Federer's total weeks at number one record not a certainty [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Federer's total weeks at number one record not a certainty

Pages : [1] 2

n8
04-28-2010, 01:57 AM
By ranking number one on Monday 24th May (before Roland Garros), Federer guarantees himself 285 total weeks at the top spot of the ATP rankings, only 1 week shy of the all time record held by Sampras.

If he ranks number one before Halle and Queen's he'll be on 286 weeks
Before 's-Hertogenbosch, Eastbourne = 287 weeks.

Since Federer reached the quarter-finals of Roland Garros, only Nadal has a chance of overtaking him immediately after Roland Garros (before Halle and Queen's) and thus prevent Federer from holding this record.

Here are the point totals of Federer and Nadal after Roland Garros.

Federer 8390
Nadal 7420* (semi-finals)

*7420 if losing semi-finalist in Roland Garros
7900 if losing finalist in Roland Garros
8700 if winner in Roland Garros

chowdahead25
04-28-2010, 01:59 AM
I think he'll hang on, but just barely with Nole and Rafa right on his heels.

andy neyer
04-28-2010, 02:15 AM
How ironic would it be if he ends up with just one week less than Sampras.

Imo, total weeks at number 1 is a bigger record than the GS.

Arkulari
04-28-2010, 02:17 AM
it's his own fault for playing like a clown outside of Slams, he could have done much better in other tournaments, one thing is to be outplayed and lose in straights and another to choke away MP or lose momentum

if he breaks it, good for him
if he doesn't, well, he laid his bed

gulzhan
04-28-2010, 02:19 AM
Time to change the #1 :rocker2:

Pirata.
04-28-2010, 02:48 AM
I think he will just manage to hold on to his ranking enough to overtake Pete by at least a week. I also expect Rafa to reclaim his #2 ranking and maybe overtake Roger some time after Wimbledon provided his knees stay healthy.

Persimmon
04-28-2010, 02:55 AM
I think he will just manage to hold on to his ranking enough to overtake Pete by at least a week. I also expect Rafa to reclaim his #2 ranking and maybe overtake Roger some time after Wimbledon provided his knees stay healthy.

Agreed.

Filo V.
04-28-2010, 03:46 AM
Depends on what he does at Estoril and Madrid. Early losses there will really put him in a precarious position. Nadal and Djokovic looking as if they will make it to the finals to defend their Rome points is bad news for Roger and his #1 chances. If Rafa wins Madrid and wins the French, or if Nole does so, they are going to be right there on the heels of Roger.

I'm not sure yet if he will hold on to the ranking, because it really all depends on his effort level in these non-majors, and how he feels on the court game wise and mentally. The ball is sort of in his court to do what he needs to do to win the matches necessary to keep his ranking. I definitely see Rafa at the very least being right at the heels of Roger for that #1 if not getting it back, throughout the summer, if he is healthy.

MIMIC
04-28-2010, 04:38 AM
If Djoker gets to #1, he better had won another slam by then :mad:

rkellymacon
04-28-2010, 05:38 AM
I feel Nadal has a great chance at number 1. No points to defend until Canadian Open after the French Open, and based on his past results at Wimbledon that could be a free 1500-2000 points for him to not even to have to worry about defending. Roger has many points and Novak has been very up and down lately. It will be very interesting.

duong
04-28-2010, 08:54 AM
How many threads will there be about that ?

http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=157340

it's far from a certainty : if Nadal wins Roma, Madrid and the French Open, Federer needs to earn 1360 points to keep number 1 after Roland-Garros.

Probably he would need a French Open final for that. And I fear that even if his condition is not bad comparing to previous years, his confidence looks really hurt.

He also needs to get 1300 points more than Djokovic, and well, Djokovic has a good draw here : I don't underrate him.

Note that Fed can lose number 1 after Roland-Garros but take it back after Halle if Nadal doesn't keep on his streak in the Queens. In that case, he would beat this "famous" record.

Anyway, I think if Nadal wins all these tournaments, he will fully deserve taking back number 1 :worship:

It's normal that number 1 players are young, it's not normal that old players like Federer are : they are only number 1 if the young competitors fail.

Sampras was lucky enough to have a few weeks at number 1 in the end of 2000 because the young competitors were not good enough yet (young Safin, Kuerten). Well good for him :worship:

If Federer is lucky about that because Nadal fails, well good for him as well :shrug:

But the most important is the current situation : Nadal as number 1 would be perfectly normal :shrug:

jrm
04-28-2010, 09:01 AM
I forget - does off season goes in the tally?

coonster14
04-28-2010, 09:01 AM
if fed does not break sampras's record of 286 total weeks, then too bad, it is all his fault for playing like crap in MS tourneys these days, that is what happens.

it will be very interesting, a 3 man race between fed, nole and rafa for no.1, but between rafa and nole in pursuit of the no.1 ranking, at this point in time, rafa definitely has the upper hand here, but i certainly would not disregard nole as a contender for no.1 by any means.

let the race begin!!! :)

duong
04-28-2010, 09:03 AM
things could get interesting if Federer loses early in Estoril but more importantly Madrid.

I would rather say that it mostly depends :

- on Nadal
- on the ability of Federer to reach the French Open final.

If Nadal wins Roma, Madrid and Roland-Garros, and Federer doesn't reach the French Open final, Federer would need all of these conditions to be number 1 after Roland-Garros :

- reach Madrid final
- reach Roland-Garros semifinal
- win one match in Estoril

If he reaches French Open final, then a final in Estoril or a quarterfinal in Madrid would be just enough.

If he's very near to these conditions, he would at least still have a chance of taking back after Halle and break the record.

duong
04-28-2010, 09:05 AM
I forget - does off season goes in the tally?

yes (which helps Sampras who was number 1 in more ends of years, while Federer only started being number 1 in february)

Daniel
04-28-2010, 09:08 AM
I think he will just manage to hold on to his ranking enough to overtake Pete by at least a week. I also expect Rafa to reclaim his #2 ranking and maybe overtake Roger some time after Wimbledon provided his knees stay healthy.

even if he breaks the record for pnly one week, that will be enough for all his fans :o

duong
04-28-2010, 09:51 AM
even if he breaks the record for pnly one week, that will be enough for all his fans :o

yes, and the same in the opposite for Sampras's fans :lol:

All this is nonsense actually :lol:

in the end, and except if Federer keeps number 1 later in the year, it will be a matter of a few weeks :lol:

Federer is certain to have 285 weeks at number 1, Sampras 286.

And there's a huge chance that Nadal is number 1 after Wimbledon.

Then it will be a matter of weeks :lol:

I would just be happy not to hear about that by SetSampras and others :lol:

I don't care personally about Sampras in that debate, Federer is in another category, with Laver, Gonzales, Borg and maybe older ones like Tilden ...

Sampras was a great player, but he has been much overrated when people talked about him as a "Goat".

Federer is also overrated, but at least he belongs among the best ones.

Acer
04-28-2010, 09:51 AM
it's not normal that old players like Federer are : they are only number 1 if the young competitors fail.


Huh? What's not normal about someone playing head and shoulders above everyone in the big occasions being number one? It's got nothing to do with age.

Frooty_Bazooty
04-28-2010, 09:52 AM
so if Federer earns 150 points or less before RG and Rafa wins Rome and Madrid, does that mean we could have a Rafa Roger RG final which would decided the number one ranking?

duong
04-28-2010, 10:04 AM
so if Federer earns 150 points or less before RG and Rafa wins Rome and Madrid, does that mean we could have a Rafa Roger RG final which would decided the number one ranking?

yes but 150 is a tricky figure, as a final in Estoril gives 150 points but would probably be enough not to need that condition of Fed winning Roland-Garros, as it would be enough for Federer to take part in Madrid to get 10 more points ... and then a final in French Open would be enough to keep number 1 after Roland-Garros (only by the number of points in slams :rolleyes: ).

If he's not even able to get 160 points (a final in Estoril for instance) before French Open, I don't think he can beat Nadal in French Open final :lol:

yesyesok
04-28-2010, 11:41 AM
Remember Federer could scrape number one after French and match the record and then say if Nadal wins Queens and Federer falls early in Halle lose it the next week, and finish on 286 weeks.

zcess81
04-28-2010, 11:44 AM
so if Federer earns 150 points or less before RG and Rafa wins Rome and Madrid, does that mean we could have a Rafa Roger RG final which would decided the number one ranking?

Chances are Nadal won't even play Madrid...especially if he wins Rome. Madrid cost him his FO/Wimbledon titles last year, don't think he's gonna risk it again.

theseth1119
05-01-2010, 11:51 PM
While he has nothing to defend at Estoril and Halle where he can pick up a total of 500 points, Rogie has 5000 big points to defend from here through Wimbledon. 1000 for winning Madrid over Rafa, 2000 for winning the FO over Sodie, and another 2000 for winning W over Roddick. So is it just me or does Rogie have the most to lose the next 2 months?

n8
05-01-2010, 11:56 PM
Federer definitely has the most points to defend in the next two months. No one even has half as much to defend as the 5000 Federer does.

TennisOnWood
05-02-2010, 12:31 AM
Only 6 players with 5000 in total :worship:

Lets see what he can do about defending this mountain of points

Filo V.
05-02-2010, 12:33 AM
He has the most to lose, but he may get through without issues if Rafa gets injured and/or Djokovic continues to struggle. If not, then unless he starts winning outside of the slams, and retains his French Open title, Rafa will be looking pretty good to get #1 back in time for the US Open seedings.

Silvester
05-02-2010, 12:50 AM
for sure he is, a good showing (semi at the very least) at RG and a Wimbledon win is a must for Fed. Hopefully he can show up at a few tournaments inbetween as well.

andy neyer
05-02-2010, 01:26 AM
He probably won't win Madrid and RG but he'll win Wimby, imo. He'll lose a lot of points and maybe even the number 1 depending on Nadal's results.

Sunset of Age
05-02-2010, 02:10 AM
Someone please take OP's keyboard away.

BlueSwan
05-02-2010, 06:26 AM
He has the most to lose, but he may get through without issues if Rafa gets injured and/or Djokovic continues to struggle. If not, then unless he starts winning outside of the slams, and retains his French Open title, Rafa will be looking pretty good to get #1 back in time for the US Open seedings.
That's an understatement. Nadal is likely #1 already after RG or for sure after Wimbledon barring freakish results.

BlueSwan
05-02-2010, 06:26 AM
Can someone ban the nickname Rogie?

andy neyer
05-02-2010, 08:02 AM
That's an understatement. Nadal is likely #1 already after RG or for sure after Wimbledon barring freakish results.

If Federer wins Estoril and makes the SF of Madrid and RG while Nadal wins Rome (pretty likely), Madrid and RG, then Nadal will overtake Federer as number 1 by the end of RG.

If he can't do it, then Nadal's best shot will come at Wimby where he can gain a lot of points while Federer won't be able to gain any.

Federer has never had to defend this amount of points in so little time before. 5000 points is a lot. Some top ten players end the year with less than that.

tennishero
05-02-2010, 11:11 AM
rogie is not a nickname, it has the same amount of letters.

any thread with rogie in the title should just be deleted.

oematoema
05-02-2010, 12:17 PM
rogie is not a nickname, it has the same amount of letters.

any thread with rogie in the title should just be deleted.

I second that. Same with Rafi, Novi and Andy.

BlueSwan
05-02-2010, 12:52 PM
theseth is defending 5000 ACC points over the next two months? Can he defend all of those or is 2003 the obvious next #1?

yesyesok
05-02-2010, 01:18 PM
That's an understatement. Nadal is likely #1 already after RG or for sure after Wimbledon barring freakish results.

Check your facts. Assuming Nadal wins Rome, Madrid and RG, and Federer wins Estoril, which is some assumption, Federer only needs 1120 points from Madrid/RG to keep number one. That is equal to a final at RG or semi finals at them both, and it is still based on Nadal winning everything.

Tendontis, blisters, a bad day at the office and thats his chance gone, so no, Nadal is not most likely number one after RG.

After Wimbledon it is 50-50 who will be number one.

BlueSwan
05-02-2010, 01:58 PM
Check your facts. Assuming Nadal wins Rome, Madrid and RG, and Federer wins Estoril, which is some assumption, Federer only needs 1120 points from Madrid/RG to keep number one. That is equal to a final at RG or semi finals at them both, and it is still based on Nadal winning everything.

Tendontis, blisters, a bad day at the office and thats his chance gone, so no, Nadal is not most likely number one after RG.

After Wimbledon it is 50-50 who will be number one.
Chances of Nadal winning Rome, Madrid and RG are at around 90%, IMO.

Chances of Federer winning Estoril are good, but his chances of reaching the RG final or reaching the SF at RG and finals of Madrid are at best 30-40% at the moment, IMO.

That makes it most likely that Nadal is #1 after RG.

Filo V.
05-02-2010, 02:10 PM
Check your facts. Assuming Nadal wins Rome, Madrid and RG, and Federer wins Estoril, which is some assumption, Federer only needs 1120 points from Madrid/RG to keep number one. That is equal to a final at RG or semi finals at them both, and it is still based on Nadal winning everything.

Tendontis, blisters, a bad day at the office and thats his chance gone, so no, Nadal is not most likely number one after RG.

After Wimbledon it is 50-50 who will be number one.

Nadal will win all of the tournaments. It will be an absolute shocker if he doesn't, and probably based on an injury alone. No-one can beat him straight up.

But I do believe that it will be after Wimbledon where Nadal will be #1 again. It's pretty much inevitable barring the unexpected that Rafa will be #1 sometime during the summer months.

Filo V.
05-02-2010, 02:13 PM
That's an understatement. Nadal is likely #1 already after RG or for sure after Wimbledon barring freakish results.

I was going to say after Wimbledon, I just didn't want to go all out and say something Rafa wouldn't back up. But he also has a clear chance after the French as well. And Nole still has chances too if he gets his act together.

It's all going to come down to how Roger performs at Estoril and Madrid. Early losses there will pretty much destroy any hopes of him even dreaming of being #1 by Wimbledon.

yesyesok
05-02-2010, 02:17 PM
Clay god Nadal of 2005-2008 couldn't win all 3 clay masters in the same year, 2005, 2006 because he didn't enter all 3 in fairness, so I can't see why low confidence injury prone Nadal of 2010 can.

I think he will skip Madrid but even if he plays I do not think he will win Madrid and RG.

We shall all see but I'd bet all I have that Federer is number one going into Wimbledon.

After Wimbledon is the real question.

BlueSwan
05-02-2010, 02:56 PM
Clay god Nadal of 2005-2008 couldn't win all 3 clay masters in the same year, 2005, 2006 because he didn't enter all 3 in fairness, so I can't see why low confidence injury prone Nadal of 2010 can.
This year he has a week of rest inbetween every clay tournament whereas in the past he only lost when he was exhausted from playing too much.

A well rested injury free Nadal is not losing on clay.

MrChopin
05-02-2010, 03:41 PM
Nadal will win all of the tournaments. It will be an absolute shocker if he doesn't, and probably based on an injury alone. No-one can beat him straight up.

Important question to clear up at this point: Is mortality considered an injury? I can imagine Nadull fanboys repeating this mantra in 2020, talking about how nobody would beat him if it weren't for the unfair injury of aging.

Filo V.
05-02-2010, 03:49 PM
Important question to clear up at this point: Is mortality considered an injury? I can imagine Nadull fanboys repeating this mantra in 2020, talking about how nobody would beat him if it weren't for the unfair injury of aging.

Dull? On clay, Nadal is the most exciting player to watch. Seems you are against Rafa, because you like Roger. You know, they don't have any silly rivalry or bias, you shouldn't either.

Anyway, jokes aside, Nadal will never lose on clay straight up to anyone, unless he gets hurt. Age and/or death may take him out, as with anyone, but while Nadal is currently a top player, no-one will beat him. He will need to completely fall off a cliff in terms of ability to lose consistently to any player on clay.

andy neyer
05-02-2010, 04:07 PM
Check your facts. Assuming Nadal wins Rome, Madrid and RG, and Federer wins Estoril, which is some assumption, Federer only needs 1120 points from Madrid/RG to keep number one. That is equal to a final at RG or semi finals at them both, and it is still based on Nadal winning everything.

A W in Estoril plus SF in Madrid and RG for Fed will not keep him number 1 after RG if Nadal wins Rome, Madrid and RG.

Persimmon
05-02-2010, 07:12 PM
Rodge is winning Wimbledon.

Mungo
05-02-2010, 07:18 PM
Federer hasn't won any title since January 31st. That makes over 3 months without winning a title. But while other players made a bunch of semifinals and finals while not winning a title, Federer has been losing in ugly fashion since then.

Indian Wells 2nd round lost to Baghdatis
Miami 3rd round lost to Berdych
Monte Carlo did not play
Rome 1st round lost to Gulbis

Federer is 3-3 in W/L since the Australian Open!!!
What's wrong with him? Don't tell me he didn't care because Federer himself said many times that he always wants to win and tries his best. I guess he got a good chance in Estoril considering the really weak field.

His no.1 ranking is at stake in the next 2 months. He is 3,860 points ahead of Nadal and these are the points they defend:

Federer - 1,000 (Madrid) 2,000 (RG) 2,000 (Wimbledon) + points he can take in Estoril.
Nadal - 600 (Madrid) 180 (RG).

Federer has to defend 4,220 more points than Nadal and the current difference in the rankings is 3,860. You do the math. Federer needs to outperform Nadal in the next 2 months or he will say goodbye to no.1.
I see Nadal as no.1 after Wimbledon.

jcadam2003
05-02-2010, 07:18 PM
A W in Estoril plus SF in Madrid and RG for Fed will not keep him number 1 after RG if Nadal wins Rome, Madrid and RG.

In that case we need to hope that Federer is in Nadal's half or the draw for Madrid and RG. Then if Rafa wins both tournaments he will automatically be number 1.

born_on_clay
05-02-2010, 07:22 PM
Federer will win Estoril and Madrid and make it to the RG final

ChuckNorrisFan
05-02-2010, 07:23 PM
nah

Priam
05-02-2010, 07:27 PM
Fed is a big boy, he knows what is at stake. It all starts in Estoril.

Mungo
05-02-2010, 07:30 PM
Fed is a big boy, he knows what is at stake. It all starts in Estoril.

So Estoril means more to him than IW,Miami and Rome? LOL!!!

andy neyer
05-02-2010, 07:31 PM
In that case we need to hope that Federer is in Nadal's half or the draw for Madrid and RG. Then if Rafa wins both tournaments he will automatically be number 1.

That would be a perfect (and quite possible) escanario for Nadal. The fact that Rafa will be seeded third might be a curse for Federer.

Federer was doing really well but in adittion to his clownish presentations in the last 3 Masters, he now defends has too many points. Even if he has great results, it's very very possible that he could still lose the number 1 immediately after RG and thus not break Sampras' record.

Pirata.
05-02-2010, 07:31 PM
Federer will win Estoril and Madrid and make it to the RG final

So sad that this is probably exactly what will happen. He'll play like crap and then get it together and do well at Slams.

Roger :o

Priam
05-02-2010, 07:37 PM
I mean it's no use crying about those wasted MPs in IW and Miami, or the pissy performance in the Gulbis match. Slams matter the most to him now.

andy neyer
05-02-2010, 07:38 PM
There's already a thread for this....


If Federer wins Estoril and makes the semis in both Madrid and Paris while Nadal goes to win Madrid and Paris, then Nadal will be the new number 1 immediately after RG.

FNT
05-02-2010, 07:38 PM
Even if he's no. 2 after Wimby, he'll still break Sampras' record and that's what matters at the moment. After that, he could care less about No. 1.

Persimmon
05-02-2010, 07:40 PM
Federer will win Estoril and Madrid and make it to the RG final

NID.

andy neyer
05-02-2010, 07:41 PM
I mean it's no use crying about those wasted MPs in IW and Miami, or the pissy performance in the Gulbis match. Slams matter the most to him now.

Well, I'm sure GS matter the most to all players...

That said, even if he didn't care at all for MS (as some deluded people here seem to think), I'd still counter he necessarily has to care simply because in those events he can gain/defend points that are vital for his prevalence as number 1 in the rankings (something he cares for sure).

andy neyer
05-02-2010, 07:43 PM
Even if he's no. 2 after Wimby, he'll still break Sampras' record and that's what matters at the moment..

To repeat it once more: there's a big chance he might lose his number 1 ranking after RG and that means no-breaking-of-Sampras'-record.

Filo V.
05-02-2010, 07:54 PM
Rodge is winning Wimbledon.

Doesn't matter much, because he can't gain points. He's on the defense. Nadal and to a lesser extent Djokovic are on the offense.

Filo V.
05-02-2010, 08:35 PM
People should start worrying about Roger if he loses early at a major. Until then, it's just basically a continuation of results outside of slams Roger has had since about '07-'08.

Roger however is going to now pretty much be ultra-dominant (as much and more as he is already) at grand slams now since he doesn't play or win outside of them anymore.

Matt01
05-02-2010, 11:00 PM
People should start worrying about Roger if he loses early at a major. Until then, it's just basically a continuation of results outside of slams Roger has had since about '07-'08.

Roger however is going to now pretty much be ultra-dominant (as much and more as he is already) at grand slams now since he doesn't play or win outside of them anymore.


+1

When Federer last year against Wawrinka on clay, I remember that I felt sorry for Federer and (almost) thought he will be done soon and then look what happened at RG and Wimbledon :p

You better never underestimate Federer at the big tournaments. And Estoril next week won't tell us much that.

theseth1119
05-02-2010, 11:23 PM
Dull? On clay, Nadal is the most exciting player to watch. Seems you are against Rafa, because you like Roger. You know, they don't have any silly rivalry or bias, you shouldn't either.

Anyway, jokes aside, Nadal will never lose on clay straight up to anyone, unless he gets hurt. Age and/or death may take him out, as with anyone, but while Nadal is currently a top player, no-one will beat him. He will need to completely fall off a cliff in terms of ability to lose consistently to any player on clay.

I think a healthy Del Potro can beat Rafa on clay and so can a healthy Davydenko, of course also here the key word is [B]healthy[B].

lurker
05-02-2010, 11:49 PM
Federer was gifted two times at Roland Garros last year, by Tommy Haas and Juan Martin Del Potro. You could say Rafa not showing up to the final was another gift. True, JMDP and Haas are nowhere this year, but there are other threats lurking for RG, who have all seen Federer lose early in MS. They saw that he would have lost to Haas and JMDP if those guys had had the nerve to win. These guys are maturing and are all taking aim at the top and believe they can win. Verdasco, Gulbis, Soderling to name a few. They've all seen that they don't have to roll over for Federer and Nadal anymore. I think this year's RG will be more exciting than the past because you can't really say any one of those two guys is the clear favorite anymore. Federer is playing with the pressure to break Pete's No. 1 ranking week total, but he'll be relaxed knowing he already won RG and has many chances to top Pete's total even if he can't win Estoril, and at least make the semis for Madrid and RG. While a big showing at RG is almost a certainty for Fed, one at a MS like Madrid is not, given his form this year at MS events. Madrid will be the only interesting tournament in this conversation.

n8
05-03-2010, 12:00 AM
By ranking number one on Monday 3rd May, Federer guarantees himself 281 total weeks at the top spot of the ATP rankings, only 5 weeks shy of the all time record held by Sampras.

If (when) he ranks number one before Madrid, he'll be on 282 weeks.
Before Dusseldorf, Nice = 283 weeks
Before Roland Garros = 285 weeks
Before Halle, Queen's = 286 weeks
Before 's-Hertogenbosch, Eastbourne = 287 weeks.

Before Federer's early losses in Indian Wells, Miami and Rome, this record was an almost certainty for the Swiss. However, there are now three players who have a realistic chance of overtaking Federer immediately after Roland Garros (before Halle and Queen's) and thus prevent Federer from holding this record by himself.

Before points won from Estoril and Belgrade to Roland Garros this year are added on, here are the point totals of Federer, Djokovic, Nadal and Murray after Roland Garros.

Federer 7340 = 10340 - 1000(Madrid) - 2000(Roland Garros)
Djokovic 6270 = 6970 - 250(Belgrade) - 360(Madrid) - 90(Roland Garros)
Nadal 5700 = 6480 - 600(Madrid) - 180(Roland Garros)
Murray 5025 = 5565 - 180(Madrid) - 360(Roland Garros)

(Del Potro, Davydenko, Soderling and Roddick all have a mathematical chance of being number one but it is extremely small.) With a total of 3000 points up for grabs between now and the end of Roland Garros (more for those playing non-compulsory events), things could get very interesting if Federer loses early in Estoril but more importantly Madrid.

Points now include Rome. If Djokovic earns 1071 more points than Federer between now and the end of Roland Garros, he will be number one after Roland Garros. Same for Nadal but replace 1071 with 1641.

SetSampras
05-03-2010, 12:33 AM
Fed will get it this year at some point.. If not then next year.. His game has fell off a bit but not a whole lot.. And still the only player even capable of challenging him is the same old Nadal.. No one else has been able to for 5 years and still no other player can

coonster14
05-03-2010, 12:53 AM
federer these days = 'i cant be bothered with MM tourneys? ill just kick ass at the slams'

ill only start hitting the panic button for fed if he loses before the SF at French Open this year. until then, his MS results this year is exactly as it was in 2007 (early losses in IW/Miami/Rome).

maybe he will get his act together for Madrid (defending champ...he better!!!)

Macbrother
05-03-2010, 01:09 AM
Federer will win Estoril and Madrid and make it to the RG final

I think saying Federer will win Madrid is a pretty big stretch given his recent form, particularly Rome. I do expect him to have righted the ship by RG, obviously, but we'll see.

Topspin Forehand
05-03-2010, 01:13 AM
Fed will lose before the Semifinals this time around at RG.

Dupuis2006
05-03-2010, 01:15 AM
As long as Fed keeps number 1 until he has all time record all is good!

theseth1119
05-03-2010, 01:23 AM
Well that 23 straight gs sf streak has to come to an end at some point and the 2010 FO might be it. The ultimate question will be, will the SF be Rogie/Murray and Chokovic/Rafa or Rogie/Rafa and Chokovic/Murray. Time will only tell.

barbadosan
05-03-2010, 01:36 AM
How ironic would it be if he ends up with just one week less than Sampras.

Imo, total weeks at number 1 is a bigger record than the GS.

Ironic that when Pete held the record for most GS wins, that was the holy grail - suddenly, it's now number of weeks at no. 1?

In any case, even if Fed ends around June with one less than Pete, you have it written in indelible script that he won't regain no. 1 ranking ever again - oh wait, they were saying that in 2009 too.... Maybe it'd be wiser to wait and see at least how the rest of the year pans out.

Filo V.
05-03-2010, 04:12 AM
I think a healthy Del Potro can beat Rafa on clay and so can a healthy Davydenko, of course also here the key word is [B]healthy[B].

No, they can't. Davydenko has had several chances and failed. Del Potro could challenge Nadal, but beating him would take a superhuman effort, and he's not superhuman talent on clay.

Until someone proves they can beat Nadal when Nadal is at 100% on clay, then he should be assumed unbeatable.

Filo V.
05-03-2010, 04:13 AM
Well that 23 straight gs sf streak has to come to an end at some point and the 2010 FO might be it. The ultimate question will be, will the SF be Rogie/Murray and Chokovic/Rafa or Rogie/Rafa and Chokovic/Murray. Time will only tell.

Murray has about zero chance to make the semifinals over Nadal, Federer or Djokovic. Like, none.

Filo V.
05-03-2010, 04:17 AM
+1

When Federer last year against Wawrinka on clay, I remember that I felt sorry for Federer and (almost) thought he will be done soon and then look what happened at RG and Wimbledon :p

You better never underestimate Federer at the big tournaments. And Estoril next week won't tell us much that.

:yeah: Exactly.

Filo V.
05-03-2010, 04:20 AM
As long as Fed keeps number 1 until he has all time record all is good!

The problem is, the chances of that happening for him are 50-50 at best right now. Nadal and Nole are nipping at his heels and have loads of points to gain at RG and Wimbledon, and you can be sure they will do so. Roger has everything to lose. He's the one on the defensive now, and so far, he hasn't reacted well.

HarryMan
05-03-2010, 04:43 AM
If Federer doesn't break the record (which I still think he will), he has only himself to blame. I mean after winning AO, it has been pathetic performance from him in all tournaments. I am hoping he does very well at Estoril, Madrid and RG.

duong
05-03-2010, 08:09 PM
In that case we need to hope that Federer is in Nadal's half or the draw for Madrid and RG. Then if Rafa wins both tournaments he will automatically be number 1.

it's a possibility but it also requires that Djokovic wins Belgrade and makes the semi in Madrid to happen (or the final in Madrid is enough), because if that doesn't happen, Nadal will be seeded 2 in Roland-Garros.

If Nadal is seeded 2 for Roland-Garros, the chances for Federer to reach French Open final of course get much bigger, and then together with a final in Estoril or a quarter in Madrid, he would still be number 1 after Roland-Garros and equal that "famous" record.

There are many possibilities, nothing is given.

Aaric
05-03-2010, 08:13 PM
Watch Federer winning Madrid again

calvinhobbes
05-03-2010, 09:19 PM
By regaining parity against Gulbis and losing it again in a frankly deliberate tanking, Roger convinced me that he didn't want to play Rome. Why? Maybe he's reserving himself for Madrid and RG, where he'll play against Nadal. Rafa gave clear signals of being tired or injured in his last two matches in Rome. Gulbis could have beaten him, had he not been satisfied with his performance up to this point. So I dont discard the possibility of a match in Madrid between an ailing pig and a fresh poppy . . . . .:devil::devil::devil:

andy neyer
05-03-2010, 09:37 PM
it's a possibility but it also requires that Djokovic wins Belgrade and makes the semi in Madrid to happen (or the final in Madrid is enough), because if that doesn't happen, Nadal will be seeded 2 in Roland-Garros.

If Nadal is seeded 2 for Roland-Garros, the chances for Federer to reach French Open final of course get much bigger, and then together with a final in Estoril or a quarter in Madrid, he would still be number 1 after Roland-Garros and equal that "famous" record.

True.

There are many possibilities, nothing is given.

True too.

I just put that case to illustrate that even if Federer has good results from now on, he could still lose his number one after RG. The race to number 1 in the upcoming weeks is a lot closer than what it appears at first sight.

calvinhobbes
05-03-2010, 09:42 PM
Federer was gifted two times at Roland Garros last year, by Tommy Haas and Juan Martin Del Potro. You could say Rafa not showing up to the final was another gift. True, JMDP and Haas are nowhere this year, but there are other threats lurking for RG, who have all seen Federer lose early in MS. They saw that he would have lost to Haas and JMDP if those guys had had the nerve to win. These guys are maturing and are all taking aim at the top and believe they can win. Verdasco, Gulbis, Soderling to name a few. They've all seen that they don't have to roll over for Federer and Nadal anymore. I think this year's RG will be more exciting than the past because you can't really say any one of those two guys is the clear favorite anymore. Federer is playing with the pressure to break Pete's No. 1 ranking week total, but he'll be relaxed knowing he already won RG and has many chances to top Pete's total even if he can't win Estoril, and at least make the semis for Madrid and RG. While a big showing at RG is almost a certainty for Fed, one at a MS like Madrid is not, given his form this year at MS events. Madrid will be the only interesting tournament in this conversation.
How old Verdasco is?

Topspin Forehand
05-03-2010, 11:02 PM
Watch Federer winning Madrid again
Not this time. :devil:

Sham Kay
05-03-2010, 11:41 PM
I get the feeling Roger won't win any clay titles and won't even get past the quarters of French or Wimby. Yes he has historically been better in slams, but something seems different this time (knees NOT jerking).

Basically I think he won't make the weeks at no.1 record.

Mechlan
05-03-2010, 11:43 PM
His own fault if he doesn't make it, he had plenty of opportunity to do so. That said, i hope he does, would be a terrific achievement.

Sunset of Age
05-03-2010, 11:46 PM
His own fault if he doesn't make it, he had plenty of opportunity to do so. That said, i hope he does, would be a terrific achievement.

QFT. Especially the first sentence.

silverarrows
05-04-2010, 12:33 AM
Watch Fed winning Estoril Madrid and RG. :P :P :P

duong
05-04-2010, 05:46 AM
How ironic would it be if he ends up with just one week less than Sampras.

Imo, total weeks at number 1 is a bigger record than the GS.

Imo it's not at all worth as much : with this number of weeks or years, any year spent at number 1 is worth the same, whether you win one slam or 3 or 4 ... those kinds of records speak a lot about longevity.

For instance Borg only spent a little bit more than 100 weeks at number 1, yet he's there with Federer and Sampras in the open era, not less, anybody would agree with that.

Mechlan
05-04-2010, 07:26 AM
For instance Borg only spent a little bit more than 100 weeks at number 1, yet he's there with Federer and Sampras in the open era, not less, anybody would agree with that.

Borg's low number has more than a little to do with the way the ranking system was different (and pretty messed up) at the time. It's like comparing Borg's slam numbers with the two - you have to account for the fact that the Australian Open just didn't have the prestige at the time and compare accordingly. The changing of the sport is one of the things that makes it so difficult to compare across eras.

With Sampras and Federer, the rankings have been fairly standardized and a comparison of weeks at #1 is perfectly valid. I think it's an important statistic for comparison.

duong
05-04-2010, 09:42 AM
Borg's low number has more than a little to do with the way the ranking system was different (and pretty messed up) at the time. It's like comparing Borg's slam numbers with the two - you have to account for the fact that the Australian Open just didn't have the prestige at the time and compare accordingly. The changing of the sport is one of the things that makes it so difficult to compare across eras.

With Sampras and Federer, the rankings have been fairly standardized and a comparison of weeks at #1 is perfectly valid. I think it's an important statistic for comparison.

yes I totally know about that : Connors was number 1 for the computer for a long time while Borg was considered better by many.

But yet even if you correct that, the fact that Borg had less longevity than the others would have made that he would have been far behind Sampras and Federer for that.

Beside the fact that he had to deal with Connors and McEnroe who are probably better competitors than Federer and Sampras ever had.

I don't rate longevity as much as many people do.

In the long run, if there had been a computer ranking like now, Rosewall would have a big chance to have this record.

The duet RolandGarros/Wimbledon which Borg achieved many times is a great great deal.

And McEnroe's best years, like 1984, will be remembered forever. Not like Hewitt being number 1 with one slam and a few tournaments won ...

Apophis
05-04-2010, 09:58 AM
Borg's low number has more than a little to do with the way the ranking system was different (and pretty messed up) at the time. It's like comparing Borg's slam numbers with the two - you have to account for the fact that the Australian Open just didn't have the prestige at the time and compare accordingly. The changing of the sport is one of the things that makes it so difficult to compare across eras.

With Sampras and Federer, the rankings have been fairly standardized and a comparison of weeks at #1 is perfectly valid. I think it's an important statistic for comparison.

Interestingly, omitting the Australian Open mostly benefits Federer's legacy in the Open Era compared to Borg, Connors and Lendl. Federer would still lead the slam count with 12 slams (tied with Sampras), but would add an amazing record by having 14 consecutive slam finals. He would also tie Laver for most consecutive slam wins (3), while he is tied (with Sampras) for second behind Laver's 4 when you include the Aus Open.

Commander Data
05-04-2010, 11:16 AM
If Fed clowns this record away, I'm mad.
I guess he will do it tough. Expect him to to well in the coming tournaments. and if he loses the no. 1 he might still get it back at some point.

siddy
05-04-2010, 02:53 PM
Are we assuming that Roger will never get back to #1 if he loses it a week before equaling the record? IMO, not every player right now is consistent across all surfaces so that #1 ranking will be up for grabs every couple of months or so. Of course, if Rafa wins FO AND Wimby then he'll be #1 for the foreseeable future.

wackykid
05-05-2010, 08:53 AM
well if roger misses the record this time... there could always be another chance to break it next time... afterall he *just* need 2 more weeks to break the record... and even pete has lost and retaken the no.1 ranking for 10 times... roger has done it once *only*...


regards,
wacky

duong
05-05-2010, 09:14 AM
Are we assuming that Roger will never get back to #1 if he loses it a week before equaling the record? IMO, not every player right now is consistent across all surfaces so that #1 ranking will be up for grabs every couple of months or so. Of course, if Rafa wins FO AND Wimby then he'll be #1 for the foreseeable future.

yes it's possible but here the opponent is a "heavy weight" :lol: , Federer is old and the advance Federer had thanks to Madrid, Roland-Garros and Wimbledon was quite huge.

All those talkings about the record are even before Wimbledon ... but in Wimbledon Federer will have 2000 points to "defend" and Nadal 0.

Sampras had taken the number 1 back a few weeks in the end of 2000 (which means 2010 for Federer as they have 10 years difference) ... but Kuerten, the young Safin, the old Agassi allowed some place for that, Nadal is another caliber :lol:

Of course Nadal has not been as great on quick courts recently, seemed to have problems on quick flat balls, on defense and to return serves, and his physical is not 100% trusted, especially after not having much rest in recent months.

But if Nadal is the Nadal of 2008 by-bye the number 1 for Roger :wavey:

And once he loses that number 1 I think Fed will even be less motivated and care less about MS1000 tournaments than now : actually it's my main concern, more than the record itself.

I think Fed still had some motivation for MS1000 tournaments in the beginning of the year, I read an interview in the French newspaper "l'Equipe" which said that in the beginning of the year ... and in his words, it was related with the number 1.

He lost early in Indian Wells and Roma but he didn't look that badly prepared imo. Once the number 1 is lost, I'm afraid about his motivation ... even if he will still make some lightenings in slams of course, for several years, maybe many, still, I think.

n8
05-08-2010, 11:32 PM
By ranking number one on Monday 10th May (before Madrid), Federer guarantees himself 282 total weeks at the top spot of the ATP rankings, only 4 weeks shy of the all time record held by Sampras.

If (when) he ranks number one before Dusseldorf and Nice, he'll be on 283 weeks.
Before Roland Garros = 285 weeks
Before Halle, Queen's = 286 weeks
Before 's-Hertogenbosch, Eastbourne = 287 weeks.

Before Federer's early losses in Indian Wells, Miami and Rome, this record was an almost certainty for the Swiss. However, there are now three players who have a realistic chance of overtaking Federer immediately after Roland Garros (before Halle and Queen's) and thus prevent Federer from holding this record by himself (or indeed at all).

Before points won from Madrid to Roland Garros this year are added on, here are the point totals of Federer, Djokovic, Nadal and Murray after Roland Garros.

Federer 7430 = 10430 - 1000(Madrid) - 2000(Roland Garros)
Djokovic 6315 = 6765 - 360(Madrid) - 90(Roland Garros)
Nadal 5700 = 6480 - 600(Madrid) - 180(Roland Garros)
Murray 5025 = 5565 - 180(Madrid) - 360(Roland Garros)

(Del Potro, Davydenko, Soderling and Roddick all have a mathematical chance of being number one but it is extremely small.) With a total of 3000 points up for grabs between now and the end of Roland Garros (none of the top 4 are playing in the week before Roland Garros), things could get very interesting if Federer loses early in Madrid.

Due to Djokovic and Federer losing in Belgrade and Estoril respectively, I have already updated the points scenario.

Yamor
05-09-2010, 06:53 AM
However, there are now three players who have a realistic chance of overtaking Federer immediately after Roland Garros (before Halle and Queen's) and thus prevent Federer from holding this record by himself.

Don't you mean from holding this record at all? If he is not ranked 1 after RG, he will have 285 weeks, one less then Sampras.

BlueSwan
05-09-2010, 06:58 AM
I can't wait for Sampytards to argue that 1 week at #1 beats 2 slams.

n8
05-09-2010, 07:36 AM
Don't you mean from holding this record at all? If he is not ranked 1 after RG, he will have 285 weeks, one less then Sampras.

Thanks! Fixed.

rogeragassi
05-15-2010, 09:02 PM
Assuming Nadal wins RG (and Fed loses tomorrow), is it true that Fed just has to get to the semis of RG? This is a huge record and I'm surprised it's not getting more mention on here.

Fed Express
05-15-2010, 09:09 PM
Assuming Nadal wins RG (and Fed loses tomorrow), is it true that Fed just has to get to the semis of RG? This is a huge record and I'm surprised it's not getting more mention on here.Yes. If Nadal wins tomorrow and Roland Garros, Federer needs a semifinal at RG.

If Federer wins tomorrow the record is his.

If Nadal loses early at RG the record is also his.

Dyraise
05-15-2010, 09:16 PM
Assuming Nadal wins RG (and Fed loses tomorrow), is it true that Fed just has to get to the semis of RG? This is a huge record and I'm surprised it's not getting more mention on here.

Eh... yeah, but Roger has to get to the semis, right?

Nathaliia
05-15-2010, 09:19 PM
Eh... yeah, but Roger has to get to the semis, right?
This record might be the only thing he still gives a fuck about, so I guess he will :lol:

Diprosalic
05-15-2010, 09:22 PM
when he gets this and a 7th wimbledon title what major record does sampras still hold?

DrJules
05-15-2010, 09:24 PM
This record might be the only thing he still gives a fuck about, so I guess he will :lol:

If he cared he would have already secured it with the events between the AO and now.

Federer is performing well here because he only prepares intensively now for the 2-3 weeks before AO, RG, W or US Open. The record or another AO, RG, W or US Open. Obviously not the record.

Dyraise
05-15-2010, 09:24 PM
This record might be the only thing he still gives a fuck about, so I guess he will :lol:

I agree (and winning slams) and we also have to mention that:
Djokovic is in bad shape
Murray on clay :p
Del Potro out
Davydenko out

Nathaliia
05-15-2010, 09:28 PM
If he cared he would have already secured it with the events between the AO and now.

No one likes the men who finish everything as soon as they can :rolleyes:

And seriously, minimize effort, maximize result - old rule. He can do it now and he will. And once he loses #1 it'll be hard to come back this time.

andy neyer
05-15-2010, 09:29 PM
when he gets this and a 7th wimbledon title what major record does sampras still hold?

consecutive years ending with the number 1 ranking is probably the most important he would have left.

I don't think a RG SF is a lock for Federer... Don't celebrate too early.

Roamed
05-15-2010, 09:33 PM
Is the semi at RG a lock for equalling 286 or passing it to get 287? Either way it's tight.

Sjengster
05-15-2010, 09:34 PM
If Nadal wins tomorrow and in Paris, a SF for Federer would leave him 50 points clear the following week, tied on 286 with Sampras, but with 250 points on offer at Queens and Halle - so he'd have to do better than Nadal in their first grass court events to actually break the record.

andy neyer
05-15-2010, 09:35 PM
Is the semi at RG a lock for equalling 286 or passing it to get 287? Either way it's tight.

equalling just after RG but since neither Roger or Rafa is playing a tournament the week after RG, it would also mean passing.

sunsfuns
05-15-2010, 09:37 PM
What day would Federer break the record? After FO or Wimbledon? Does he really have to be number 1 until after wimbledon to get it? :eek:

I believe he breaks it by being #1 a week before Wimbledon.

Sjengster
05-15-2010, 09:37 PM
equalling just after RG but since neither Roger or Rafa is playing a tournament the week after RG, it would also mean passing.

I thought Nadal was playing Queens again?

andy neyer
05-15-2010, 09:38 PM
If Nadal wins tomorrow and in Paris, a SF for Federer would leave him 50 points clear the following week, tied on 286 with Sampras, but with 250 points on offer at Queens and Halle - so he'd have to do better than Nadal in their first grass court events to actually break the record.

Yeah you're right. I thought Halle and Queen's started 1 week after RG :)

oz_boz
05-15-2010, 09:41 PM
If Nadal wins tomorrow and in Paris, a SF for Federer would leave him 50 points clear the following week, tied on 286 with Sampras, but with 250 points on offer at Queens and Halle - so he'd have to do better than Nadal in their first grass court events to actually break the record.

Don't even remember - did Fed play Halle last year? Because if he did, Nadal would probably pass him at that stage - gaining 50 points in Queens should not be too hard for him.

Roamed
05-15-2010, 09:41 PM
equalling just after RG but since neither Roger or Rafa is playing a tournament the week after RG, it would also mean passing.

Halle/Queens? Rafa in particular will probably play then given that he hasn't done grass in two years.

Oh well, I'd be happy just to equal it to be honest.

Edit: Whoops didn't see you already got a reply.

@oz_boz Nope he didn't play Halle last year. I seem to remember him agreeing to play there for a few years a few years back but he asked the tournament director to let him off last year because he was so emotionally exhausted after RG. Wonder if he will this time.

andy neyer
05-15-2010, 09:44 PM
Halle/Queens? Rafa in particular will probably play then given that he hasn't done grass in two years.

Oh well, I'd be happy just to equal it to be honest.

Yeah, it's kind of weird that maybe 2 MM held at the same time could decide whether he breaks what probably is the biggest record in tennis :lol:

If it comes to that and Federer decides to skip Halle citing fatigue, a lot of his fans would go nuts :)

oz_boz
05-15-2010, 09:46 PM
@oz_boz Nope he didn't play Halle last year. I seem to remember him agreeing to play there for a few years a few years back but he asked the tournament director to let him off last year because he was so emotionally exhausted after RG. Wonder if he will this time.

Thanks :hatoff: couldnt bother looking myself :lol:

LinkMage
05-15-2010, 09:59 PM
Yeah, it's kind of weird that maybe 2 MM held at the same time could decide whether he breaks what probably is the biggest record in tennis :lol:

If it comes to that and Federer decides to skip Halle citing fatigue, a lot of his fans would go nuts :)

:bs:

Fed already has the biggest record in tennis.

Pea
05-15-2010, 10:05 PM
If he cared he would have already secured it with the events between the AO and now.

Obviously, Rogi has a flair for the dramatics.

andy neyer
05-15-2010, 10:16 PM
Forget this... Wrong calculation on my part :S

Jimnik
05-15-2010, 10:25 PM
Yeah, it's kind of weird that maybe 2 MM held at the same time could decide whether he breaks what probably is the biggest record in tennis :lol:

If it comes to that and Federer decides to skip Halle citing fatigue, a lot of his fans would go nuts :)
Queens and Halle are not MM events. ATP are retards for making them 250 level. They have more fans and make more money than many 500 events.

Federer won't skip Halle if he loses SF of RG.

sunsfuns
05-15-2010, 10:33 PM
Yeah, it's kind of weird that maybe 2 MM held at the same time could decide whether he breaks what probably is the biggest record in tennis :lol:

If it comes to that and Federer decides to skip Halle citing fatigue, a lot of his fans would go nuts :)

I think he will play unless he reaches RG final and in that case the record would already be his.

doublebackhand
05-15-2010, 11:16 PM
Theoretically, even if Federer loses tomorrow and makes the SF in RG, he could still lose the number 1 position in that tournament IF Nole wins the tournament (Nole would become number 1 by a margin of 165 points over Federer). It's a real possibility but of course we all think that Rafa is the favourite for RG...

Anyhow, it was worth mentioning.

can u show me the math coz i cant come up with that?

andy neyer
05-15-2010, 11:34 PM
can u show me the math coz i cant come up with that?

Doing the math right now I realized I was wrong... Oops :)

Nole has now 6765 points but will lose 360 points for the SF in Madrid '09 so starting next monday he'll have 6765-360=6405. Given that he only defends 90 points in RG, if he wins the tournament he'll have 6405-90+2000=8315 points.

Federer now has 10430 points but if he loses tomorrow he'll have 10430-1000(what he defends)+600(what he gains)=10030 points. Thus, if he reaches the SF in RG he'll end up with 10030-2000+720=8750 points.

If Nadal wins tomorrow and wins RG, he'll end up with 8700 points.

n8
05-15-2010, 11:45 PM
By ranking number one on Monday 17th May (before Dusseldorf and Nice), Federer guarantees himself 283 total weeks at the top spot of the ATP rankings, only 3 weeks shy of the all time record held by Sampras.

If (when) he ranks number one before Roland Garros he'll be on 285 weeks
Before Halle, Queen's = 286 weeks
Before 's-Hertogenbosch, Eastbourne = 287 weeks.

Before Federer's early losses in Indian Wells, Miami and Rome, this record was an almost certainty for the Swiss. However, there are now two players who have a chance of overtaking Federer immediately after Roland Garros (before Halle and Queen's) and thus prevent Federer from holding this record by himself (or indeed at all).

Before points won from Roland Garros this year are added on (none of the top three are playing the week before Roland Garros), here are the point totals of Federer, Djokovic and Nadal after Roland Garros.

Federer 8030* = 10030* - 2000(Roland Garros)
Djokovic 6315 = 6405 - 90(Roland Garros)
Nadal 6300* = 6480* - 180(Roland Garros)

*Add 400 points for winning Madrid final.

If Federer wins the Madrid final, he will lead by more than 2000 points (points for winning a Slam) heading into Roland Garros and therefore guarantee to a least tie Sampras' record. If Nadal wins Madrid then Federer's lead will be 1330.

Updated to before Madrid final. Federer's performance in Madrid has given him a great chance of getting the record. If he wins Madrid the record by himself is virtually guaranteed (he'll just have to make the 4th round of Roland Garros - even if Nadal wins Roland Garros and Queen's).

paseo
05-16-2010, 12:12 AM
Updated to before Madrid final. Federer's performance in Madrid has given him a great chance of getting the record. If he wins Madrid the record by himself is virtually guaranteed (he'll just have to make the 4th round of Roland Garros - even if Nadal wins Roland Garros and Queen's).

Thanks. Because of this thread, I don't have to make my lazy ass do the math.

Echoes
05-16-2010, 12:14 AM
I can't wait for Sampytards to argue that 1 week at #1 beats 2 slams.



It does !

Swiss Mountain
05-16-2010, 12:39 AM
If rog only a year on two, yes he can keep always be n1 again, no points to defend; I am thinking about a handi-player, oh wait, its nadal; the one who won RGarros when he was injured, oh I was thinking about 2005, first win.
Remeber? He was "injured" in the beginning he said so on national tv. So he wins a slam injured, interesting.
He thinks he is credible and that people will beleive him here; what a jerk.

Swiss Mountain
05-16-2010, 12:42 AM
It does !



Sampras has no excuses for not winning the french, he wasn't good enough on clay, no competition to scare him.
He was mostly a serve and forehand player and that's it. I won.
I prefer players with many shoots in their bag (Edberg if you read me, I like you a lot, dildo)

HarryMan
05-16-2010, 01:02 AM
Federer should do it this time, come on Roger break this record as well. :)

HarryMan
05-16-2010, 01:20 AM
Like I have said previously there are not many people capable of winning three sets against Federer in slams, in a best of five sets match. The same people who beat him in masters and other MM events, can't keep the level of play for five sets to beat him (of course Federer plays a lot better in slams which makes it an even more challenging job for his opponents).

The only player who can do that is Nadal, and the good thing from Federer's point of view is Nadal is back to being world number two just in time for him to break the record. :)

Henry Chinaski
05-16-2010, 01:26 AM
Queens and Halle are not MM events. ATP are retards for making them 250 level. They have more fans and make more money than many 500 events.

Federer won't skip Halle if he loses SF of RG.

Why are they retarded?

Queens and Halle are guaranteed great entry lists anyway. They don't need the extra carrot of ranking points.

Events like Memphis and Valencia do need the points on offer (not that I necessarily agree with the events that were selected and the way the historical significance of some events was completely ignored).

Sure, it's harsh on a lower-ranked player should they have a great run at Queens/Halle and get very few points for tgeir efforts but I don't think it's a big deal.

Queens and Halle will always have prestige and top-class fields regardless of how many points are on offer. I guess this was the logic of the marketing department.

emotion
05-16-2010, 01:28 AM
I hate grass but IMHO Queens/Halle should be 500s

phelbyn
05-16-2010, 01:53 AM
I agree (and winning slams) and we also have to mention that:
Djokovic is in bad shape
Murray on clay :p
Del Potro out
Davydenko out

Oh jeez people! Consider that Federer is in the twilight of his career! He's happily married with twins babies. And he's pretty much accomplished everything anyone could accomplish in a sport. I think he is DARN WELL ENTITLED to not give a crap about most tournaments. As you near the end of a career, most players turn to preparing for the big tournies, and that's it. Leave the guy alone.

Sunset of Age
05-16-2010, 01:55 AM
Queens and Halle are not MM events. ATP are retards for making them 250 level. They have more fans and make more money than many 500 events.

Federer won't skip Halle if he loses SF of RG.

And neither will Rafa skip Queens.
Both Halle and Queens should at least be 500-events.

phelbyn
05-16-2010, 02:08 AM
I think another HUGE record plays a strong role in this scenario: Federer's string of SF appearances in grand slams. For Federer to retain the #1 ranking, he now needs to make the SF of RG. There is a pretty huge string of records that stand to be ended or not achieved if Federer cannot do this. Given how he is playing this week and how he has played throughout his career, one has to believe that Federer will make the SF at RG, thus securing the 287th week at #1.

HKz
05-16-2010, 02:13 AM
I think another HUGE record plays a strong role in this scenario: Federer's string of SF appearances in grand slams. For Federer to retain the #1 ranking, he now needs to make the SF of RG. There is a pretty huge string of records that stand to be ended or not achieved if Federer cannot do this. Given how he is playing this week and how he has played throughout his career, one has to believe that Federer will make the SF at RG, thus securing the 287th week at #1.

If Federer reaches the final, he will also be the first person to reach 5 Roland Garros finals in a row I'm pretty sure.

Silvester
05-16-2010, 02:19 AM
thats correct. Nadal only has 4 I believe. Would be Ironic if Federer had the record for Consecutive RG Finals.

DJ Soup
05-16-2010, 02:46 AM
thats correct. Nadal only has 4 I believe. Would be Ironic if Federer had the record for Consecutive RG Finals.

yeah, Federer having a record on clay that Nadal would probably never have.

dodo
05-16-2010, 08:36 AM
Why are they retarded?

Queens and Halle are guaranteed great entry lists anyway. They don't need the extra carrot of ranking points.

Events like Memphis and Valencia do need the points on offer (not that I necessarily agree with the events that were selected and the way the historical significance of some events was completely ignored).

Sure, it's harsh on a lower-ranked player should they have a great run at Queens/Halle and get very few points for tgeir efforts but I don't think it's a big deal.

Queens and Halle will always have prestige and top-class fields regardless of how many points are on offer. I guess this was the logic of the marketing department.

wtf. replace "queens and halle" in your post with "wimbledon" and see how much sense it makes.

andy neyer
05-16-2010, 11:07 AM
If Nadal wins tomorrow and in Paris, a SF for Federer would leave him 50 points clear the following week, tied on 286 with Sampras, but with 250 points on offer at Queens and Halle - so he'd have to do better than Nadal in their first grass court events to actually break the record.

Okay, I just realized something.

According to the rules, for the top 30 the ATP only counts the points of their best two ATP 250 events so Federer could only have a net gain of 250-90=160 points in Halle (given that he's already played 2 ATP 250 this year in which he reached the Semis in both). Thus if Nadal were to win Madrid, RG and Queen's he'd end up with 8950 while if Federer were to make the SF in RG and win Halle he would end up with 8910. Thus, Nadal would become the new number 1 by a margin of 40 points and Federer would not break the record.

Edit: just realized this is my post #666. That must not be a good sign lol

Bazooka
05-16-2010, 11:28 AM
Why are they retarded?
Queens and Halle will always have prestige and top-class fields regardless of how many points are on offer. I guess this was the logic of the marketing department.

the only logic is... who bids more.

Roamed
05-16-2010, 11:53 AM
The reasoning behind Halle/Queens being 250 tournaments could be something to do with the fact that they come straight after a slam, I think. If they were 500/1000 tournaments more matches would be required to win and the very top players, having gone deep into RG, might just decide to enter exos to prime their games.

n8
05-16-2010, 12:57 PM
The reasoning behind Halle/Queens being 250 tournaments could be something to do with the fact that they come straight after a slam, I think. If they were 500/1000 tournaments more matches would be required to win and the very top players, having gone deep into RG, might just decide to enter exos to prime their games.

Most ATP500s are draws of 32 just like most ATP250s. In fact, Queen's actually has a bigger draw (56) than most 500s.

Roamed
05-16-2010, 01:26 PM
Most ATP500s are draws of 32 just like most ATP250s. In fact, Queen's actually has a bigger draw (56) than most 500s.

Huh, thanks. Hadn't checked up on that. It seems even less logical then, considering.

Echoes
05-16-2010, 01:37 PM
Sampras has no excuses for not winning the french, he wasn't good enough on clay, no competition to scare him.


What do I care?

I didn't talk about RG.

World Ranking is more important than GS, that's all.

Ranking : 52 weeks
GS: 8 weeks

Case closed.

HKz
05-16-2010, 02:00 PM
What do I care?

I didn't talk about RG.

World Ranking is more important than GS, that's all.

Ranking : 52 weeks
GS: 8 weeks

Case closed.

You can't be serious.. They are absolutely incomparable. You're rank is a byproduct of you doing well in pretty much slams. It isn't one or the other. Comparing slams as 8 weeks to yearly ranking is absolutely absurd. So Vilas < Muster? Vilas won 3 slams never got the top ranking, yet Muster won only 1 slam and still became world number one. So according to your analysis, Muster would be a more accomplished player.

andy neyer
05-16-2010, 02:10 PM
You can't be serious.. They are absolutely incomparable. You're rank is a byproduct of you doing well in pretty much slams. It isn't one or the other. Comparing slams as 8 weeks to yearly ranking is absolutely absurd. So Vilas < Muster? Vilas won 3 slams never got the top ranking, yet Muster won only 1 slam and still became world number one. So according to your analysis, Muster would be a more accomplished player.

Vilas succeded in a time in which the rankings were fabricated by clowns. There is no point in making comparisons in ranking to that era.

Today -and also in Muster's era- were the rankings are supposed to properly reflect a player's achievements over an entire year, I personally think that, say, getting to number 1 is a lot more valuable than winning a GS (although usually those things come together). Similarly, I think that the record of most weeks at number 1 is more important than the record of GS.

-Valhalla-
05-16-2010, 02:56 PM
World Ranking is more important than GS

I personally think that, say, getting to number 1 is a lot more valuable than winning a GS (although usually those things come together). Similarly, I think that the record of most weeks at number 1 is more important than the record of GS.

Really??

You can't be serious.. They are absolutely incomparable.

BINGO!

Winning titles, championships are what sport is all about. There isnt a tennis player alive who would prefer a #1 ranking over a Wimbledon trophy ... just ask Safina.

andy neyer
05-16-2010, 03:03 PM
Really??

Yeah.


Winning titles, championships are what sport is all about. There isn’t a tennis player alive who would prefer a #1 ranking over a Wimbledon trophy ... just ask Safina.

That's only your opinion and I and others happen to have a different opinion.

Winning a GS tells about the match-work and success you have had in 2 weeks. Getting to number 1 tells about the match-work and success you have had in an entire year! To me that's much more valuable. Plus, there have been cases in which GS winners have had relatively easy draws but to have easy draws over an entire year is much more unlikely. Thus the 'luck factor' is smaller.

To finish, "the GS winners elite" is much bigger than the "former number 1 players" elite which suggests that getting to the latter list is much more hard and a matter of more prestige and recognition than getting to the former.

HKz
05-16-2010, 03:17 PM
Yeah.




That's only your opinion and I and others happen to have a different opinion.

Winning a GS tells about the match-work and success you have had in 2 weeks. Getting to number 1 tells about the match-work and success you have had in an entire year! To me that's much more valuable. Plus, there have been cases in which GS winners have had relatively easy draws but to have easy draws over an entire year is much more unlikely. Thus the 'luck factor' is smaller.

To finish, "the GS winners elite" is much bigger than the "former number 1 players" elite which suggests that getting to the latter list is much more hard and a matter of more prestige and recognition than getting to the former.

So how about another ridiculous comparison according to your beliefs. Rios > Stich?

-Valhalla-
05-16-2010, 03:22 PM
Winning a GS tells about the match-work and success you have had in 2 weeks. Getting to number 1 tells about the match-work and success you have had in an entire year! To me that's much more valuable. Plus, there have been cases in which GS winners have had relatively easy draws but to have easy draws over an entire year is much more unlikely. Thus the 'luck factor' is smaller.

To finish, "the GS winners elite" is much bigger than the "former number 1 players" elite which suggests that getting to the latter list is much more hard and a matter of more prestige and recognition than getting to the former.

Pure rubbish. The #1 ranking is a by product of the primary goal which is to WIN CHAMPIONSHIPS. And in the case of Federer, the total weeks at #1 is more icing on the cake; the meat was eclipsing Pete's 14 GS's and accomplishing the career GS.

BTW, how many weeks was Borg at #1 and where does he stand in the pantheon of greats?

HKz
05-16-2010, 03:27 PM
Pure rubbish. The #1 ranking is a by product of the primary goal which is to WIN CHAMPIONSHIPS. And in the case of Federer, the total weeks at #1 is more icing on the cake; the meat was eclipsing Pete's 14 GS's and accomplishing the career GS.

BTW, how many weeks was Borg at #1 and where does he stand in the pantheon of greats?

Well according to his logics, since

Vilas succeded in a time in which the rankings were fabricated by clowns. There is no point in making comparisons in ranking to that era.

That would mean he must believe Borg's tenure at number one meant nothing either. Either way, that was actually pretty hypocritical for him to say because then it would make absolutely no sense comparing generations by their weeks at number one or whatnot hence making titles the only true comparison and the real deal.

Echoes
05-16-2010, 03:28 PM
I rather agree with Andy, here.

The ATP point scale is not always very well done (cfr Vilas case) but at least it gives a far better indication of how great a champion is because it takes every or almost every tournament into account, while the GS, well, that's only 4 events of two weeks (maybe the best, but only 4).

In 1977, Vilas was considered World n1 by almost everybody not because he won the USO but because he won 17 tournaments altogether.
In 1996, Muster deserved the World n1 rank because he won almost everything that could be won on clay in the last 52 weeks, including RG ... but not only.

(And I'm pretty sure Fed will break the record.;))

-Valhalla-
05-16-2010, 03:29 PM
Hewitt > Edberg, Becker, Wilander ?

andy neyer
05-16-2010, 03:31 PM
So how about another ridiculous comparison according to your beliefs. Rios > Stich?

Er? I'm not saying that. I am just saying that getting to number one is a bigger accomplishment than winning a GS.

What you fail to realize is that I've never said that getting to number 1 was the only variable to consider when it comes determine whether a player is/was better than another. There are of course many things to consider but they're not weighted the same.

andy neyer
05-16-2010, 03:32 PM
Hewitt > Edberg, Becker, Wilander ?

Again, same as what I replied to HKz.

Echoes
05-16-2010, 03:37 PM
Just make a "diachronical"/inter-generation ATP ranking.
That would be a better indication than the GS all-time list (because it would take every tournament into account)

You'll see that Hewitt wouldn't be better ranked than Edberg.

Actually the best would certainly be Lendl and Connors (and I wouldn't mind:D)

HKz
05-16-2010, 03:46 PM
Just make a "diachronical"/inter-generation ATP ranking.
That would be a better indication than the GS all-time list (because it would take every tournament into account)

You'll see that Hewitt wouldn't be better ranked than Edberg.

Actually the best would certainly be Lendl and Connors (and I wouldn't mind:D)

Then you would actually be disagreeing since andy neyer believes that rankings back then were not legitimate.

-Valhalla-
05-16-2010, 03:50 PM
getting to number 1 is a lot more valuable than winning a GS

I am just saying that getting to number one is a bigger accomplishment than winning a GS.

Have you ever actually played any sports or held a trophy? If so, you should know that your statements are ridiculous.

Winning titles is what matters and has the most meaning! ... not what some computer spits out.

David Kenzie
05-16-2010, 04:00 PM
Have you ever actually played any sports or held a trophy? If so, you should know that your statements are ridiculous.

Winning titles is what matters and has the most meaning! ... not what some computer spits out.

Well put :worship:

n8
05-16-2010, 09:56 PM
By ranking number one on Monday 17th May (before Dusseldorf and Nice), Federer guarantees himself 283 total weeks at the top spot of the ATP rankings, only 3 weeks shy of the all time record held by Sampras.

If (when) he ranks number one before Roland Garros he'll be on 285 weeks
Before Halle, Queen's = 286 weeks
Before 's-Hertogenbosch, Eastbourne = 287 weeks.

There are now only two players who have a chance of overtaking Federer immediately after Roland Garros (before Halle and Queen's) and thus prevent Federer from holding this record by himself (or indeed at all).

Before points won from Roland Garros this year are added on (none of the top three are playing the week before Roland Garros), here are the point totals of Federer, Djokovic and Nadal after Roland Garros.

Federer 8030 = 10030 - 2000(Roland Garros)
Nadal 6700 = 6880 - 180(Roland Garros)
Djokovic 6315 = 6405 - 90(Roland Garros)

Federer's lead is 1330 over Nadal and 1715 over Djokovic.

The only way Federer can lose number one immediately after Roland Garros is if Nadal or Djokovic win it. If Nadal wins, Federer will need to made the semi-finals to hold number one. If Djokovic wins, Federer will need to make the quarter-finals to hold number one. If Federer makes the final he is guaranteed to hold the weeks at number one record by himself even if Nadal wins Roland Garros and Queen's.

Arkulari
05-17-2010, 08:56 AM
IF Roger won RG, would he automatically be assured to beat the record even if Rafa made the final?

BlueSwan
05-17-2010, 09:50 AM
IF Roger won RG, would he automatically be assured to beat the record even if Rafa made the final?
Ehhh...read the post above you. Roger "just" needs to reach the RG final to be sure to beat the record or the RG SF to be sure to equal the record.

Fed=ATPTourkilla
06-01-2010, 05:47 PM
If Nadal fails to win the title, will Roger still take this?

I seriously think Soderling is going to win this.

NADALbULLS
06-01-2010, 05:53 PM
Don't forget, Nadal was basically a tie-break away from beating Soderling at last year's French Open. If he won 4th set breaker he'd surely have won the 5th set as he always does. And Nadal is playing better now than last year, I think he'd be the favorite to win especially in a Final.

Nole fan
06-01-2010, 05:55 PM
I don't think Fed is going to surpass Sampras in this ranking which would be a real shame since the Swiss is the best tennis player in history and should break all records. I'm sure nobody will ever touch his GS semifinals streak. But everything can happen, definitely i see Sod with chances here...

alter ego
06-01-2010, 05:59 PM
Don't forget, Nadal was basically a tie-break away from beating Soderling at last year's French Open. If he won 4th set breaker he'd surely have won the 5th set as he always does. And Nadal is playing better now than last year, I think he'd be the favorite to win especially in a Final.

:retard:

Even if Nadal wins this tournament and becomes number 1 Federer isn't retiring after RG. He was number 2 for almost a year but came back. It could happen again.

missvarsha
06-01-2010, 06:00 PM
Things change pretty fast in tennis, but as they stand right now there is no way in hell federer is ever getting back to number 1...
but he really has no one to blame but himself.

Silvester
06-01-2010, 06:00 PM
People seem to forget that he can still regain the #1 even for a few weeks if he doesn't get the record now. If he defends his wimby title, Wins USO and gains a few additional points at the remaining Masters that he could close the gap again depending on what Rafa does.

Fed=ATPTourkilla
06-01-2010, 06:01 PM
Nadal is an easier matchup for Soderling than Federer. He was 0-12 against Federer but Robin made him look lightweight (although admittedly Roger was very poor after the rain break).

Nadal-Soderling will just be a replay of last year. Soderling blasting it from side to side and Nadal not being able to do anything about it. Nadal has overplayed AGAIN this year and will not be fresh for the final. If anything it will be easier for Soderling than the Federer match because of Nadal's high bouncing shots and lack of variety.

Nole fan
06-01-2010, 06:03 PM
Nadal is an easier matchup for Soderling than Federer. He was 0-12 against Federer but Robin made him look lightweight (although admittedly Roger was very poor after the rain break).

Nadal-Soderling will just be a replay of last year. Soderling blasting it from side to side and Nadal not being able to do anything about it. Nadal has overplayed AGAIN this year and will not be fresh for the final. If anything it will be easier for Soderling than the Federer match because of Nadal's high bouncing shots and lack of variety.

Yeah but the records is "consecutive weeks at n 1", don't forget that...
We all know that he can get back his 1 position, but the record isn't about that. Or am I wrong?

Dupuis2006
06-01-2010, 06:04 PM
If Federer won Halle and Nadal pulled out of Queens could Fed pass him again for a couple of weeks?

LEGENDOFTENNIS
06-01-2010, 06:04 PM
I think Nadal will win if it gets to the final, Soderling got nervous last year and Nadal is in better shape than he was last year.

Bagelicious
06-01-2010, 06:13 PM
Yeah but the records is "consecutive weeks at n 1", don't forget that...
We all know that he can get back his 1 position, but the record isn't about that. Or am I wrong?

I think you're wrong, Roger already has that - 237 weeks, surpassing Jimmy Connors previous record of 160 weeks at number one.

Singularity
06-01-2010, 06:15 PM
Things change pretty fast in tennis, but as they stand right now there is no way in hell federer is ever getting back to number 1...
but he really has no one to blame but himself.
Yes, he should have taken the magical potion that would have prevented his natural decline.

Roamed
06-01-2010, 06:16 PM
Rafa gets it if he wins the whole thing. If he does, Federer can still get it back. Even if Federer doesn't get it back, 285 weeks is still incredible :)

Lopez
06-01-2010, 06:18 PM
Yeah but the records is "consecutive weeks at n 1", don't forget that...
We all know that he can get back his 1 position, but the record isn't about that. Or am I wrong?

Nah, the record is total weeks at number one. Fed already destroyed the consecutive years record. He lost that when Nadal became nr1 in 2008.

Johnny Groove
06-01-2010, 06:19 PM
Nadal is an easier matchup for Soderling than Federer. He was 0-12 against Federer but Robin made him look lightweight (although admittedly Roger was very poor after the rain break).

Nadal-Soderling will just be a replay of last year. Soderling blasting it from side to side and Nadal not being able to do anything about it. Nadal has overplayed AGAIN this year and will not be fresh for the final. If anything it will be easier for Soderling than the Federer match because of Nadal's high bouncing shots and lack of variety.

Nadal plays better defense than Fed, Robin will have to keep it up for longer than he did today.

As for the #1 record number, Fed fans just need to root for Almagro, Djokovic, and Soderling.

froghop
06-01-2010, 06:22 PM
My guess is that Federer will be stalled. But depending on Nadal's health, there's still a chance but the window is closing quickly.

Polikarpov
06-01-2010, 06:23 PM
Roger's semifinals streak is more impressive to me, so I couldn't care less if Roger doesn't beat Pete's record.

David Kenzie
06-01-2010, 06:26 PM
Roger's semifinals streak is more impressive to me, so I couldn't care less if Roger doesn't beat Pete's record.

I think his finals streak is way more impressive. Also, 18 out of 19 finals is just insane.

jenanun
06-01-2010, 06:28 PM
honestly i have considered Sampras record has been broken, just a matter of when - a few weeks time, later this year or next year....

Sunset of Age
06-01-2010, 06:31 PM
I think Feds has overestimated his chances of breaking Sampras' record since the AO this year, when it looked like it was already in the bag (just like most of his fans btw). I can't otherwise understand why he skipped Monte Carlo this year. If he'd just managed one or two rounds over there... :o

Ah, if's don't count.

superslam77
06-01-2010, 06:32 PM
But will the record be tied?

Still Nadal could lose to Soderking.

holagirl56
06-01-2010, 06:33 PM
Yeah but the records is "consecutive weeks at n 1", don't forget that...
We all know that he can get back his 1 position, but the record isn't about that. Or am I wrong?

You're wrong. Federer already owns the record for consecutive weeks, beating Jimmy Connors.

He's going for overall weeks at No.1, trying to pass Sampras.

ApproachShot
06-01-2010, 06:36 PM
I think Feds has overestimated his chances of breaking Sampras' record since the AO this year, when it looked like it was already in the bag (just like most of his fans btw). I can't otherwise understand why he skipped Monte Carlo this year. If he'd just managed one or two rounds over there... :o

Ah, if's don't count.

Well, things would have been different if only he had won 2 more points in his semifinal match against Davydenko in the World Tour finals, or 2 more points in his match against Del Potro at the US Open...or even if he had won 1 more point against Baghdatis at Indian Wells or 1 more point against Berdych at Miami.

As you rightly said, if's don't count. But even if Federer falls short by one week, I don't think this will be detrimental to his legacy and place in the history of the sport.

feuselino
06-01-2010, 06:36 PM
If he ends up one or two weeks short of the record, Federer only has himself to blame. There were really plenty of opportunities to seal the deal during the last weeks. But I'm still confident he can do it, maybe not before Wimbledon, but he can still regain the nr.1 at a later point... we'll see.

Sunset of Age
06-01-2010, 07:00 PM
Well, things would have been different if only he had won 2 more points in his semifinal match against Davydenko in the World Tour finals, or 2 more points in his match against Del Potro at the US Open...or even if he had won 1 more point against Baghdatis at Indian Wells or 1 more point against Berdych at Miami.

Of course. But I do think that after his bad results in Miami, IW, as well as not being able to play in Dubai, some alarm bells should have gone off in his head. ;)

As you rightly said, if's don't count. But even if Federer falls short by one week, I don't think this will be detrimental to his legacy and place in the history of the sport.

Fully agree.

If he ends up one or two weeks short of the record, Federer only has himself to blame. There were really plenty of opportunities to seal the deal during the last weeks.

That's what I meant to say.

NADALbULLS
06-01-2010, 07:31 PM
Now Nadal has a whole Wimbledon's worth of points he can gain, and Queens. Nice situation.

JanKowalski
06-01-2010, 07:39 PM
Now Nadal has a whole Wimbledon's worth of points he can gain, and Queens. Nice situation.

I think Federer also didn't play anything before Wimby last year. So he can gain some points too.

DualMedia
06-01-2010, 07:42 PM
if nadal wins this! he will become number one!
on top of that, nadal doesnt have any points to defend for wimbley!

JanKowalski
06-01-2010, 07:43 PM
If Federer won Halle and Nadal pulled out of Queens could Fed pass him again for a couple of weeks?

No, Rafa would still have 60 points more than Roger.

DwyaneWade
06-01-2010, 08:16 PM
Nadal is an easier matchup for Soderling than Federer. He was 0-12 against Federer but Robin made him look lightweight (although admittedly Roger was very poor after the rain break).

Nadal-Soderling will just be a replay of last year. Soderling blasting it from side to side and Nadal not being able to do anything about it. Nadal has overplayed AGAIN this year and will not be fresh for the final. If anything it will be easier for Soderling than the Federer match because of Nadal's high bouncing shots and lack of variety.

Nadal gets more balls back than Federer and the conditions are warming up for the final, making that potential matchup easier for Nadal (balls kicking up higher on Soderling) than it was a year ago.

Ibracadabra
06-01-2010, 08:21 PM
If he doesn't do it before the us open i'm very sure you will see roger taking every tournament as a slam. This is his only goal along with the olympics at wimbledon.

Arkulari
06-01-2010, 08:28 PM
Roger could have sealed the record earlier in the year getting DECENT results in most tournaments but he clowned after the AO, so it is his own fault and Rafa deserves to get the #1 spot sooner or later :yeah:

DrJules
06-01-2010, 08:34 PM
I think Feds has overestimated his chances of breaking Sampras' record since the AO this year, when it looked like it was already in the bag (just like most of his fans btw). I can't otherwise understand why he skipped Monte Carlo this year. If he'd just managed one or two rounds over there... :o

Ah, if's don't count.

It depends if winning RG and / or Wimbledon is more important than weeks at number 1.

If Federer wins Wimbledon this year the weeks at number 1 are probably not that important.

Matt H
06-01-2010, 09:28 PM
It depends if winning RG and / or Wimbledon is more important than weeks at number 1.

If Federer wins Wimbledon this year the weeks at number 1 are probably not that important.

Agreed. Fed prioritizes the majors...and if he can win his 7th Wimbledon, 2010 will already assured of being a great year, with two slam wins.

CyBorg
06-01-2010, 10:12 PM
Federer gets his just desserts for fucking around all spring.

wackykid
06-01-2010, 10:22 PM
Roger could have sealed the record earlier in the year getting DECENT results in most tournaments but he clowned after the AO, so it is his own fault and Rafa deserves to get the #1 spot sooner or later :yeah:

agree... maybe this is a wakeup call for him to starts seriously looking at masters instead of just slams... :rolleyes:


regards,
wacky

Filo V.
06-01-2010, 11:06 PM
Well, Roger has made the decision to put the major tournaments ahead of anything and everything else in his career. So therefore, if he doesn't have amazing results in GS events, he isn't going to keep his record, as Nadal and Djokovic actually produce good results in events outside of GS tournaments also. Playing horribly outside of GS events has caught up to Roger, and he's going to have a very hard time just turning the ON button again and thinking he can waltz his way to a title. He's losing if not lost the fear factor, which was one of the main reasons his streaks continued for so long.

But he's accomplished so much, it is up to him to decide how he approaches his career. Nothing can take away from what an unbelievable champion he is.

swebright
06-01-2010, 11:22 PM
Sampras still holds year end number 1 record for 6 years. Roger hasn't done that.

JanKowalski
06-01-2010, 11:35 PM
Sampras still holds year end number 1 record for 6 years. Roger hasn't done that.

And that's the only reason he still holds the most weeks at #1 records (he got many free weeks in off seasons).

andy neyer
06-02-2010, 12:54 AM
Roger could have sealed the record earlier in the year getting DECENT results in most tournaments but he clowned after the AO, so it is his own fault and Rafa deserves to get the #1 spot sooner or later :yeah:

What's this supposed to mean? Of course he deserves it just like all players deserve the rankings they have. You make it sound as if he didn't try hard enough after the AO and there's no way you could know that.

For the record, I'd say he was somewhat unlucky with the draws. Having to play early against players that on a good day can be incredible dangerous like Baggy, Berdych and Gulbis wasn't the best deal he could have got. But what's done it's done.

n8
06-03-2010, 11:21 PM
By ranking number one on Monday 24th May (before Roland Garros), Federer guarantees himself 285 total weeks at the top spot of the ATP rankings, only 1 week shy of the all time record held by Sampras.

If he ranks number one before Halle and Queen's he'll be on 286 weeks
Before 's-Hertogenbosch, Eastbourne = 287 weeks.

Since Federer reached the quarter-finals of Roland Garros, only Nadal has a chance of overtaking him immediately after Roland Garros (before Halle and Queen's) and thus prevent Federer from holding this record.

Here are the point totals of Federer and Nadal after Roland Garros.

Federer 8390
Nadal 7420* (semi-finals)

*7420 if losing semi-finalist in Roland Garros
7900 if losing finalist in Roland Garros
8700 if winner in Roland Garros

The equation is a lot simpler now.

coonster14
06-03-2010, 11:29 PM
too bad for federer, just 1 week short!!!
i think he cares more about winning wimbledon though, no? :shrug:

heya
06-04-2010, 12:30 AM
That's Federer's destination.
Nadal promoted too many clay tournaments & didn't think his life was mocked by the media & Federer fans. Some opponents wanted him to hang himself & feel inferior to Federer. You have too many clowns (Roddick, average players, doubles players such as the Bryans telling the media to
bow down to Fed's self-decorated shrine).
The other Gillette TV commercial heroes
Agassi & Tiger Woods are cheering for Federer's ego inflation & 'great history'.

Sunset of Age
06-04-2010, 12:57 AM
^^ heya. :haha: :worship:

gulzhan
06-04-2010, 12:57 AM
I really hope Sampras will keep his record.

General Suburbia
06-04-2010, 02:11 AM
That's Federer's destination.
Nadal promoted too many clay tournaments & didn't think his life was mocked by the media & Federer fans. Some opponents wanted him to hang himself & feel inferior to Federer. You have too many clowns (Roddick, average players, doubles players such as the Bryans telling the media to
bow down to Fed's self-decorated shrine).
The other Gillette TV commercial heroes
Agassi & Tiger Woods are cheering for Federer's ego inflation & 'great history'.
Heya deserves his own thread. He remains an enigma for me.

Sophocles
06-04-2010, 02:14 AM
Is there anybody around who looks vaguely like Roddick who could give Heya some, um, relief?

raahaat7
06-04-2010, 03:05 AM
Well, Roger has made the decision to put the major tournaments ahead of anything and everything else in his career. So therefore, if he doesn't have amazing results in GS events, he isn't going to keep his record, as Nadal and Djokovic actually produce good results in events outside of GS tournaments also. Playing horribly outside of GS events has caught up to Roger, and he's going to have a very hard time just turning the ON button again and thinking he can waltz his way to a title. He's losing if not lost the fear factor, which was one of the main reasons his streaks continued for so long.

But he's accomplished so much, it is up to him to decide how he approaches his career. Nothing can take away from what an unbelievable champion he is.

Wel said. Sooner or later he will do it. No doubt.

DuMa
06-04-2010, 03:54 AM
i think roger would eventually break it but i hope not. it would be great irony if he just fell 1 week short of sampras' record.

bayvalle
06-04-2010, 08:11 AM
So much for the 'what-could-have-beens' and 'what-ifs' for Fed to equalize or surpass Sampras' record at No. 1. For all we know, not being able to surpass the record does not mean much to Roger. It may hurt the fans for a while, but when we look back years from now, we will realize that the most number of weeks record at No. 1 was not that all a 'defining moment' in Fed's successful career. But all is not lost - let us see if Nadal gets a bite on the FO trophy on Sunday. (I wonder how many teeth marks Nadal had already inflicted on that poor trophy!)

Acer
06-04-2010, 08:54 AM
That's Federer's destination.
Nadal promoted too many clay tournaments & didn't think his life was mocked by the media & Federer fans. Some opponents wanted him to hang himself & feel inferior to Federer. You have too many clowns (Roddick, average players, doubles players such as the Bryans telling the media to
bow down to Fed's self-decorated shrine).
The other Gillette TV commercial heroes
Agassi & Tiger Woods are cheering for Federer's ego inflation & 'great history'.

It's not really fun living in your head, is it : (

Nole fan
06-04-2010, 09:22 AM
I hope Fed mantains his n1 position, I want him to go like that breaking all the records in history, he deserves that and he surely deserves better than Sampras.

Purple Rainbow
06-04-2010, 09:23 AM
I am a great Federer fan, but the way he squandered this record is inexcusable.
So many missed opportunties since the AO.

Well, we can still hope that Melzer, Berdych or Soderling will beat Nadal.

Nole fan
06-04-2010, 09:27 AM
I am a great Federer fan, but the way he squandered this record is inexcusable.
So many missed opportunties since the AO.

Well, we can still hope that Melzer, Berdych or Soderling will beat Nadal.

I have a strong feeling Nadal won't win this time. It will be either Sod or Berdych, mark my words.

Turquoise
06-04-2010, 10:19 AM
If you can't control your own destiny, then don't bank on others to finish the job for you.

bayvalle
06-05-2010, 12:31 AM
I have a strong feeling Nadal won't win this time. It will be either Sod or Berdych, mark my words.

Soderling's victory on Sunday is dearly hoped for by Fed fans. Definitely, a mere week's deficit for Fed to equalize (or surpass) Sampras' record for most weeks at No. 1 would be a difficult thing for fans to swallow. The irony of it all is that Fed's conqueror may now be his saviour. Millions of fans around the world will hold their breath on Sunday. Go Soderling go.

Mjau!
06-05-2010, 12:38 AM
Gonna be almost impossible to reclaim this year. Could possibly do it during/after the 2011 clay season though.

ChinoRios4Ever
06-05-2010, 01:27 AM
I really hope Sampras will keep his record.

Me too. ;)

Arkulari
06-05-2010, 01:36 AM
Gonna be almost impossible to reclaim this year. Could possibly do it during/after the 2011 clay season though.

He doesn't defend much after the USO, so it's not THAT hard :p

Navratil
06-07-2010, 08:09 AM
Federer lost his #1-ranking today and he's got to defend an awful lot of points the next weeks. Nadal didn't play Wimbledon last year, so it'll be hard for Federer to regain the # 1 ranking.

The funny thing is that he's only missing one week to equal the all-time-record of total number of weeks at the top:

Rank Player Total
1. Pete Sampras 286
2. Roger Federer + 285
3. Ivan Lendl 270
4. Jimmy Connors 268
5. John McEnroe 170
6. Bjrn Borg 109
7. Andre Agassi 101
8. Lleyton Hewitt + 80
9. Stefan Edberg 72
10. Jim Courier 58

Will Federer ever have a chance to break this record???

:confused:

Fedicilous
06-07-2010, 08:10 AM
No, because King Rafa will lead the tour until he retires. He is the GOAT, remember.

Roamed
06-07-2010, 08:15 AM
I think if his biggest regret about his career when he retires is that he missed the all time #1 ranking top spot by one week, then he'll have done pretty well.

Navratil
06-07-2010, 08:20 AM
I think if his biggest regret about his career when he retires is that he missed the all time #1 ranking top spot by one week, then he'll have done pretty well.

He's done extremely well, hasn't he? He's got a lot of important all-time-records: Most Grand-Slam-Titles, ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_career_achievements_by_Roger_Federer

Lopez
06-07-2010, 08:27 AM
In the grand scheme of things that one week won't affect his legacy that much. Sure he might have another record but it's not important since he's so close to it. And besides Sampras still has the record for most year-end finishes and that has a lot to do with his weeks total as well since he got many weeks in the off-season.

FedererBulgaria
06-07-2010, 08:31 AM
No, because King Rafa will lead the tour until he retires. He is the GOAT, remember.

ahahaha may be next year he wasnt

Ozon
06-07-2010, 08:33 AM
Next year may still be a chance for him... we'll see what happens.

Nadal will get into the Top 10 of this list in about three months.

christallh24
06-07-2010, 08:48 AM
:rolleyes: Oh, brother! Fed Fans have now achived theirs saints status! You Federer fans have officially become the greediest fanbase of any sport of all time.

I think if his biggest regret about his career when he retires is that he missed the all time #1 ranking top spot by one week, then he'll have done pretty well.

:haha:

Yes, I'm sure that in the middle of his daughters graduating from the most prestigious university, surely with every collegiate honor there is to have, Roger going to remember this one missing week. :lol:

Oh, yeah. Still a record he could get as soon as later this year or next.

Sunfire
06-07-2010, 08:49 AM
Federer will retire with ensure that he is top all the records available.
Believe in it

Pirata.
06-07-2010, 08:53 AM
Yes, I'm sure that in the middle of his daughters graduating from the most prestigious university, surely with every collegiate honor there is to have, Roger going to remember this one missing week. :lol:

Way to miss the point :rolleyes:

NADALbULLS
06-07-2010, 10:13 AM
This is going to haunt Federer forever, for as long as he lives he'll always wish he had one more week at number one. How horrible. He looks more likely to slip down to number 3 now. The price of self-obsession.

toby1526
06-07-2010, 10:16 AM
At least he has another goal to get back to number 1 but to be honest that could take him 2 years and he would need to keep his level as high as now for that time.

henke007
06-07-2010, 10:58 AM
I have faith in the GOAT to regain his Nr 1 ranking if not at the end of this season then come FO 2011.

superslam77
06-07-2010, 11:02 AM
At least he has another goal to get back to number 1 but to be honest that could take him 2 years and he would need to keep his level as high as now for that time.

It could be a blessing in disguise for Federesians :wavey:

Roger will try harder in smaller tournaments which means he will break other records as well.

prima donna
06-07-2010, 11:23 AM
Just curious: What exactly will stop Roger from steamrolling his way through the grass season ? As for the hard court season, he was in vintage form last year, excluding Canada. Who is standing in his way ? Andy Murray ?

Roger could conceivably finish the season with three Grand Slam titles to his name.

NADALbULLS
06-07-2010, 11:34 AM
Federer sucked at Wimbledon last year. If you watch what he did after the serve, or after Roddick's serve, he played the worst groundstroke tennis I've ever seen him play at Wimbledon. Put that against Nadal and you'll see the straight sets Nadal win that looked destined before the rain in 2008.

Hard court season, he still hasn't proven he can beat Nadal in a hard court slam. And this year Nadal won't be coming back from injuries and won't have Del Potro in a semi.

Diprosalic
06-07-2010, 11:38 AM
he will play for at least two years. he will get that week!

Lopez
06-07-2010, 11:39 AM
Just curious: What exactly will stop Roger from steamrolling his way through the grass season ? As for the hard court season, he was in vintage form last year, excluding Canada. Who is standing in his way ? Andy Murray ?

Roger could conceivably finish the season with three Grand Slam titles to his name.

Yeah he might have 3 titles and still Nadal would finish the year as nr 1 :lol:.

Suppose that Federer gains about the same number of points but wins USO, he will gain 800 in the fall. Should Nadal make for example the semis at Wimbledon and defend his other results, he would stay nr 1. (Just off the top of my head, could be wrong though).

Diprosalic
06-07-2010, 11:39 AM
Roger could conceivably finish the season with three Grand Slam titles to his name.

and still be number 2.

Sophocles
06-07-2010, 11:46 AM
Just curious: What exactly will stop Roger from steamrolling his way through the grass season ?

Nadal. Nadal's probably better than he was in 2007, Federer is considerably worse.

Commander Data
06-07-2010, 12:35 PM
Rank Player Total
1. Pete Sampras 286
2. Roger Federer + 285
3. Ivan Lendl 270
4. Jimmy Connors 268
5. John McEnroe 170
6. Bjrn Borg 109
7. Andre Agassi 101
8. Lleyton Hewitt + 80
9. Stefan Edberg 72
10. Jim Courier 58



Isn't it kinda nice the Sampras has at least one big record?

I think Roger will regain the No.1 spot. he should able to play at a good level for couple more years due to his style. Likely that at one point it will be enough to be No. 1 again.

christallh24
06-07-2010, 12:38 PM
Way to miss the point :rolleyes:

Which was? I posted it's a record Roger can still get so was there some other point?

:rolleyes:

Priam
06-07-2010, 12:39 PM
1 week? Is there such a difference between 285 and 286?? He already has the most consecutive weeks record. IMO the slam total is what people will remember most.

M4RC
06-07-2010, 01:02 PM
No, because King Rafa will lead the tour until he retires. He is the GOAT, remember.

You've earned it:

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm167/djkazz505/HiHaterLogocopy.png

andy neyer
06-07-2010, 02:38 PM
I think he won't get back to no 1. I just have the strange feeling that he won't which is kind of odd because the last time he lost it I was sure he was going to get it back at some point.

andy neyer
06-07-2010, 02:42 PM
If you watch what he did after the serve, or after Roddick's serve, he played the worst groundstroke tennis I've ever seen him play at Wimbledon. Put that against Nadal and you'll see the straight sets Nadal win that looked destined before the rain in 2008.

I kind of agree with that. Federer almost got defeated by Roddick in the last year's final and if it wasn't for Roddick choking in the second and fifth set, Federer could have lost it. I think Nadal -being a much more dangerous match up than Roddick could be- definitely could have defeated that version of Federer.

However, in spite of that, I think Federer will get Wimby this year beating Rafa in the final. It might just be wishful thinking, though.