The bigger achievement

[Moxie]

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.

I totally get the rah-rah, top-of-the-class feel good point of ending the year at #1, but you're a numbers guy. Given that it's a rolling 52-week ranking, is there any difference between landing at #1 in August, or being #1 on 12/31 of the given year? Beyond the psychological/PR benefit...and I'm asking sincerely, because I'm not clear.

 

[El Dude]

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

Insert "this year."

I agree, of course, but these things change and a single tournament can shift things. For instance, if Andy wins the US Open this year is he the best player in the game? I don't think so, just that he played the best at the last two Slams.

This is why the #1 ranking IS quite meaningful - it represents performance over the past calendar year. Andy Murray has been great over the last year, but not as good as Djokovic and just a hair behind Nadal. That's what the rankings tell us. Of course what they don't tell us is that Nadal has played on two of the last four Slams, Andy three of the last four, and Novak (and Roger) all four - which tempers Novak's lead because its at least partially due to partaking in all four Slams.

 

[ClayDeath]

excellent discussions here.

keep them coming folks.

good work general el dude.

 

[britbox]

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.

I think most players who hit #1 and hadn't won a slam would know they are a paper champion. No player can legitimately claim to be the best in the world if they haven't won a single major.

 

[Moxie]

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

Insert "this year."

I agree, of course, but these things change and a single tournament can shift things. For instance, if Andy wins the US Open this year is he the best player in the game? I don't think so, just that he played the best at the last two Slams.

This is why the #1 ranking IS quite meaningful - it represents performance over the past calendar year. Andy Murray has been great over the last year, but not as good as Djokovic and just a hair behind Nadal. That's what the rankings tell us. Of course what they don't tell us is that Nadal has played on two of the last four Slams, Andy three of the last four, and Novak (and Roger) all four - which tempers Novak's lead because its at least partially due to partaking in all four Slams.

But again my question, which no one answers, and I thought you were the guy: the #1 ranking isn't a representation of the calendar year, isn't that right? There is no "calendar year" for the rolling ranking, or am I wrong...is there a separate calculation for the calendar year?

 

[britbox]

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

Insert "this year."

I agree, of course, but these things change and a single tournament can shift things. For instance, if Andy wins the US Open this year is he the best player in the game? I don't think so, just that he played the best at the last two Slams.

This is why the #1 ranking IS quite meaningful - it represents performance over the past calendar year. Andy Murray has been great over the last year, but not as good as Djokovic and just a hair behind Nadal. That's what the rankings tell us. Of course what they don't tell us is that Nadal has played on two of the last four Slams, Andy three of the last four, and Novak (and Roger) all four - which tempers Novak's lead because its at least partially due to partaking in all four Slams.

But again my question, which no one answers, and I thought you were the guy: the #1 ranking isn't a representation of the calendar year, isn't that right? There is no "calendar year" for the rolling ranking, or am I wrong...is there a separate calculation for the calendar year?

End of Year #1 is simply the guy sitting at the top of the rolling year at that point in time - just like a number #1 at any other point. Same formula.

 

[Moxie]

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

Insert "this year."

I agree, of course, but these things change and a single tournament can shift things. For instance, if Andy wins the US Open this year is he the best player in the game? I don't think so, just that he played the best at the last two Slams.

This is why the #1 ranking IS quite meaningful - it represents performance over the past calendar year. Andy Murray has been great over the last year, but not as good as Djokovic and just a hair behind Nadal. That's what the rankings tell us. Of course what they don't tell us is that Nadal has played on two of the last four Slams, Andy three of the last four, and Novak (and Roger) all four - which tempers Novak's lead because its at least partially due to partaking in all four Slams.

But again my question, which no one answers, and I thought you were the guy: the #1 ranking isn't a representation of the calendar year, isn't that right? There is no "calendar year" for the rolling ranking, or am I wrong...is there a separate calculation for the calendar year?

End of Year #1 is simply the guy sitting at the top of the rolling year at that point in time - just like a number #1 at any other point. Same formula.

Well, that's what I understand. So, if Djokovic spends nearly all of 2013 at #1, and Nadal skips past him at the last moment to end the year at #1, he gets some gold star because getting the #1 happened by December? I'm cool with the idea that Nadal has had a great year, but I don't see negating the fact that Djokovic would have been the guy who spent the majority of 2013 at #1. When both Rafa and Nole first raised themselves to #1 it was in the summer of their respective years. That was the achievement, IMO.

 

[August]

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!"

Talking about WTA, their points distribution doesn't reward winning as much as ATP's. On ATP, the runner-up gets 60% of champ's points, on WTA 70%. On the other hand, I remember reading Wozniacki would've been the #1 even with the ATP points distribution.

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

Insert "this year."

I agree, of course, but these things change and a single tournament can shift things. For instance, if Andy wins the US Open this year is he the best player in the game? I don't think so, just that he played the best at the last two Slams.

This is why the #1 ranking IS quite meaningful - it represents performance over the past calendar year. Andy Murray has been great over the last year, but not as good as Djokovic and just a hair behind Nadal. That's what the rankings tell us. Of course what they don't tell us is that Nadal has played on two of the last four Slams, Andy three of the last four, and Novak (and Roger) all four - which tempers Novak's lead because its at least partially due to partaking in all four Slams.

But again my question, which no one answers, and I thought you were the guy: the #1 ranking isn't a representation of the calendar year, isn't that right? There is no "calendar year" for the rolling ranking, or am I wrong...is there a separate calculation for the calendar year?

Race to London. Which leads to an interesting question. What if Rafa becomes #1 after the WTF but Nole regains the #1 ranking at the DC final? Race to London is basically the calendar-year ranking but it ends to the WTF, DC final counts to the next year's "Race" ranking. Who'd be the official YE #1 in that scenario. I'd say it'd be Nole, DC final is a part of this season even though it counts to the 2014 Race to London.

 

[coban]

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

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

Not in the ATP WORLD TOUR, in the WTA you can.

 

[Kieran]

Rios!

 

[tented]

No player can legitimately claim to be the best in the world if they haven't won a single major ...

... said the sports psychologist to Caroline Wozniacki.

 

[brokenshoelace]

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

Insert "this year."

I agree, of course, but these things change and a single tournament can shift things. For instance, if Andy wins the US Open this year is he the best player in the game? I don't think so, just that he played the best at the last two Slams.

This is why the #1 ranking IS quite meaningful - it represents performance over the past calendar year. Andy Murray has been great over the last year, but not as good as Djokovic and just a hair behind Nadal. That's what the rankings tell us. Of course what they don't tell us is that Nadal has played on two of the last four Slams, Andy three of the last four, and Novak (and Roger) all four - which tempers Novak's lead because its at least partially due to partaking in all four Slams.

But again my question, which no one answers, and I thought you were the guy: the #1 ranking isn't a representation of the calendar year, isn't that right? There is no "calendar year" for the rolling ranking, or am I wrong...is there a separate calculation for the calendar year?

End of Year #1 is simply the guy sitting at the top of the rolling year at that point in time - just like a number #1 at any other point. Same formula.

Well, that's what I understand. So, if Djokovic spends nearly all of 2013 at #1, and Nadal skips past him at the last moment to end the year at #1, he gets some gold star because getting the #1 happened by December? I'm cool with the idea that Nadal has had a great year, but I don't see negating the fact that Djokovic would have been the guy who spent the majority of 2013 at #1. When both Rafa and Nole first raised themselves to #1 it was in the summer of their respective years. That was the achievement, IMO.

But with the way the ranking system works, whoever finishes number 1 at the end of year is USUALLY an indication as to who has had the best year. Djokovic spending most of 2013 as world number 1 is in large part due to his results last year. He's amassed so many points that it's going to take an amazing year by someone else to dethrone him. If Nadal is able to do that at the end of the year, it would be a reflection on the fact that he's had the best year out of anyone, more so than Novak spending the year as world number 1.

 

[britbox]

Insert "this year."

I agree, of course, but these things change and a single tournament can shift things. For instance, if Andy wins the US Open this year is he the best player in the game? I don't think so, just that he played the best at the last two Slams.

This is why the #1 ranking IS quite meaningful - it represents performance over the past calendar year. Andy Murray has been great over the last year, but not as good as Djokovic and just a hair behind Nadal. That's what the rankings tell us. Of course what they don't tell us is that Nadal has played on two of the last four Slams, Andy three of the last four, and Novak (and Roger) all four - which tempers Novak's lead because its at least partially due to partaking in all four Slams.

But again my question, which no one answers, and I thought you were the guy: the #1 ranking isn't a representation of the calendar year, isn't that right? There is no "calendar year" for the rolling ranking, or am I wrong...is there a separate calculation for the calendar year?

End of Year #1 is simply the guy sitting at the top of the rolling year at that point in time - just like a number #1 at any other point. Same formula.

Well, that's what I understand. So, if Djokovic spends nearly all of 2013 at #1, and Nadal skips past him at the last moment to end the year at #1, he gets some gold star because getting the #1 happened by December? I'm cool with the idea that Nadal has had a great year, but I don't see negating the fact that Djokovic would have been the guy who spent the majority of 2013 at #1. When both Rafa and Nole first raised themselves to #1 it was in the summer of their respective years. That was the achievement, IMO.

But with the way the ranking system works, whoever finishes number 1 at the end of year is USUALLY an indication as to who has had the best year. Djokovic spending most of 2013 as world number 1 is in large part due to his results last year. He's amassed so many points that it's going to take an amazing year by someone else to dethrone him. If Nadal is able to do that at the end of the year, it would be a reflection on the fact that he's had the best year out of anyone, more so than Novak spending the year as world number 1.

In a nutshell.

 

[August]

If we compare #1 ranking and winning slams, I think they complement each other. #1 ranking shows you can play excellent tennis for a year and succeed on multiple surfaces. But reaching #1 ranking doesn't require similar mental abiliies as winning slams. I think Dinara Safina was a deserved WTA #1 but she just couldn't win GS finals even though she was three times in final. She just lacked that something that it takes to win a slam.

Winning a slam shows you can in theory beat anybody. On the other hand, you may have an easy draw and your opponents take out the most challenging player, like in Bartoli's case. Also a GS champ may not have the abilities to succeed on a constant basis what it takes to reach #1. And you can win a slam with mastering only one surface, you need to have success on multiple surfaces to reach #1.

Murray has been mentioned in this topic. I think he still needs to prove he's an all-rounder. To prove that, I think he needs to make at least the RG final or win a clay Masters. Or to become the #1, that shows he can compensate his paar clay performances with great results on HCs and grass.

 

[Mog]

Insert "this year."

I agree, of course, but these things change and a single tournament can shift things. For instance, if Andy wins the US Open this year is he the best player in the game? I don't think so, just that he played the best at the last two Slams.

This is why the #1 ranking IS quite meaningful - it represents performance over the past calendar year. Andy Murray has been great over the last year, but not as good as Djokovic and just a hair behind Nadal. That's what the rankings tell us. Of course what they don't tell us is that Nadal has played on two of the last four Slams, Andy three of the last four, and Novak (and Roger) all four - which tempers Novak's lead because its at least partially due to partaking in all four Slams.

But again my question, which no one answers, and I thought you were the guy: the #1 ranking isn't a representation of the calendar year, isn't that right? There is no "calendar year" for the rolling ranking, or am I wrong...is there a separate calculation for the calendar year?

End of Year #1 is simply the guy sitting at the top of the rolling year at that point in time - just like a number #1 at any other point. Same formula.

Well, that's what I understand. So, if Djokovic spends nearly all of 2013 at #1, and Nadal skips past him at the last moment to end the year at #1, he gets some gold star because getting the #1 happened by December? I'm cool with the idea that Nadal has had a great year, but I don't see negating the fact that Djokovic would have been the guy who spent the majority of 2013 at #1. When both Rafa and Nole first raised themselves to #1 it was in the summer of their respective years. That was the achievement, IMO.

But with the way the ranking system works, whoever finishes number 1 at the end of year is USUALLY an indication as to who has had the best year. Djokovic spending most of 2013 as world number 1 is in large part due to his results last year. He's amassed so many points that it's going to take an amazing year by someone else to dethrone him. If Nadal is able to do that at the end of the year, it would be a reflection on the fact that he's had the best year out of anyone, more so than Novak spending the year as world number 1.

Exactly broken.
The year end at #1 reflects that who is the best player during that year. If Djoko spends most of the year at #1 and Nadal gets to #1 at the end of the year, that means he has performed the best for that year and he is the #1 player for that year. It is an acculmulative performance during that year that counts.