I perfectly understood that, I am just talking about most people have been talking about Djokovic and Murray as the biggest threat because they can potentialy gain most points during clay season, obviously Nadal is the biggest threat when he in fact has won 4 out of 5 big clay events for like 4 out of the last 5 years and 3 out of 5 last year. We know Nadal winning Rome, Barcelona and Monte Carlo is likely while winning Madrid is less certain, winning RG is very likely and winning Miami is possible. If Nadal does that (wins 5 out of the next 6 tournaments), probably there will be nothing Federer can do to stop him taking the nr1 spot because Federer will be defending 3450 points during clay season..
yes agree that it's still more likely for nadal to win all these compared to murray/djokovic winning them all... but i don't consider it that likely... even nadal himself has never won all these in the same season before so he is likely to drop some points... but well yeah u'll never know for sure wat will happen... that is why we track the points...
Originally Posted by Midnight Ninja
MarcRD: I think part of the reason why Nadal was relatively less discussed was because he has/had a HUGE number of points to defend. Even currently, if he wins everything in sight, Federer needs to gain around 2950 points to make Nadals results inconsequential. That can be achieved by finals in Miami, Rome and Madrid + RG final so not completely out of hand but an uphill task.
yup... i was more looking in terms of points difference...
What I did was take the 5 top players and their total number of points after the AO.
Then what I did was award Djoko, Murray, Del Potro and Nadal their respective maximums assuming that micky mouse tournaments won't have a substantial effect on the outcome.
Then I compare this to Fed's minimum. When Fed's minimum exceeds that of everyone's maximum, then we know he has clinched.
As the tournaments have progressed, I have added points to Federer and subtracted points from the rest according to their performance.
urm djokovic has more points after AO than murray (510 points more)... even if you don't include micky mouse tournaments that you can earn... how in the world did djokovic ended up with (nearly 1k) less points than murray?? considering that both have roughly the same number of points to defend between AO until french... so both can potentially gaining similar number of points after AO assuming they win all... so net result will never put djokovic nearly 1k below murray...