in French final, loses in the Wimbledon SF, and loses in the U.S. Open QF. He becomes #1 after winning the Australian Open and holds that ranking until WTF, when he loses in the SF, resulting in a year-end #2 ranking.

Meanwhile, in 2031, Player B loses in the Australian QF, loses in the French SF, loses in the Wimbledon final, and wins the U.S. Open. He comes into WTF having been ranked #2 all year but takes the year-end #1 ranking by winning WTF.

Finally, in 2022/2032, Player A and Player B lose in the Australian Open 1st round and are never #1 again.

Player A have exactly the same results in their two best years, but Player A has many more weeks at #1 while Player B has a year-end #1 ranking. I easily prefer Player B's year-end #1 ranking. He goes down in the record books as the best player in 2031 and can be compared with all of the other year-end #1s in tennis history. Meanwhile, Player B is remembered as the guy who had some great play in 2020 and 2021 but wasn't quite the best player either year.

 

[buscemi]

But all of those players besides Agassi arguably had their own "era" of sorts (Agassi was sandwiched between two eras really) that allowed them to carry that stat anyway. For example, in 2006 Federer ranked at #1 the whole entire year -- in 1994, Sampras ranked at #1 the whole entire year and in 2002, Hewitt ranked at #1 the whole entire year. Doesn't that mean that their "extra" weeks are justified seeing as they were ranked in the 1st spot the entire year anyway?

Right, but all three of those players accumulated 52 weeks at #1 in those respective years and were year-end #1. Murray could conceivably hold the #1 ranking every week this year until WTF, and, all else being equal, I would still prefer the career of a player with fewer weeks at #1 but two year-end #1 rankings.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Right, but all three of those players accumulated 52 weeks at #1 in those respective years and were year-end #1. Murray could conceivably hold the #1 ranking every week this year until WTF, and, all else being equal, I would still prefer the career of a player with fewer weeks at #1 but two year-end #1 rankings.

I would prefer to be ranked every single week at #1 plus ending the year at #1 because it shows you've consistently been above the field for the whole year with zero dips. It shows that for a given period you were indisputably the best player in the world.

 

[MasterZeb]

Yeah, although Murray is in a rare spot right now and isn't usually above much more than 10k ranking points. I'd be highly surprised if he maintained 12k. Djokovic, when he's rolling on default prime form, is above 10k in yearly quality, for sure. Fed needs a very good year to get to 10k and something like 8k is more likely, but he's the one off to a flyer of a start,

Definitely. Seems like to me now Murray's consistency has paid off. Was in better form in 2012/13, but better results now with the other three a lot less dominant. Wouldn't honestly be surprised if he managed to stay above 10k for a significant period. Judging by the start of the year, however, we could well be in for another 2012, with all four being strong competitors and he slams being distributed.

 

[buscemi]

I would prefer to be ranked every single week at #1 plus ending the year at #1 because it shows you've consistently been above the field for the whole year with zero dips. It shows that for a given period you were indisputably the best player in the world.

Agreed. I would prefer a full year at #1 over a year in which I finished the year #1 but was #2 or lower at certain points during the year. But I would also prefer, 2 year-end #1 rankings and something like 40 total weeks at #1 in those 2 years over 1 year-end #1 ranking and something like 70 total weeks at #1 during the year I finished #1 and the following year, when I finished the year #2.

 

[Enigma_87]

Given how the ranking system works YE#1 to me is not something that is worth of note, apart from novelty factor with the years gone by and getting a prize at the end.

I don't agree with it's an actual representation of who is the best tennis player for that time period either.

Take 1995 for example.

#1 year end was Sampras. The reason why he was YE #1 is because Agassi skipped Paris and TMC. Had he shown at either event he most likely would've beat him to that ranking.

 

[Mainad]

Given how the ranking system works YE#1 to me is not something that is worth of note, apart from novelty factor with the years gone by and getting a prize at the end.

I don't agree with it's an actual representation of who is the best tennis player for that time period either.

Take 1995 for example.

#1 year end was Sampras. The reason why he was YE #1 is because Agassi skipped Paris and TMC. Had he shown at either event he most likely would've beat him to that ranking.

But that's just ifs, buts and maybes. Fact remains that Sampras played more and won more that year. You can't start putting asterisks against it because of what Agassi MIGHT have done if only he had showed up to play. That's Agassi's lookout. Nothing to do with what Sampras achieved that year.

 

[Enigma_87]

But that's just ifs, buts and maybes. Fact remains that Sampras played more and won more that year. You can't start putting asterisks against it because of what Agassi MIGHT have done if only he had showed up to play. That's Agassi's lookout. Nothing to do with what Sampras achieved that year.

It's not ifs and buts tho. Agassi was number one at the end of October. He spent 30 weeks #1 in the calendar 1995 compared to Sampras's 12 till that point. Sampras at the end beat Agassi with 80 points or something, due to the latter going AWOL in the last tournaments.

Agassi was leading Sampras with something like 600 points up until the last two tournaments, so it's not like it gives the actual picture just going by the rankings in the last week of the season.

Agassi was the defending champion in Paris as well and if the YE#1 was that important he could easily have snatched 80 extra points in that year out of two tournaments he defended SF and a title which he won the year before.

 

[Blocker]

Let me put this another way.

You could finish 20X0 ranked number 1 in the world. You could then win the first four tournaments of 20X1 and accumulate a huge lead in the rankings. You could virtually do nothing until close to the FO/W period and still be number 1. So for 3 or more months, 13 or more weeks, you could literally sit on your ass and be number 1 based on what you've done in the past.

The YE#1 challenges you at every stage, unless of course you have the top ranking secured by August in which case you have dominated the calendar year to such an extent that you can put it back into first and cruise home. However, it still only gives you ONE YE#1. Once January comes around, you got to start defending your world championship again.

My example above is trying to highlight the free weeks you can pick up at weeks at number 1. What about in those weeks where there are no tournaments? You've done nothing to earn that free week except be number 1 in the first place, bonus reward. That's more free weeks at number 1 for the number 1. This is my biggest problem with weeks at number 1. There's no bonus YE#1s for the YE#1. Each time you win the WORLD championship of tennis, you have early it.

Further, the tension when the 1/2 spots are close is nowhere near as intense in say March as it is in November. Because the prestige at finishing at #1 after the WTF is far higher than attaining #1 in April. That could be a perception, but even then, so be it. Things are built on perceptions. Wimbledon is perceived to be the most prestigious slam in the world even though it is one of 4 slams with equal points, equal rounds and equal quality of players entering. But it's the most prestigious because of the perception. It is perceived that Manchester United is the biggest football club in the world even though there's plenty of arguments to show that it's Real Madrid or the Dallas Cowboys.

 

[tenisdecente]

I would love to continue in this debate but English is not my first language and I am a lazy ass

 

[Thorondor]

Let me put this another way.

You could finish 20X0 ranked number 1 in the world. You could then win the first four tournaments of 20X1 and accumulate a huge lead in the rankings. You could virtually do nothing until close to the FO/W period and still be number 1. So for 3 or more months, 13 or more weeks, you could literally sit on your ass and be number 1 based on what you've done in the past.

The YE#1 challenges you at every stage, unless of course you have the top ranking secured by August in which case you have dominated the calendar year to such an extent that you can put it back into first and cruise home. However, it still only gives you ONE YE#1. Once January comes around, you got to start defending your world championship again.

My example above is trying to highlight the free weeks you can pick up at weeks at number 1. What about in those weeks where there are no tournaments? You've done nothing to earn that free week except be number 1 in the first place, bonus reward. That's more free weeks at number 1 for the number 1. This is my biggest problem with weeks at number 1. There's no bonus YE#1s for the YE#1. Each time you win the WORLD championship of tennis, you have early it.

Further, the tension when the 1/2 spots are close is nowhere near as intense in say March as it is in November. Because the prestige at finishing at #1 after the WTF is far higher than attaining #1 in April. That could be a perception, but even then, so be it. Things are built on perceptions. Wimbledon is perceived to be the most prestigious slam in the world even though it is one of 4 slams with equal points, equal rounds and equal quality of players entering. But it's the most prestigious because of the perception. It is perceived that Manchester United is the biggest football club in the world even though there's plenty of arguments to show that it's Real Madrid or the Dallas Cowboys.

The argument of your first two paragraphs could be applied to any date in the year, not just year end. Every tournament results in players' rankings changing. Continuing a streak of weeks at #1 requires consistent results, otherwise you will lose your ranking as better results from the previous year are replaced. Player rankings are the best measure we have of determining which player has played the best over the past year-long period.

As for free weeks at #1:
Are you arguing a player doesn't deserve his ranking if he is not constantly playing tournaments and defending results from the year before. Let's say the #1 player won a grand slam, earning him 2000 points and a substantial lead over world #2. Are those two weeks of effort not valid anymore the minute he leaves the tournament and rests a couple weeks before the next one? If you report only YE#1 and not weeks at #1, then you are assigning a HUGE bonus to being ranked #1 at year-end. Without reporting any other players who were #1 other times throughout the year, the YE#1 would be getting credit for an entire year of weeks at #1 rather than the actual amount of time they spent there. Basically, YE#1 is just singling out the last week of every year and reporting the top player that week. Players' rankings throughout the rest of the year are completely discarded by the YE#1 statistic.

Prestige:
I agree to with this to an extent. There definitely is added tension at the end of the year, which probably favors a mentally stronger player. However, it is difficult to judge exactly how much this affects player's results. And the most free weeks at #1 occur after the WTF, so maybe in way it's already accounted for.

 

[sarmpas]

Sampras has the extra YE#1.

Federer has the extra weeks and the 237 weeks consecutive record.

So Federer was factually number #1 for actually more weeks than Sampras so it's the real record vs the paddded record.

 

[buscemi]

If you report only YE#1 and not weeks at #1, then you are assigning a HUGE bonus to being ranked #1 at year-end. Without reporting any other players who were #1 other times throughout the year, the YE#1 would be getting credit for an entire year of weeks at #1 rather than the actual amount of time they spent there. Basically, YE#1 is just singling out the last week of every year and reporting the top player that week. Players' rankings throughout the rest of the year are completely discarded by the YE#1 statistic.

I don't now that anyone is advocating completely discarding rankings throughout the rest of the year. I think the debate breaks along these lines:

Group A: Start with year-end #1 rankings and break ties with weeks at #1 (e.g., 2 year-end #1 rankings always beats 1 year-end #1 ranking, but a player with 2 year-end #1 rankings and, say, 72 weeks at #1 beats a player with 2 year-end #1 rankings and, say, 45 weeks at #1.

Group B: Weeks at #1 always beats year-end #1 rankings. With this, a player with 1 year-end #1 ranking and 72 weeks at #1 would automatically beat a player with, say, 2 year-end #1 rankings but only, say, 45, 55, or 60 weeks at #1.

Group C: Some number of weeks at #1 is enough to overcome an extra year-end #1 ranking. With this, a player with 1 year-end #1 ranking and, say, 72 weeks at #1 would beat a player with, say, 2 year-end #1 rankings but only, say, 45 weeks at #1, but wouldn't be enough to beat a player with something like 55 or 60 weeks at #1 (in this example, the year-end #1 ranking might equal something like 20 extra weeks at #1).​

In all three groups, including Group A, weeks at #1 potentially has some relevance. It's only in Group B where something is entirely ignored, which is year-end #1 rankings. This is a big part of why I disagree with people in Group B.

 

[Thorondor]

I don't now that anyone is advocating completely discarding rankings throughout the rest of the year. I think the debate breaks along these lines:

Group A: Start with year-end #1 rankings and break ties with weeks at #1 (e.g., 2 year-end #1 rankings always beats 1 year-end #1 ranking, but a player with 2 year-end #1 rankings and, say, 72 weeks at #1 beats a player with 2 year-end #1 rankings and, say, 45 weeks at #1.

Group B: Weeks at #1 always beats year-end #1 rankings. With this, a player with 1 year-end #1 ranking and 72 weeks at #1 would automatically beat a player with, say, 2 year-end #1 rankings but only, say, 45 weeks at #1.

Group C: Some number of weeks at #1 is enough to overcome an extra year-end #1 ranking. With this, a player with 1 year-end #1 ranking and, say, 72 weeks at #1 would beat a player with, say, 2 year-end #1 rankings but only, say, 45 weeks at #1, but wouldn't be enough to beat a player with something like 55 or 60 weeks at #1 (in this example, the year-end #1 ranking might equal something like 20 extra weeks at #1).​

In all three groups, including Group A, weeks at #1 potentially has some relevance. It's only in Group B where something is entirely ignored, which is year-end #1 rankings.

True, I guess I've been arguing one vs the other. I definitely agree that a combination of the two is most useful.
Thanks for clearly laying out the groups. I would fall into Group B.

 

[Thorondor]

Actually maybe Group C. I might give a year-end #1 the value of 5 additional weeks at #1. Hard to say for sure. Mostly though I'd just use the year-end rankings to compare players each calendar year.

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

weeks at #1 probably. I think alot of people, even diehards of the game, couldnt remember how many YE#1s alot of of the greats have. Like for instance how many people know Connors has 5 YE#1s, or that Becker doesnt have one, or that Lendl despite his huge (and bloated in his case) weeks at #1 total has only 3. They might not remember exact weeks at #1 either, but atleast they roughly know off the top of their head who has more or less, or the general range.

it's normal that you don't remember it... because he has 4 !

 

[Blocker]

The argument of your first two paragraphs could be applied to any date in the year, not just year end. Every tournament results in players' rankings changing. Continuing a streak of weeks at #1 requires consistent results, otherwise you will lose your ranking as better results from the previous year are replaced. Player rankings are the best measure we have of determining which player has played the best over the past year-long period.

As for free weeks at #1:
Are you arguing a player doesn't deserve his ranking if he is not constantly playing tournaments and defending results from the year before. Let's say the #1 player won a grand slam, earning him 2000 points and a substantial lead over world #2. Are those two weeks of effort not valid anymore the minute he leaves the tournament and rests a couple weeks before the next one? If you report only YE#1 and not weeks at #1, then you are assigning a HUGE bonus to being ranked #1 at year-end. Without reporting any other players who were #1 other times throughout the year, the YE#1 would be getting credit for an entire year of weeks at #1 rather than the actual amount of time they spent there. Basically, YE#1 is just singling out the last week of every year and reporting the top player that week. Players' rankings throughout the rest of the year are completely discarded by the YE#1 statistic.

Prestige:
I agree to with this to an extent. There definitely is added tension at the end of the year, which probably favors a mentally stronger player. However, it is difficult to judge exactly how much this affects player's results. And the most free weeks at #1 occur after the WTF, so maybe in way it's already accounted for.

My point is, which you may have missed, weeks at number 1 is padded somewhat because there are weeks in the year where you have done nothing to earn the additional weeks at number 1 other than already be number 1, for example, winning a slam or finishing the year number 1. So a player wins 2000 points for winning a slam, which elevates him to number 1, no tournament play from the top players in the following 4 weeks and he's still number 1. The player is rewarded for becoming number 1, but then weeks get added on during a period when he hasn't even picked up a racquet. This is why WEEKS in my mind should not be the most critical measurement of the greatest number 1.

I get that you could be so dominant that you probably deserve the extra weeks at number 1 for doing nothing, but you could also be so dominant in a calendar year but it still only gives you one YE#1.

With YE#1, you get rewarded for winning the YE#1, and then that's it, back to square 1 on new years day. No padding, no extra years thrown in, you win it once, you get one tick.

 

[Thorondor]

My point is, which you may have missed, weeks at number 1 is padded somewhat because there are weeks in the year where you have done nothing to earn the additional weeks at number 1 other than already be number 1, for example, winning a slam or finishing the year number 1. So a player wins 2000 points for winning a slam, which elevates him to number 1, no tournament play from the top players in the following 4 weeks and he's still number 1. The player is rewarded for becoming number 1, but then weeks get added on during a period when he hasn't even picked up a racquet. This is why WEEKS in my mind should not be the most critical measurement of the greatest number 1.

I get that you could be so dominant that you probably deserve the extra weeks at number 1 for doing nothing, but you could also be so dominant in a calendar year but it still only gives you one YE#1.

With YE#1, you get rewarded for winning the YE#1, and then that's it, back to square 1 on new years day. No padding, no extra years thrown in, you win it once, you get one tick.

See my reply and others for why YE#1 is an insufficient measure of length of time at #1. But you're right. Ideally, players would constantly play tournaments and always be earning points based on their current level. This is, however, unrealistic for many reasons. In the end, a players current ranking represents the tournament results over the past 52 weeks. Is weeks at #1 a perfect measure? No. But it does take into account every player's result in every tournament of every week of the past year. What more can you ask?

Personally, I prefer to compare players' tournament wins and finals ahead of any rankings over time, as summing both would be double counting.

EDIT: Another way to make weeks at #1 almost perfect would be to rearrange tournaments so that they are all evenly spaced (taking tournament importance into account). This is also unrealistic.

 

[KINGROGER]

My point is, which you may have missed, weeks at number 1 is padded somewhat because there are weeks in the year where you have done nothing to earn the additional weeks at number 1 other than already be number 1, for example, winning a slam or finishing the year number 1. So a player wins 2000 points for winning a slam, which elevates him to number 1, no tournament play from the top players in the following 4 weeks and he's still number 1. The player is rewarded for becoming number 1, but then weeks get added on during a period when he hasn't even picked up a racquet. This is why WEEKS in my mind should not be the most critical measurement of the greatest number 1.

I get that you could be so dominant that you probably deserve the extra weeks at number 1 for doing nothing, but you could also be so dominant in a calendar year but it still only gives you one YE#1.

With YE#1, you get rewarded for winning the YE#1, and then that's it, back to square 1 on new years day. No padding, no extra years thrown in, you win it once, you get one tick.

Federer's 5 YE # 1, 302 weeks total AND 237 weeks consecutive outranks Sampras's 1 extra YE #1.

 

[Blocker]

Federer's 5 YE # 1, 302 weeks total AND 237 weeks consecutive outranks Sampras's 1 extra YE #1.

All you need to know is:

Sampras 6 times WORLD CHAMPION
Federer 5 times WORLD CHAMPION.

That is all.

 

[SinjinCooper]

Neither matters.

Only slams matter. And even then, only how many you won relative to your contemporaries matters. Which is why Borg > Nadal, for example.

 

[Thorondor]

Neither matters.

Only slams matter. And even then, only how many you won relative to your contemporaries matters. Which is why Borg > Nadal, for example.

So a 4-slam winner with a bunch of 1-slam wonder contemporaries would be greater than Nadal?

 

[KINGROGER]

The reason people have Federer over Sampras is the extra slams anyway, along with Sampras being utterly useless on clay and much weaker on slower surfaces overall while they are roughly equal on all the faster ones, the #1 tally doesnt even real come in hardly at all in comparing them. Arguing back and forth about the comparative #1 stats where each are ahead of the other in some places, is kind of pointlessness.

Sampras and Fed are pretty even when it comes to number 1 dominance. Fed's 237 weeks consecutive, getting to number 1 aged 31 and extra weeks total slightly outranks Pete's extra YE.

All you need to know is:

Sampras 6 times WORLD CHAMPION
Federer 5 times WORLD CHAMPION.

That is all.

No such thing but nice try, pathetic troll.

 

[buscemi]

See my reply and others for why YE#1 is an insufficient measure of length of time at #1. But you're right. Ideally, players would constantly play tournaments and always be earning points based on their current level. This is, however, unrealistic for many reasons. In the end, a players current ranking represents the tournament results over the past 52 weeks. Is weeks at #1 a perfect measure? No. But it does take into account every player's result in every tournament of every week of the past year. What more can you ask?

Personally, I prefer to compare players' tournament wins and finals ahead of any rankings over time, as summing both would be double counting.

EDIT: Another way to make weeks at #1 almost perfect would be to rearrange tournaments so that they are all evenly spaced (taking tournament importance into account). This is also unrealistic.

But can you explain why this is meaningful in an apples to apples comparison? Assume Player A and Player B have identical careers during different time periods, except for a stretch from the WTF in Year 6 of their respective careers to the WTF in Year 7 of their careers. Player A wins the WTF in Year 6 while Player B loses in the SF. Both finish the year #2. Player A then has a great 1st half of Year 7, taking the #1 ranking after winning the Australian Open and a less great but solid 2nd half of Year 7, but he holds onto the #1 ranking until WTF, when he loses in the SF. Conversely, Player B has a solid 1st half of Year 7 and a great 2nd half of 2017, remaining #2 until WTF, when he takes over the #1 ranking by winning the title.

This is apples to apples comparison because these two players have identical careers outside Player A having more weeks at #1 and Player B being year-end #1. The only difference is that we switch the years they won WTF and invert their Year 7 results, with Player A having a great 1st half of the year and Player B having a great 2nd half of the year. In my mind, Player A’s numerous weeks at #1 are kind of meaningless because he wasn’t the best player in Year 6 or Year 7 while Player B’s year-end #1 ranking in Year #7 is meaningful because he was the best player in Year 7.

 

[Thorondor]

But can you explain why this is meaningful in an apples to apples comparison? Assume Player A and Player B have identical careers during different time periods, except for a stretch from the WTF in Year 6 of their respective careers to the WTF in Year 7 of their careers. Player A wins the WTF in Year 6 while Player B loses in the SF. Both finish the year #2. Player A then has a great 1st half of Year 7, taking the #1 ranking after winning the Australian Open and a less great but solid 2nd half of Year 7, but he holds onto the #1 ranking until WTF, when he loses in the SF. Conversely, Player B has a solid 1st half of Year 7 and a great 2nd half of 2017, remaining #2 until WTF, when he takes over the #1 ranking by winning the title.

This is apples to apples comparison because these two players have identical careers outside Player A having more weeks at #1 and Player B being year-end #1. The only difference is that we switch the years they won WTF and invert their Year 7 results, with Player A having a great 1st half of the year and Player B having a great 2nd half of the year. In my mind, Player A’s numerous weeks at #1 are kind of meaningless because he wasn’t the best player in Year 6 or Year 7 while Player B’s year-end #1 ranking in Year #7 is meaningful because he was the best player in Year 7.

You clearly just have a mindset more focused on separating tennis into individual calendar years. The fact is, we have ATP ranking data for every week. If we were to choose a single week out of the 52 as most reflective of dominance, then I agree. We would choose the year-end week. You've made a convincing case for that. However, tennis is a continually evolving sport with many tournaments throughout the season (which lasts almost all 52 weeks). The rolling ranking system is excellently designed for how tennis is organized. There is no need to find the best week out of the 52 and only use that to compare player rankings. Instead use all 52 data points. Maybe assign a higher weight to that year-end week and pad weeks at #1 with that. But to declare one player as better than another simply because their 52-week rolling period of dominance aligned better with the calendar year does not hold up.
Hopefully, you agree with me that this debate is at least somewhat irrelevant. Players are remembered most for how many slams they won.

 

[-NN-]

If I were to design my own system, each week would have a value and YE#1 would be worth the value of 26 weeks, despite the bonus it gets automatically over the November-December period.