Which is better? ending 6 years in a row at number 1? or winning 6 Masters titles?

Those are very unique and quite different achievements!

Of course Pro Pete will choose one and Pro Roger will choose the other.

I personally was not aware of the year ending achievement until Pete's fans were telling how special that achevement was. Deciding to finish the year at number 1 and doing so is indeed a great achievement especially knowing now how the sponsors compensate their players financially with such achievements. However against that its a very random date in a way and I doubt Pete woudl have finished number 1 that many times had the year ended with the clay season....for instance.

The Masters is simply a tournaments where you have to play the best players in the world with very little chance to get good draws like in slams. You roughlly have to play anybody there and more so nowadays, everybody who managed to preserve their feathers during the seasons. If anything I see it at as a more valuable tournament now than before tennis became such a physical war. Federer won it 6 times, and it's clearly not down to luck. He even coudl have won it a 7th times or even 8th had he not been injured on 2 occasions at his peak time.

Please make a choice and comment.

Both achievements need to cross the same threshold of having had one of the top 8 calender years.

The question is which achievement involves sailing higher over the bar of that initial threshold: (a) being the best player in the week of the Masters (b) having been the best player in the 45 odd weeks that precede it?

For me it's (b) with no real contest. You can take 2008-2011 as your comparators - in none of those years has the year-end-no. 1 been the winner of the Masters.

I think both are incredible achievements and both Sampras and Federer are giants of the sport.

I have voted for 6 Masters purely on the grounds that these guys are competitors and what really means the most to them is winning.

But it is splitting hairs really between the two - Fed has to date finished the year 5 times as number 1 to Pete's 6 times, and Pete won 5 Masters Cups to Fed's 6.

No brainer. 6 years as number 1. Even 1 year as number one is better than any amount of WTF titles.

Yeah definitely 6 years as number one.

You could just be a great indoor player and win 6 masters cups.

You need to be far more diverse to end 6 years as the number one player.

6 Tennis Masters

Sampras really wanted that 6th Year End No.1, to break the record and entered some late tournaments to keep up with Rios. Then Rios missed the WTF with injury and handed the YE No. 1 to Pete.

But overall I don't think the goal of the top players is to be YE No. 1. It's to win the big tournaments and the YE No.1 just ends up being a result of that.
So it's a close call, but I'd go for 6 WTF titles.

JuliusHMarx wrote:
But overall I don't think the goal of the top players is to be YE No. 1. It's to win the big tournaments and the YE No.1 just ends up being a result of that.
So it's a close call, but I'd go for 6 WTF titles.

I personally agree with that. I think the real numbers that matter in terms of ranking is straight weeks at number 1 (Roger)...but more importantly, total number of weeks as number 1 (Pete). Finishing the year as number 1 can be down to luck as there is (more so at the time) a cycle of preferred surfaces that make that ending number one factor a bit unfair. Pete never chose to lose the number one spot before the year end, yet he did, so to me there is a "luck" factor..that is less likely in the winning 6 Masters, generally played on a neutral surface amongst the best 8 players in the world.

And 2010 sums that up for me in 2010. Nadal won everything that year but there was someting special in the draws he got as he played very small number of seeds in those semis and finals of TMS and Slams he won. When it came to the Masters, he failed again, against the best players. We saw how close to Murray he was despite the huge gap in achievements that year, and saw how Federer was still around despite winning only one slam. Draws are a big factors in slams...a bit less at WTF. You have to play the best and can't quite avoid it.

Tenez wrote:... more so nowadays, everybody who managed to preserve their feathers during the seasons. If anything I see it at as a more valuable tournament now than before ...

Before, Federer used to finish as the End of Year No 1 ranked player.

Now (the past two years), he hasn't finish as the End of Year No 1 ranked player but he has won the past two ATP World Tour Finals (formerly the Masters Cup).

Hence Now winning the WTF tournament is more important than being the End of Year No 1 ranked player

Nore Staat wrote:

Tenez wrote:... more so nowadays, everybody who managed to preserve their feathers during the seasons. If anything I see it at as a more valuable tournament now than before ...

Before, Federer used to finish as the End of Year No 1 ranked player.

Now (the past two years), he hasn't finish as the End of Year No 1 ranked player but he has won the past two ATP World Tour Finals (formerly the Masters Cup).

Hence Now winning the WTF tournament is more important than being the End of Year No 1 ranked player

Next year it will be 6 titles in Basel or 6 years as number 1

ps Yes I agree winning tournaments is more important than being the end of year No 1, but I wouldn't like to compare the "achievements".

Winning a tournament is an achievement. Being the End of Year No 1 Ranked player is not really an achievement in the way that winning a tournament is. It is just a measure of how well the player performed over the year compared to other players, as measured by ranking points.

So for 2011, Djokovics biggest achievements have been winning three grand slam titles plus all those Master tournaments. Becoming the No 1 Ranked player in the world is just a collective measure of those achievements. He is entitled to call himself the No. 1 player based on his collective achievements.

I went for Y/E #1. One's a year, the other's an event.

So the pro Roger or Pete theory is wrong -

bogbrush wrote:I went for Y/E #1. One's a year, the other's an event.

So the pro Roger or Pete theory is wrong -

Yes but it's no ordinary event. It's the event gathering only the top 8 who actually did best over the whole year.

Yes but its still one event on an indoor surface which is hardly played all year round - nearly all the results the top 8 get to go to WTF are achieved on outdoor surfaces. Indeed, one can argue that sometimes the surface should be indoor clay...

Nonetheless, winning 6 YE's has to be a greater achievement - we have had people win the event who havent ended the year as #1, i.e. they've been good at winning the odd event, e.g. WTF, but not enough across the year to be at the top. I think it would be interesting to see how many times the #1 player has won the WTF also.

Just for you Lydian Hope I have transcribed this accurately, can't be a*sed to check atm - all corrections welcome please :

key: * = No 1 atm x = not No 1

1970 Stan Smith (Numero Uno the following year)
1971 Nastase x
1972 Nastase x
1973 Nastase *
1974 Vilas x
1975 Nastase x
1976 Orantes x
1977 Connors (No 1 the previous year)
1978 McEnroe x
1979 Borg *
1980 Borg *
1981 Llendl x
1982 Llendl x
1983 McEnroe *
1984 McEnroe *
1985 Llendl *
1986 Llendl *
1987 Llendl *
1988 Becker x
1989 Edberg d Becker - Boris was No 1
1990 Agassi d Edberg - Stefan was No 1
1991 Sampras x
1992 Becker d Courier - Jim was No 1
1993 Stich x
1994 Sampras *
1995 Becker x
1996 Sampras *
1997 Sampras *
1998 Corretja x
1999 Sampras d Agassi - Andre was No 1
2000 Kuerten *
2001 Hewitt *
2002 Hewitt *
2003 Federer x
2004 Federer *
2005 Nalbandian d Federer - Roger was No 1
2006 Federer *
2007 Federer *
2008 Djokovic x
2009 Davydenko x
2010 Federer d Nadal - Rafa was No 1
2011 Federer x

so over the 42 years it has been held, it has been won by the No 1 seed 17 times - can anyone do the percentages?

On 6 occasions in the other 25 finals, the No 1 seed was the defeated player

I think I am correct in saying that all winners apart from 4 were No 1s at some time in their career?

Safin 05? you mean Nalbandian, correct?

Thanks Tenez - I do and will correct immediately - must have muddled the AO up with MC!

I thought you copied and paste that list. Well done if you made it up out of memory!

It is actually 6 winners who have not been No 1 at any time during their career. They are:

1974 Guillermo Vilas - highest ranking No 2, winner of four slams - AO 1978 and 1979, French Open 1977 and US Open 1977

1976 Manuel Orantes - not sure what his highest ranking was but he won the US Open in 1975 beating the No 1 seed Jimmy Connors in the final

1993 Michael Stich - highest ranking No 2 Winner of Wimbledon 1991 and finalist at French Open 1996 and US Open 1994

1998 Alex Corretja - highest ranking No 2, finalist at Roland Garros 1998 and 2001

2005 David Nalbandian - highest ranking No 3 runner up at Wimbledon 2002

2009 Nikolay Davydenko - highest ranking No 3


lol Tenez - just seen your post - certainly not from memory, I scribbled in short hand and then typed up because I was adding info to list of names - I can't remember where I left my keys last, so incapable of retaining most information for too long

Guillermo would have been long term number one if it was not for a biased ranking system favouring tournaments from the US....more than slams.

That's really interesting Tenez - I knew the system was different for accruing ranking points, but I didn't know exactly what the diff was.

Yes, it was a bit absurd at the time...extremely biased.

In that list of Masters winners, I'd say only Corretja is a weird one. Davydenko on teh other hand deserves much more than a Masters...but for some reasons was unlucky...andprobably a bit nervous too in the big moments.

Davy thoroughly deserved the WTF that he did win as well - superb play that week.

He is a bit of a giant slayer too!

Year end number 1 is a more special achievement I think, given what it takes in the mens game to be number 1. I don't agree with the year end being an arbitrary date as there definitely is a sense of starting and finishing of the season at the beginning and end of the year. This means that the year end number 1 has been the best from start to finish.

If the mens game was like the womens then I would say the year end championships was more significant.

A bit off topic, but what's happening with Misha?

Easily 6 years No1.

The WTF's just a glorified exhibition that's been won in the past by Fat Dave and Skelator.

Great work TP, thanks very much
Didnt Sampras win in 1991? Interesting in that Lendl, Sampras and Federer have all won it 3 times whilst being #1.
Other interesting stats: Becker got the final 8 times (indoor beast) but that was bettered by Lendl getting to the final 9 years consequetively...wow.
As means of thanks for such sterling work here's a prezzie for you...yours truly using strings in a different way: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Os0IY-CYmvM , nothing special just jamming around, looking to upload more bits and bobs over the coming days/weeks...no worries, I wont be giving up my day job any time soon, lol

break_in_the_fifth wrote:... I don't agree with the year end being an arbitrary date as there definitely is a sense of starting and finishing of the season at the beginning and end of the year. This means that the year end number 1 has been the best from start to finish. ...

I suppose one could argue that there is a very loose connection between the End of Year No. 1 Ranking and who finishes top of the Football Premier League at the completion of a footballing season. Except I don't think there is any reward given to the End of Year No. 1 ranked player - apart from the "prestige". See my earlier post for further details.

lydian wrote:Great work TP, thanks very much
Didnt Sampras win in 1991? Interesting in that Lendl, Sampras and Federer have all won it 3 times whilst being #1.
Other interesting stats: Becker got the final 8 times (indoor beast) but that was bettered by Lendl getting to the final 9 years consequetively...wow.
As means of thanks for such sterling work here's a prezzie for you...yours truly using strings in a different way: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Os0IY-CYmvM , nothing special just jamming around, looking to upload more bits and bobs over the coming days/weeks...no worries, I wont be giving up my day job any time soon, lol

It's great lydian - presume this is the Bronte parsonage, love what you have done with the changing colour to the photo - extremely gothic. Great guitar work and very evocative of the wild and lonely landscape - and you finished with one of my top three ever novelists and poets - Emily B. Ta muchly

PS you are quite right about Sampras - I'm just off to edit

Back on thread for a mo - changed my mind over night, and would like to tick the box that 6 years y/e No 1 is the greater achievement, because as others have said that stat reflects the whole year's performance. However erictheblue (I don't have a slap smiley ) - a little less of the WTF being just a glorified exhibition please - 1,500 ranking points for the undefeated champ makes it some exho!

Thanks TP , indeed that was the Bronte parsonage...a place I know pretty well being from the general area - and always feel at home amongst the pennine moorlands, some fantastic scenery up there, and it changes greatly across the seasons. Nothing more refreshing than talking a walk up there on a crisp winter's day. I'm also a bit of a Bronteite and always liked Emily's Gondal poems. lol, I was abit of a 'goth' in my youth... Anyway, glad you liked the clip.

Going back to tennis, I can well remember the sheer effort it took Sampras to win that 6th YE, he had to win the title in Vienna Indoors I think to get the points for it so had a lot of pressure riding on it. He was also unlucky to get a 7th YE #1 ranking due to a back injury one year that cost him huge points at AO and USO (the USO injury arguably cost him a 15th slam too). Back injuries blighted his career towards the end and his genetic thalassemia meant his recovery powers were suffering more and more between matches.

1500 pts is alot of points for one event but these guys do have to beat a very strong field across 5 matches to get the title. I'm not sure it should be much higher than a normal Masters but do understand why it is nonetheless.

Went with the six years ending at n°1. Ending a year at n°1 means you were overall the best player in the world that year, whereas however tough the WTF is, it's still just one tournament win. Consistency over the year is the greater performance IMO, but both are great achievements.

lydian wrote:Thanks TP OK, indeed that was the Bronte parsonage...a place I know pretty well being from the general area - and always feel at home amongst the pennine moorlands, some fantastic scenery up there, and it changes greatly across the seasons. Nothing more refreshing than talking a walk up there on a crisp winter's day. I'm also a bit of a Bronteite and always liked Emily's Gondal poems. lol, I was abit of a 'goth' in my youth... Anyway, glad you liked the clip.

Unashamedly right off topic - but if you are a Bronteite, have you read 'Dark Quartet' by Lynne Reid Banks, or 'The Infernal World of Branwell Bronte' (I think by Daphne du Maurier - it's ages since I read). Both are wonderful, and will definitely appeal to the inner goth

I suppose I should finish this post with some tennis - I imagine it was too windy up on Haworth moor for many games of doubles!

Hi TP, I havent read "Dark Quartet" but will now look that one up - thank you! The story of the younger brother is quite a sad one isnt it? Indeed the story of the whole family is sad with most of them having died in their 30s from TB, caught from each other. But what an amazing literary family with such deep imagination crafted and expressed through deeply layered situations - lord knows where they got their imagination from given the rather puritanical suuroundings of their upbringing? I guess we could get into allsorts of sidebar discussions which would be definitely and gratuitously off topic! The reasons why the Bronte novels - particularly WH, and the evocative landscapes they both conjure and convey, capture many people's imagination are far and wide. There's no end of interpretations of their deeper hidden meaning but in essence I think we associate with some of the powerfully held emotions felt by the characters in the book. There have been many debates over the years as to whether WH or Jane Eyre is the best Bronte novel...they're both quite different and its ultimately a subjective judgement although many people feel Emily inspired Charlotte. In reality both are splendid examples of gothic fiction. I see another WH film has just been released (the 39th I believe) which for a change covers the entire span of the book rather than just going up to the point of Cathy's death.

lol at "suppose I should...", yes it does get windy up on the hills and moors for sure, and of course the north is not without its plentiful supply of rain neither For sure the area makes you adept at playing in wind (not quite Nadal learning his craft in windy Manacor of course), rain and even snow. That was once you had actually been able to find a tennis club to play at given the north of England some years back wasnt a haven for lawn tennis clubs! I didnt play or get involved in tennis seriously until I moved to the midlands for a time where there were good indoor facilities at Loughborough and Nottingham so it was easier to play through the winter without having to wait for the artifical grass courts to clear/thaw out!

Anyway...to bring both these threads together you may be interested to know there is a club called "Bronte Tennis Club" - is it in Haworth? No, Canada!

Apologies to OP for going well off-piste!

Whole non tennis playing family of the Brontes very tragic - poor Charlotte outliving (for a short while) all of her siblings. There is no question - Wuthering Heights is the superior novel imvho, and Emily the most brilliant in a gifted family. Glad new film of WH to feature Hareton's and Catherine's story as well - just seen the new Jane Eyre which was suitably broody and beautifully filmed.

I didn't realise Manacor was so windy - I guess most islands have their fair share of sea breezes - no wonder Rafa copes so well in those situations - I don't see him as Heathcliffe, but he could be a passable Hareton I think!

Agree WH is the better novel. Has a certain rawness and depth that JE cant match IMO. Yep Manacor is meant to be pretty windy being a coastal town - do you remember that final between Nadal and Murray at IW 2009 when it was blowing a gale and Nadal coped much better losing just 3 games? Yes Nadal would have the look of Hareton (although rather more educated and civil), not quite sure who Catherine Linton would be...Wozniacki?

I didn't see the IW final, but I remember reading about it and how Nadal coped while Murray really struggled with wind.

lol - of course Rafa more educated and civil than Hareton in the beginning but feel he would 'scrub down' pretty well! and could scrub back up a little as Catherine begins to draw him out (I am stumbling in the dark here because I read 25 years ago - but the the haunting echoes of the novel stay with one, perhaps this is the limit of my accuracy - actually think time for a revisiting!)

Wozniacki as Catherine - she looks optimistic enough to cope with Heathcliff, Hareton, Wuthering Heights in all its gloom - so yeah, good choice!

I well recall that Sampras mad dash to ward off Rios as the year-end number one. Pete later said he'd practically done himself in and had played much more than he should have.
Got to reckon that the yr-end number one is more important, although if you've won multiple year-end champs that's an achievement too, as not all the top eight would have been knackered, injured or disinterested, for ALL those WTFs.

lol TP, a think quite a few women think Rafa scrubs down pretty well

Yes Heathcliff raised Hareton in his own image/style (he resented that Hareton and Catherine were attracted to each other because she reminded him of "his" Cathy, so he treated/raised Hareton poorly). I guess one can imagine an animal side to Rafa, no?

I thought Wozniacki might fit given that Catherine waas might to have golden hair and blue eyes, plus her previous relationship with Verdasco fits given that he's a similar Hareton possiblity to Rafa (wow, we really are getting off piste here arent we - still, its off season now so anything goes!).

Its always good to revisit the book, especially this time of year when you can imagine the wind howling across those dark Haworth skies and moors. I'm planning a visit to the parsonage soon also...I'll let you know if I see Rafa or Wozniacki!

I think one of the interesting things about the book is that its been almost unfilmable due to its scale and complexity - and this makes the book itself stay central over the years, whereas with other books they often become made into films and then the films kind of take over the memory/legacy of the book. They've tried 39 times now to film it and none of them do it justice, which I'm kind of glad about - that said the book has been around since the 1840s so its doubtful any film can replace it anyway. Have to say I've read 100s/1000s books over the years but this strange and dark book has always held a certain fascination for me - probably because of where I'm from and family background, etc. But guess its also down to the genuis of Ellis Bell and the bleak, harsh world (Gondal) she created within her mind...which her poems explore further.

You would definitely love 'Dark Quartet' - the story of Emily is the most haunting of all. The novel explores the precocious creative genuises that created the worlds of Gondal( Emily and Anne) and whichever the other one was that Charlotte and Branwell worked on. I hadn't realised that Charlotte really tricked Emily into publishing WH which caused an estrangement for a while, and that WH was edited quite radically by Charlotte after Emily's death, in an attempt to protect her beloved sister's reputation - the Victorian public shrinking from the sensuality of the novel. Thankfully, we have the restored and original version to hand now. You obviously know the story of the Brontes very well, but I won't say anymore in case I spoil the novel for you.
In the meantime, spurred on by our discussion, I have ordered a copy of Wuthering Heights - my much loved battered copy lost in our last move - and intend to re-read.

Fab, great to hear!
You'll be able to curl up and immerse yourself into that timeless book again, drifting across those West Yorks heather, moors and hills

Indeed I think I'll also re-read my own copy, bought it 2nd hand in 1988, it was printed in the 50s I think, has a wonderfully dog-eared and rustic look to it, very fitting! Thank you very much for outlining and recommending 'Dark Quartet' - I'm going to order that too!

I know a fair bit about the family but always keen to learn more. I used to cycle around Haworth loads as a teenager/early 20s (was a keen cyclist/triathlete...) and often went past the Bronte parsonage/museum, even used to go for nights out in the town with my friends. Over my teen years the folklore and story behind the family rubbed off onto me until I read the novels and became a solid Broneite. I can tell you the roads and hills in Haworth are ridiculously steep too, not the easiest place to cycle! But then they are pretty much everywhere whence I came - hardly a piece of land flat enough to build a tennis court on!

Sounds wild and beautiful - fully intend to visit someday, maybe with my book club (well drinking and gossip club, with the odd literary recommendation thrown in )

I hope you enjoy Dark Quartet - let me know

lol, now that's a proper book club! Yep, is a great place to visit indeed, has a unique feel to it. Some lovely country hotels in the area to stay over in too. I'll certainly let you know about Dark Quartet! Just need to finish the 5th book of George RR Martin then I'll be on my way to it...

Year end number one is more important for me. It reflects the whole year achievement on all surfaces and not just one tournament on a fast surface. It is highly valued by the players.

Also, the total weeks analysis doesn't compare back so far in history whereas the year end no 1 analysis goes back a bit further. Yes Sampras has a week more than Federer but that may be just due to a tournament moving itself back a week once in the calendar or something!