The Rankings Thread (ATP)

[brokenshoelace]

I might be the only Nadal fan who genuinely doesn't care about the number 1 ranking.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

I might be the only Nadal fan who genuinely doesn't care about the number 1 ranking.

Why not BS? It is an amazing achievement...When you look at the number of "number 1s" since the current system was introduced, it is way less than the number of slam winners. That means you were the most consistent player in that year. When you win a slam , it only means you were the best player for that 2 weeks.

I am just saying you should be proud of your boy...he kicked serious butt this year.:clap

 

[brokenshoelace]

I might be the only Nadal fan who genuinely doesn't care about the number 1 ranking.

Why not BS? It is an amazing achievement...When you look at the number of "number 1s" since the current system was introduced, it is way less than the number of slam winners. That means you were the most consistent player in that year. When you win a slam , it only means you were the best player for that 2 weeks.

I am just saying you should be proud of your boy...he kicked serious butt this year.:clap

Well obviously, when I say "don't care" I don't literally mean that I couldn't give a rat's behind. However, at this point in Nadal's career, I honestly only care about Grand Slams and to a lesser extent, Masters 1000 events. From my perspective, he's gotten the number 1 ranking before on two occasions, and occupied it for a while. I've had my satisfaction from that. To be clear, I'm not saying Nadal needs to adopt this attitude, I'm just saying that's how I feel.

Yes, as you said, the number 1 ranking is a reflection of tournament results. But the thing is, at this point, I don't look at the number 1 ranking as a destination as far as Nadal is concerned. I just look at it as a consequence. So I get far more joy out of the results, whereas I just look at the number 1 ranking as the result of winning so much.

In other words, let's say Nadal had lost to Berdych and Wawrinka and lost the ranking. It really wouldn't have made a huge difference to me (outside of the fact that I'd be bummed he didn't qualify to the semis), because he's still the best player this year based on results in my mind. I just don't think whether he's the best player or not is determined by whether he can beat Berdych and Wawrinka. That was determined after he won the US Open. And I got my satisfaction off of that.

 

[Front242]

Fully deserved year end number 1 for Nadal although I kinda wish it wasn't locked up so soon. Would've imo been much more exciting to see him dead even with Djokovic, with Novak then under extreme pressure to not lose a match, win the WTF and the DC matches. The pressure would've been immense and would've been interesting to see how he handled it.

I actually think Novak may settle down and swing a bit more freely now knowing he's playing for just the title defense here now and nothing more and in doing so, boost his confidence going into the AO.

I think it would have been more fun to keep Nadal and his fans in agony for a little while longer knowing that it was no longer in their hands :snigger but it was a long shot anyway.

I like (in a Borat voice)

 

[Didi]

So, for the 10th straight season starting with 2004, one of Federer, Nadal or Djokovic finishes the year as the world#1 and ever since 2005 and thus already 9 straight seasons, at least two of these three finished inside the top 2. Frightening stuff. It's now up to Murray to take this group over the legendary Connors-Borg-Mac-Lendl barbershop quartet who still hold the record with a whopping 14 straight seasons at the top of the game.

 

[Kieran]

That's interesting, Didi, can't imagine the current crop getting another five seasons like that...

 

[GameSetAndMath]

So, for the 10th straight season starting with 2004, one of Federer, Nadal or Djokovic finishes the year as the world#1 and ever since 2005 and thus already 9 straight seasons, at least two of these three finished inside the top 2. Frightening stuff. It's now up to Murray to take this group over the legendary Connors-Borg-Mac-Lendl barbershop quartet who still hold the record with a whopping 14 straight seasons at the top of the game.

I guess it would be very difficult for more than two of them to finish inside top 2.

 

[Denis]

So, for the 10th straight season starting with 2004, one of Federer, Nadal or Djokovic finishes the year as the world#1 and ever since 2005 and thus already 9 straight seasons, at least two of these three finished inside the top 2. Frightening stuff. It's now up to Murray to take this group over the legendary Connors-Borg-Mac-Lendl barbershop quartet who still hold the record with a whopping 14 straight seasons at the top of the game.

I guess it would be very difficult for more than two of them to finish inside top 2.

Didi's point is that no-one else outside these three has been in the top 2 at the end of the year for the last 9 seasons...

 

[GameSetAndMath]

So, for the 10th straight season starting with 2004, one of Federer, Nadal or Djokovic finishes the year as the world#1 and ever since 2005 and thus already 9 straight seasons, at least two of these three finished inside the top 2. Frightening stuff. It's now up to Murray to take this group over the legendary Connors-Borg-Mac-Lendl barbershop quartet who still hold the record with a whopping 14 straight seasons at the top of the game.

I guess it would be very difficult for more than two of them to finish inside top 2.

Didi's point is that no-one else outside these three has been in the top 2 at the end of the year for the last 9 seasons...

I know his point; I was just pulling a prank.

 

[Moxie]

I might be the only Nadal fan who genuinely doesn't care about the number 1 ranking.

Why not BS? It is an amazing achievement...When you look at the number of "number 1s" since the current system was introduced, it is way less than the number of slam winners. That means you were the most consistent player in that year. When you win a slam , it only means you were the best player for that 2 weeks.

I am just saying you should be proud of your boy...he kicked serious butt this year.:clap

Well obviously, when I say "don't care" I don't literally mean that I couldn't give a rat's behind. However, at this point in Nadal's career, I honestly only care about Grand Slams and to a lesser extent, Masters 1000 events. From my perspective, he's gotten the number 1 ranking before on two occasions, and occupied it for a while. I've had my satisfaction from that. To be clear, I'm not saying Nadal needs to adopt this attitude, I'm just saying that's how I feel.

Yes, as you said, the number 1 ranking is a reflection of tournament results. But the thing is, at this point, I don't look at the number 1 ranking as a destination as far as Nadal is concerned. I just look at it as a consequence. So I get far more joy out of the results, whereas I just look at the number 1 ranking as the result of winning so much.

In other words, let's say Nadal had lost to Berdych and Wawrinka and lost the ranking. It really wouldn't have made a huge difference to me (outside of the fact that I'd be bummed he didn't qualify to the semis), because he's still the best player this year based on results in my mind. I just don't think whether he's the best player or not is determined by whether he can beat Berdych and Wawrinka. That was determined after he won the US Open. And I got my satisfaction off of that.

I really don't think you're the only Nadal fan who feels this way. We basically take a lead from Rafa, which is that the ranking doesn't matter, results do. Except that, when the ranking was assured, even Rafa admitted to being pleased. Because, he said, at this point, he felt he deserved it. And so do we, and celebrate that, which, as you say, is results-driven.

For me, the only reason I cared about him getting back to #1 was to see if he could pass Borg in the weeks at #1. (Borg had 109, and Rafa is guaranteed to pass him now.) The next on the list is McEnroe at 170, which I think is a lot, and I don't so much care.

The one thing I don't get is the importance of the year-end #1. I'm pleased for all of this hoopla that Rafa has regained it, again, but, since the rankings points are a rolling 52-weeks, why does hitting at the end of the year matter, especially?

 

[El Dude]

Rafa's Year-end #1 Ranking

An interesting note. In 41 years of ATP rankings, Rafa is the fourth oldest player to finish the year at #1. Here's the "27+ club":

1989 – Ivan Lendl, 29 yrs, 9 mo
1999 – Andre Agassi – 29 yrs, 8 mo
2009 – Roger Federer – 28 yrs, 4 mo
2013 – Rafael Nadal, 27 yrs, 7 mo
1998 – Pete Sampras, 27 yrs, 4 mo
1987 – Ivan Lendl, 27 yrs, 8 mo


As you can see, he'd have to finish 2014 at #1 to surpass Federer, but then he'd have to finish 2016 to surpass Agassi and Lendl - a tall order, especially considering that he'd have to be the first 30+ year old.

Now of course Rod Laver was the #1 player in 1969, but that was before the ATP system.

 

[Moxie]

Steve Tignor weighed in on the idea of the year-end #1, too. I agree with him…here.

"With Rafa clinching the year-end No. 1 this week, it made me wonder how much that’s worth. Isn’t weeks at No. 1 more important? You can be a year-end No. 1 just because you happen to be No. 1 for a few weeks right at that time of year.—Barbara

Hmmm, I know I’m paranoid, but do I detect a new battlefield for the Federer-Nadal wars being staked out here? Nadal did clinch his third year-end No. 1 spot today, but as you may know, Federer is the all-time leader on the men’s side in weeks at No. 1, with 302, while Rafa is still back at 115. Of course, Federer is also ahead of Rafa on the year-end list; he’s finished there five times, tying him with Jimmy Connors for second all time, one behind Pete Sampras.

This could be a Fedal battle for the future, but for now I’ll come back to your direct question. It’s true that with the weekly rolling ranking system, being No. 1 on November 15 isn’t any more or less difficult than being No. 1 on, say, July 4. In both cases, results go back 12 months. Jelena Jankovic became No. 1 on October 6, 2008, and lost that spot, for good, on February 2, 2009. Yet she’s still considered a year-end WTA No. 1. That said, there are reasons why the accomplishment usually has a special meaning.

The most important is that the players care about being the year-end top spot. During his prime, Federer would begin his season with two goals: Win Wimbledon and finish No. 1. This gave him a short-term and a long-term focus, and I think it helped with his consistency by keeping him from getting too focused on the week-to-week results (not that he had many bad results to focus on in those days). Before Federer, Pete Sampras made a special effort at the end of 1998 to make sure he became the year-end champ for a record sixth straight time.

Second, there aren’t any fluke No. 1s these days, especially on the men’s side. In the past, players like Carlos Moya or Pat Rafter could ascend to the position for a brief time. Not anymore: Nobody besides Federer, Djokovic, or Nadal has been No. 1 for 10 years, and all three have been there for at least 100 weeks. You certainly can't say that Nadal didn’t deserve the honor in 2013. He took over No. 1 in the ATP race in May. The fact that Djokovic made such a great, late run to try to catch him only shows that finishing a season at the top means something to these guys.

One more point. To me, the existence of the year-end No. 1 was another argument for shortening the schedule. The more we can see the tour as consisting of individual seasons, rather than just as an endless series of events with no breaks, the more valuable the year-end No. 1 position becomes. If each year is distinct, being the “champion” of those 12 months becomes a more meaningful accomplishment. I think today’s slightly shorter schedule does make a difference in that regard—it certainly beats the days when the World Tour Finals was played the following January."

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I might be the only Nadal fan who genuinely doesn't care about the number 1 ranking.

Why not BS? It is an amazing achievement...When you look at the number of "number 1s" since the current system was introduced, it is way less than the number of slam winners. That means you were the most consistent player in that year. When you win a slam , it only means you were the best player for that 2 weeks.

I am just saying you should be proud of your boy...he kicked serious butt this year.:clap

Well obviously, when I say "don't care" I don't literally mean that I couldn't give a rat's behind. However, at this point in Nadal's career, I honestly only care about Grand Slams and to a lesser extent, Masters 1000 events. From my perspective, he's gotten the number 1 ranking before on two occasions, and occupied it for a while. I've had my satisfaction from that. To be clear, I'm not saying Nadal needs to adopt this attitude, I'm just saying that's how I feel.

Yes, as you said, the number 1 ranking is a reflection of tournament results. But the thing is, at this point, I don't look at the number 1 ranking as a destination as far as Nadal is concerned. I just look at it as a consequence. So I get far more joy out of the results, whereas I just look at the number 1 ranking as the result of winning so much.

In other words, let's say Nadal had lost to Berdych and Wawrinka and lost the ranking. It really wouldn't have made a huge difference to me (outside of the fact that I'd be bummed he didn't qualify to the semis), because he's still the best player this year based on results in my mind. I just don't think whether he's the best player or not is determined by whether he can beat Berdych and Wawrinka. That was determined after he won the US Open. And I got my satisfaction off of that.

I really don't think you're the only Nadal fan who feels this way. We basically take a lead from Rafa, which is that the ranking doesn't matter, results do. Except that, when the ranking was assured, even Rafa admitted to being pleased. Because, he said, at this point, he felt he deserved it. And so do we, and celebrate that, which, as you say, is results-driven.

For me, the only reason I cared about him getting back to #1 was to see if he could pass Borg in the weeks at #1. (Borg had 109, and Rafa is guaranteed to pass him now.) The next on the list is McEnroe at 170, which I think is a lot, and I don't so much care.

The one thing I don't get is the importance of the year-end #1. I'm pleased for all of this hoopla that Rafa has regained it, again, but, since the rankings points are a rolling 52-weeks, why does hitting at the end of the year matter, especially?

The primary reason for that is that players make this as a goal and are interested in
finishing year end #1. Hence, a competition for that develops (recall that Djokovic said
he is going to fight for YE#1 vigorously even after USO loss and he did give a good fight)
and so it becomes important.

Do you know of any player who sets a goal for themselves that I want be #1 on
March 15th. Even if you know of such a player, do you know of another player who
would say, I am going to try hard to prevent the first player from becoming #1 on
March 15th.

That is the reason for importance.

Having said that, I would admit that number of weeks at #1 is more important
than YE #1 stat.

Here is the final point. Even if you are primarily interested in number of weeks
at #1, YE #1 becomes important as it gets you a FREE 7 to 10 weeks at #1 as
if you are year end #1, you get to keep it all through off season.

 

[Moxie]

RE: Rafa's Year-end #1 Ranking

I have been making an argument against the overall importance of the year-end #1 ranking on the "Rankings" thread. Didn't realized you'd started this one, Dude, so I don't want to repeat myself, but I still do wonder if it actually matters.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

RE: Rafa's Year-end #1 Ranking

I have been making an argument against the overall importance of the year-end #1 ranking on the "Rankings" thread. Didn't realized you'd started this one, Dude, so I don't want to repeat myself, but I still do wonder if it actually matters.

See my reply to your contention in the other thread.

 

[Moxie]

I might be the only Nadal fan who genuinely doesn't care about the number 1 ranking.

Why not BS? It is an amazing achievement...When you look at the number of "number 1s" since the current system was introduced, it is way less than the number of slam winners. That means you were the most consistent player in that year. When you win a slam , it only means you were the best player for that 2 weeks.

I am just saying you should be proud of your boy...he kicked serious butt this year.:clap

Well obviously, when I say "don't care" I don't literally mean that I couldn't give a rat's behind. However, at this point in Nadal's career, I honestly only care about Grand Slams and to a lesser extent, Masters 1000 events. From my perspective, he's gotten the number 1 ranking before on two occasions, and occupied it for a while. I've had my satisfaction from that. To be clear, I'm not saying Nadal needs to adopt this attitude, I'm just saying that's how I feel.

Yes, as you said, the number 1 ranking is a reflection of tournament results. But the thing is, at this point, I don't look at the number 1 ranking as a destination as far as Nadal is concerned. I just look at it as a consequence. So I get far more joy out of the results, whereas I just look at the number 1 ranking as the result of winning so much.

In other words, let's say Nadal had lost to Berdych and Wawrinka and lost the ranking. It really wouldn't have made a huge difference to me (outside of the fact that I'd be bummed he didn't qualify to the semis), because he's still the best player this year based on results in my mind. I just don't think whether he's the best player or not is determined by whether he can beat Berdych and Wawrinka. That was determined after he won the US Open. And I got my satisfaction off of that.

I really don't think you're the only Nadal fan who feels this way. We basically take a lead from Rafa, which is that the ranking doesn't matter, results do. Except that, when the ranking was assured, even Rafa admitted to being pleased. Because, he said, at this point, he felt he deserved it. And so do we, and celebrate that, which, as you say, is results-driven.

For me, the only reason I cared about him getting back to #1 was to see if he could pass Borg in the weeks at #1. (Borg had 109, and Rafa is guaranteed to pass him now.) The next on the list is McEnroe at 170, which I think is a lot, and I don't so much care.

The one thing I don't get is the importance of the year-end #1. I'm pleased for all of this hoopla that Rafa has regained it, again, but, since the rankings points are a rolling 52-weeks, why does hitting at the end of the year matter, especially?

The primary reason for that is that players make this as a goal and are interested in
finishing year end #1. Hence, a competition for that develops (recall that Djokovic said
he is going to fight for YE#1 vigorously even after USO loss and he did give a good fight)
and so it becomes important.

Do you know of any player who sets a goal for themselves that I want be #1 on
March 15th. Even if you know of such a player, do you know of another player who
would say, I am going to try hard to prevent the first player from becoming #1 on
March 15th.

That is the reason for importance.

Having said that, I would admit that number of weeks at #1 is more important
than YE #1 stat.

Here is the final point. Even if you are primarily interested in number of weeks
at #1, YE #1 becomes important as it gets you a FREE 7 to 10 weeks at #1 as
if you are year end #1, you get to keep it all through off season.

You make the same point as Tignor, i.e., that the players value it, and I can go with that. Also the point of the bonus weeks (accumulated in the off-season,) which I get, but that's just gravy. I can see also that they make a race to the finish, which is compelling, but, realistically, I find it way down on the list accomplishments, if you take my point.

 

[Moxie]

RE: Rafa's Year-end #1 Ranking

I hope El Dude doesn't mind, but I'll combine this into the Rankings thread, so we can keep having the one conversation.

 

[tented]

I might be the only Nadal fan who genuinely doesn't care about the number 1 ranking.

I posted the same sentiment a few days ago.

 

[El Dude]

While I agree that other accomplishments - namely total Grand Slams and weeks at #1 - are more important than year-end #1s, to say that it doesn't matter, or that any date will do, could be applied to diminishng the calendar Grand Slam, which many regard as the the holy grail of tennis accomplishments.

Why? Because you could win four Slams in a row and it would effectively be the same level of accomplishment. But for whatever reason, more value is put on four in the same calendar year.

Tennis isn't the same as team sports in terms of the importance of the season, but the season DOES matter to some degree. Players care about being #1 on November 15th more than November 1st. I mean, it makes their Wikipedia pages look cooler .

 

[Moxie]

An interesting note. In 41 years of ATP rankings, Rafa is the fourth oldest player to finish the year at #1. Here's the "27+ club":

1989 – Ivan Lendl, 29 yrs, 9 mo
1999 – Andre Agassi – 29 yrs, 8 mo
2009 – Roger Federer – 28 yrs, 4 mo
2013 – Rafael Nadal, 27 yrs, 7 mo
1998 – Pete Sampras, 27 yrs, 4 mo
1987 – Ivan Lendl, 27 yrs, 8 mo


As you can see, he'd have to finish 2014 at #1 to surpass Federer, but then he'd have to finish 2016 to surpass Agassi and Lendl - a tall order, especially considering that he'd have to be the first 30+ year old.

Now of course Rod Laver was the #1 player in 1969, but that was before the ATP system.

El Dude, I merged your thread into this one, since we were having a conversation across threads. I quote you so that it doesn't get lost.