Andy's Year End #1

[El Dude]

This probably isn't deserving of its own thread, but I wasn't sure where to put it. Andy just did something that has only been done by two previous players in the ATP era (1973-present): He finished his age 29 year as #1. Roger's last YE1 was 2009, at age 28. Rafa's was 2013 at age 27. Novak turned 29 this year, so hasn't done it (yet). Pete Sampras' last was 1998, at age 27.

The only two to do it? Andre Agassi in 1999 and Ivan Lendl in 1989. Before them you have to go back to Rod Laver before the ATP rankings; Laver was definitely #1 in 1969 when he turned 31, and possibly in 1970 when he turned 32.

Anyhow, props to Andy on joining a rather rarified group of Agassi, Lendl, and Laver as the only four players in the Open Era to finish a year #1 at the age of 29 or older.

 

[sid]

It's deserving of its own thread.
thanks for posting.

 

[sid]

Ok folks what does Andy need to win in 2017 to hold the Number 1 Ranking?

 

[El Dude]

Play better than Novak .

OK, facetiousness aside, he's got a good chance of maintaining his ranking for the first several months at least. Consider his and Novak's ranking points through the first half of the year (Roland Garros, or to mid-June) vs. after (from grass season on):

FIRST HALF
Novak: 7950
Andy: 4450

SECOND HALF
Novak: 3830
Andy: 7960

So Andy starts the year with +630. The AO lead-up tournaments won't impact that too much, if at all, but the AO really could. Let's say there's no change in that lead, but then AO comes off - Andy's lead goes up to about +1400, which means he'll maintain the #1 ranking if he loses to Novak in the final, and probably even if he goes out in the SF and Novak wins it. If he manages to win over Novak in the final, all of a sudden he's got a +2200 lead and should be able to cruise through the rest of the first half.

But even if Novak wins the AO and defeats Andy in the final, or Andy goes out in the SF and they are neck-and-neck, Novak still has a lot more points to defend for the rest of the first half. 2000 come off for Novak with Indian Wells and Miami, while only 90 for Andy. After that it evens out a bit, but consider that in just three early tournaments--AO, IW and Miami--Novak has 2,710 more points coming off than Andy does.

The bottom line being: as long as Andy can stick close to Novak through the first few months, he'll have a good six months or so of the #1 ranking not being seriously challenged. No other player is even close enough to take seriously. In other words, barring a collapse by both Andy and Novak, one of them is almost certainly going to be year-end #1 in 2017. But what we're likely to see is their monumental lead over the field erode to the point that we could see a new #1 sometime in 2018.

 

[Shivashish Sarkar]

Play better than Novak .

OK, facetiousness aside, he's got a good chance of maintaining his ranking for the first several months at least. Consider his and Novak's ranking points through the first half of the year (Roland Garros, or to mid-June) vs. after (from grass season on):

FIRST HALF
Novak: 7950
Andy: 4450

SECOND HALF
Novak: 3830
Andy: 7960

So Andy starts the year with +630. The AO lead-up tournaments won't impact that too much, if at all, but the AO really could. Let's say there's no change in that lead, but then AO comes off - Andy's lead goes up to about +1400, which means he'll maintain the #1 ranking if he loses to Novak in the final, and probably even if he goes out in the SF and Novak wins it. If he manages to win over Novak in the final, all of a sudden he's got a +2200 lead and should be able to cruise through the rest of the first half.

But even if Novak wins the AO and defeats Andy in the final, or Andy goes out in the SF and they are neck-and-neck, Novak still has a lot more points to defend for the rest of the first half. 2000 come off for Novak with Indian Wells and Miami, while only 90 for Andy. After that it evens out a bit, but consider that in just three early tournaments--AO, IW and Miami--Novak has 2,710 more points coming off than Andy does.

The bottom line being: as long as Andy can stick close to Novak through the first few months, he'll have a good six months or so of the #1 ranking not being seriously challenged. No other player is even close enough to take seriously. In other words, barring a collapse by both Andy and Novak, one of them is almost certainly going to be year-end #1 in 2017. But what we're likely to see is their monumental lead over the field erode to the point that we could see a new #1 sometime in 2018.

A new no. 1 is possible more in 2019 after he has a good last 52-weeks having some of 2018 in it. And mostly, the margin between the then no.1 and no. 2 is going to be small. A scenario like 2012 year-end rankings is the most probable. Novak and Andy are overwhelmingly good.

 

[vjmtz]

Djokovic is still the real #1.

 

[Front242]

I can't stand Murray but no Djokovic is not the real number 1. He's been subpar for over 6 months by his standards of course. More like a return to his 2010 season really. The real number 1 is the guy winning the big tournaments lately and the most tournaments that's Murray.

Edited to say of course Djokovic still on paper had a better year with 2 slam wins and ended up number 2 'cos he failed to defend his points. But Murray won more in the latter half of the year and is the therefore a legit number 1. Anyway, 2016 is over for tennis so we'll see who performs better/best next year with not long to wait now so all this silly fanboy stuff can end for 2016 at least.

 

[sid]

To me Djokovic & Murray could either be number 1,both are way ahead of the rest atm.If Murray say wins AO? or goes deeper than Djokovic then things open up in Ranking points.Ivan Lendl is so important for Murray on how he goes from here.I guess Ivan Lendl moved aside once Andy had his back OP,now Ivan back I think he see's Andy can win once more.Time will tell & we all keep an eye on what happens.

 

[Shivashish Sarkar]

We still need to see if Murray can beat Djokovic at a slam now. In all fairness, Murray was never as good as Djokovic in slams for three years from Wimbledon 2013 to Wimbledon 2016. Then, Murray won his second title at SW19. Then, we saw what happened at the US Open. We still don't know if this Murray has the strength in his game to win a grand slam match against Djokovic.

 

[sid]

Djokovic got very lucky in that Murray had the back OP,without that Back OP I could see Djokovic with less Slams.In all fairness maybe we should add this into the Conversation???

 

[Shivashish Sarkar]

Djokovic got very lucky in that Murray had the back OP,without that Back OP I could see Djokovic with less Slams.In all fairness maybe we should add this into the Conversation???

On what grounds do you conclude that Murray would have reduced Djokovic's slam count? Also, you cannot forget that Roger was a strong contender in slams in 2014 and 2015. And typically, he beats Murray.

Sent from my Titanium Octane using Tapatalk

 

[Front242]

Djokovic got very lucky in that Murray had the back OP,without that Back OP I could see Djokovic with less Slams.In all fairness maybe we should add this into the Conversation???

Why don't we just list all the players who've "got lucky" 'cos someone else had an injury? Wait no, let's not. It's pointless. Who's to say Murray would have even made the finals of all these slams he could have taken from Djokovic anyway?

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Djokovic is still the real #1.

He is not. Even ITF has agreed with Andy's YE#1.

I did not see anyone mentioning this. ITF finally decided to give the "world champion" award (informally known as "player of the year" award) to Andy Murray. This is a subjective award voted on by an ITF panel and gives more weight to ITF events such as Grandslams, Olympics and DC.

I was thinking that may be they would vote for Novak due to his two slams. I guess Andy supplemented his lone GS with the Olympic Gold and thus managed to win the "player of the year" (not to mention that he reached up to SF in DC).

 

[vjmtz]

2 slams are 2 slams, Djokovic slam is historical and 3-2 (2-0 at slams) is also something.

Murray is only computer #1, Djokovic is the real #1.

 

[El Dude]

2 slams are 2 slams, Djokovic slam is historical and 3-2 (2-0 at slams) is also something.

Murray is only computer #1, Djokovic is the real #1.

Not sure what you mean by this, as the #1 player is based upon computer rankings. What I think you mean by "real" is your.

Anyhow, let us remember that the #1 ranking is the player who had the best prior calendar year. This means that, overall, Andy had the best results--based upon ATP ranking points--over the course of 2016. And the numbers don't lie.

Now if you only look at Slam results then sure, but Slam results only account for a portion of rankings - not even half in most cases. For instance, compare Andy's and Novak's total ATP points with their Slam-derived ATP points, and the percentage thereof.

ANDY: 12,140 total; 4,760 from Slams (39%)
NOVAK: 11,780 total; 5,290 from Slams (45%)

Now if you think that Slams are everything, then Novak should have been #1. But that's not the way the rules of the game work, and you can't change the rules after the fact. We can also give credit to Andy for managing his schedule really well. Novak also earned more points from Masters (5,150 to 4,650). The difference in their total points is largely because of ATP 500s: Andy earning 1,500 from three wins, while Novak only got 90 points from one tournament. And of course Andy finished the deal by winning the World Tour Finals.

So I think Andy earned it and is the "real" #1.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

The difference between their slam points alone is 5290 -4760 = 530 and this is easily wiped by 750 points Andy would have got by winning Olympics (if only IFT and ATP did not go on loggerheads with each other). That is another reason, Andy was recognized by the ITF as "player of the year", which is given primarily by looking at the performance in ITF events (which are slams, O and DC).

 

[sid]

The difference between their slam points alone is 5290 -4760 = 530 and this is easily wiped by 750 points Andy would have got by winning Olympics (if only IFT and ATP did not go on loggerheads with each other). That is another reason, ITF was recognized by the ITF as "player of the year", which is given primarily by looking at the performance in ITF events (which are slams, O and DC).

Just to add Olympics only come round once each 4 years so we can all understand why thay were @ loggerheads over this.

 

[vjmtz]

2 slams are 2 slams, Djokovic slam is historical and 3-2 (2-0 at slams) is also something.

Murray is only computer #1, Djokovic is the real #1.

Not sure what you mean by this, as the #1 player is based upon computer rankings. What I think you mean by "real" is your.

Anyhow, let us remember that the #1 ranking is the player who had the best prior calendar year. This means that, overall, Andy had the best results--based upon ATP ranking points--over the course of 2016. And the numbers don't lie.

Now if you only look at Slam results then sure, but Slam results only account for a portion of rankings - not even half in most cases. For instance, compare Andy's and Novak's total ATP points with their Slam-derived ATP points, and the percentage thereof.

ANDY: 12,140 total; 4,760 from Slams (39%)
NOVAK: 11,780 total; 5,290 from Slams (45%)

Now if you think that Slams are everything, then Novak should have been #1. But that's not the way the rules of the game work, and you can't change the rules after the fact. We can also give credit to Andy for managing his schedule really well. Novak also earned more points from Masters (5,150 to 4,650). The difference in their total points is largely because of ATP 500s: Andy earning 1,500 from three wins, while Novak only got 90 points from one tournament. And of course Andy finished the deal by winning the World Tour Finals.

So I think Andy earned it and is the "real" #1.

Djokovic is the real #1 because he achieved what matters the most. 2 > 1 and 2-0 at slams. I bet Murray would swap his season with Novak's.

 

[sid]

2 slams are 2 slams, Djokovic slam is historical and 3-2 (2-0 at slams) is also something.

Murray is only computer #1, Djokovic is the real #1.

Not sure what you mean by this, as the #1 player is based upon computer rankings. What I think you mean by "real" is your.

Anyhow, let us remember that the #1 ranking is the player who had the best prior calendar year. This means that, overall, Andy had the best results--based upon ATP ranking points--over the course of 2016. And the numbers don't lie.

Now if you only look at Slam results then sure, but Slam results only account for a portion of rankings - not even half in most cases. For instance, compare Andy's and Novak's total ATP points with their Slam-derived ATP points, and the percentage thereof.

ANDY: 12,140 total; 4,760 from Slams (39%)
NOVAK: 11,780 total; 5,290 from Slams (45%)

Now if you think that Slams are everything, then Novak should have been #1. But that's not the way the rules of the game work, and you can't change the rules after the fact. We can also give credit to Andy for managing his schedule really well. Novak also earned more points from Masters (5,150 to 4,650). The difference in their total points is largely because of ATP 500s: Andy earning 1,500 from three wins, while Novak only got 90 points from one tournament. And of course Andy finished the deal by winning the World Tour Finals.

So I think Andy earned it and is the "real" #1.

Djokovic is the real #1 because he achieved what matters the most. 2 > 1 and 2-0 at slams. I bet Murray would swap his season with Novak's.

I don't think so Djokovic was in tears when he lost @ the Olympics,i think we all saw what it ment to him.

 

[Front242]

He was in tears when he won the French Open as well. Guess which one he gives more of a damn about and which will be remembered more in years to come...