[Riccati]

Depending on which statistic we look at, we will get a completely different picture of which players have been dominating the game. Andre Agassi has just one YE1 but has been 101 weeks at the top. Ed erg has two YE1 and has been 72 weeks at the top. Nadal and Federer have been YE1 5 times each, but Federer has 310 weeks at the top bs 209 for Nadal.
Most other sports do not track the number of weeks at #1 and only determine the champion at the end of the year. What do you think the better approach in tennis is?

 

[AlwaysTennis]

It’s almost the same thing. People should stop using them as 2 seperate stats. I say weeks at no.1 is a more complete stat.

 

[Cynic]

In tennis the points are calculated over the previous 12 months, no matter what the date of the year is. So being number 1 on Dec 31 is no more important than being number 1 of April 30 or August 31.

 

[amirbachar]

In tennis the points are calculated over the previous 12 months, no matter what the date of the year is. So being number 1 on Dec 31 is no more important than being number 1 of April 30 or August 31.

Playets do get bonuses by their YE Rankings (about 4 million dollars for number one ranked player...), so it is more important.
Having said that, YE Ranking is a much more noisy stat, so total weeks is more important.

 

[talicnitom]

It’s almost the same thing. People should stop using them as 2 seperate stats. I say weeks at no.1 is a more complete stat.

it certainly is not! rafa has the same number of YE # 1 as fed but fed has been almost 1.5 times (50%) longer the best player than rafa. further rafa is in shared 3rd place in YE # 1 but in only 6th place in time spent as the best in the world in OE! one says how many seasons you have been the best player. secondly how long period have you been the best in the world. to me, both are equally important. and certainly YE # 1 > 1 GS.

 

[thrust]

Depending on which statistic we look at, we will get a completely different picture of which players have been dominating the game. Andre Agassi has just one YE1 but has been 101 weeks at the top. Ed erg has two YE1 and has been 72 weeks at the top. Nadal and Federer have been YE1 5 times each, but Federer has 310 weeks at the top bs 209 for Nadal.
Most other sports do not t\rack the number of weeks at #1 and only determine the champion at the end of the year. What do you think the better approach in tennis is?

Both are important stats. but, IMO, YE at #1 is the more important.

 

[AlwaysTennis]

it certainly is not! rafa has the same number of YE # 1 as fed but fed has been almost 1.5 times (50%) longer the best player than rafa. further rafa is in shared 3rd place in YE # 1 but in only 6th place in time spent as the best in the world in OE! one says how many seasons you have been the best player. secondly how long period have you been the best in the world. to me, both are equally important. and certainly YE # 1 > 1 GS.

A title is a title. The rest is just stats. Ending YE #1 by reaching semis and finals without 1 slam win or titles won would be complete disappointment for a player. Nothing beats trophies.

 

[Waz]

Weeks at number 1 is more important than year end number 1, in my opinion.

Suppose a scenario where Player A spends like 99% of the year at number 1, while Player B accumulates enough points during the year that he is right on Player A's tail to claim the number 1 ranking. Then during the final 2-3 weeks of the season, Player B performs better than Player A and during the final match of the ATP finals, Player B wins to claim the year end number 1 ranking, despite not being number 1 during any point of the season previously.

Is it better to be number 1 from the beginning of January to the end of October? Or is it better to be number 1 from the beginning of November to the end of December?

 

[Alabe]

Mweeks at number 1 is more important, no doubt about that. And is the more important misure to understand greatness of a player. In this Djokovic statistics are incredible: is almost 360 and counting (even if he was robbed AO points) , about 20% better than Federer. Nadal with about 200 is good but not even near.
I was surprises when McEnroe said the most important statistic in tennis is YE number 1.

 

[BaselineGod]

Mweeks at number 1 is more important, no doubt about that. And is the more important misure to understand greatness of a player. In this Djokovic statistics are incredible: is almost 360 and counting (even if he was robbed AO points) , about 20% better than Federer. Nadal with about 200 is good but not even near.
I was surprises when McEnroe said the most important statistic in tennis is YE number 1.

Djokovic has ensured 358 not 360.. but For Rafa you round it down from 209 to 200 to make the difference even larger, good Idea.. lol

 

[BaselineGod]

Mweeks at number 1 is more important, no doubt about that. And is the more important misure to understand greatness of a player. In this Djokovic statistics are incredible: is almost 360 and counting (even if he was robbed AO points) , about 20% better than Federer. Nadal with about 200 is good but not even near.
I was surprises when McEnroe said the most important statistic in tennis is YE number 1.

It was because the Tennis YEARBOOK of the ATP was usually printed with the YE1 on its cover..

 

[emotion]

YE #1 is the dumbest stat- weeks at #1 are already inflated by it too.

 

[Wawdal]

Love how YENO1 is THE stat in motosport while in tennis it is almost irrelevant compared to slams and weeks. In my opinion it’s underrated, sometimes mid-season rankings show a slightly imprecise picture

 

[cb4_89]

Interesting that the YE#1 leader is also the weeks at #1 leader. Funny how that works when you talk about the most dominant players.

As for the others. The issue is you are only seeing the #1 at that moment in time and you don't retroavtively get all 52 weeks if you become the YE#1. It becomes the luck of the draw as to when one was first and when the others were. For this reason the all time weeks is better to distinguish. The YE#1 is great for figuring out who the best player for a specific year was, though many times it isn't actually accurate due to players winning more points and just beating out a more dominant player (Murray 2016).

 

[Johnny Groove]

Nobody has 8 YE #1, no one has 380 weeks at #1, despite many players with 7 YE, and 300+ weeks

There seems to be a limit of human performance regardless of era and timing

Renshaw- 7 YE #1, 365 weeks, (1880's/1890)
Laver- 7 YE #1, 365 weeks, (1960's/1970's)
Djokovic- 7 YE #1, 361 weeks, (2010's/2020's)

 

[Marfrilau]

Weeks at #1 is more accurate and less arbitrary than YE #1 in a sport like tennis.

 

[talicnitom]

A title is a title. The rest is just stats. Ending YE #1 by reaching semis and finals without 1 slam win or titles won would be complete disappointment for a player. Nothing beats trophies.

there are more than 50 slam winners in OE (twice as many as no1 players)! and only 17 players have been YE # 1! all of them are also multiple slam winners with the exception of rodick who has won only one USO (and thus he is also a slam champion).

EDIT

active slam winners who have not been no1 (5 players, 7 slams, 0 YE # 1):
del potro - 1
wawa - 3
cilic - 1
thiem - 1
medvedev - 1

active YE # 1 players (4 players, 64 slams, 18 YE # 1):
fed - 20 slams, 5 YE # 1
rafa - 21, 5
nole - 20, 7
muzza - 3, 1

 

[AlwaysTennis]

there are more than 50 slam winners in OE (twice as many as no1 players)! and only 17 players have been YE # 1! all of them are also multiple slam winners with the exception of rodick who has won only one USO (and thus he is also a slam champion).

Jelena Jankovic finished the year at #1 in 2008, Wozniacki did it in 2010 & 2011. They didn't win any slam during those years. Like I said it's a cool stat but nowhere near winning a slam, not even close. They would give away those YE #1s in a heartbeat in exchange for a slam title.

 

[talicnitom]

Jelena Jankovic finished the year at #1 in 2008, Wozniacki did it in 2010 & 2011. They didn't win any slam during those years. Like I said it's a cool stat but nowhere near winning a slam, not even close. They would give away those YE #1s in a heartbeat in exchange for a slam title.

WTA and ATP are different sports. especially when it comes to GS. there were more than 35 male players in OE who have won GS without being YE # 1! on the other hand, all players who were YE # 1 are multiple slam winners (EXCEPT Rodick winning "only" one slam)!

 

[AlwaysTennis]

WTA and ATP are different sports. especially when it comes to GS. there were more than 35 male players in OE who have won GS without being YE # 1! on the other hand, all players who were YE # 1 are multiple slam winners (EXCEPT Rodick winning "only" one slam)!

Move on. Slams are much bigger than year end #1 or some additional weeks at no.1. The slam race has always been the ultimate benchmark and right now GOATdal is in the lead. Stop trying to put the focus elsewhere. Sure other stats are important but nowhere near trophies like a slam title or an Olympics gold medal like in my profile picture.