Mens Tennis Forums banner

21 - 40 of 104 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,380 Posts
One of the major indicators for sure, along with:

Grand Slam Titles, Masters, Year End Championships, Total Titles and surface variation based on tour event ratios.

All of those should be taken into consideration.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarkoAqua and INFJ

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,305 Posts
well yes, but actually no. Even if you enter 15 smaller tournaments and make at least the final in all of them only the 6 best will be counted towards your ranking points...
Point is that a lot of the top players that you would be competing with for #1 ranking tend to skip those tournaments. So say you enter 8-10 to win 6 than that is likely 3 or 4 more 250/500 tournaments than your main competition likely would have won.

The other issue with it is that you can get the #1 ranking without actually winning many big tournaments whatsoever. Just making some deep slam runs and winning a couple M1000s could potentially be enough for the #1 ranking in some eras.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
59,026 Posts
I think the order of importance is
Slams=Weeks at #1>YEC>Masters>Total Titles>Olympics

(notice I don't include Year end #1, idiotic stat to consider, there's already a huge boost in total weeks at #1 for ending the year there that I'm not clear why should count for so much more, double counting it as meaningful is baffling)
 

·
Your visions will happen
Joined
·
48,559 Posts
I think the order of importance is
Slams=Weeks at #1>YEC>Masters>Total Titles>Olympics

(notice I don't include Year end #1, idiotic stat to consider, there's already a huge boost in total weeks at #1 for ending the year there that I'm not clear why should count for so much more, double counting it as meaningful is baffling)
Why Olympics so low?

For me Olympics are a slam or almost a slam. Definitely higher than YEC
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
59,026 Posts
Why Olympics so low?

For me Olympics are a slam or almost a slam. Definitely higher than YEC
no tennis history, weird entry procedures, plenty of players skip it. It's basically the field of a good 500, not BO5 (even in the final), and some players don't care about it. That it DOES mean a lot to many players is what elevates it to the list at all, but it's certainly way easier to win than a YEC.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
395 Posts
no tennis history, weird entry procedures, plenty of players skip it. It's basically the field of a good 500, not BO5 (even in the final), and some players don't care about it. That it DOES mean a lot to many players is what elevates it to the list at all, but it's certainly way easier to win than a YEC.
It is not, considering that neither Roger nor Novak won it. It's a knockout event that occurs once every 4 years. That alone makes it statistically more difficult to win than an annual event that has a RR format before the KO. The Olympics are a chance for professional players to put their respective countries on the medals tally without getting paid. Which is why it has been so coveted in the last 16 years or so. And it happens right in the middle of the season which means players are more likely to be healthy than at the end of the season.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Justiciar

·
Rankings Master
Joined
·
15,874 Posts
It is not, considering that neither Roger nor Novak won it. It's a knockout event that occurs once every 4 years. That alone makes it statistically more difficult to win than an annual event that has a RR format before the KO. The Olympics are a chance for professional players to put their respective countries on the medals tally without getting paid. Which is why it has been so coveted in the last 16 years or so. And it happens right in the middle of the season which means players are more likely to be healthy than at the end of the season.
Not to mention the surface variation from one event to the other. And the fact that you will not play it in the same geographical conditions each time (altitude included) or climate conditions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
198 Posts
Slams first, weeks at #1 second. Only two main criteria. Others such as YEC/masters may be considered if there is a huge huge difference.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
170 Posts
Stupidity At Its Peak
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
64 Posts
The idea of putting weeks at #1 at the same level of importance as number of Grand Slam titles is good and rational. However, the way you analyze the data is skin-deep. Missing 2 important things:

1) #1 in era A can be weaker than #2 in era B

Example:

*using current ranking system

Sampras at #1 position

1998: 7270
1997: 8925
1996: 8390
1993: 10120

Nadal at #2 position

2011: 9595
2009: 9205
2007: 10340
2006: 8030
2005: 8915
2018: 7480

2) Comparing two players, you can't rule out periods of time when neither are #1

Example:

2005-2007 Nadal > 2005-2007 Djokovic

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,036 Posts
The idea of putting weeks at #1 at the same level of importance as number of Grand Slam titles is good and rational. However, the way you analyze the data is skin-deep. Missing 2 important things:

1) #1 in era A can be weaker than #2 in era B

Example:

*using current ranking system

Sampras at #1 position

1998: 7270
1997: 8925
1996: 8390
1993: 10120

Nadal at #2 position

2011: 9595
2009: 9205
2007: 10340
2006: 8030
2005: 8915
2018: 7480

2) Comparing two players, you can't rule out periods of time when neither are #1

Example:

2005-2007 Nadal > 2005-2007 Djokovic
Yes, that's one very good argument why weeks at number 1 shouldn't be the only criterion.
We also know Nadal lost a lot weeks due to injury.

It is a very important metric, but it's not the only one, and I definitely don't think it's more important than slams.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,697 Posts
no tennis history, weird entry procedures, plenty of players skip it. It's basically the field of a good 500, not BO5 (even in the final), and some players don't care about it. That it DOES mean a lot to many players is what elevates it to the list at all, but it's certainly way easier to win than a YEC.
Please explain to us how winning Olympics is way easier than YEC. The only 5-setter match played in any tennis event outside a grand slam is the Olympics final. Sure, the great players of the pre-Big 4 era skipped Olympics, but that was more than 16 years ago. The Big 4 have showed up at Olympics whenever they are injury free. The Olympics Gold medalists since 2008 have all been winners of multiple slams, which means one has to beat a multi-slam winner in a 5-setter Olympic final to win an Olympic Gold in tennis. That is not be an easy task than winning a 3-setter final, indoors, where the final can feature a guy that has once lost before in that event. In 2008 - Rafa and Djokovic ( and Gonzalez), in 2012 - Murray, Federer, del Potro, Djokovic, in 2016 - Murray, del Potro, Rafa (and Nishikori) have reached Olympics semifinals, and most of these are multi-slam winners. Further, to win an Olympics Gold, you have to remain undefeated, unlike in that YEC final, where guys that lost before in the event can progress further.
 
  • Like
Reactions: El_Toro

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,036 Posts
Another interesting fact:

Djokovic ended 2008 with 5,295 points. He was number 3 in the world.

Pete Sampras finished 1992 with 3,074 points. He was number 1.

Djokovic had 72% more points than Sampras but was only third.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,988 Posts
no tennis history, weird entry procedures, plenty of players skip it. It's basically the field of a good 500, not BO5 (even in the final), and some players don't care about it. That it DOES mean a lot to many players is what elevates it to the list at all, but it's certainly way easier to win than a YEC.
Plus you have the odd chance every 4 years whereas with YEC you have had a chance every year ---> far more tries to win YEC ---> far bigger blemish to not have won one despite the double digit number of tries; can't blame form/injury/luck with so many tries
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
348 Posts
Discussion Starter #39
There is no GOAT title.
GOAT has never existed, and never will.
But there is the holy grail of tennis - 20 slams.
There is no holy grail of tennis either.

But no one has ever won 4 consecutive majors on three different surfaces except Djokovic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
418 Posts
It's like trying to buy a perfect car, a perfect phone, or find an ideal wife. No such thing exists. It depends at what angle you look, one player will look better than others (speaking of the close 3, of course). To me, debate of currently active players - overall - can be lead only between RF and NDJ. RN is too specialized imho, to be considered (and his consistency is in trouble, too, weeks at No.1 clearly indicate that fact). But, as I said, it depends at what angle you look, so RN is top on clay.
 
21 - 40 of 104 Posts
Top