Re: Fed stat trivia

Here is the total amount of weeks Fed has had in various positions:

1) 310
2) 218
3) 222
4) 54
5) 55
6) 38
7) 17
8) 25
9) 9 (*)
10) 9
11) 7
12) 10
13) 27
14) 13
15) 3
16) 9
17) 3
18) 5
19) 2
20) 2
21) 3
22) 2
23) 2
24) 4
25) 1

 

Re: Fed stat trivia

Here is the total amount of weeks Fed has had in various positions:

1) 303 (*)
2) 192
3) 164
4) 33
5) 35
6) 31
7) 13
8) 13
9) 6
10) 9
11) 7
12) 10
13) 27
14) 13
15) 3
16) 9
17) 3
18) 5
19) 2
20) 2
21) 3
22) 2
23) 2
24) 4
25) 1

Do you have this stat for Nadal and Djokovic?

 

Re: Fed stat trivia

And he has been ranked #7 for just 1 week.

 

Re: Fed stat trivia

And he has been ranked #7 for just 1 week.

That is true. He won't catch the present #7, Tomas Berdych, who has actually broken Andre Agassis old record for most weeks in this position. Agassi is unique in that he has at least 33 weeks in every top-10 position. This record I don't particularly want Fed to beat....

 

Re: Fed stat trivia

That's really interesting! Surprised he's been them all in the top 25 apart from those two.

 

Re: Fed stat trivia

Here it is (old revision of the page you mean):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php....php?title=ATP_World_Tour_records&oldid=509075570#ATP_Rankings_.28since_1973.29

top 3 is `only' 87 weeks to go, i.e. May 2014. Should be doable. Top 5 is 4 years to go, too hard to predict.

Federer missed out on the consecutive top 3 record with his blip to #4 last year. Consecutive top 5 perhaps... 3 years to go.

 

Re: Fed stat trivia

Thanks a lot, Apophis! I really appreciate it I was unaware of the possibility of finding old revisions. Not that old, by the way, listing #294 weeks as #1....but it only has 124 HC slam wins, so it is not updated as carefully as the new revision.

 

Re: Fed stats - with most weeks in top-2, top-3, top-5, top-10 (post #1 and #2 update

Yes it is from 25 August. It was reverted because it was updated into the future. I'll restore it in the near future, although it is difficult to find a proper source. With tennis stats on wikipedia we are usually somewhere in between `original research' and `good sources', so usually additions stay until someone feels like deleting it, which is often hard to argue then

 

Re: Fed stats - with most weeks in top-2, top-3, top-5, top-10 (post #1 and #2 update

Ah good to see you transformed this thread to offer the stats. Are you also adding the consecutive lists?

 

Re: Fed stats - with most weeks in top-2, top-3, top-5, top-10 (post #1 and #2 update

Ah good to see you transformed this thread to offer the stats. Are you also adding the consecutive lists?

Consecutive lists are added in post #1.

 

Re: Fed stats - with most weeks in top-2, top-3, top-5, top-10 (post #1 and #2 update

Thanks!

 

Re: Fed stats - with most weeks in top-2, top-3, top-5, top-10 (post #1 and #2 update

I have updated post #1 with more than the usual new week. Sampras' consecutive top-5 weeks has been expanded from 408 to 491. His ranking page on ATP gives 7th for week beginning 22/11-99, but this is wrong. He was 5th that week. His series thus stretches into 2001.

For players active in the 70s of early 80s some uncertainty exists, and different sources give different amount of weeks. Alternative (and credible) versions are given in paranthesis.

 

I have now updated the stats in post #1 and #2 to include the week beginning Dec. 31st 2012, as there will be no ranking changes for Fed until then (and Nadal cannot exit the top-5). Fed passes Sampras for most total weeks in top-5 and ranks behind only Connors and Lendl. He is closing in on Lendl's record for most weeks in top-2 and also Lendl's second place for most weeks in top-3. Further advancements looks likely to follow

 

I have now updated the stats in post #1 and #2 to include the week beginning Dec. 31st 2012, as there will be no ranking changes for Fed until then (and Nadal cannot exit the top-5).

there will be no ranking change for Fed until the 28th of january (after the Aus open) actually : he will stay number 2 until then at least

PS : according to my checkings, Lendl had at most 403 weeks in top-2 then Fed is already certain to be ahead of him at 406 minimum.

 

 

 

Federer as "comeback king":

This year Roger has for the 5th time managed to win more matches than he's lost after losing the opening set - he's 12-8 now and cannot of course lose four more matches.

The other years he managed this was 2004-6 and 2009.

The 12 victories are a personal best. His best % came in 2005 with 87,5% (7-1)!

 

yes, this year has been great for that , and especially in the beginning of the year, such matches were very important for him to get to number 1 back.

And it's more impressive in my eyes than 2004-6 because he was just so dominant in that time that he had better chance coming back.

 

Litotes I wondered how you've got only 560 weeks for Connors in top-3 and 397 consecutive weeks :
I have 595 weeks personally with 507 consecutive from the 3rd of june 1974 to the 20th of february 1984.

When did he fall out of top-3 in that period in your eyes ?

It also seems that you had infos about Lendl's ranking during 1980 and 1981 which are not in Lendl's ranking history on the ATP website : can you tell me these informations ?

 

I understand your curiosity, and I regret to say I have no information you have not already seen about Connors. My opening post got all its numbers from Wikipedia unless stated otherwise (wiki total in parenthesis after). At the time I made this stat, wiki claimed 560 and 397, without giving dates. Now wiki gives your 595 and 507, so I'm going to update my stat accordingly.

For Lendl see PM.

 

 

400 weeks in top 2!!!

 

 

Today Fed improved a couple of records. This is the 27th time he has ever played in a HC slam MD, and all 27 times he has reached at least the R3. 14 times in a row from the start is not just a record for the AO, but for any slam. Connors has 17 USOs R3 or better in a row, but not from the start - it was his 4th to his 20th.

He is also 49-0 in R2 for his career. This is not only a record for R2, but for any round.

 

For weeks in top-2 ... Fed has now guaranteed :

- top-2 until the end of Dubai, that is 411 weeks (from further estimations I made, the "reality" for Lendl might be near to 420 then it would be good to do even better for Fed)

- top-3 until the end of Indian Wells as well, that is 500 weeks (from my estimations, both Connors and Lendl might be around 530 weeks)

- top-4 until the end of Miami, that is 512 weeks (Connors around 660)

- top-5 until the end of Monte-Carlo, that is 532 (Connors around 700)

 

- top-2 until the end of Indian Wells, that is 413 weeks (from further estimations I made, the "reality" for Lendl might be near to 420 then it would be good to do even better for Fed)

I made a mistake : top-2 is guaranteed only until the end of Dubai at the moment, that is 411 weeks, not 413, but it will be guaranteed until the end of Indian Wells if he defeats Tsonga.

 

 

This week, Federer tied Lendl, chasing one of his few remaining sequence records, consecutive weeks in the top four. He is tied for second with Lendl at 501 consecutive weeks in the top 4.

Next week, Federer ties Lendl for total weeks in the top 2 at 409 weeks. He will surpass Lendl for consecutive weeks in the top 4, at 502, to take 2nd on the list behind Connors.

Two weeks from now, Federer will surpass Lendl for total weeks in the top 2 at 410 weeks. He will tie Lendl at 524 total weeks in the top 5.

Three weeks from now, Federer will tie Lendl at 524 consecutive weeks in the top 5. He will surpass Lendl at 525 total weeks in the top 5.

Four weeks from now, Federer will tie Lendl for total weeks in the top 3 at 499. He will surpass Lendl at 526 total weeks in the top 5.

Five weeks from now, he will tie Lendl for total weeks in the top 4 at 505 weeks. He will surpass Lendl for total weeks in the top 3 at 500 weeks.

Six weeks from now, Federer will surpass Lendl for total weeks in the top 4 at 506 weeks.

Every week from this week for the next 6 weeks, Federer will either surpass a Lendl record or match a Lendl record. Federer, after this week, will have the longest peak at world number one and number 2 of any player ever in the history of Tennis.

He is still about 2 and 3 years behind Connors, for top 3; top 4-5 respectively. So his career length is the best in terms of peak, ever, but he still has a long way to go to have the same career path as Connors.

After this 6 week stretch where he surpasses 6 of Lendl's marks, what is left?

1. Federer is not yet in the top 5 for total weeks in the top 10. Becker has 576 weeks in the top 10, Federer 547. Federer needs just 29 weeks to pass Becker, and likely has another 40. He is very close to passing Sampras at 586 weeks, which is the last Sampras record he hasn't passed or equalled.

Next year would be Lendl's record with only Agassi and Connors further on.

So after this spate here- we'd have to wait half the year before it would become pertinent again. After passing 6 records in 5 weeks.

 

Three weeks from now, Federer will tie Lendl at 524 consecutive weeks in the top 5. He will surpass Lendl at 525 total weeks in the top 5.

You are here referring to the 524 weeks Wikipedia gives, which start 11/1-82 since this is the first accessible ATP ranking to place Lendl in the top-5. Trouble is, the previous ranking given on ATP is from 22/12-80. It seems obvious to me he didn't linger in 6th position thoughout the entire 1981 only then to advance to 2nd at the beginning of 1982. This is also a good indicator that he was not ranked 6th in 1981, his 3rd seed in 1981 US Open, ahead of Connors:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1981_US_Open_–_Men's_Singles

If fact, Connors 4th seed at the Open is very much tempting me to remove him from the top of the "consecutive weeks in the top-3" list where he is supposed to have been from 1974 to 1984. He should then also be downgraded on the total weeks in top-3 list. By how much? Now, that is the problem. Any suggestions will be welcome.

 

Honestly, considering how very little the ATP has displayed about the rankings in the early 80s (in some years they only displayed one ranking in the year), I wouldn't consider the "weeks records" displayed on Wikipedia, which are all actually made from that source, as really relevant for Lendl and Connors (and also for Borg, McEnroe or Vilas)

Agreed, but, here's the problem. They used a 2 year ranking back then. Connors benefited from two things - one, that the 2 year ranking didn't come into place until he came on the scene (as well as being the tail end of the weakest era in Tennis history from players born (1947-1951). This helped get Connors to number 1 in the first place in 1973. Since it was a 2 year ranking, once Connors was there - it was very difficult for him to fall or drop. This is especially pertinent given the consecutive weeks at number one record, something that Federer has thankfully smashed.

Two, not having week to week rankings, and having a 2 year ranking, actually benefits the players of the era more than they do now, especially for consecutive weeks records. This is why it doesn't seem right to add weeks just to put the total off for Federer, because he's doing something they never had to do in an era without week to week rankings. Their records are already inflated by these numbers.

Three, what's the source behind 520? We have to go on the best sources we do have, which is the ATP. We can try to cobble together 'post-facto' rankings based on how we understand the tour today- but this causes problems. The players back then didn't play to this type of schedule. They didn't play all the Grand slams. They didn't worry about the week to week rankings, because they didn't matter. They didn't have to worry about the point value of specific tournaments, or play in the required tournaments the way that they have to do so now. This is why I was hoping that Federer would be able to break all these records by a much more stringent standard (sadly Murray already stopped him for consecutive weeks at number 3), where he remains behind Connors and Lendl. This would remove most of the uncertainty surrounding this period, as we would have a much more firmer record basis in Federer's accomplishment. This is why I hope he does manage to make it to Rio - and play at a strong level until then. Once he seals the weeks at 2, I consider him to be 'era immune', since there's nobody coming up who is likely to challenge him. It's all based on his level of play.

and now I think his goal should be about staying as long as possible in top-4, as Jimmy Connors did regularly until 34 years old and a few months, and even a few weeks until 36.

IMO, most of the pressure is off. He has the weeks at 1 (which is a difficult record). He has consecutive weeks at 2 already, and is just 2 weeks away from total weeks at number 2. You've got him down for 413, just 7 shy of your total for Lendl. This isn't a consecutive record, so he can dip and pick it up again. But, given that he owns Wimbledon, it would be easiest for him to keep this lead for as long as possible, and then not have to worry about 1 or 2 anymore.

IMO, I can see Fed being quite happy to stay at 2, or 3 or 4 for however long he wants to play, because he's in better shape overall than the young guys and is more consistant. It suits his game and playing style. The only thing that gets in the way is if Murray or Djokovic goes on a run - Djokovic's dominance now helps him - something we wouldn't and couldn't have said a year ago. Now, it does. He plays well as he usually does this part of the season, he'll solidify this for awhile and then not ever have to worry about it again.

 

Remove it and cite the link to Connors at 4 at the USO. Also, what about Lendl? Did he drop out at any point in the consecutive top 3 as well?

 

Connors' streak is downgraded, leaving only Lendl ahead on the consecutive top-3. I do not know when exactly he dropped so I set the date at the start of the 1981 US Open. He was certainly still top-3 at the FO.

If Lendl too dropped out at some point it would have to have been in 1983, but I can see no evidence for this. He was certainly seeded in the top-3 in all slams he entered at the time, disregarding Wimbledon as they always had their own seeding ideas.

 

Show me your numbers and ranking points for this period, because it's actually a very interesting period of tennis history, say from 1975 to about 1984 when Borg retired.

 

Both links are invalid. Now I have to do some digging.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Share/Event-Draws.aspx?e=560&y=1981

Drawsheet confirmed.

Litotes, pull down that record!