No.1 Ranking

I was doing some stat and fact finding with Djokovic becoming the World no.1 to see how many players won a Slam without being the World no.1. These were my findings.

Pete Sampras - 5/14 - 35.71%
Roger Federer - 4/16 - 25%
Rafael Nadal - 6/10 - 60%
Andre Agassi - 7/8 - 87.5%
Mats Wilander - 7/7 - 100%
John McEnroe - 3/7 - 42.85%
Ivan Lendl - 3/8 - 37.5%
Jimmy Connors - 3/8 - 37.5%
Boris Becker - 6/6 - 100%
Bjorn Borg - 8/11 - 72.27%

Total 52/88 - 59.09%

Does being the number 1 player in the world bring an extra pressure when performing at Grand Slams?

what are those ratios?

The first one is the amount of slams won when the player hasn't been ranked number 1 in the world and the second one is the total slams they have won. Does that make sense?

Yes - But I am not sure what to draw from this...

I was asking the question whether being the number 1 ranked player feels more pressure at Grand Slams compared to players that are not ranked number 1?

I thought McEnroe won 7 slams?

Very true LM. I put his doubles instead

I don't think it means any of that lk, though it's good to kick the idea around.

Nadal, for example, was winning a lot of RGs when #2. No surprise there, and not indicative of anything other than he was the best on clay when the 2nd best overall.

Some are funny though: Wilanders is weird!

Didn't Borg win some slams without being number one as Connors pretty much monopolised the numero uno spot in the early years of the computer rankings?

Borg's record was 8/11 which equates to 72.27%

When you aint number 1 your mindset is that of an underdog.. so in theory you will be thinking more positive and not defensive/afraid to go for too many risks.

Unless of course, your name is Robin Soderling

Josiah Maiestas wrote:When you aint number 1 your mindset is that of an underdog.. so in theory you will be thinking more positive and not defensive/afraid to go for too many risks.

Unless of course, your name is Andy Murray

Only you could bring AM into this!!

I will edit it for you

I think it is interesting that when looking some of the 'greats' stats there it does tell an interesting story. Becker and Wilander that is amazing. Looking at Roger's record, just shows how comfortable he was being top player in the world.

legendkillar wrote:I think it is interesting that when looking some of the 'greats' stats there it does tell an interesting story. Becker and Wilander that is amazing. Looking at Roger's record, just shows how comfortable he was being top player in the world.

It was drummed into Rog from an early age that he ought to be winning slams and be number one. For a time he struggled to do this, but once he got there he was, as you say, very comfortable with it. A few months after he got to the top, he was asked about the pressure. He replied something along the lines of: "There's no pressure. I love being number one." He certainly made the most of it (237 weeks in succession. Surely that won't be broken).

The early ranking system was quite different from the current one though wasn't it? Makes the comparison a bit tricky - after all, Borg would probably have been #1 for a lot longer using the current points system on the strength of 2 slam titles per year.

Any chance of showing how many slams were won by players not ranked #1 or #2 (i.e. so not seeded to at reach the final)? My guess is that Rafa won 5 of those 6 slams while #2, and most of Agassi's slams will have been when he was #2 to Sampras.

Here's why Wilander and Becker never won slams while ranked #1. I see from the ATP site that Wilander was ranked in the top 4 from the start of 84 to mid 89, but was only #1 for a few months from Septemer 88 to January 89, so probably only played 1 slam (AO 89) as the #1. Looking at Boris's ranking history, he had two short spells at #1 in 89, firstly a couple of weeks following the AO and then from mid July to the end of August, so he ws probably #1 only for the USO 89.

On an average, 60% of the time the number 1 ranked player doesn’t win a grand slam!