Tennis Discussions > Tennis Discussions

How Many Weeks at #1 is Worth One Slam?

<< < (2/7) > >>

Swish:

--- Quote from: jesse james on March 06, 2013, 05:49:49 PM ---Counting slams has consistently been the measure of greatness in the top players. Weeks at no1 is a secondary measure-though it only has any real utility when applied to players who's slam tally is very close.

--- End quote ---

One player has 8 slams and 200 weeks, one has 10 slams 100 weeks. About equal?
 
 

Dallas:
I think getting #1 in the ATP is a lot more worth than...say...getting to #1 in the WTA.  It's very difficult to get to #1 in the ATP without a slam (although it has happened), but not as many times as it did in the WTA.  WTA tournaments stay the same (best of 3 sets)...so it's easy to just keep playing a lot of tournaments to get points.  Back in the 'day'...the Master's event finals (and even some 500 series finals) were best of 5, as well as all the slams, so it took the men much more to get to #1.  They really had to 'earn it'.  Personally, I still think the slams should count for a lot more than the #1 ranking because after your career, many folks will always remember your slam total...not necessarily your #1 weeks ranking total.  So I wouldn't even count #1 weeks worth a slam.  I definitely wouldn't count Caroline's weeks as a #1 player worth a slam.  She has to EARN a slam! :innocent:

Litotes:

--- Quote from: swish on March 06, 2013, 08:24:59 PM ---
--- Quote from: jesse james on March 06, 2013, 05:49:49 PM ---Counting slams has consistently been the measure of greatness in the top players. Weeks at no1 is a secondary measure-though it only has any real utility when applied to players who's slam tally is very close.

--- End quote ---

One player has 8 slams and 200 weeks, one has 10 slams 100 weeks. About equal?

--- End quote ---

Which ones are you thinking about? Lendl had 270 weeks with 8 slams. Noone has 10 slams, unless you're thinking Bill Tilden in the 20s long before rankings.

masterclass:
Hmm, I don't know about the validity of this comparison.  These days, it's very difficult to get to #1 now without winning at least 1 major.  But winning 1 major doesn't guarantee you #1.  It depends how much competition one has for #1, or if there is a dominant player at #1 and also how many other lesser (below slam) tournaments are being won by you or the competitors.

Let's just take last year as a small example. 4 players had 1 major, but one player was number 1 for 35 weeks (Djokovic) and 1 other (Federer) was #1 for 17 weeks and Nadal and Murray did not make it to #1.  Now a bulk of Djokovic's weeks at #1 until July, were due to him actually winning 3 majors in that period (Wimbledon 2011, US Open 2011, AO 2012).  However Federer's 17 weeks were due to him winning only 1 major (Wimbledon 2012), but getting 8 other titles during that period including 4 masters and a Master's cup which are worth about 2.5 majors in points.  So the point is, though it's difficult to get to #1 today without winning a major, other titles, especially masters, can also be beneficial in getting to or keeping one at #1.

Per your suggestion of 52 weeks at #1 = 1 major...  I think that is high. It should be fewer weeks.

Jimmy Connors had 268 weeks at #1, which would be about 5 majors per given suggestion. He had 8 majors so about 33 wks/major.
Borg's 109 weeks at #1, about 2 majors, yet in reality he got 11 or about 10 weeks/major

Federer's 302 weeks is worth about 6 majors, but in reality he has 17 or about 18 weeks/major.

Wilander only had 20 weeks at #1, yet he won 7 majors or only 3 weeks/major.

Becker had 12 weeks at #1, yet won 6 majors, 2 weeks/major.

Rafter won 2 majors but only had 1 week at #1.

I guess I would just keep them as separate accomplishments rather than trying to equate them.

Respectfully,
masterclass

Swish:
Dividing weeks by majors I haven't considered.
 
The two stats I wanted to combine to give a career strength indicator.
A measurement of career strength = slams + (weeks at #1)/X.  X = 52 to start out with.
 
I'll have to go through a few top players, do a calculation with the variable being 52 and adjust that number to match the general consensus of a players all time rank.
Not sure if it will work out till I start plugging in the numbers.
 
 

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version