4 years and running as nr1, will he beat Sampras´ 6 years? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

4 years and running as nr1, will he beat Sampras´ 6 years?

marcRD
10-28-2007, 06:00 PM
Well, what do you think? Will he match Sampras "impossible" record and maybe even pass it?

It would surely be the last record you could think of anyone passing, another scenario which is more unlikely is matching Pancho Gonalez 8 years of domiantion in the pro tour in the 50s. Personaly I see Federer dominating for exactly 4 more years, enought to equal Gonzalez domination, but some think he is already declining and if this would be the case he should only have 1-2 years left as nr1. Personaly I cant see the decline, my personal belief is that we may even not have seen his peak yet.

PS: I am talking about ending each year as nr1 and not if he can keep the consecutive weeks as nr1.

CmonAussie
10-28-2007, 06:16 PM
FED`s peak was 2006
**
Roger should have finished 2003 as #1, then he`d be @ 5-years straight YE #1 already.
He`s going to focus more & more on slam wins only [you could already see that this year].
Expect FED to be less dominant overall but he`ll still win the majority of slams for the next 2 years!

My answer is: he`ll be lucky to equal it, but unlikely to break it.
Anyway>>> more importantly FED will blow Pete`s slam record away maybe even next year<:)

marcRD
10-28-2007, 06:20 PM
His results were obviously better 2006 than 2007, which means it is so far his peak year. However, he has proven all talk about a decline not to be true, winning even more points than last year after Rome and 8 straight finals losing only to great opponents (Nadal on clay and redhot Djokovic and Nalbandian on hardcourt).

stebs
10-28-2007, 06:23 PM
No more years - 30%
Reach 5 years - 50%
Equal the record - 12.5%
Beat the record - 5%
8 or more years - 2.5%

tennis2tennis
10-28-2007, 06:25 PM
please note that roger's ranking is consecutive he's the record holder with connors second///roger can have a stinker of a season,as sampras did winning 1 or 2 slams and still walk away with the year ending no#1 as Sampras had done....so yeah he can have 6 year ending's no 1

belco
10-28-2007, 06:28 PM
:)

marcRD
10-28-2007, 06:33 PM
No more years - 30%
Reach 5 years - 50%
Equal the record - 12.5%
Beat the record - 5%
8 or more years - 2.5%

That doesnt make much sense to me as Federers gap down to nr2 is big and Nadal has proven to have limitations when it comes to gaining points away from the clay season. If Federer ever would feel threatened he could play some more minor tournaments to secure his nr1 spot, Sampras was nr1 with a really small gap down to the nr2 and always found a way to end nr1, Federer is still dominating this year as Sampras never did even during his best years, he is nowhere close to losing his spot anytime soon, certanly not next year, if the gap down to nr2 ould be around 500-1000 then your odds would be correct.

FedererSlam
10-28-2007, 06:37 PM
yeh maybe he wont spend over 6 years consecutive as no.1 but I definitely think he can finish YE #1 like sampras did with good finishes!

MisterQ
10-28-2007, 06:41 PM
Roger should have finished 2003 as #1, then he`d be @ 5-years straight YE #1 already.


I find this hard to back up, since Roddick had a stellar year in 2003 (outside of the clay season :lol: ). Andy performed better overall than Roger in the slams; Andy also won 2 TMS titles, while Federer won zero. Federer's performance at the final Masters Cup was out of this world, and there's no question he was the best in the world that week -- but Roddick outperformed him earlier in the year.

As for the question at hand, I certainly believe Federer could pull off 2 or 3 more years ending as No. 1. But will he be able to continue this streak of consecutive weeks at No. 1? (one of his most astonishing accomplishments, imo)

MatchFederer
10-28-2007, 06:45 PM
No more years - 30%
Reach 5 years - 50%
Equal the record - 12.5%
Beat the record - 5%
8 or more years - 2.5%

Interesting.

No more years - 10%
Reach 5 years - 30%
Equal the record - 40%
Beat the record - 15%
8 or more years - 5%

LinkMage
10-28-2007, 06:50 PM
Too bad his only loss to Robo Rod costed him the #1 in 2003. If he had finished #1 in 2003 he would have had a real chance of surpassing Sampras' record of 6 straight years ending #1. I don't see Fed finishing #1 in 2010. I'm not even sure he'll tie the record. IMO next year will be his last as #1.

marcRD
10-28-2007, 06:53 PM
Most will think this is too optimistic, but I really am trying to look beyond what would be normal with Roger, because his domination during his peak has been totaly abnormal and so I would think his domination after his peak will still be good enought (winning 1-2 slams/year) to end nr1.

No more years 7%
Reach 5 years 10%
Equal the record 20%
Beat the record - 20%
8 years - 25%
9 years - 12%
10 or more years -6%

Ok, this may sound absurd to most of you, but whoever would predict that Federer would win 11 slams between 2004-2007 would surely sound like a madman to you, right? Why would you still feel like predicting Federers future like his domination was at Sampras or Lendls level?

I tell you this, Federer right now is playing much better tennis than Sampras was playing at Federers age or even during his best year (94). So if he declines like Sampras, he would still prob equal Sampras record. On the other hand, Sampras looked much older on the court when he was the same age as Federer, I personaly think that Federer will be aging wont be as hard on his body like Sampras.

Bilbo
10-28-2007, 06:54 PM
the answer you are searching for is YES

Merton
10-28-2007, 07:08 PM
This is one of the most overrated records ever, I always failed to understand what is so special about year-end #1. This is really no different than any other week as #1, the record that matters imo is # of weeks as #1 rated player, barring injuries Roger has very good chances of making that.

kokket
10-28-2007, 07:32 PM
This is one of the most overrated records ever, I always failed to understand what is so special about year-end #1. This is really no different than any other week as #1, the record that matters imo is # of weeks as #1 rated player, barring injuries Roger has very good chances of making that.

yep
who cares who end as no. 1?

Total Weeks at number 1
1. Pete Sampras 286
2. Ivan Lendl 270
3. Jimmy Connors 268
4. Roger Federer 196

and

Consecutive Weeks at number 1
1. Roger Federer 196
2. Jimmy Connors 160
3. Ivan Lendl 157
4. Pete Sampras 102

are perhaps "important"

everybody knows that the GS record is THE Tennis record ;)

R.Federer
10-28-2007, 09:47 PM
Too bad his only loss to Robo Rod costed him the #1 in 2003. If he had finished #1 in 2003 he would have had a real chance of surpassing Sampras' record of 6 straight years ending #1. I don't see Fed finishing #1 in 2010. I'm not even sure he'll tie the record. IMO next year will be his last as #1.
If you feel that beating Andy was enough to give him a chance of surpassing Sampras (ie, he would win more than 6) then without that he should at least match Sampras. How can you then say that he will not even 6 (ie, tie the record) without that one year?

NYCtennisfan
10-28-2007, 11:38 PM
Total weeks and #1 and consecutive weeks at #1 are more important. Even if Fed doesn't get the total weeks at #1 mark, but he does get something like 240 in a row, that would be good enough.

He was one match away from probably (changing of results in these particular outcomes could change outcomes later since different things are on the line) ending 2003 #1. A win against Andy in Canada with a break in the third, Nalbandian winning against Roddick at the USO, beating JCF in Madrid, and so on.

Sjengster
10-28-2007, 11:43 PM
Regarding 2003, it was basically his inability to beat Nalbandian that made sure he wouldn't end the year no. 1 - two 4th round defeats at the AO and USO, after which he would have had winnable QF matches to get to a last four meeting with Roddick in both cases. One can't deny looking at their results that year that Roddick totally deserved the top ranking with superior Slam and Masters results. Ferrero was far superior to Federer in those departments as well, it was only because he had such a bad ending to the year that he finished no. 3 in the world.

R.Federer
10-29-2007, 01:25 AM
Regarding 2003, it was basically his inability to beat Nalbandian that made sure he wouldn't end the year no. 1 - two 4th round defeats at the AO and USO, after which he would have had winnable QF matches to get to a last four meeting with Roddick in both cases.

It's hard to attribute to just that. For instance, maintaining the same losses to David Nalbandian in the slams but going one step further in Canada/Cincy whichever it was would have been enough. So you could just as well attribute it to Roddick -- and that would be somewhat more fitting because that's the guy who took the No.1 home that year instead of him.

marcRD
10-29-2007, 01:42 AM
It's hard to attribute to just that. For instance, maintaining the same losses to David Nalbandian in the slams but going one step further in Canada/Cincy whichever it was would have been enough. So you could just as well attribute it to Roddick -- and that would be somewhat more fitting because that's the guy who took the No.1 home that year instead of him.

Well it was Nalby who took him out in Cincy too and in Basel!

So it is fair to blame Nalby for taking away the nr1 title from Federer.

Roddick just won a slump match against Federer, he hardly was in his way to win anything important that year.

Marek.
10-29-2007, 01:52 AM
He probably won't beat it but who cares? The three number one ranking records, in order of importance are, in my opinion:

1) Total weeks at number one
2) Consecutive weeks at number one
3) Year end number one

I really don't see what's so special about ending the year number one. There have been a few instances where that player wasn't the best player that year anyway. :shrug:

Sjengster
10-29-2007, 02:15 AM
It's hard to attribute to just that. For instance, maintaining the same losses to David Nalbandian in the slams but going one step further in Canada/Cincy whichever it was would have been enough. So you could just as well attribute it to Roddick -- and that would be somewhat more fitting because that's the guy who took the No.1 home that year instead of him.

He would have got to no. 1 by beating Roddick, yes, but would almost certainly have lost the top spot again before the end of the year. You know who was waiting in the Montreal final had he got there.... It certainly wouldn't have been deserved, with only one Slam QF to his name, it just goes to show how well he did in the optionals that year.

R.Federer
10-29-2007, 04:58 AM
He would have got to no. 1 by beating Roddick, yes, but would almost certainly have lost the top spot again before the end of the year. You know who was waiting in the Montreal final had he got there.... It certainly wouldn't have been deserved, with only one Slam QF to his name, it just goes to show how well he did in the optionals that year.
Who Roger? He won Wimbledon that year, that's more than one slam QF. Or are you talking about Nalbandian? Well he had more than a slam QF too

Not clear....

ufokart
10-29-2007, 05:22 AM
Who Roger? He won Wimbledon that year, that's more than one slam QF. Or are you talking about Nalbandian? Well he had more than a slam QF too

Not clear....

I think Sjengster means that Federer only reached the QF of a slam once that year :shrug: (and it was in the Wimbledon he won). He lost in the 4th round of both the Australian open and US open and lost in the 1st round of Roland Garros.

R.Federer
10-29-2007, 06:26 AM
He would have got to no. 1 by beating Roddick, yes, but would almost certainly have lost the top spot again before the end of the year. You know who was waiting in the Montreal final had he got there.... It certainly wouldn't have been deserved, with only one Slam QF to his name, it just goes to show how well he did in the optionals that year.

I think Sjengster means that Federer only reached the QF of a slam once that year :shrug: (and it was in the Wimbledon he won). He lost in the 4th round of both the Australian open and US open and lost in the 1st round of Roland Garros.

Thanks ufo.

Sjengster, I meant that if everything else was equal but Federer won that last set in Cincy against Roddick, he would have finished No.1. Slams are not everything, but yes they are a big deal and so they're given about double the weight in the seedings. Performing very well in the optionals is an alternate way to reach No.1 and cannot be dismissed as "not being deserved" -- I mean, he was a few points from achieving exactly that, and if the points add up how is it undeserved.

Sjengster
10-29-2007, 06:28 AM
Yes, that is what I meant. Compared to Roddick making semis at three of the four Slams with one title, and Ferrero's year being QF, W, R16, F - better on every count.

Sjengster
10-29-2007, 06:30 AM
Thanks ufo.

Sjengster, I meant that if everything else was equal but Federer won that last set in Cincy against Roddick, he would have finished No.1. Slams are not everything, but yes they are a big deal and so they're given about double the weight in the seedings. Performing very well in the optionals is an alternate way to reach No.1 and cannot be dismissed as "not being deserved" -- I mean, he was a few points from achieving exactly that, and if the points add up how is it undeserved.

Well it would have felt hollow to me, let's put it that way. :p I think it was a good thing that he was virtually out of the race for no. 1 going into Houston that year, so while Roddick and Ferrero had that issue hanging over their heads he was able to simply concentrate on winning the tournament. He still hasn't had to battle for the no. 1 ranking at the YEC of course, this year was the closest finish so far.

LeChuck
10-29-2007, 01:27 PM
Ferrero had the best grand slam record in 2003, compiling a 20-3 win-loss record at the slams compared to Roddick's 17-3 and Federer's 13-3. Federer won the Masters Cup and 0 TMS events, while Roddick and Ferrero each won 2 TMS titles. There's no doubt that the Masters Cup title outweighs 1 TMS title, but does it outweigh 2? I would say no but that is very debatable. Ferrero was generally more consistent than Federer and Roddick during the course of the season and had no 1st round defeats. However the main strike against Ferrero was that he trailed Federer and Roddick in the title count that year, and IMO anything less than 5 titles isn't a lot for a year end no.1 hopeful (for instance I've always thought of Sampras being a very weak year end no. 1 in 1998 when he won 4 titles that year).
I'm not an Agassi fan at all, but it could be said that had he won his TMC final against Federer (although he was comprehensively thrashed), that he would have a very strong case to be regarded as the best player in 2003 regardless of what the ranking computer said.

Fedex
10-29-2007, 08:36 PM
I don't think he will break Sampras' record, but the consecutive weeks at number one is a more important record in my opinion.

Pigpen Stinks
10-29-2007, 09:17 PM
This is one of the most overrated records ever, I always failed to understand what is so special about year-end #1. This is really no different than any other week as #1, the record that matters imo is # of weeks as #1 rated player, barring injuries Roger has very good chances of making that.

I'll disagree with you and others on this one, Mert. I think for most of the players finishing the calendar year as world #1 is a very big deal. We saw how much it meant to Sampras. Obviously the Slams are the biggest, but I think a lot of the players view ending the year with the number 1 ranking as a kind of crowning achievement for the season, Masters Cup aside.

rwn
10-29-2007, 09:24 PM
I'll disagree with you and others on this one, Mert. I think for most of the players finishing the calendar year as world #1 is a very big deal. We saw how much it meant to Sampras. Obviously the Slams are the biggest, but I think a lot of the players view ending the year with the number 1 ranking as a kind of crowning achievement for the season, Masters Cup aside.

Sampras hyped that up in a very smart way. It doesn't really mean much. For instance: Borg was twice YE #1, Connors 5 times. Who is the greater player ??

LeChuck
10-29-2007, 09:27 PM
Out of the 3 major ranking records, 'total no. of weeks spent as world no. 1' is the most important one IMO. I've always regarded Sampras's 286 weeks as world no. 1 as a far more important record than his 6 years ended in top spot.

rofe
10-29-2007, 09:56 PM
Out of the 3 major ranking records, 'total no. of weeks spent as world no. 1' is the most important one IMO. I've always regarded Sampras's 286 weeks as world no. 1 as a far more important record than his 6 years ended in top spot.

I don't know what you mean - those 286 were not consecutive. Fed holds that record and it is just as impressive as Sampras' 286 weeks as #1.

R.Federer
10-29-2007, 10:02 PM
Out of the 3 major ranking records, 'total no. of weeks spent as world no. 1' is the most important one IMO. I've always regarded Sampras's 286 weeks as world no. 1 as a far more important record than his 6 years ended in top spot.

I don't know what you mean - those 286 were not consecutive. Fed holds that record and it is just as impressive as Sampras' 286 weeks as #1.

I think LeChuck is comparing two of Sampras's own records and stating that he feels Sampras's 286 weeks record is more impressive than Sampras's 6 year one :shrug:

LeChuck
10-29-2007, 10:08 PM
I think LeChuck is comparing two of Sampras's own records and stating that he feels Sampras's 286 weeks record is more impressive than Sampras's 6 year one :shrug:

Correct.

I have also always considered 'most no. of weeks as world no.1' to be a more important record than 'most consecutive weeks as world no.1', but maybe I'm in the minority there, I'm not sure.

R.Federer
10-29-2007, 10:20 PM
I have also always considered 'most no. of weeks as world no.1' to be a more important record than 'most consecutive weeks as world no.1', but maybe I'm in the minority there, I'm not sure.

People may be divided 50% on this. Most consecutive weeks to me is a great sign of longevity during a dominant run and most total number of weeks has greater consistency with higher volatility. I think they are different kind of great things.
Similarly, youngest at YE No.1 is important in its own way (Hewitt)

World Beater
10-29-2007, 10:23 PM
most consecutive weeks is a better indicator of dominance and peak level.

total # of weeks indicates longevity and ability to play through possibly different generations/ competition.

MisterQ
10-29-2007, 10:31 PM
Sampras hyped that up in a very smart way. It doesn't really mean much. For instance: Borg was twice YE #1, Connors 5 times. Who is the greater player ??

It's true, different players have tended to peak at different parts of the year. If we used the mid-summer as our reference point, Borg would likely place No. 1 more often.

Similarly, if we chose mid-July as the reference point, Agassi was No. 1 four times, Sampras five.

That's why I'm lobbying the ATP to end the year on July 15. :lol: ;)

stebs
10-29-2007, 10:56 PM
It's true, different players have tended to peak at different parts of the year. If we used the mid-summer as our reference point, Borg would likely place No. 1 more often.

Similarly, if we chose mid-July as the reference point, Agassi was No. 1 four times, Sampras five.

That's why I'm lobbying the ATP to end the year on July 15. :lol: ;)

I'm pretty sure that I am misunderstanding you because you are always coherent and probably know more than me about tennis but...

...surely when you peak in a year makes no difference as it is 52 weeks of tournaments that make you the #1. Obviously different players have been #1 at different times of year but I don't see why you are more likely to be #1 when you are picking up the most points.

MisterQ
10-29-2007, 11:17 PM
I'm pretty sure that I am misunderstanding you because you are always coherent and probably know more than me about tennis but...

...surely when you peak in a year makes no difference as it is 52 weeks of tournaments that make you the #1. Obviously different players have been #1 at different times of year but I don't see why you are more likely to be #1 when you are picking up the most points.

I'm not talking about the moment of peak performance -- sorry, that was probably confusing. :) But for some reason, Agassi was No. 1 four times in July, and only once in November. I didn't find very specific data for Borg, but what I saw suggests that he had a similar (though less extreme) tendency.

R.Federer
10-29-2007, 11:28 PM
That's why I'm lobbying the ATP to end the year on July 15. :lol: ;)

I think you might have an unexpected ally in Nadal ;)

rwn
10-30-2007, 12:11 AM
I'm not talking about the moment of peak performance -- sorry, that was probably confusing. :) But for some reason, Agassi was No. 1 four times in July, and only once in November. I didn't find very specific data for Borg, but what I saw suggests that he had a similar (though less extreme) tendency.

http://www.tennis28.com/rankings/weeks_No1.html

Merton
10-30-2007, 12:37 AM
I'll disagree with you and others on this one, Mert. I think for most of the players finishing the calendar year as world #1 is a very big deal. We saw how much it meant to Sampras. Obviously the Slams are the biggest, but I think a lot of the players view ending the year with the number 1 ranking as a kind of crowning achievement for the season, Masters Cup aside.

There is a confusion between "best player for a calendar year" and "year end #1". Those two are not always the same. Sometimes there is no good answer for the 1st question. Sampras was the best player for 93-97, but whether he was the best in 98 is debatable. Who was the best player for 2003?

Eventually it is about the information content of a particular statistic. # of weeks as the top-ranked player is a measure of dominance in the game, # of consecutive weeks as top-ranked is a measure of consistency at the top, year end #1 reveals just who had the better results during the previous 12 months.

wcr
10-30-2007, 02:02 AM
I don't have the answer for this now. I'd like to see how #2 and #3 hold up next year first.

Pete has Boris Becker to thank for making it a 6 year run.

Pigpen Stinks
10-30-2007, 07:50 AM
Sampras hyped that up in a very smart way. It doesn't really mean much. For instance: Borg was twice YE #1, Connors 5 times. Who is the greater player ??

Borg was without question the greater player. However, the ranking system was much less equitable than it is these days. For the last 20+ years or so the ranking system has been pretty fair, so I think that it bears a lot more weight in the player's eyes in terms of who ends the year as number 1.

Pigpen Stinks
10-30-2007, 08:00 AM
There is a confusion between "best player for a calendar year" and "year end #1". Those two are not always the same. Sometimes there is no good answer for the 1st question. Sampras was the best player for 93-97, but whether he was the best in 98 is debatable. Who was the best player for 2003?

Eventually it is about the information content of a particular statistic. # of weeks as the top-ranked player is a measure of dominance in the game, # of consecutive weeks as top-ranked is a measure of consistency at the top, year end #1 reveals just who had the better results during the previous 12 months.

I agree with your discourse, but I still think it's very important to the players to finish the year as the #1 ranked player. It's a bit skewed right now, as Roger has been so dominant for so long, but when you look back on a player like Hewitt or Kuerten, I think they'll take great pride in the fact that they finished the year as the world's #1. It's very different from team sports, but in a way it's like winning the World Series or Super Bowl, being declared the champion player for that year. Again, no comparison to Slam titles as they are most important, but I believe it's a huge deal for today's players to finish the year as world #1.

World Beater
10-30-2007, 08:34 AM
I agree with your discourse, but I still think it's very important to the players to finish the year as the #1 ranked player. It's a bit skewed right now, as Roger has been so dominant for so long, but when you look back on a player like Hewitt or Kuerten, I think they'll take great pride in the fact that they finished the year as the world's #1. It's very different from team sports, but in a way it's like winning the World Series or Super Bowl, being declared the champion player for that year. Again, no comparison to Slam titles as they are most important, but I believe it's a huge deal for today's players to finish the year as world #1.


its a nice footnote. But in comparison to consecutive weeks or total weeks, do you really think it's as presitigious?

CmonAussie
10-30-2007, 08:48 AM
its a nice footnote. But in comparison to consecutive weeks or total weeks, do you really think it's as presitigious?



:wavey:
slightly off topic but interesting as an analogy...

#Greg Norman spent over 380-weeks as World #1 golfer:cool:
~~only Tiger Woods has spent more time in the top position;)

>>>But, does that make Norman the 2nd greatest golfer ever [only won 2 majors:sad: ]:confused:

megadeth
10-30-2007, 09:16 AM
Most will think this is too optimistic, but I really am trying to look beyond what would be normal with Roger, because his domination during his peak has been totaly abnormal and so I would think his domination after his peak will still be good enought (winning 1-2 slams/year) to end nr1.

No more years 7%
Reach 5 years 10%
Equal the record 20%
Beat the record - 20%
8 years - 25%
9 years - 12%
10 or more years -6%

Ok, this may sound absurd to most of you, but whoever would predict that Federer would win 11 slams between 2004-2007 would surely sound like a madman to you, right? Why would you still feel like predicting Federers future like his domination was at Sampras or Lendls level?

I tell you this, Federer right now is playing much better tennis than Sampras was playing at Federers age or even during his best year (94). So if he declines like Sampras, he would still prob equal Sampras record. On the other hand, Sampras looked much older on the court when he was the same age as Federer, I personaly think that Federer will be aging wont be as hard on his body like Sampras.

how did 8 years have a higher percentage than "beat the record"? that doesn't make sense :confused:

Stroba
10-30-2007, 10:14 AM
To answer the question, avoiding major injury or deciding to retire at the top, I think he will beat Sampras record. Yes, outside of slams he has had his worse year since 2003, perhaps even 2002, but I still think it´s too soon saying he is decling. Remember he had issues with Roche during the first quater of the season and that was when he produced his worst results other than the AO. Since firing Roche he has had quite a stellar season.

Roger is the greatest talent and perhaps also the best making FULL USE of his talent among current players. Unless upcoming players like Djokovic and Murray quickly are able to make even more use of their talent, I don´t see them being able to threaten Rogers #1 spot.

Also Roger is still young enough and has an efficient style of game so there is no reason why he should significantly physically decline during the next 3-4 years.
I still see Roger winning 4-7 slams during the next three years. However it´s going to be harder to keep up the motivation during smaller events. I see more players being able to sneak a win or two from Roger during these. But will anyone be consistent enough to actually push Roger off the top? Can´t see it happening just yet.

Pigpen Stinks
10-30-2007, 01:15 PM
its a nice footnote. But in comparison to consecutive weeks or total weeks, do you really think it's as presitigious?

I wouldn't say whether it's as prestigious as consecutive or total weeks. I was merely disputing the opinion that it isn't very meaningful. I think it's very important in the players' minds to finish the year as #1.

sykotique
10-30-2007, 01:26 PM
Ending year #1 is as meaningful as you make it, I believe. But I understand both sides of the argument.

You can argue that it IS meaningful because the tennis year is a calendar year judged on 52 weeks of tournaments and thus, whoever ends as year end #1 is, at least cumulatively, the best player for the last 12 months.

On the other hand, you could argue (like the Grand Slam theorists who believe it doesn't matter whether you win the Australian Open or the US Open first, once you win 4 Slams in a row) that it doesn't matter when you reach #1 precisely because the tennis year is a calendar year judged on 52 weeks of tournaments; thus, if you become #1 on July 1, 2010, it means you turned in the best results for the last 12 months, from July 1, 2009 to July 1, 2010.

Of course, July 1 isn't the year end, and at the same time, you have to remember that some players are working towards that calendar year end #1 (like Sampras) while some of them just want to reach #1 period (like Rafter, and eventually maybe even Nadal). All a question of perspective, I suppose.

Apemant
10-30-2007, 03:41 PM
how did 8 years have a higher percentage than "beat the record"? that doesn't make sense :confused:

He probably thinks 'beating it only just' i.e. 7 years as YE#1

stebs
10-30-2007, 05:08 PM
how did 8 years have a higher percentage than "beat the record"? that doesn't make sense :confused:

Text or number, each progressing option is a # of years, beat the record means make it to 7 years and no more.

mediter
10-30-2007, 07:00 PM
To take blatant advantage of a weak era and create such thoroughly misleading records is in bad taste but this utterly despicable deed is not beyond the arrogant man from Switzerland. but he will fail miserably in this vile attempt to distort Pete's legacy.

His one dimensional talent will not stand closer scrutiny once Gasquet and Baghdatis fill in the missing pieces. He
is doomed sooner or later.

Tabledott
10-30-2007, 08:08 PM
mediter are you crazy ?

wcr
10-30-2007, 10:21 PM
To take blatant advantage of a weak era and create such thoroughly misleading records is in bad taste but this utterly despicable deed is not beyond the arrogant man from Switzerland. but he will fail miserably in this vile attempt to distort Pete's legacy.

His one dimensional talent will not stand closer scrutiny once Gasquet and Baghdatis fill in the missing pieces. He
is doomed sooner or later.

Like Pete always pointed it out "It's all about the records." Somehow I don't think Pete was counting on you, mediter, living forever and running from one tennis chat room to the next disparaging any player who topples yet another one of his records. Pete did a great job and has been man enough to recognize someone who surpasses him when it happens. How does your beahvior honor a man you appear to idolize? Or, are you just using Pete as an excuse to denigrate a person or a place you loath. Such a silly way to spend a life.

Jogy
10-30-2007, 10:38 PM
Federer could be 8 years #1 and Sampras six years would still be the better quality achievement because in the 90s it was not only one player taking the most titles on all but clay surface

megadeth
10-31-2007, 12:51 AM
Text or number, each progressing option is a # of years, beat the record means make it to 7 years and no more.

i know what it meant. i'm just saying the logic is flawed because he thinks that the chances of going 8 years straight as # 1 is better than winning 7 straight... :confused:

so it's easier to do 8 straight than 7 straight accdg to him... get my point?

World Beater
10-31-2007, 01:25 AM
i know what it meant. i'm just saying the logic is flawed because he thinks that the chances of going 8 years straight as # 1 is better than winning 7 straight... :confused:

so it's easier to do 8 straight than 7 straight accdg to him... get my point?

some people thought federer's chances to do the grand slam this year were bigger than his chances to win no slam. :confused: is the logic flawed there?

Maybe im repeating what you already understand, but marcrd thinks federer chances to go beyond 8 is more probably than to just stay at 7

Marek.
10-31-2007, 01:58 AM
To take blatant advantage of a weak era and create such thoroughly misleading records is in bad taste but this utterly despicable deed is not beyond the arrogant man from Switzerland. but he will fail miserably in this vile attempt to distort Pete's legacy.

His one dimensional talent will not stand closer scrutiny once Gasquet and Baghdatis fill in the missing pieces. He
is doomed sooner or later.

:worship: The legend has spoken. No one should post any more in this thread as they would just look like fools. :worship:

megadeth
10-31-2007, 03:52 AM
some people thought federer's chances to do the grand slam this year were bigger than his chances to win no slam. :confused: is the logic flawed there?

Maybe im repeating what you already understand, but marcrd thinks federer chances to go beyond 8 is more probably than to just stay at 7

hmmm i guess that's the other side of the coin explained. thanks!

marcrd just didn't make it clear in his post...

marcRD
10-31-2007, 08:22 AM
Federer could be 8 years #1 and Sampras six years would still be the better quality achievement because in the 90s it was not only one player taking the most titles on all but clay surface

Well, why did Sampras let other players take titles on surfaces outside clay? :confused:

CmonAussie
10-31-2007, 10:07 AM
Well, why did Sampras let other players take titles on surfaces outside clay? :confused:

since TMC 2003 FED`s dominated the biggest non-clay events:
11/12 non-clay slams [Safin won 05 AO]
3/4 TMC [Nalbandian won 05 TMC]
~~~:worship:
Therefore FED`s won 14/16 most significant non-clay titles since Nov 03:eek:

sykotique
10-31-2007, 11:53 AM
Well, why did Sampras let other players take titles on surfaces outside clay? :confused:

Because he wanted his titles to be worth more...lol.

HNCS
10-31-2007, 12:07 PM
Because he wanted his titles to be worth more...lol.

all hail one slammers. :worship: :worship:

rwn
10-31-2007, 03:40 PM
Because he wanted his titles to be worth more...lol.

Exactly. Federer just doesn't understand that you have to lose 15 matches a year to be considered a really great player.