[Topspindoctor]

Originally Posted by KaptainKrunch

Get some help.

Thanks for the advice, Magician.

[Chase Visa]

Originally Posted by Benny_Maths

Dunno about overrated but year end number 1 doesn't necessarily indicate that the player was far and away the best player for the entire year. It's analogous to a player doing nothing special on clay and then winning RG, finishing the clay season with the most clay points. It doesn't necessarily mean that they were the best player during the clay season because their points total is just a consequence of RG being heavily stacked points wise.

IIRC in 1995 Agassi and Muster pushed Sampras very close and he had under 4000 points in 1998. That isn't really undisputed best of the year.

In Fed's case, he was a long way ahead of the pack between 2004 and 2007, although in 2009 it was fairly close due to some bizaare results outside of the Summer swing.

[Chase Visa]

Anyway, here are the point breakdowns for Roger, Rafa and Nole since Shanghai 2011 (assuming Fed defeats Berdych, which is easier said than done):

Federer 6880
Djokovic 4890
Nadal 4045

Unless he goes really badly or Rafole catches fire, it's gonna be hard for him to miss out on the #1 spot.

[Mechlan]

Originally Posted by Benny_Maths

Dunno about overrated but year end number 1 doesn't necessarily indicate that the player was far and away the best player for the entire year. It's analogous to a player doing nothing special on clay and then winning RG, finishing the clay season with the most clay points. It doesn't necessarily mean that they were the best player during the clay season because their points total is just a consequence of RG being heavily stacked points wise.

Actually, almost always the year end #1 was the best player that year. It would be extremely unlikely for someone to not be #1 for most of the year and somehow end up with the year end #1.

[networthy]

Originally Posted by Chase Visa

Anyway, here are the point breakdowns for Roger, Rafa and Nole since Shanghai 2011 (assuming Fed defeats Berdych, which is easier said than done):

Federer 6880
Djokovic 4890
Nadal 4045

Chase Visa: I come up with the same points total for Federer but not for Djokovic and Nadal:

Djokovic: 4880 (Basel 180, Paris 180, WTF 200, AO 2000, Dubai 180, IW 360, Miami 1000, MC 600, Madrid 180)
Nadal: 4080 (WTF 200, Doha 90, AO 1200, IW 360, Miami 360, DC 280, MC 1000, Barcelona 500, Madrid 90)

[Ash86]

Fed's got a great chance to be no.1 but it's not a done deal by any means - if Nadal wins both RG & Wimby for example, or Novak does, then I think they can hold him off. Personally think Fed's better in best of 3 than best of 5 now - find it hard to see him getting 3 sets off Nadal in a slam but he can beat him in a best of 3. Same for Novak too - other than maybe Wimbledon - think he just can't sustain the really high level needed - other opponents tend to generally (Tsonga & Wimbledon anomalies excluded) lower their level by the time Fed is 2 sets up but Novak/Rafa, even Andy, are the type to keep up their intensity throughout.

Fed might get to 6880 today but if for example Nadal wins Rome & RG, he's at 7045 - sure Fed will pick up points too - if we say Rome & RG semis, then I don't think he even gets to 8000 i.e. a 1000 gap between him & Nadal with Wimby to come. Same with Novak - you've got to think he'll defend the RG semi at least so can't see him dropping too many points till Wimbledon.

Fed apparently said yesterday he didn't know the no.2 was on the line until the media told him there and then which I find a bit off -- most players seem very aware of their points so seems odd he wouldn't know. Nadal knows he has to win Rome to guarantee keeping no.2 and I think he'll probably manage - he's done it in Hamburg vs Novak in 2008 and even at RG last year in some ways - Novak had to win the no.1 rather than Nadal lose it....

[Houstonko]

Originally Posted by Benny_Maths

Dunno about overrated but year end number 1 doesn't necessarily indicate that the player was far and away the best player for the entire year. It's analogous to a player doing nothing special on clay and then winning RG, finishing the clay season with the most clay points. It doesn't necessarily mean that they were the best player during the clay season because their points total is just a consequence of RG being heavily stacked points wise.

During pete's time winning 2 slams in a year gurantees that. Nobody else can match 2 slams a year. Today the master shields are powerful. Possibly need 2 slams 3 masters.

[Houstonko]

Originally Posted by Ash86

Fed might get to 6880 today but if for example Nadal wins Rome & RG, he's at 7045 - sure Fed will pick up points too - if we say Rome & RG semis, then I don't think he even gets to 8000 i.e. a 1000 gap between him & Nadal with Wimby to come. Same with Novak - you've got to think he'll defend the RG semi at least so can't see him dropping too many points till Wimbledon.

I think one of Rafole will encounter disaster in Rome, RG, Wimbledon. Fed probably will tank Rome. Djokovic keeping no.1 is in real danger although now it looks impossible to lose it. Olympics and AO destroyed his year. I'll say Djoker won't have anymore slams in 2012. Add to the fact Nadal is as tired, can't keep up, Fed will no.1.

[Benny_Maths]

Originally Posted by Mechlan

Actually, almost always the year end #1 was the best player that year. It would be extremely unlikely for someone to not be #1 for most of the year and somehow end up with the year end #1.

In recent years yes. But as I alluded to before, unless a player wins a significant proportion of the bigger (GS and MS) tournaments they enter, it's difficult to just conclude that they were the undisputed top player across the entire year. If you consider the point-distribution of various tournaments, it's not difficult to see that a player can perform well during a small part of the year, do badly across a much larger chunk of it, and still end up as the number 1 player. In that kind of scenario, the year end number 1 is a reflection of the distribution of points rather than dominance.

Originally Posted by Houstonko

During pete's time winning 2 slams in a year gurantees that. Nobody else can match 2 slams a year. Today the master shields are powerful. Possibly need 2 slams 3 masters.

You're looking at it in terms of ranking points. My earlier post was based on the degree of impressiveness of the year end number 1 ranking. They're different things because the latter looks at qualitative aspects - dominance in particular.

[Horatio Caine]

If Federer is ever going to get that #1 ranking back, the next few months are likely to be his last chance to do so.

He has set himself up perfectly by racking up the titles since last fall. If he wins in Madrid today, he will be holding THREE Masters 1000 events, the WTF, and THREE 500 events.

Djokovic and Nadal haven't come close to their dominance of last year's first half of the season, and they still have bucketloads of points to lose (together - Rome, Wimbleedon and US Open. Djokovic - also Canada and Cincy).

Federer has plenty of room to score big points on the Wimbledon-Shanghai stretch, and, unless Djokal reassume their dominance (and/or Federer sucks badly), he could find himself in a position where he needs to win 'x match(es)' to reclaim the top spot.

A very real opportunity to get back to #1, and he could be in the mix for a couple of months - long enough to get the two weeks necessary to break Sampras's record.

[romismak]

Originally Posted by Chase Visa

Anyway, here are the point breakdowns for Roger, Rafa and Nole since Shanghai 2011 (assuming Fed defeats Berdych, which is easier said than done):

Federer 6880
Djokovic 4890
Nadal 4045

Unless he goes really badly or Rafole catches fire, it's gonna be hard for him to miss out on the #1 spot.

Agree with this, if he wins Madrid he has it his own hands i think.

He will have 2000 points lead over Nole and almost 3000 over Rafa.

He should make at least SF in Rome, SF at RG and than it is up to him to do big thins - he can win Wimbledon for sure, but he must avoid someone in form ala Tsonga, BErdych, he can beat Nole at Wimby for sure and Rafa in SF would be better for him than Rafa in F too. He will add a lot of points on summer HC Masters, i can see him win Cincinnati and at least make SF in Canada- Nole can´t add much there, more likely he will loose there, Rafa in Cinci won´t do much, but can add points in Canada. It will help Fed if someone like Murray, Berdych, Delpo or Tsonga will make results and beating Nole-Rafa at big tournaments.

[JanKowalski]

Originally Posted by Mjau!

How is most years as the world's best player an overrated record?

Calendar years don't mean shit in tennis. It's overrated because being No. 1 at the end of season is not more important the being No. 1 during the season, with the 52-week moving ranking system.

[Corey Feldman]

and Fed didnt even play Shanghai or Monte carlo masters

[70-68]

Everything depends on the slams from now. If he wins one of them, and does well at the other two, it could be enough, but far from guaranteed. If he wins two of them, and doesn't bomb out very early at all the other tournaments, then No.1 is pretty much a lock.

[GSMnadal]

Originally Posted by 70-68

Everything depends on the slams from now. If he wins one of them, and does well at the other two, it could be enough, but far from guaranteed. If he wins two of them, and doesn't bomb out very early at all the other tournaments, then No.1 is pretty much a lock.

Nadal and Djokovic won't lose to Verdasco and Tipsy in slams, Fed isn't getting near one, let alone two