Another Federer record [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Another Federer record

susuteko
11-09-2006, 06:38 AM
Federer could break Connor's record for consecutive weeks as no. 1 if
he manage to retain his position until 5 weeks after the Aussie open
next year. Assuming Fed retain his No. 1 until next year's AO, he will
be the world no 1 for 156 consecutive weeks. For each and every one of
this week, he is the holder of the majority of the slam, making him the
undisputed world no 1, unlike Connors, who could still be no. 1 without
holding a single slam.

Starting from week following: Until the last week of: # of weeks Holder
of Winner of the remaining slam
Aussie 04 French 04 18 AO, W Roddick, Ferrero
French 04 Wimby 04 4 AO, W Gaudio, Roddick
Wimby 04 USO 04 10 AO, W Gaudio, Roddick
USO 04 Aussie 05 20 AO, W, USO Gaudio
Aussie 05 French 05 18 W, USO Safin, Gaudio
French 05 Wimby 05 4 W, USO Nadal, Safin
Wimby 05 USO 05 10 W, USO Nadal, Safin
USO 05 Aussie 06 20 W, USO Nadal, Safin
Aussie 06 French 06 19 W, USO, AO Nadal
French 06 Wimby 06 4 W, USO, AO Nadal
Wimby 06 USO 06 9 W, USO, AO Nadal
USO 06 Aussie 07 20 W, USO, AO Nadal
Total 156

Of course this streak will end should Nadal win next year's AO.

senorgato
11-09-2006, 09:26 AM
Am I the only one confused by this?

And exactly what streak will be ending IF Nadal were to win the AO?

susuteko
11-09-2006, 09:34 AM
Am I the only one confused by this?

And exactly what streak will be ending IF Nadal were to win the AO?
If Nadal wins AO06, then the period of 52 weeks prior to that in which the ranking is based will have Nadal as the RG and AO champion, and Federer as the W and USO champion. Then Fed will no more holds the majority of the slams because there's another equally dominant player in slams (of course I' referring to only slam wins here, nobody remembers the finalist, semi-finalists etc). That's why the streak will be ended.

scarecrows
11-09-2006, 09:53 AM
all I can say about this statistics is

http://www.ateaseweb.com/mb/style_emoticons/default/wtf.gif

RogersGirl
11-09-2006, 10:03 AM
well what about after RG 05? Rafa had just won it, and Marat won at Melbourne that year, so Roger was the defending champ for 2 grand slams then too-- Wimby and USO, and thats 50% of the slams. I'm not sure how strong a statement you're making here :shrug:

scarecrows
11-09-2006, 10:12 AM
well what about after RG 05? Rafa had just won it, and Marat won at Melbourne that year, so Roger was the defending champ for 2 grand slams then too-- Wimby and USO, and thats 50% of the slams. I'm not sure how strong a statement you're making here :shrug:

ok, the first post of the thread is rather confusing but this is not that difficult to understand

he said majority, so after RG2005, Roger had 2, marat 1 and Rafa 1 so Fed had the majority

senorgato
11-09-2006, 10:18 AM
Well, it makes sense now. I thought the streak he was referring to was Roger's consecutive weeks at #1.

RogersGirl
11-09-2006, 10:22 AM
ok, the first post of the thread is rather confusing but this is not that difficult to understand

he said majority, so after RG2005, Roger had 2, marat 1 and Rafa 1 so Fed had the majority

lol right... you'll have to forgive me its 5am and i cant sleep :angel:

megadeth
11-09-2006, 07:12 PM
If Nadal wins AO06, then the period of 52 weeks prior to that in which the ranking is based will have Nadal as the RG and AO champion, and Federer as the W and USO champion. Then Fed will no more holds the majority of the slams because there's another equally dominant player in slams (of course I' referring to only slam wins here, nobody remembers the finalist, semi-finalists etc). That's why the streak will be ended.

dude you're not making sense. you can subtract 1000pts from fed and add 1000pts to rafa and fed would still be number 1

PamV
11-09-2006, 07:24 PM
Starting from week following: Until the last week of: # of weeks Holder
of Winner of the remaining slam
Aussie 04 French 04 18 AO, W Roddick, Ferrero
French 04 Wimby 04 4 AO, W Gaudio, Roddick
Wimby 04 USO 04 10 AO, W Gaudio, Roddick
USO 04 Aussie 05 20 AO, W, USO Gaudio
Aussie 05 French 05 18 W, USO Safin, Gaudio
French 05 Wimby 05 4 W, USO Nadal, Safin
Wimby 05 USO 05 10 W, USO Nadal, Safin
USO 05 Aussie 06 20 W, USO Nadal, Safin
Aussie 06 French 06 19 W, USO, AO Nadal
French 06 Wimby 06 4 W, USO, AO Nadal
Wimby 06 USO 06 9 W, USO, AO Nadal
USO 06 Aussie 07 20 W, USO, AO Nadal
Total 156



I don't follow what this list is saying. It doesn't make sense.

PamV
11-09-2006, 07:31 PM
dude you're not making sense. you can subtract 1000pts from fed and add 1000pts to rafa and fed would still be number 1

I don't think he's saying Nadal would be #1. He is just looking at a record that no one else has talked about. That of being holder of record number of weeks as #1 plus being the current holder of the majority of the major titles of the given year. (For sample right now Roger is the holder of 3 major titles...meaning the majority). If Nadal were to win AO then each Roger and Nadal would be the holders of 2 major titles after AO is finished.


I just don't understand what that tally list of majors for each year was supposed to mean because he wasn't listing the acutal winner of the title. He never listed Roger. I think he's not explaining something.

kokket
11-09-2006, 07:44 PM
this only happen if roger doesn't play AO and Nadal wins AO - i think

susuteko
11-10-2006, 01:51 AM
dude you're not making sense. you can subtract 1000pts from fed and add 1000pts to rafa and fed would still be number 1
All I'm saying is at each and every week Roger hold the world no. 1 position, he is also the majority holder of the slam, hence not only he is the world no 1 by ATP points, but also the no 1 for the slam purist. Remember how people raise up the issue of Vilas being the real no 1 because he won more majors than Connors in that particular year. None of this can be said about Roger's until next year's AO.

susuteko
11-10-2006, 01:52 AM
I don't think he's saying Nadal would be #1. He is just looking at a record that no one else has talked about. That of being holder of record number of weeks as #1 plus being the current holder of the majority of the major titles of the given year. (For sample right now Roger is the holder of 3 major titles...meaning the majority). If Nadal were to win AO then each Roger and Nadal would be the holders of 2 major titles after AO is finished.


I just don't understand what that tally list of majors for each year was supposed to mean because he wasn't listing the acutal winner of the title. He never listed Roger. I think he's not explaining something.
Sorry about the table, don't know how to align them to make it look nicer and not so confusing.

susuteko
11-10-2006, 01:54 AM
this only happen if roger doesn't play AO and Nadal wins AO - i think
No, whether Rpger play it or not, if Nadal wins it, they both would have 2 slams each, and to the slam purist, we dont have any player dominating.

Johnny Groove
11-10-2006, 01:57 AM
I understand wht youre saying. Its completely pointless, but I get it

scoobs
11-10-2006, 02:03 AM
They don't have a term for doing the "majority slam" or "nearly" slam do they?

Shall we think of one?

Or....not.

There's too much emphasis on Roger's records - most of which are fairly irrelevant - interesting as far as it goes, which isn't usually very far.

It's like when people post things like "Roger is 14 and 0 against American players this season" or something like that - as if that's supposed to indicate something (like he's better at beating Americans?)

No offense to the OP but I think these stats analyses can be taken too far.

DDrago2
11-10-2006, 02:33 AM
I suppose you are essentialy trying to say that no one ever dominated tennis for three strait years like Federer did last three years

And you are damn right

silverarrows
11-10-2006, 03:52 AM
^^^ I think that is what he is trying to emphasize.

Pfloyd
11-10-2006, 05:16 AM
Impressive.

R.Federer
11-10-2006, 05:54 AM
I cannot understand this first post. I am sure it can be simplified somehow.

BlueSwan
11-10-2006, 08:21 AM
I think the threadstarter is making a very good point. When we discuss the alltime greats it is often pointed out that weeks at #1 and slams won are two very different measures. It is very possible to be #1 with just one slam won in that particular 52-week period or indeed no slams won at all.

However, since AO 2004 Federer has in any given week been the undisputed #1 whether you looked at just the ranking point or you looked at number of slams won. At no point in this period has Federer been current champion of less than 2 slams. Quite incredible, really.

The list that the threadstarter made on the first page is not that hard to read. He simply lists a given time period between two slams, then lists the slams was Federer is the reigning champion of and then lists the player or players who were reigning champions of the rest of the slams, example:

Wimby 05 USO 05 10 W, USO Nadal, Safin

The above line indicates that for the 10-week period between Wimbledon 2005 and US Open 2005 Federer is the reigning champion of Wimbledon (2005) and US Open (2004 - the year before), while Nadal and Safin are the reigning champions the the two remaining slams (RG 2005 and AO 2005).