How Many Slams Do You Need To Be Crowned Year End Numbe One?

How many slam titles does it take to secure the number one position. I've looked at players who have reached number one over the last twenty years. None of them have had to explain how they got there without at least a single slam win.

1992 Courier was number one with (2) slam wins, Other slams where won by Agassi and Edburg
1993 Sampras (2), Courier, Bruguera
1994 Sampras (2), Bruguera, Agassi
1995 Sampras (2), Agassi, Muster
1996 Sampras (1), Becker, Kafelnikov, Krajiek
1997 Sampras (2), Kuerten,Rafter
1998 Sampras (1), Korda, Moya, Rafter
1999 Agassi (2), Kafelnikov, Sampras
2000 Kuerten (1), Agassi, Sampras, Safin
2001 Hewitt (1), Agassi, Kuerten, Ivanisevic
2002 Hewitt (1), Johanson, Costa, Sampras
2003 Roddick (1), Agassi, Ferrero, Federer
2004 Federer (3), Gaudio
2005 Federer (2), Safin, Nadal
2006 Federer (3), Nadal
2007 Federer (3), Nadal
2008 Nadal (2) Djokovic, Federer
2009 Federer (2) Nadal, Del Potro
2010 Nadal (3) Federer
2011 Djokovic (3) Nadal
2012 Djokovic (1) Nadal, Federer, Murray

Compiling this list was quite educational for me. There are so many surprising single and even multi slam winners in the 90's. Also I didn't realise that Kuerten is not only a multi slam winner but he also held the year end number one position in 2000.

To hold the number one position with a single slam it helps if the other slams are split between three different players. Federer and Nadal have never been in that position they have always needed at least two slams. Sampras was a bit more fortunate as he was year end number one in '96 and '98 with a single slam.

I also noticed that Sampras, Federer and Nadal have won at least one slam for eight years in a row. Sampras 1993 - 200, Federer 2003 - 2010 and Nadal 2005 - 2012. Nadal has a chance in 2013 to win in nine consecutive years. No pressure then...

Oh and Federer really missed a chance in 2004. Pfft!

Who was world number 1 in 90 and 91?

I'm wondering if America had a year end number 1 for an entire decade.

Edberg for consecutive years

Ending the year as Number One is the ultimate crowning glory for a player's overall achievements during the season and, as hawkeye points out, none of those who have made it over the last twenty years have done so without winning at least one of the Slams ; in fact I believe that's the case since the official rankings system began back in the seventies.

But it's interesting that two players have actually got to Number One (though not at year-end) without first winning a Slam : Marcelo Rios - who held the top spot for two very brief spells in 1998 but finished his career without a Slam on his CV. And - oddly enough - Ivan Lendl - who first got to No. 1 early in 1983 but needed another 18 months or so to win his first Slam.

The record held by Sampras (perhaps the only one that he can still call his own ...?) of six consecutive Y/E Number Ones remains a monumental achievement and would surely seem very very difficult to ever match, let alone break.

Getting to Number One AND staying there for every week of a calendar is something that only Sampras and a select few have ever managed ; the others being Connors, Lendl, Hewitt and Federer.

Uniquely, Roger Federer is the only player to have held the top spot for every week of the year in three consecutive seasons.

hawkeye wrote:.

Oh and Federer really missed a chance in 2004. Pfft!

Well he ran into an inspired Guga in 3rd round, and Guga is one of the best clay courters of all time, 3 time FO champion, so I don't think Fed goofed it up, Fed's real chance came on 2006 and 2011 against Rafa, which he missed badly.

So in the last 20 years there hasn't been any man win 2 slams in a season and not finish the year as #1 ( I suspect the women's game is different, given that Serena wins multiple slams but doesn't compete enough through the rest of the season).

7 times one slam title has been enough for YE #1, but only in season's like 2012 where there have been 4 slam winners - interesting that this happened for 4 consecutive years between 2000 and 2003, in the transition between Sampras's dominance and Federer's, but only once subsequently (this year).

Also quite amazing that we've had someone win 3 slams in a year 5 times in the last 9 years (Federer x 3, Rafa and Djoko), but no-one in the previous 11 years (indeed, you have to go back to Wilander in 88, then Connors in 74 to find when it was previously acheived). Does suggest that conditions have made it easier for a 'one size fits all surfaces' approach to be effective, but that shouldn't undermine how brilliantly Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have been over the last few years.

dummy half the days of Wimbledon and the French being won by grass and clay court "specialists" seem long gone.

The likes of Ivanisavic and Kraijcek wouldn't now win at SW19 and likewise Muster or Moya at Roland Garros.

likewise Muster or Moya at Roland Garros

can you expand on this please? I'm interested to know your thoughts.

.

Sorry, wrong topic

luvsports the point I was trying to make is that all the slams now are being won at any given time by two to three players with very few exceptions. That means that players who in the past had a game best suited to one particular surface invariably find that these top few are simply too strong in the later stages of the slam for their one-off victories.