Paris BNP Paribas Masters - Oct. 28-Nov. 3

[DarthFed]

YOU are questioning Novak's results. Something I would NOT do regarding Federer. You're being disrespectful by saying that the result at achieving world no 1 would be undeserved.

I am not saying Nadal had a better year, also not saying Nadal was a better player than Djokovic this year (not least in terms of results), but if Novak gets year end no 1 it is FULLY deserved.

Anyway, in all likelyhood this is a discussion that is most likely to be irrelevant.

Nole has had worse results than Rafa and that won't change the next 2 weeks, it is as simple as that.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Nadal not finishing the year as world number 1 (in case it happens) is a technicality, and a direct result of him missing the AO.

 

[Denis]

YOU are questioning Novak's results. Something I would NOT do regarding Federer. You're being disrespectful by saying that the result at achieving world no 1 would be undeserved.

I am not saying Nadal had a better year, also not saying Nadal was a better player than Djokovic this year (not least in terms of results), but if Novak gets year end no 1 it is FULLY deserved.

Anyway, in all likelyhood this is a discussion that is most likely to be irrelevant.

Nole has had worse results than Rafa and that won't change the next 2 weeks, it is as simple as that.

What kind of non sequitur is that? You were saying that Novak's potential year end no 1 would be undeserved. :nono

 

[Denis]

Nadal not finishing the year as world number 1 (in case it happens) is a technicality, and a direct result of him missing the AO.

This is pure speculation. Who knows what would have happened if he had played the AO. He didn't. Maybe it benefited him, maybe it didnt.

 

[Kieran]

Denisovich,

If Nole ends the season #1, would you consider him the best player of the year?

 

[Denis]

Denisovich,

If Nole ends the season #1, would you consider him the best player of the year?

I personally think that Nadal is the best player of the year. But that doesn't mean that Djokovic clinching year end no 1 is undeserved. It is fully deserved. If he does it, which is unlikely, he will probably have won a Slam, reached two slam finals, a semifinal, won three masters titles, the Davis Cup and the WTF. That is an incredible performance (if it happens) and for that he fully deserves to be ranked no 1 at the end of the year.

 

[NADAL2005RG]

I have no problem with Djokovic finishing 2013 with the #1 ranking. There is a price to pay for not playing the AO and losing in the 1st Round at Wimbledon, and I accept that.

 

[DarthFed]

YOU are questioning Novak's results. Something I would NOT do regarding Federer. You're being disrespectful by saying that the result at achieving world no 1 would be undeserved.

I am not saying Nadal had a better year, also not saying Nadal was a better player than Djokovic this year (not least in terms of results), but if Novak gets year end no 1 it is FULLY deserved.

Anyway, in all likelyhood this is a discussion that is most likely to be irrelevant.

Nole has had worse results than Rafa and that won't change the next 2 weeks, it is as simple as that.

What kind of non sequitur is that? You were saying that Novak's potential year end no 1 would be undeserved. :nono

My thinking isn't that hard to follow, you just don't want to follow it. Rafa had the better season regardless of what Nole does the rest of the year, ergo he is the true #1 this year. Simple as that.

 

[Kieran]

I think the #1 ranking at the year's end should reflect who was the best player that year. Nole will only have earned it by dint of Rafa's absence early in the season and by his own consistency across the year, albeit at a lower level than Rafa. It'll be a statistical quirk if it happens, but I wouldn't say it would be "fully deserved." You can't fully deserve to be the best player of the year when clearly you weren't.

It'll be a bit like a couple of years in the 70's when Connors was #1, even though he wasn't the best player that year. But it'll also be a shot across the bows for Rafa, which will add spice to next season...

 

[tented]

I forgot just how docile Rafa's game looks in Paris. Was watching highlights of the Granollers match, there is really not much on his rally forehand. I actually think Jerzy might take him out today.

Hmm ... perhaps we need to work on a "Dislike" button.

 

[tented]

Ferrer d Simon -- 6-2, 6-3


Up next: Djokovic v Isner

 

[Kieran]

Ferrer d Simon -- 6-2, 6-3

Yeah, that was over a lot quicker than I expected. I imagined a long drawn out dull affair. Good for Ferrer, he must be playing quite good stuff. What's the odds on him defending his cup? Long, I'd imagine...

 

[herios]

Ferrer - Simon 6-2, 6-3.

David looked fresh like daisy out there. Good job!

 

[Denis]

I think the #1 ranking at the year's end should reflect who was the best player that year. Nole will only have earned it by dint of Rafa's absence early in the season and by his own consistency across the year, albeit at a lower level than Rafa. It'll be a statistical quirk if it happens, but I wouldn't say it would be "fully deserved." You can't fully deserve to be the best player of the year when clearly you weren't.

It'll be a bit like a couple of years in the 70's when Connors was #1, even though he wasn't the best player that year. But it'll also be a shot across the bows for Rafa, which will add spice to next season...

This is of course very difficult to measure. The only somewhat objective way is to hand out points for tournaments and gather more than your opponents. You can discuss changing the rankings system, for instance by giving a win at RG 4000 points instead of 2000, but you have to play by the rules of the game. Or say give Federer some extra points because he plays with a single-handed backhand.

I personnally think Nadal was the better player this year, but that does not mean he is on the basis of how people have decided to measure it. If you want to talk about changing the points system I am all ears. But if Djokovic clinches it on the basis of the system that was agreed upon he fully deserves it.

 

[Kieran]

I think the #1 ranking at the year's end should reflect who was the best player that year. Nole will only have earned it by dint of Rafa's absence early in the season and by his own consistency across the year, albeit at a lower level than Rafa. It'll be a statistical quirk if it happens, but I wouldn't say it would be "fully deserved." You can't fully deserve to be the best player of the year when clearly you weren't.

It'll be a bit like a couple of years in the 70's when Connors was #1, even though he wasn't the best player that year. But it'll also be a shot across the bows for Rafa, which will add spice to next season...

This is of course very difficult to measure. The only somewhat objective way is to hand out points for tournaments and gather more than your opponents. You can discuss changing the rankings system, for instance by giving a win at RG 4000 points instead of 2000, but you have to play by the rules of the game. Or say give Federer some extra points because he plays with a single-handed backhand.

I personnally think Nadal was the better player this year, but that does not mean he is on the basis of how people have decided to measure it. If you want to talk about changing the points system I am all ears. But if Djokovic clinches it on the basis of the system that was agreed upon he fully deserves it.

Well, the best player is the one who performed better at the highest level. You agreed yourself that Rafa would be the best player - but the rankings wouldn't reflect this.

Nole will have won more points, but not even his own mother would say he was the best player, so yes, we'd have an anomalous position, but one that occurs so seldom as to be more curious than dangerous. It happens more in the WTA, where Serena might nab two slams and play only 6 tourneys and Vika might win 1 slam and be runner-up everywhere else.

It's a statistical nicety, but it wouldn't reflect anything other than the occasional strangeness of statistics. Like I say, hopefully it won't happen, so we can all say the rankings reflect what we witnessed through the year...

 

[Kieran]

Anybody else thinking that Isner's game hasn't clicked since Cinci? I think Nole's going to win a tight first set and a runaway second here. He's just too all-round solid for the American if Isner isn't dropping bombs...

 

[NADAL2005RG]

It is very hard to say that Djokovic DEFINITELY doesn't deserve the #1 ranking, when Nadal achieved nothing in Australia and Wimbledon, compared to Djokovic winning the AO and making the final of Wimbledon. One could say those results make up for Djokovic not winning Roland Garros and US Open (especially given that Djokovic still made the semi of RG and the final of USO). And yes Nadal won more Masters shields, but what if Djokovic wins the World Tour Finals?

See, I think both players can make a case for being the best player of 2013 (if Djokovic wins the World Tour Finals). One guy won 2 slams but did nothing in the other slams. The other guy won a slam, made 2 other slam finals, and a slam semi. So whoever finishes with the #1 ranking, deserves it, in my book. Frankly, if Nadal finishes #1 without achieving anything at the AO and Wimbledon, its kind of weird. Its deserved, but nowhere near as convincing as 2010 (even though Nadal won less titles overall in 2010).

 

[Denis]

I think the #1 ranking at the year's end should reflect who was the best player that year. Nole will only have earned it by dint of Rafa's absence early in the season and by his own consistency across the year, albeit at a lower level than Rafa. It'll be a statistical quirk if it happens, but I wouldn't say it would be "fully deserved." You can't fully deserve to be the best player of the year when clearly you weren't.

It'll be a bit like a couple of years in the 70's when Connors was #1, even though he wasn't the best player that year. But it'll also be a shot across the bows for Rafa, which will add spice to next season...

This is of course very difficult to measure. The only somewhat objective way is to hand out points for tournaments and gather more than your opponents. You can discuss changing the rankings system, for instance by giving a win at RG 4000 points instead of 2000, but you have to play by the rules of the game. Or say give Federer some extra points because he plays with a single-handed backhand.

I personnally think Nadal was the better player this year, but that does not mean he is on the basis of how people have decided to measure it. If you want to talk about changing the points system I am all ears. But if Djokovic clinches it on the basis of the system that was agreed upon he fully deserves it.

Well, the best player is the one who performed better at the highest level. You agreed yourself that Rafa would be the best player - but the rankings wouldn't reflect this.

Nole will have won more points, but not even his own mother would say he was the best player, so yes, we'd have an anomalous position, but one that occurs so seldom as to be more curious than dangerous. It happens more in the WTA, where Serena might nab two slams and play only 6 tourneys and Vika might win 1 slam and be runner-up everywhere else.

It's a statistical nicety, but it wouldn't reflect anything other than the occasional strangeness of statistics. Like I say, hopefully it won't happen, so we can all say the rankings reflect what we witnessed through the year...

Well maybe you should write the ATP a letter and tell them that you don't agree with the rankings system which should be based on a jury system consisting of you as a jury which will hand out points on the basis of 'the best player is the one who performed better at the highest level'.

I personally think that Nadal was a better player this year but that doesnt mean I think he deserves to get the year end no 1 title. The only person who deserves that is the one with the most points at the end of the year on the basis of a system that was agreed to by the tennis players themselves. Not by Mr Kieran or Mr Denisovich.

 

[Kieran]

Frankly, if Nadal finishes #1 without achieving anything at the AO and Wimbledon, its kind of weird. Its deserved, but nowhere near as convincing as 2010 (even though Nadal won less titles overall in 2010).

Actually, if Rafa finishes #1 it'll be incredible, given how he missed seven months through injury. It'll be the greatest return to form we've probably ever seen, at that level...

 

[Kieran]

Well maybe you should write the ATP a letter and tell them that you don't agree with the rankings system which should be based on a jury system consisting of you as a jury which will hand out points on the basis of 'the best player is the one who performed better at the highest level'.

Ah, I'm not much of a letter writer. You write it and I'll sign it.

Glad we both agree on who's best player of the year. If Nole gets the year-end #1, it won't reflect who's best, but it'll show he garnered the points. No complaints here if he does...