Weakest #1? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Weakest #1?

oz_boz
04-05-2005, 10:24 AM
Obviously Federer is one of the most dominant top ranked players of his era in the history of tennis. But who do you think has been the

WEAKEST No. 1 THE YEAR HE REACHED THE TOP SPOT

in the entry ranking system?

Suggested contenders:

* Wilander in 1988 (tough one for a Swede...). I know, he won three out of four slams that year, but he still lost to some really mediocre guys:
Berger, Pistolesi (whobody?), Agenor, de la Pena (who is he???), Dan Goldie (never heard of him), Steeb.

* Probably even worse: Safin in 2000. Beaten by:
Santoro*3(!), Vinciguerra*3(!!), Escude*2, Pozzi, Damm, Calleri, Stafford, Prinosil.

---

"I don't even know the Italian word for spaghetti."
Johnny Ekstrom, former player of the Swedish national football team, on moving to Italy

Becarina
04-05-2005, 10:28 AM
why are these your only choices?

syd
04-05-2005, 10:29 AM
disagree about Marat!!!

Andy Roddick, he earns his n°1 in the end of the year (2003)& lost it in the beginning of the year (2004) !!!

Becarina
04-05-2005, 10:30 AM
Andy wasn't a choice, get over it :rolleyes:

bad gambler
04-05-2005, 10:32 AM
if ever there was a contradiction in terms, just need to look at the title of this thread

RonE
04-05-2005, 10:34 AM
You would have to be insane to put Wilander up there- Mats felt the moment he had attained the #1 ranking that the proverbial bubble had burst and there was nothing else left for him to achieve- his decline the following year was in a way by his own choice.

Besides, you did say "the year he reached the top spot" and for Mats that year was 1988 which was one of the best seasons any player had ever had in the history of the game.

For me, the least convincing when they reached #1 for the first time were Rios and Sampras- as when they did, they were not current holders of grand slam tournaments at the time. Sampras had won the U.S. Open before reaching #1 and of course he would later ammend that.

Therefore, due to his abbreviated stay in the top spot (a few select weeks) and failing to win a grand slam title I would have to say Rios was the least convincing #1 at the time he first achieved that ranking and overall despite the fact that game-wise he had the potential to be a great player.

Ferrero Forever
04-05-2005, 10:36 AM
number 1's are not weak, so i don't see the need for this thread, but just so long as Ferrero doesnt get mentioned i'm happy.

TheMightyFed
04-05-2005, 10:40 AM
Wilander is a more legitimate number1 than Moya for example, good Top 5 player but not really number 1, for versatility, lack of slams reasons among others ...

oz_boz
04-05-2005, 10:49 AM
Thanks bad gambler and Juanqui L, guess I deserved that. ;-)

RonE:
1) I'm not insane. But I thought it was interesting that he managed to pull out the very best in the GS's and produce crap between them. But of course, you can only count on every player reallly going for it during the Slams. And Wilander's -88 was fabulous, I agree completely (I would be insane if I didn't ;-) ).

2) He got most of the "bad" losses BEFORE he reached the #1 position. But I guess you are right about lacking motivation etc. AFTER he won USO.

By the way, I should probably mention Rafter-99 too. A fabulous year with some terrible performances.

jtipson
04-05-2005, 10:57 AM
Pat Rafter: number one for a single week, partly due to the vagaries of the ranking system.

Sorry, Wilander is certainly not a contender for weakest number one - he earned it the hard way by winning three slams. Lendl was so strong at the time that Mats wasn't number one even when he was holding two slams, having been runner-up and quarter-finalist at the other two.

TheMightyFed
04-05-2005, 10:58 AM
Slams define place in history. Rios being the only number 1 not having won slams define him as the weakest. We know that well in France with Mauresmo unfortunately... :sad:

Action Jackson
04-05-2005, 11:00 AM
You're kidding if Wilander is the weakest number one.

There are candidates like Muster, Rios, Kafelnikov ( who won 1 match when he was # 1), Safin wasn't there for a long time though he is not the weakest, Moya and Rafter have more claims than Mats.

ktwtennis
04-05-2005, 11:02 AM
Rios--never won a Slam!

RonE
04-05-2005, 11:05 AM
Thanks bad gambler and Juanqui L, guess I deserved that. ;-)

RonE:
1) I'm not insane. But I thought it was interesting that he managed to pull out the very best in the GS's and produce crap between them. But of course, you can only count on every player reallly going for it during the Slams. And Wilander's -88 was fabulous, I agree completely (I would be insane if I didn't ;-) ).

2) He got most of the "bad" losses BEFORE he reached the #1 position. But I guess you are right about lacking motivation etc. AFTER he won USO.

By the way, I should probably mention Rafter-99 too. A fabulous year with some terrible performances.

When I said insane I didn't mean it to be taken literally only as a figure of speech.

You also have to remember that Mats had won 7 grand slams by the time he reached #1 and look at the quality of players he beat in those slams.

Besides the GS are the ones that really count- even Sampras in later stages of his career had great GS wins and some shocking results in the lesser tournaments in between.

TheMightyFed
04-05-2005, 11:05 AM
, Moya and Rafter have more claims than Mats.
Rafter could have been a great number 1 had he won a few more finals in slams: good looks, serve and volley, nice person, and above all, great accent ! :devil:

Action Jackson
04-05-2005, 11:07 AM
Rafter could have been a great number 1 had he won a few more finals in slams: good looks, serve and volley, nice person, and above all, great accent ! :devil:

Not the point of it all. When someone comes up with a statement that a guy won 7 Slams on 4 different surfaces is the weakest # 1 when there are so many other candidates worse than him, they get mentioned.

What ifs, buts and maybe count for nowt.

oz_boz
04-05-2005, 11:23 AM
I guess I have to take my statement (more than partly provocative) on Wilander back, it seems to have caused quite a stir ;) Of course, it is a supertremendous achievement to win three Slams in a year. Guess I could have asked for votes on "least consistent #1 with respect to ATP tournament results" or something like it. But it sure has been fun to read the comments.

As almost everyone has have pointed out, no slam (Rios) or one weeks reign (Rafter) are stronger reasons for being called a weak No 1, and even the idea of a weak No 1 is stupid in its way. But I thought I would get some interesting answers, which I did.

As for the ladies, I guess that my own favourite player on the tour (Mauresmo) would be the pick for many. (Don't post replies on that please, this is "menstennisforum", right?)

deliveryman
04-05-2005, 11:30 AM
Mauresmo doesn't count as your favourite lady. She's obviously a man in disguise... she has an adam's apple for christ sake.

TheMightyFed
04-05-2005, 11:59 AM
Not the point of it all. When someone comes up with a statement that a guy won 7 Slams on 4 different surfaces is the weakest # 1 when there are so many other candidates worse than him, they get mentioned.

What ifs, buts and maybe count for nowt.
Don't feel criticized, I even good reped you on this one !! :scratch:

Action Jackson
04-05-2005, 12:07 PM
Don't feel criticized, I even good reped you on this one !! :scratch:

Not at all, just pointing some obvious things. :)

Auscon
04-05-2005, 12:10 PM
Rafter could have been a great number 1 had he won a few more finals in slams: good looks, serve and volley, nice person, and above all, great accent ! :devil:

more importantly, if his body hadnt packed up on him

bad gambler
04-05-2005, 12:11 PM
Rafter could have been a great number 1 had he won a few more finals in slams: good looks, serve and volley, nice person, and above all, great accent ! :devil:

:yeah:

bad gambler
04-05-2005, 12:13 PM
Thanks bad gambler and Juanqui L, guess I deserved that. ;-)




i wasn't having a go at you, just the concept of a weak number 1 didn't really make much sense - but i can see what you meant

welcome to MTF btw :wavey:

RexEverything
04-05-2005, 12:21 PM
That Federer guy from Switzerland. I mean, it's obvious.

Auscon
04-05-2005, 12:21 PM
Wilander in 1988 (tough one for a Swede...). I know, he won three out of four slams that year, but he still lost to some really mediocre guys:
Berger, Pistolesi (whobody?), Agenor, de la Pena (who is he???), Dan Goldie (never heard of him), Steeb.


Hard to see why Wilander would get a mention.....3 slams in a year despite losing to some lesser players like you named, just means you step up when it really counts....now thats strength

its not like Roger was only beaten by the cream of the crop in 04 either

rommel99
04-05-2005, 03:56 PM
labadze, karlovic, but the most weak would have to be jan michael gambill!

misyou25
04-05-2005, 04:04 PM
moya

alfonsojose
04-05-2005, 05:15 PM
RIos :sad:

Rogiman
04-05-2005, 05:20 PM
That Federer guy from Switzerland. I mean, it's obvious.

Judging by your avatar we could make best friends! ;)

liptea
04-05-2005, 05:21 PM
Don't say Moya, because you will ruin my day. Please.

Scotso
04-05-2005, 05:57 PM
Moya :p

Brinyi
04-05-2005, 06:01 PM
Sampras (who was just a gap-filler between Edberg and Kuerten). :)

Devotee
04-05-2005, 08:32 PM
Rafter but Moya is a close 2nd.

deliveryman
04-05-2005, 09:01 PM
Safin.

Didn't win another grandslam for 4 years.

ae wowww
04-05-2005, 09:09 PM
Safin.

Didn't win another grandslam for 4 years.

The Delivery man has been having it away with my wife. I want a word with you! :devil:

ys
04-05-2005, 09:10 PM
Thomas Muster. When he was #1, he still could not do a thing on other surfaces.

liptea
04-05-2005, 11:05 PM
Moya :p

:ras: At least, when he was number one, he had won a Slam and was about to reach the semis of the US Open.

star
04-05-2005, 11:16 PM
Wilander :confused: Comming late to this discussion. I just second what everyone else said about Wilander. I mean the guy didn't buckle down and play up to his talent untill 88, but what a glorious year that was. And doesn't anyone remember he won Roland Garros when he was only about 19? I remember that final so well. Thank god there was a tv in the kitchen because I was in some marathon cooking thing for a party. Mats was terrific.

robinhood
04-05-2005, 11:37 PM
Mauresmo doesn't count as your favourite lady. She's obviously a man in disguise... she has an adam's apple for christ sake.

Martina Hingis agrees with you.

tennischick
04-06-2005, 03:08 AM
if ever there was a contradiction in terms, just need to look at the title of this thread
:worship: :worship:

Auscon
04-06-2005, 04:02 AM
Judging by your avatar we could make best friends! ;)

did you know they actually have Big Lebowski conventions in the U.S.

i have to go to one :)

Scotso
04-06-2005, 05:18 AM
:ras: At least, when he was number one, he had won a Slam and was about to reach the semis of the US Open.

This may be true, but Rios is still much more talented than Moya. Moya benefitted more from everyone else being weak than from himself being exceptionally strong.

WyveN
04-06-2005, 05:21 AM
This may be true, but Rios is still much more talented than Moya. Moya benefitted more from everyone else being weak than from himself being exceptionally strong.

At the end of the day Moya was good enough to win a slam while Rios wasnt. Rios may be more talented but a few years from now Moya will be remmembered by many more people.

Action Jackson
04-06-2005, 05:22 AM
Rios was one of the most talented players ever to play the game, but it counts for nowt as he didn't win any Slams and that's what people remember.

Scotso
04-06-2005, 05:26 AM
Yes, but this thread isn't about who will be remembered, it's about the weakest #1, and since Rios was more talented, imo Moya was weaker.

Action Jackson
04-06-2005, 05:27 AM
Moya won a Slam and Rios didn't it's that simple.

WyveN
04-06-2005, 05:32 AM
Yes, but this thread isn't about who will be remembered, it's about the weakest #1, and since Rios was more talented, imo Moya was weaker.

natural talent is only a part of the equation of what makes a good player. Rios was more talented then a lot of the #1's.

Scotso
04-06-2005, 05:35 AM
Why Do I Bother.

Action Jackson
04-06-2005, 05:37 AM
It's not my fault your points were counteracted.

Scotso
04-06-2005, 05:41 AM
Only they weren't. Saying "but he never won a slam" has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. Winning a slam does not make you a great player.

Would you say Thomas Johansson is better than Rios?

WyveN
04-06-2005, 05:41 AM
Why Do I Bother.

A players strengths are both mental and physical, just because Rios had more natural skills then Moya doesnt make him a stronger player.

WyveN
04-06-2005, 05:43 AM
Winning a slam does not make you a great player.

Of course it does, slams are the pinnacle of the sport.


Would you say Thomas Johansson is better than Rios?

In talent Rios is worth 10 Johanssons but history will judge Johansson as the better player.

Scotso
04-06-2005, 05:55 AM
No, that's not going to happen.

Action Jackson
04-06-2005, 06:04 AM
No, that's not going to happen.

It's not about who is a better player and since the Slams are the 4 peaks of the year that players want to perform their best at.

Rios never delivered on the big stage, irrespective of how talented he is and WyveN and myself have acknowledged that.

All that talent and no Slam, not as gifted but holding a Slam trophy. The option is easy in that case.

WyveN
04-06-2005, 06:08 AM
No, that's not going to happen.

Mecir was one of the most talented players to ever play the game and I bet most people on this board have never heard of him. People remmember and are judged by results i.e slams, not talent.

Scotso
04-06-2005, 06:16 AM
You people are arguing different things. Nowhere in the topic does it mention that you have to have not won a slam to be considered.

It really doesn't matter who will be remembered, the question is who is the weakest number one, and I'm sorry, but you have to have absolutely no knowledge of the topic to claim it is Rios.

What people who don't know their history think 20 years from now doesn't matter.

And I know who Mecir is, the fact that many people don't know him doesn't take away whatsoever from his talent.

WyveN
04-06-2005, 06:28 AM
It really doesn't matter who will be remembered, the question is who is the weakest number one, and I'm sorry, but you have to have absolutely no knowledge of the topic to claim it is Rios.


I don't interpret "weakest number one" as being equal to "worse player in terms of tennis skills". For me a weak number one is someone who is considered the best player in the world when they couldnt manage to win the biggest events. If Federer manages to win every non slam tournament this year while Safin wins all the slams I would consider Roger a weak number 1 in 2005.


What people who don't know their history think 20 years from now doesn't matter.


20 years from now results matter. You can't compare different eras in terms of skill because of a number of issues so the only thing you have to go on is results and Rios, despite all his talent, wont have a leg to stand on.



And I know who Mecir is, the fact that many people don't know him doesn't take away whatsoever from his talent.

No it doesn't but you will also have a hard time convincing people he was a better player then Pat Cash even though I believe he was. In the end Cash was good enough to win a slam and Mecir wasnt.

bad gambler
04-06-2005, 07:59 AM
Don't say Moya, because you will ruin my day. Please.


moya

SuperFurryAnimal
04-06-2005, 11:18 AM
Players who reach the number one spot - even if it's just for one week - are never weak. Otherwise they would never have gotten in that position.
Therefore, this poll is redundant. At least in my opinion.

But go on, discuss if you like. ;)

Jenrios
04-06-2005, 09:34 PM
Whoever reaches number 1 deserves to be there. The tour is not made up of the 4 slams. Whover reaches number 1 has done something to get there - played the best tennis at that time. There is no separate ranking list for those who win slams and those who 'just' win ATP tournaments.

Fedex
04-07-2005, 02:25 AM
You're kidding if Wilander is the weakest number one.

Very true. I would have put Rios on the list of 'weakest #1's'.

Action Jackson
04-07-2005, 02:27 AM
Very true. I would have put Rios on the list of 'weakest #1's'.

At the same time all these players that have reached # 1 deserved it.

Aphex
04-07-2005, 02:48 AM
So who is the weakest god, Jupiter or Zeus? Or are they the same?

oz_boz
04-07-2005, 10:54 AM
So who is the weakest god, Jupiter or Zeus? Or are they the same?

:lol:

Jupiter is the best: a huge planet bears his name, but Zeus only got a lousy little canal - and the stupid people even spelt his name backwards...

oz_boz
04-07-2005, 10:59 AM
Guess I was thinking of "the least consistent No. 1 the year before conquering the top" - far too late to alter the thread...but I think my two original contenders would not have been quite as bad choices as everyone has pointed out (with some emphasis) they were.