Loki Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 Andy Murray will be world number one until the end of the Australian Open. That is the earliest he can lose it. This will give him 13 weeks at the top surpassing Becker, Muster, Rios, Moya, Kafelnikov, Rafter, Safin, Ferrero and will tie Andy Roddick. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Lambies Doos Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 Andy Murray will be world number one until the end of the Australian Open. That is the earliest he can lose it. This will give him 13 weeks at the top surpassing Becker, Muster, Rios, Moya, Kafelnikov, Rafter, Safin, Ferrero and will tie Andy Roddick. Of course if he matches novak at open he will probably be number 1 until French open as he has very little points to defend unlike novak 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elixir Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 I see he's playing in the Qatar Open right after the New Year. Djokovic played in Qatar in 2015 and 2016 so it will be interesting to see if they both compete there before the Australian Open. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheScarf Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 3 hours ago, Loki said: Andy Murray will be world number one until the end of the Australian Open. That is the earliest he can lose it. This will give him 13 weeks at the top surpassing Becker, Muster, Rios, Moya, Kafelnikov, Rafter, Safin, Ferrero and will tie Andy Roddick. Some of the utter jobbers on that list. Muster, Moyà. Rios didn't even win a fucking Slam! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 3 hours ago, Loki said: Andy Murray will be world number one until the end of the Australian Open. That is the earliest he can lose it. This will give him 13 weeks at the top surpassing Becker, Muster, Rios, Moya, Kafelnikov, Rafter, Safin, Ferrero and will tie Andy Roddick. It's looking quite good for Andy, Novak has 250 points to defend in Doha before the AO as well while Andy can concentrate on what he feels he needs to. Upto and including Miami Novak is defending 4340 points out of a possible 4750 while Andy is defending 1290 out of a possible 4000. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The-coo-shed Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 10 hours ago, TheScarf said: Some of the utter jobbers on that list. Muster, Moyà. Rios didn't even win a fucking Slam! Oh come on! I will bite. Muster and Moya both won the French Open and got to No. 1. How are they jobbers? That term is used far too much these days on this board. People think if that you are outside the big 4 you are a 'jobber'. The current stadard of the top 20 in tennis is very good. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheScarf Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 27 minutes ago, The-coo-shed said: Oh come on! I will bite. Muster and Moya both won the French Open and got to No. 1. How are they jobbers? That term is used far too much these days on this board. People think if that you are outside the big 4 you are a 'jobber'. The current stadard of the top 20 in tennis is very good. Of course they are. Every man and his dog won a GS in the late 90's/early 00's. And the list also shows that every man and his dog got to world number 1 in the late 90's/early 00's. The standard was so low then, have a good 2 weeks, win a GS and suddenly you shot to the top for a week or two. Then someone else had a good month, won a Masters and suddenly they were the number 1. The era between 97 and 03 was horrific. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Lambies Doos Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 Of course they are. Every man and his dog won a GS in the late 90's/early 00's. And the list also shows that every man and his dog got to world number 1 in the late 90's/early 00's. The standard was so low then, have a good 2 weeks, win a GS and suddenly you shot to the top for a week or two. Then someone else had a good month, won a Masters and suddenly they were the number 1. The era between 97 and 03 was horrific. I have to agree 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheScarf Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 On 11/22/2016 at 11:20, John Lambies Doos said: I have to agree It really was. I mean you still had an ageing Agassi and Sampras winning the odd GS here and there, but that was a real barren spell for mens tennis. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Lambies Doos Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 It really was. I mean you still had an ageing Agassi and Sampras winning the odd GS here and there, but that was a real barren spell for mens tennis. Yes Hewitt was perceived the best; yet Murray at the age of 19 was regularly kicking his ass and he would have been c 27 (supposedly in his prime) it was an awful time for mens tennis... you had had the bjorg, conners, johny mac and lendl era.. then into becker, edberg, agassi etc then into a complete void until fed era then Nadal, joker and murray became. I mean Tiger fukin Tim made it to world no 4 during that void.... says it all!!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 1 minute ago, John Lambies Doos said: Yes Hewitt was perceived the best; yet Murray at the age of 19 was regularly kicking his ass and he would have been c 27 (supposedly in his prime) it was an awful time for mens tennis... you had had the bjorg, conners, johny mac and lendl era.. then into becker, edberg, agassi etc then into a complete void until fed era then Nadal, joker and murray became. I mean Tiger fukin Tim made it to world no 4 during that void.... says it all!!! I always thought Henman got a wee bit higher. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Lambies Doos Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 I always thought Henman got a wee bit higher. No, think 4 was his max. May be wrong 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 Just now, John Lambies Doos said: No, think 4 was his max. May be wrong I might be as well, it's long while since we've had to depend on Tiny Tim. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheScarf Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 Yeah he got to 4. The perennial semi finalist. Suppose his highest ranking mirrored that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peasy23 Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 Yeah he got to 4. The perennial semi finalist. Suppose his highest ranking mirrored that. Not forgetting thst Rusedski also got as high as 4 and made a US Open final. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheScarf Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 (edited) 3 hours ago, peasy23 said: Not forgetting thst Rusedski also got as high as 4 and made a US Open final. Indeed, it's easy for people to forget the he did better than Henman in Grand Slams in the fact that he got to a final. Makes you laugh now thinking about it, Murray makes on average over 1 a year. Edit - no actually its one a year; 11 years on the tour and 11 finals. Edited November 24, 2016 by TheScarf 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adolfo Rios Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 I had it in my head Rusedski had reached 3 in the world. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Connolly Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 6 hours ago, TheScarf said: Yeah he got to 4. The perennial semi finalist. Suppose his highest ranking mirrored that. On that basis you could probably argue that his was one of the few valid rankings in the era! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tamdunk Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 (edited) But you had hingis and kournikova in the womens, so it was a golden age. Edited November 24, 2016 by Tamdunk 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peasy23 Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 On that basis you could probably argue that his was one of the few valid rankings in the era! Yep, at least he was reasonably consistent. Rusedski proves the point made further up that players could plod away, have a decent fortnight at a slam, and find themselves way up the rankings. His highest rank came in October 97, right after his US Open final defeat, with his only other real performance of note that year reaching the Wimbledon quarters. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.