[Litotes]

Originally Posted by Mr. Oracle

How do you mean it's not relevant? If he loses in 1st round at 2013 wimbledon, he gets deducted 2000 points. Then there are the other points he has to defend.

You're aware of what it means to "defend" points?

You don't understand the ranking system either? Of course a R1 loss in Wimbledon would hurt him in the EOS rankings for 2013, not because he won last year but because 1 point from that event will be significantly less than those close to him in the rankings are likely to get.

If we consider a hypothetical alternative universe where Federer lost in R1 in every single tournament last year, thus having nothing to defend now, let everything else be equal and simultaneously grant him WCs to every event, do you think it would be more likely for him then to be top-3 at end of season? What about another alternative universe where he won all three remaining slams and all nine masters last year? Would it be still more difficult then to remain top-3 with everything to defend?

[Time Violation]

Originally Posted by Litotes

You don't understand the ranking system either? Of course a R1 loss in Wimbledon would hurt him in the EOS rankings for 2013, not because he won last year but because 1 point from that event will be significantly less than those close to him in the rankings are likely to get.

It depends on the context of course - if we are talking about end of the year, then defending is irrelevant, but if we are talking about taking over #1 during the year, then "defending" means a lot

[Litotes]

Originally Posted by Time Violation

It depends on the context of course - if we are talking about end of the year, then defending is irrelevant, but if we are talking about taking over #1 during the year, then "defending" means a lot

You are correct. And we were here talking about ending 2013 top-3. The thread was originally about taking over #1, so we obviously got sidetracked somewhere along the way. Probably because few see taking over #1 this year as worth debating anymore.

[Time Violation]

Yea, taking it over during the year seems almost completely unlikely now, especially since Nadal is doing well on clay, but end of the year is still quite open; but he will really have to crank it up, he's only 5th in the race.

[TennisPhan1]

Originally Posted by Time Violation

Yea, taking it over during the year seems almost completely unlikely now, especially since Nadal is doing well on clay, but end of the year is still quite open; but he will really have to crank it up, he's only 5th in the race.

it's open, really? Nadal has 7100 points less than Novak right now and has a bunch of tourneys to defend up to Wimbeldon and you think he has a chance to become #1 until the end of the year?

[Time Violation]

Originally Posted by TennisPhan1

it's open, really? Nadal has 7100 points less than Novak right now and has a bunch of tourneys to defend up to Wimbeldon and you think he has a chance to become #1 until the end of the year?

Defending is completely irrelevant for the end of the year standings. Right now, Nadal is 1600 behind in the race, Murray is 1100 and there are still plenty of points out there, it's barely March.

[Kyle_Johansen]

There's a great chance that Rafa ends the year in the top 3 or even 2 as he has 0 pts to defend after Wimbledon.

[alypen]

Originally Posted by Kyle_Johansen

The Olympics match was basically a long 5-setter.

Tight-ish but short 5-setter, surely? It would have broken down into a couple of tiebreaks in sets 3 and 4, and then a medium-length final set, score-wise. And if it had been a 5-setter, it would probably have been less stressful for him than being under pressure not to lose his serve from 4-5 down any time in the next 27 (I think my maths is right) games.

Hmm. Good job he wasn't playing it this year, I'd say, based on his current serving.

[Kyle_Johansen]

Originally Posted by alypen

Tight-ish but short 5-setter, surely? It would have broken down into a couple of tiebreaks in sets 3 and 4, and then a medium-length final set, score-wise. And if it had been a 5-setter, it would probably have been less stressful for him than being under pressure not to lose his serve from 4-5 down any time in the next 27 (I think my maths is right) games.

Hmm. Good job he wasn't playing it this year, I'd say, based on his current serving.

6-6 in the 3rd is one set, 12-12 is the 4th, and 19-17 is basically the fifth.

[MIMIC]

Originally Posted by MIMIC

He has to WIN both Indian Wells and Dubai just to stay level. Not to mention Madrid and Wimbledon....all of which Novak can use to boost his ranking substantially because he didn't even make the finals of any of those tournaments.

The lead between Novak and Fed is too large, Novak is playing well and Fed will have to defend a LOT this year. Just like it was inevitable that Novak would lose his No. 1 rank last year, I think it's way too much to ask for Fed to get back to No. 1 (this year, at least).

[Kyle_Johansen]

Falling to #3 doesn't exactly mean Roger can't get back to #1, numbers-wise. It happened at Wimby.

He's very unlikely to do it but that's what we all said in 2011. A win at the USO and early exits by Andy and Nole (for example) would drastically change numbers in the rankings.

[NSMv1924]

Knowing how consistent Novak is I just don't see him losing #1 this year

[Litotes]

Originally Posted by NSMv1924

Knowing how consistent Novak is I just don't see him losing #1 this year

No, looks unlikely to happen this year. Murray out now in IW cements his advantage both in current and in race rankings. Still, we've only seen slow HC so far, and about a 5th of the year, so too soon to conclude anything besides that he's obviously keeping it for a few more months - even if he goes on a sabbatical.

[Allez]

Roger please

[paseo]

Well, he played absolutely shit the other day. So...