Oct 3, 2013 -- 4:15AM, yyyy wrote:

In Fact Number of years occupying World #1 place is the most important achievement in tennis. GS were not as important before Federer's era. Then some media driven by powerful sponsors started counting them...The same media discounted Years as Number one and implemented Weeks as Number one?? Q: Since when a week is greater than Year? A: since Roger Federer had more weeks as #1 than Sampras! (Sampras has more years as #1...but who cares about Years!!...).

This isn't actually true. World number 1 is a debatable stat. Because world number 1 doesn't always tell you who the best player in the world is. World number 1 is a formula based on many tournaments which doesn't have to tell you the actual best player.

Eg. Nadal has been the real best player in the world for a lot longer time than before he took over world number 1 this week.

Serena Williams has a very years (and weeks) at number 1, only 2 before this year. The same as Caroline Wozniacki, anybody going to seriously argue they are on the same level.

Stuff like Ronnie O'Sullivan has been the best player in the world more often than he's been world number 1 etc. Phil Taylor many years ago wasn't world number 1 in darts, yet everyone knew he was the best player in the world.


Grand slams, world championships in the case of other sports are where the best ply their best and come to play. Thus are the true measure of greatness in tennis.

World number 1 is more bonus gravy than the carrot.

Oct 9, 2013 -- 1:18AM, yyyy wrote:

This isn't actually true. World number 1 is a debatable stat. Because world number 1 doesn't always tell you who the best player in the world is. World number 1 is a formula based on many tournaments which doesn't have to tell you the actual best player.---------------------Eg. Nadal has been the real best player in the world for a lot longer time than before he took over world number 1 this week.---------------REAL in YOUR eyes. So, to conclude: fcku THE Ranking,...the best player is the one YOU say. Nice.

Flaw in system is easy to see. If WTA used ATP rankings Kvitova would have ended 2011 world number 1. Indeed I haven't tried but I imagine using 2014 ranking system Kvitova would have been world number 1.

In other words the system is subjective.

Real in my eyes maybe. But in most examples, only muppets would disagree. Eg. Phil Taylor in darts was winning all the TV majors at the time, but because players like Lloyd would dominate the floor events which Taylor wouldn't even play he was world number 1.

In the Nadal example you bring up. Your point is completely flawed. "Real in my eyes", so according to you Nadal only become the best player in the world after getting comprehensively outplayed by Djokovic in the final? He does that and now all of a sudden because of that he's the best player in the world, and not beforehand where he dominated nearly every event all year.

The problem with the systems used in these sports is they are not a rating system based on who is the best player like say in chess, they are a system designated on who can collect the most points etc. So they don't necessarily tell you who is the best player, obviously they often will, because they are designed to do that, but there are plenty of times when they don't.

Oct 10, 2013 -- 4:40AM, yyyy wrote:

n88uk, you're Nadal worshiper. Therefore I understand your effort to prove Nadal is the god. According to your "unbiased" system AMurray was the best player of 2013 till USO; because he won Wimby. And whoever wins USO is the best player of that season, because he won USO and after him there was no one to win another major till end of year?! You worship to GS tours as the only tours in ATP?! Fine, then bow to Roger Federer, and kiss his icon every day till someone else wins 18 majors. Your god may never live that long to achieve that. My condolences to you...Just one question for th end: (if GS titles determine the best player in the world), is Rogi the best player in the world now? Yes or No are the only options here. I appreciate your effort to answer this one.

I am not a Nadal worshipper, and nothing I have said is to make Nadal look good . That's just guff from you to cloud the actual issue. My points are all in objective fashion, alas most my points haven't even used ATP.

And no Murray wasn't the best player after he won Wimbledon because he hadn't really dominated the rest of the season had he. It didn't become clear Nadal was the best player until some time in the summer. Either after Cincinnati or sometime in the US Open, depends on your opinion.

Yes right now in answer to your last question.

But it's not so much that grand slams is all that matters, though it's obviously the main factor in deciding the best. Grand slams alone aren't the deciding factor in deciding the best player, they just play a major role in it. A bit like the best team doesn't always win the Champions League, World Cup etc. They are a major factor, not the only factor, there's a difference.

If you want to look into a system which would rank players by "who is the best player", look into something like an ELO system. Of course nothing is perfect, it has its own flaws to, but it's reasonably handy. The reason tennis doesn't use this system though is ATP and WTA who make the ranking system have a vested interest in their tours, by definition they want players to extensively play the tours. ELO doesn't encourage that, it would encourage something like play 11-12 tournaments a year and play your absolute maximum in every event.