The bigger achievement

[tennisville]

Do you think being the no 1 at the end of the year is the biggest achievement in the sport after the grand slam of course .,

If not which one is bigger

 

[brokenshoelace]

After winning a major, yeah, being number 1 in the world is probably the biggest achievement.

 

[ashwin#1]

getting to no.1 is a biiig achievement, but maintaing for long period of time is much bigger for me. !!

 

[kskate2]

Agree BS.

 

[August]

Do you think being the no 1 at the end of the year is the biggest achievement in the sport after the grand slam of course .,

If not which one is bigger

I don't give more weight on being #1 at the end of the year than being #1 in the middle of the year. Year-end rankings are just an easy way to compare seasons but it's as hard to become the #1 in the middle of the season. Tennis isn't like F1 where the big thing would be to have most points at the end of the season. But maybe some people feel the season as a series whose champion the #1 is.

For me the biggest achievements are:

1. CYGS=NCYGS (you need some luck to start your streak at AO)
2. CGS
3. Winning a slam
4. Reaching #1
5. WTF

 

[ClayDeath]

getting to no.1 is a biiig achievement, but maintaing for long period of time is much bigger for me. !!

the biggest achievement in our sport is slams.


you can be #1 without slams. that tends to be a bogus #1.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

I do understand CD's point about slams being more important and that you can reach numero uno without slams, BUT, you cannot reach numero uno if you have not played amazing and consistent tennis for a whole year or close to it , whereas you can win a slam by playing amazing tennis for just 14 days. So, I tend to think reaching number 1 for any player, year end or not, is a huge accomplishment.

Just a quick addition: Since the computerized system started in 73, Novak is the 25th player to get to number 1. In that same time period, there were over 50 different slam champions. Only Rios and Lendl managed to get to number 1 without winning a slam. Lendl fixed that problem later and it is still one of the biggest mysteries to me how Rios never won a slam with the game he had...he had magical shots, but not too stable upstairs , from what I have read.

 

[Fiero425]

I do understand CD's point about slams being more important and that you can reach numero uno without slams, BUT, you cannot reach numero uno if you have not played amazing and consistent tennis for a whole year or close to it , whereas you can win a slam by playing amazing tennis for just 14 days. So, I tend to think reaching number 1 for any player, year end or not, is a huge accomplishment.

Just a quick addition: Since the computerized system started in 73, Novak is the 25th player to get to number 1. In that same time period, there were over 50 different slam champions. Only Rios and Lendl managed to get to number 1 without winning a slam.

Like Safina reaching #1, you had some male players that held that distinction for about 5 min.! Hard to even count them unless they happened upon the ranking at the end of the year so it carried over to the next! It only seems to happen when a player capable of winning majors and smaller events alike are not around! When Serena was playing part time and Henin had retired, that played havoc with the rankings! Luckily the men have been able to avoid the situation of late with several top caliber players ready to step in if one begins to slip a little! "Look out Nole!"

 

[tennisville]

Do you think being the no 1 at the end of the year is the biggest achievement in the sport after the grand slam of course .,

If not which one is bigger

I don't give more weight on being #1 at the end of the year than being #1 in the middle of the year. Year-end rankings are just an easy way to compare seasons but it's as hard to become the #1 in the middle of the season. Tennis isn't like F1 where the big thing would be to have most points at the end of the season. But maybe some people feel the season as a series whose champion the #1 is.

For me the biggest achievements are:

1. CYGS=NCYGS (you need some luck to start your streak at AO)
2. CGS
3. Winning a slam
4. Reaching #1
5. WTF

I believe year end no 1 is more special because we all consider time span of years and being the best player for the year can never be taken away from you. You can always say that you were the best player for 2012 but wont be able to say that if you reach no 1 in the middle

CD reaching no 1 I believe is tougher than slams . Andy has won 2 slams and reached the final of the third but he is still miles away from being no 1 and best player in the world . To be no 1 means 52 weeks of consistancy

 

[ClayDeath]

negative.


Next.

 

[Moxie]

Do you think being the no 1 at the end of the year is the biggest achievement in the sport after the grand slam of course .,

If not which one is bigger

I don't give more weight on being #1 at the end of the year than being #1 in the middle of the year. Year-end rankings are just an easy way to compare seasons but it's as hard to become the #1 in the middle of the season. Tennis isn't like F1 where the big thing would be to have most points at the end of the season. But maybe some people feel the season as a series whose champion the #1 is.

For me the biggest achievements are:

1. CYGS=NCYGS (you need some luck to start your streak at AO)
2. CGS
3. Winning a slam
4. Reaching #1
5. WTF

I believe year end no 1 is more special because we all consider time span of years and being the best player for the year can never be taken away from you. You can always say that you were the best player for 2012 but wont be able to say that if you reach no 1 in the middle

CD reaching no 1 I believe is tougher than slams . Andy has won 2 slams and reached the final of the third but he is still miles away from being no 1 and best player in the world . To be no 1 means 52 weeks of consistancy

I like all of August's points, and I agree with his ordering of importance. I take his point that it doesn't matter where you make #1, and therefore, tennisville, I don't agree with you that YE #1 is more special, because it's a rolling 52-week ranking. The end of the year is an artificial stop of the spinning wheel, is it not? (I could be wrong, and would be happy for someone to explain otherwise.)

Also, while players can be #1 w/o having won a Slam, that's rarer on the men's side than the WTA, at least of late. However, consider the opposite: Rafa had won 5 Slam titles before reaching #1, because he played in Roger's heyday. 5 Slams is a major career. After Pete, and before Roger hit #1, there was a bit of a cycle of players winning a Slam and getting to #1, for at least a few weeks. It was rather a revolving door. Since Roger first made #1, there have only been 3 at #1. Right now, i.e., in the last 10 years, it's been harder to grab #1 than win a Slam. (DP has 1, Murray 2 without the #1 ranking.) Some things depend on the times you play in, I suppose.

 

[rafanoy1992]

Do you think being the no 1 at the end of the year is the biggest achievement in the sport after the grand slam of course .,

If not which one is bigger

I don't give more weight on being #1 at the end of the year than being #1 in the middle of the year. Year-end rankings are just an easy way to compare seasons but it's as hard to become the #1 in the middle of the season. Tennis isn't like F1 where the big thing would be to have most points at the end of the season. But maybe some people feel the season as a series whose champion the #1 is.

For me the biggest achievements are:

1. CYGS=NCYGS (you need some luck to start your streak at AO)
2. CGS
3. Winning a slam
4. Reaching #1
5. WTF

I believe year end no 1 is more special because we all consider time span of years and being the best player for the year can never be taken away from you. You can always say that you were the best player for 2012 but wont be able to say that if you reach no 1 in the middle

CD reaching no 1 I believe is tougher than slams . Andy has won 2 slams and reached the final of the third but he is still miles away from being no 1 and best player in the world . To be no 1 means 52 weeks of consistancy

I like all of August's points, and I agree with his ordering of importance. I take his point that it doesn't matter where you make #1, and therefore, tennisville, I don't agree with you that YE #1 is more special, because it's a rolling 52-week ranking. The end of the year is an artificial stop of the spinning wheel, is it not? (I could be wrong, and would be happy for someone to explain otherwise.)

Also, while players can be #1 w/o having won a Slam, that's rarer on the men's side than the WTA, at least of late. However, consider the opposite: Rafa had won 5 Slam titles before reaching #1, because he played in Roger's heyday. 5 Slams is a major career. After Pete, and before Roger hit #1, there was a bit of a cycle of players winning a Slam and getting to #1, for at least a few weeks. It was rather a revolving door. Since Roger first made #1, there have only been 3 at #1. Right now, i.e., in the last 10 years, it's been harder to grab #1 than win a Slam. (DP has 1, Murray 2 without the #1 ranking.) Some things depend on the times you play in, I suppose.

Moxie, here's fun fact: Mats Wilander had to win 7 Grand Slams before he became number 1 in the world.

 

[ClayDeath]

rankings don't mean much where multi slam winners are gathered.


its all about the slams, davis cup wins, and Olympic glory.

I think those 3 matters the most but clearly slams is where its at.

top rank doesn't hurt but it is more a matter of individual preference.



andy murray doesn't give a damn about the top rank.

he knows and so does everyone else who follows the sport that he is the best player in the game-- at least for a little while-- if he snatches the u.s. open.

and especially if he guns down nole in the process there at flushing meadows.

 

[El Dude]

I don't think year-end #1 is entirely artificial. The tennis season ends in November and then starts back up in January - so its almost two months without an significant tournaments, the only such span of the year.

It isn't entirely an exact comparison, but think of school grades. We could say that grades are somewhat arbitrary, but they also give us a small segment of a child's overall education and may even have a thematic link.

 

[Fiero425]

Rankings don't mean much where multi Slam winners are gathered.

It's all about the Slams, Davis Cup wins, and Olympic glory.
I think those 3 matters the most but clearly Slams is where its at.
Top rank doesn't hurt, but it is more a matter of individual preference.


Andy Murray doesn't give a damn about the top rank.
He knows and so does everyone else who follows the sport that he is the best player in the game-- at least for a little while-- if he snatches the U.S. Open.
And especially if he guns down Nole in the process there at Flushing Meadows.

Well that's your opinion! Most people, including commentors on tv think Nadal has surpassed everyone except on the point scale with so many wins and just a couple losses! Andy has trouble on clay and loses to players outside other top players more frequently than Nole and Rafa! I say Djokovic is #1 as long as the official ATP rankings says he is! He's nowhere near his '11 status, but he's holding on ok winning one major and being a SF and F in the other 2! Andy didn't even play the FO while Nadal was knocked off in the 1st round of Wimbledon! "Yeah Nole!"

 

[El Dude]

As far as Slams and #1 rankings, here are some numbers for the ATP era only (1973-present):

#1 players who never won a Slam: One (Marcelo Rios)
Slam winners who were never #1: I think its in the 20-22 range
Number of players to finish the year #1: 16
Number of players to win a Grand Slam: 51
Number of players to ever be #1: 25

The #1 ranking is more impressive than winning a single Slam because its much more rare - about twice as many players have won Slams as have been ranked #1, and more than three times as many as have ended the year #1.

Now let's add a couple more benchmarks:

Number of players to win...(Open Era; but including the entire records of players who won Slams pre-Open Era)
1+ Slams: 53
2+ Slams: 31
3+ Slams: 19
4+ Slams: 17
5+ Slams: 15
6+ Slams: 15
7+ Slams: 12
8+ Slams: 9
9+ Slams: 5
10+ Slams: 5
11+ Slams: 5
12+ Slams: 3
13+ Slams: 2
14+ Slams: 2
15+ Slams: 1

That gives us a sense of how rare different levels are.

If we include pre-Slam numbers, pro Slams and such, we get much larger numbers, but this gives us a sense of the last 45 years of tennis history.

 

[ClayDeath]

nole himself says that nadal is the best player in the game.


nobody on the planet can touch nadal on the red clay. even when he is at 60% capacity. that is a given.

so that leaves 3 others slams. if andy keeps beating the top player in the game in slams then I think
a case can be made that andy is the best on the planet.

especially if he gets to humble the top player in straight sets like he did at Wimbledon.

very few people would think that nole is better than andy if andy takes him down in the final in straights or even 4 sets in new york.

that is 2 completely different surfaces.


I can tell you now that nole is not winning the u.s. open. he has 2 sharks after him now.

and nole is feeling the heat.

 

[ClayDeath]

As far as Slams and #1 rankings, here are some numbers for the ATP era only (1973-present):

#1 players who never won a Slam: One (Marcelo Rios)
Slam winners who were never #1: I think its in the 20-22 range
Number of players to finish the year #1: 16
Number of players to win a Grand Slam: 51
Number of players to ever be #1: 25

The #1 ranking is more impressive than winning a single Slam because its much more rare - about twice as many players have won Slams as have been ranked #1, and more than three times as many as have ended the year #1.

Now let's add a couple more benchmarks:

Number of players to win...(Open Era; but including the entire records of players who won Slams pre-Open Era)
1+ Slams: 53
2+ Slams: 31
3+ Slams: 19
4+ Slams: 17
5+ Slams: 15
6+ Slams: 15
7+ Slams: 12
8+ Slams: 9
9+ Slams: 5
10+ Slams: 5
11+ Slams: 5
12+ Slams: 3
13+ Slams: 2
14+ Slams: 2
15+ Slams: 1

That gives us a sense of how rare different levels are.

If we include pre-Slam numbers, pro Slams and such, we get much larger numbers, but this gives us a sense of the last 45 years of tennis history.

of course it is more rare since there have been so many dominant players in the game. and they tend to hold on to the #1 rank.



basically today there is greater correlation between the slam winners and #1 rank because we happen to have 3 extremely domina t players who have tended to win everything else in sight also.


this period is like no other: these 3 are all time greats and very possibly the best in history.

nole is not quite there yet but he is 1/2 way there. 6 more slams and he too can be considered among the best of the best in history.


but clearly you can achieve top ranks without winning slams or just 1 slam if these 3 were not around.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

^^you can tell us all that djokovic won't win the u s open can you ? :angel:

wow..you can see into the future...well done you.

 

[ClayDeath]

just an educated guess or a prediction.


no different from any other predictions from the others. for instance some people in the press/media have nadal as the slight favorite right now.

I had andy as the favorite as soon as Wimbledon ended but now nadal has shaken up the tennis world in a matter of weeks.