Across the Net 10.01.07: Looking Out for Number 1
Posted by Dan Martin on 10.01.2007
Over the past 34 years only 23 men have achieved the #1 tennis ranking. This is a prestigious achievement, but how significant is being #1?
Players of the Week:
Venus Williams and Ana Ivaonovic picked up WTA singles titles in South Korea and Germany. Dmitry Tursunov won the Thai Open after Nadal, Djokovic and Roddick pulled out due to injury and fatigue. Benjamin Becker, the final ATP opponent of Andre Agassi, was Tursunov's victim in the final. France's Richard Gasquet won a title in India this week as well. Gasquet played such great tennis at Wimbledon and then had problems with blisters and sickness that washed out his entire North American hard court summer. Gasquet has the talent to make a major step forward in 2008, but will need to play with greater tactical discipline as his height does not allow him to blow people off of the court.
Number 1: History
The men's tennis rankings are calculated over a 52 week period and currently take a player's Grand Slam results, Masters Series results, and best 5 other tournament (International Series) results. World #4 Nikolay Davydenko is a workhorse on tour playing far beyond 5 International Series events. His current 52 week portfolio includes his best 5 plus 12 other smaller tournaments that do not count toward his ranking. This practice is common among lower ranked players seeking to maximize computer points and prize money, but Davydenko's 17 International Series events is an excessive total among higher ranked players who tend to focus on doing well in a smaller number of events.
Since the ranking is calculated over a 52 week period, it is a one year long #1 ranking whenever a player achieves the top spot. However, ending a calendar year ranked #1 takes on a special significance. At the minimum, this achievement is an unofficial season championship. Pete Sampras finished 6 calendar years at #1; followed by Jimmy Connors and Ivan Lendl who each finished 5 different years ranked #1. Roger Federer is working on his 4th consecutive year at #1. Pete Sampras' accomplishment is all the more impressive in that he finished 6 consecutive years at #1.
Number 1: Why so Few Men are Ever Ranked #1
Men's tennis has crowned a small number of top ranked players since switching away from Grand Prix points in 1973. 23 number one ranked players over a 34 year history make becoming #1 no small feat. Patrick Rafter achieved the #1 ranking for 1 week in July 1999 and Pete Sampras holds the all time total weeks at #1 record with 286 consecutive weeks. The other 21 men have held the top spot for somewhere between 1 and 286 weeks. 16 of the men to achieve this ranking held onto the top spot for fewer than 100 weeks. Only 3 men to this point in tennis history have held the top spot for more than 200 weeks although Roger Federer will likely join their ranks in 8 weeks.
These numbers tell me that being a number 1 is very difficult even if only for a week or two, but being a dominant week in and week out #1 is even more difficult. The efforts of Connors, Lendl, Sampras and Federer have frozen out large numbers of players from ever reaching number 1. These 4 men have held the #1 ranking an astonishing 1016 weeks and counting. By dividing 1016 by 52, one can see that over 19 and ½ years at #1 have been accumulated by 4 men. This is why so few men have been ranked #1 over the 34 year history of ATP rankings.
Still, some years are more active than others when it comes to crowning #1 ranked players. As Ivan Lendl's dominance waned in 1990, Stefan Edberg assumed the #1 ranking in August 1990. In January 1991, Boris Becker finally took hold of the #1 ranking and traded it back and forth with Stefan Edberg. In 1992, Jim Courier began to swap the top spot with Stefan Edberg. All of this swapping was put to an end by Pete Sampras in 1993 when he became #1. As one dominant #1 fades, the top ranking becomes more attainable until a new dominant #1 emerges. Sampras saw Agassi make a serious challenge in 1995 and Thomas Muster grabbed the top spot for a few weeks in 1996, but the swapping ended when Sampras took over. In 1998, Sampras was still the clear #1 in tennis, but Marcelo Rios also took the top spot for a few weeks.
In 1999, chaos hit the rankings again. Andre Agassi and Pete Sampras were familiar faces trading the #1 ranking. 3 new contenders came to the rankings dance. Carlos Moya took over number 1 for 2 weeks in early 1999. Yevgeny Kafelnikov took the top spot for 6 weeks in mid 1999. Patrick Rafter also scored his lone week at the top in 1999. Five players held the top spot in one year and 3 of them were new to this level of rankings success.
2000 and 2003 were also eventful years. Marat Safin and Gustavo Kuerten each assumed the top ranking during 2000. Lleyton Hewitt applied some order when he became #1 at the end of 2001. In 2003, Andy Roddick and Juan Carlos Ferrero also became #1. When a dominant #1 is away, the mice will play? Well Roger Federer put an end to the play when he claimed the #1 ranking for the first time in February 2004 after winning the 2004 Australian Open. 192 weeks later, Federer is still #1.
Number 1: Historical Significance
What does being #1 mean when evaluating a player's career? This is a tough question. I would largely place Edberg and Becker in a similar position on the all time great pecking order. Each man won 6 Grand Slam titles and had moments of brilliance. Still, Becker only held the #1 ranking for 12 weeks and Edberg held the top spot for 72 weeks. Edberg held the #1 ranking 600% of the time that Becker held the #1 ranking, but clearly he is not 600% the player that the Wimbledon kid was.
Even more troubling is the case of Edberg vs. Hewitt (or Becker vs. Roddick). Edberg held the #1 ranking for 72 weeks, but Lleyton Hewitt, who has only won 2 Grand Slams, held the #1 ranking for 80 weeks. Roddick with his lone Grand Slam title, held the #1 ranking 1 week longer than Boris Becker. My conclusion is that the #1 ranking is not a good means for differentiating between the mid level and lower level tennis greats. The #1 ranking does seem to be a good variable, but obviously not the only variable, when determining the best of the best.
Number 1: The Best of the Best
Every rule has an exception or two, and Bjorn Borg and Andre Agassi present a pair of alliterative exceptions to the #1 ranking separating the really good from the really great. Bjorn Borg and Andre Agassi spent over 52 weeks fewer at #1 than did John McEnroe. Each man to my mind had a better singles career than McEnroe. Borg spent 159 and 161 fewer weeks at #1 than did Connors or Lendl, but Bjorn Borg's total of 11 Grand Slam titles is in front of both Lendl and Connors tally of 8 major titles.
The most total weeks and most consecutive weeks at #1 do speak of an attitude of dominating the tour and defending the #1 ranking like a boxer defends a title belt. Boris Becker viewed the #1 ranking as something to be achieved. Players such as Sampras, Lendl, Connors and Federer view the top spot as something to take pride in and defend. The top four players on the all time weeks at #1 are in descending order Sampras (286), Lendl (270), Connors (268), and Federer (192 weeks and counting). The top four players on the consecutive weeks at #1 are the exact reverse: Federer (192 weeks and counting), Connors (160), Lendl (157), and Sampras (102 consecutive weeks).
Bjorn Borg can be and is often placed ahead of Lendl and Connors on the all time greatest list. However, his 109 total weeks at #1 and best mark of 46 consecutive weeks at #1 are far behind both Sampras and Federer. Throw in that Federer's 12 and Sampras' 14 Grand Slam titles also place them in front of Borg and we have some statistical reasons for placing Borg in the 3rd spot of best player in the post Rod Laver era. The Federer-Sampras debate is still a live debate. That is a good thing for the sport.
PS - What one does with Rafael Nadal never having held the #1 ranking to this point in his career despite holding the all time clay court winning streak and winning 3 consecutive French Open titles is a puzzle for experts to debate.
