Race for #1

[TennisFanatic7]

You put it well FG. Technically Andy deserves to be #1 as he got the most points and everyone knows that is how the system works. Anyway, I would any day be happy with Andy becoming #1 in contrast to Jelana Jankovic, Caroline Wozniacki, Dinara Safina (who have not won a slam, not just in that year, but in their whole careers) and a host of others becoming WTA #1.


But, the point here is that Andy has not risen above the rest and seized the #1 ranking. We always knew that he is the best of the rest and is the best in a word of Tsongas and Berdychs. The only reason he became #1 was Roger was suffering from Knee problems, Rafa was suffering from Oldage Problems and Novak was suffering from Women Problems. Of course, it is not Andy's problem that Fedalovic are deluged with other problems. But, Andy did not up his game, fought hard with tenacity and snatched the #1 in a passing of torch. Andy grabbed the torch when the torch was falling as Nole took his eyes off the torch.

"Only" reason? You really want to stick with that?

Nobody's kidding themselves that the fact he's won Queens, Wimbledon, Olympics, Beijing, Shanghai, Vienna and Paris to get to the number one spot wouldn't have happened if he was facing a fully fit Fedalovic, but that's sport.

However, he didn't "only" win because those guys have been AWOL or losing to others, he still had to win over 50 matches in half a year or whatever it is against other professional players including the likes of Raonic and Del Potro who were good enough to beat Fedalovic on their way to those matches. Like it or not, that's what #1s are made of.

I still just don't see why every time Andy Murray achieves anything of note, on this forum it's straight into dissecting all of the reasons why it was somehow easier for him than it ever was for Federer, Nadal or Novak. It's not informative, it just undermines the usual high quality of posting from very intelligent observers of tennis.

Fine if you don't like him, but have some grace and say well done to him. He's scored more points than anyone else over the last 12 months and you can't just get lucky for a 12 month period so maybe he's actually just quite a good tennis player after all?

Hey that is exactly what I said in the first paragraph. He deserves #1 as he got more points than others. But, what FG and me are trying to say is that we did not learn anything new about Andy from he becoming #1. He had always been the best of the rest. Now that Fedalovic is out for one reason or other, Andy became #1. So, no news here.

Well you said "technically" he deserves to be number 1 as if it's some sort of loop hole.

"Fedalovic" isn't out by the way. Federer is out. Nadal has missed a handful of recent tournaments, but barely anymore when Andy was off on baby duty in Feb/March, the bottom line is that he just hasn't performed, and nor has Djokovic since Roland Garros. Murray has.

 

[sid]

There are many roads to Rome or, in this case, many paths to being #1. Perhaps the fact that Andy has been so consistent this year, hung in there while Novak struggled and persevered, is what makes him deserving of #1.

In fact, the scenario is perfect. He is only getting a couple weeks at #1 before having to defend it at the World Tour Finals. At that point he can earn the year-end #1 by defeating the top dog on tour.

Here is a stat for you El Dude

Seven players since June 1984 have never become number one after becoming number two: Michael Stich, Goran Ivanisevic, Michael Chang, Petr Korda, Alex Corretja, Magnus Norman and Tommy Haas.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I think the bottom line about the WTF is that whoever plays better between Andy and Novak will be the year-end #1. Andy has a 130 point lead, if you factor in his current point edge (405) and subtract the Davis points (275), but given the point structure of the WTF that doesn't factor in. For instance, consider a couple possible scenarios:

One, Andy and Novak meet in the final. Novak wins all three round robin and SF matches, but loses to Andy, garnering 1000 points. Andy loses one RR but wins the SF and the final, winning 1200 points - still enough to take the #1 ranking. In other words, even in the scenario where Andy loses a RR and Novak goes without losing until he final, as long as Andy wins the final then he's #1 by +330 points.

If the reverse happens and Andy gets 1000 points and Novak 1200, Novak will finish the year with +70 over Andy.

So again, if one of them wins the tournament, that player is #1 no matter what configuration.

If both lose, then some interesting combinations are possible. The key to remember is that Andy has a +130 edge, which means whoever wins more matches will be #1. If they tie--say, both win one RR but go out before the SF, then Andy finishes #1. If Andy goes 2-1 in the RR and Novak 3-0, then both lose in the SF then Novak wins. If Andy goes 3-0 in RR and Novak 2-1, but Novak wins the SF then Novak finishes as #1.

So in summary:

*If either Novak or Andy win the tournament, they're the year-end #1
*If they finish with the same amount of points, Andy is #1
*If Novak wins one more match, he is #1
*If Andy wins 3 in RR and Novak 2, but Andy loses in SF and Novak wins, Novak is #1

There are lot of errors in this analysis.

1. If someone wins the WTF after losing one RR match, then they get 1300 points and not
1200 points as each RR match is worth 200 points. Of course, this does not change
the substance.

2. There seems to be a tacit assumption made that someone has to win at least two matches
to get to SF. If one player wins all three matches and the other three players win one match
each in a group, then one of the three players who won a match will move on to SF and then
could potentially win the WTF. In that case, the winner can get 1100 points. It is possible
that one wins all three matches in RR and then the SF and then lose the finals, in which
case, they will get 1000 points. So, 130 points difference can actually play a role.

3. However, for the above scenario to happen Murray should win all three matches and Novak
should win the WTF after losing 2 RR matches. In that case, Novak will outperform Andy by
100 points which won't be enough to become #1. Such situation cannot arise in practice
as in that case, Novak and Andy will be playing in SF and they both cannot win it.

4. However, there is still a weird scenario in which Novak could win the WTF, but yet not
clinch YE#1. For that, Murray wins all three matches and SF and reach finals. Novak should
win only one match and then SF and then reach finals and defeat Andy. For that to happen
Novak should be #1 in his group despite winning only one match. That can happen if
two of the four players in his group (say Thiem and Milos for example who are iffy) win
one match and then shoud quit. Suppose the two alternates also win a match each.
Suppose Novak and the non-quitter win a match each, with Novak winning the match
between them. Then, Novak will be number #1 in his group and the other non-quitter
will be #2 in his group. The alternates will not be able to move to SF as they have only
one match win and less matches played than the regular folks.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

OK. Let me try to explain again.

1. Andy fully deserves to become #1 by being the player with the most points in the last month.
That is actually a tautology. Any Tom, Dick and Harry who becomes #1 fully deserves to become
#1 as the only way they can become #1 is by accumulating the most points in comparison to other
players. Nobody can control who is in front of the net when they play.

2. Andy becoming #1 is certainly newsworthy. Again this is a tautology. Anytime someone becomes a new #1 player that is newsworthy.

3. Having gotten those two points out of the way, what me and FG were trying to say is
that we did not really learn anything new about Andy by the fact that he has become #1. He
had already been well known as best of the rest. He almost never loses to anyone to whom he
is not supposed to lose. I don't get the sense that there is a new King in town who just now
killed the old King and conquered the country. I neither get the sense that the new King will
be at the helm for long. This is not meant to take anything away from Andy's accomplishment
of becoming #1, but is merely a statement of facts.

 

[El Dude]

It is worth pointing out that Andy has passed Novak without getting points for his Olympic gold. If the 2012 point system was used, he'd be even further ahead.

Comparing Andy's and Novak's year:

TITLES
Novak: 2 Slams, 4 Masters, 1 ATP 250 (7 total)
Andy: 1 Slam, 3 Masters, 3 ATP 500s, Olympics (8 total)

Just on titles, Novak has been significantly better.

RECORD
Novak: 61-8 (88%)
Andy: 73-9 (89%)

Here we see why Andy has an edge in points: he's played 13 more matches than Novak, going 12-1. In fact, despite Novak being superior in both Slams and Masters, Andy's quantity of matches brings him ahead. I was thinking that maybe Andy played more tournaments and thus got more points from that, but he's played 16 to Novak's 15, which is the Olympics; it counts as a title and in his record, but not as ranking points. In fact, if you take the Olympics out Andy has a 66-9 record to Novak's 61-7; so the different in non-Olympics becomes 5-2 to Andy.

Given that, it seems odd that Andy would be ahead on account of 5 additional match wins, given Novak's overall superior performance in the "Big 12" (four Slams, eight Masters) with the 13th still to be played. The rankings are determined through a player's best 18 results over the previously calendar year; right now it is the best 17 results of 2016, with the WTF points off. So all of their tournaments count:

NOVAK
Four Slams: 2000, 2000, 1200, 90 = 5290
Masters: 1000, 1000, 1000, 1000, 600, 360, 180, 10 = 5150
Six best other results (incl 4 mandatory 500): 250, 90, 0, 0 = 340
= 10,780


ANDY
Four Slams: 2000, 1200, 1200, 360 = 4760
Masters: 1000, 1000, 1000, 600, 600, 360, 45, 45, 0 = 4650
Other Countable Results: 500, 500, 500, 275 (Davis Cup) = 1775
= 11185

So there it is. Novak was superior in Slams and Masters by 1030 points, but Andy more than made up for it in other tournaments - mainly the three ATP 500s he won, plus his Davis Cup points. I guess it just shows you that even the little tournaments count.

 

[rafanoy1992]

I just want to say, "Congratulations to the new World Number one, Andy Murray!" He earned and deserved this achievement!

Honestly at first, I was not a fan of him. I thought he was too negative and whiny and I thought he will never reach the level he is in right now just because of attitude. However, that post game interview after that 2012 Wimbledon final totally changed my view on him. When he started to cry, I felt his desire of wanting to win a slam and becoming a great player. Ever since then, I often root for him to tournaments.

In addition, I did not really think he will become the number 1 player in the world. I just think he was not consistent enough in the Masters 1000 tournaments and smaller tournaments. Furthermore, his Clay court game was not good enough to become number 1 player in the world. But alas, he proved me wrong once again this year.

And I think that's what makes him a deserving number 1 player in the world. Yes, I 100% agree that Djokovic is still the best player in the world this year and I agree that he has struggled since winning the French Open. In essence, it allowed for Murray to become number 1 player in the world.

However, Murray still had to win 7 titles and reach 8 finals to even surpass Djokovic. Also, Murray is really only leading 207 points ahead of Djokovic. So it is not like Djokovic gave the platter to Murray and say, "Don't worry, you do not have to win a lot of matches, I will just give you the number 1 ranking." Murray still had to win those titles in order to reach the top ranking. He might not have beaten any of the Big 4 players, but he still had to get the job done.

At this point, Murray really has three main goals in his career:

1. Win the Aussie Open
2. Win the World Tour Finals
3. Win the French Open

The reason I prioritized the WTF over Roland Garros is because I don't think he believes he will win Roland Garros. In my opinion, just reaching the Roland Garros final was a huge accomplishment for him already.

As for WTF, this is his best chance to win the title. And because it is at his home country, he should able to play well (I hope so!)

On a side note: Winning more Masters 1000 crowns and maybe surpassing Agassi would be a minor goal for him. It would be interesting to see if he could win Indian Wells and Monte Carlo in the future to complete his collection.

 

[Mile]

The way Djoker had in fighting for No.1 and Muzza are "bit different. Djoker was passing among Best double Fedal in history, and also Muzzard get stressed sometime.

The way Muzza gain it is probably not so similar. Its like Christmas gift, when every other is away. His way wont be for rememberance, just a stat.

 

[Shivashish Sarkar]

Now it really looks like in all probability Murray will end up year-end no. 1. You have to feel for Djokovic who won 2 grand slams beating the projected year-end no. 1 in those finals.

Once Caroline Wozniaki was world no. 1 in WTA without having won a grand slam in the last 52 weeks and infact, ever.

Sent from my Titanium Octane using Tapatalk

 

[rafanoy1992]

The way Djoker had in fighting for No.1 and Muzza are "bit different. Djoker was passing among Best double Fedal in history, and also Muzzard get stressed sometime.

The way Muzza gain it is probably not so similar. Its like Christmas gift, when every other is away. His way wont be for rememberance, just a stat.

At this point, it does not really matter on how Murray became number 1 player in the world. In the future, nobody will dissect and say, "Well, this player became number 1 because this other player was blah blah..."

 

[El Dude]

The WTA seems more prone to offer up less-than-dominant year-end #1s. Wozniacki actually finished #1 two years in a row, 2010-11. Serena even won two Slams in 2010 but only played 29 matches that year, 50 fewer than Wozniacki! So it was a matter of quality losing out to quantity.

That was also the era after Henin retired and when Serena struggled with injuries. Kim Clijsters was a superior player to Wozniacki, winning a Slam in both 2010 and 2011, but she also didn't play as much. She was a new mom, I believe.

Then there was Jelena Jankovic in 2008, another Slamless #1.

I see it as a power vacuum. These sorts of second tier players can become #1 when the elite players have off years, are injured, or there are no elite players. For whatever reason they seem more common in the WTA, and perhaps especially in the post-Graf years. From the 70s until around 2000 you had one consistent great after another dominating: Margaret Court to Evert Lloyd to Navratilova, to Graf, with sprinklings of Seles in-between. Then you have the almost-great Hingis in there, but she didn't last and Serena took over. But as great as Serena has been, her greatness is more spread out; she didn't utterly dominate for years on end like Steffi or Martina did. So the power vacuum led to players like Jankovic and Wozniacki being #1, or Amelia Mauresmo and Ana Ivanovic, not to mention Dinara Safina!

Of course the ATP has had its fair share of mediocre (relatively speaking) #1s - just look to the late 90s and early 00s: Marcelo Rios, Patrick Rafter, Carlos Moya, Yevgeny Kafelnikov, Marat Safin, Gustavo Kuerten, Juan Carlos Ferrero, and even Lleyton Hewitt..all fine players, but these guys would never have sniffed #1 if they peaked in the last ten years. The fact that Hewitt was the year-end #1 for two years is rather telling of the tour in the early 00s. Actually, it is somewhat of an indictment of Marat Safin, who should have been dominating in the pre-Federer years.

Anyhow, I do agree that Andy's climb to #1 is more a combination of consistency, diligence, and being in the right place at the right time than sheer dominance, like it was for Novak, Rafa, and Roger. Andy is not in the same class as those three and never will be. But the fact that he is always there, always in the conversation, does tell us that he's not completely far from those three - and certainly a greater player than any of the players in the list I gave in the paragraph above.

I think that, when all is said and done, Andy will fill a historical role similar to his role over the last decade: as the "gatekeeper" between the best and the rest; as we often say, "the worst of the best" and/or "the best of the rest."

 

[Fiero425]

The way Djoker had in fighting for No.1 and Muzza are "bit different. Djoker was passing among Best double Fedal in history, and also Muzzard get stressed sometime.

The way Muzza gain it is probably not so similar. Its like Christmas gift, when every other is away. His way wont be for rememberance, just a stat.

At this point, it does not really matter on how Murray became #1 player in the world. In the future, nobody will dissect and say, "Well, this player became number 1 because this other player was blah blah..."

You will be wrong; you're wrong now! I'm one to dissect all records; some more unattainable and respected than others! I break it down with a few others who are serious about stats, records, and standings! A real embarrassment was having Woz, JJ, & Safina all attaining #1 ranking with no major; sometime just 1 final over their entire careers! Less knowledgeable probably won't care; which are you? uzzled :angel: :dodgy:

 

[Shivashish Sarkar]

Murray deserves the world no. 1 rank he has 'cause he has done what is required by the ATP rankings system to be given the same. He has scored more points than anyone in the last 52 weeks. And I don't think this statement will change after WTF. When the system is there, you have to accept whoever becomes world no. 1. And, Woz's campaign was nowhere close to Murray's. After all, Murray did win 1 grand slam, was the finalist in 2 other and won 4 masters. That's a great year.

Djokovic outdid Murray by 210 points in the big 13. So, at the biggest of stages, Djokovic was better although quite marginally. So, one might feel that there should be some reward for performing better in the biggest of stages. But, Murray won 3 ATP 500s. He had to get it done while on the already stacked up and gruelling tour. Murray might have played only 1 tournament more than Djokovic but he played 2 ATP 500s more than him. Therefore, his "extra mile" helped him make his edge over Djokovic this season. So, the year-end ranking if it should go to Murray will be justified even if Djokovic closes in on the gap at the WTF.

The real anomaly is this:

Novak's grand slam points: 5290
Andy's grand slam points: 4760

So, Novak scored 530 points more than Murray at grand slams. That is some margin. This is the reason some could simply be disappointed with what is happening. Having won 2 slams and created the gap mentioned above, it would be a shame in a way if Novak didn't get the YE no. 1 after WTF which, of course, looks unlikely now.

 

[isabelle]

congrats Andy and Ivan, well deserved N°1

 

[Rational National]

Murray deserves the world no. 1 rank he has 'cause he has done what is required by the ATP rankings system to be given the same. He has scored more points than anyone in the last 52 weeks. And I don't think this statement will change after WTF. When the system is there, you have to accept whoever becomes world no. 1. And, Woz's campaign was nowhere close to Murray's. After all, Murray did win 1 grand slam, was the finalist in 2 other and won 4 masters. That's a great year.

Djokovic outdid Murray by 210 points in the big 13. So, at the biggest of stages, Djokovic was better although quite marginally. So, one might feel that there should be some reward for performing better in the biggest of stages. But, Murray won 3 ATP 500s. He had to get it done while on the already stacked up and gruelling tour. Murray might have played only 1 tournament more than Djokovic but he played 2 ATP 500s more than him. Therefore, his "extra mile" helped him make his edge over Djokovic this season. So, the year-end ranking if it should go to Murray will be justified even if Djokovic closes in on the gap at the WTF.

The real anomaly is this:

Novak's grand slam points: 5290
Andy's grand slam points: 4760

So, Novak scored 530 points more than Murray at grand slams. That is some margin. This is the reason some could simply be disappointed with what is happening. Having won 2 slams and created the gap mentioned above, it would be a shame in a way if Novak didn't get the YE no. 1 after WTF which, of course, looks unlikely now.

The real anomaly is that the Olympic title yielded no points, in years gone by it would have done.... if it had your stated anomaly would disappear.

I know there might be a debate about the intrinsic value of the tennis Olympic title and justifiably so, the only point to make when comparing the respective results on the "biggest of stages" is that Novak didn't cry when beaten at a masters event - therefore I would conclude that the Olympic title would have meant much more to Novak than any other non-GS tournament. Of course you always covet what you don't have and seeing as he has almost all else it would make sense (coupled with genuine national pride) that getting beat at the Olympics was hard - and to make a long convoluted point a bit shorter - the rationale for Novak being the de facto #1 based on the performance at the big events may still hold value among debaters, but it is not as pronounced as some would perhaps argue.

Actually, and this is not pointed at you Shivashish, there has been a fair bit of analysis done on Murray cleaning up when the big boys weren't around, but there has (and wasn't at the time) the same level of scrutiny or context put upon Djokovic's start to the season where Murray himself suffered from 'extra-tennis' issues.

His wife was fit to burst in Australia with their first child, and he had the undoubted stress of his father in law being taken to hospital during the event - this would have undoubtedly contributed significant mental stress / fatigue ahead of that showdown with Novak

Then with the birth of his daughter, you could argue that he wasn't at his best for a few months after (certainly his IW and Miami results were really poor) - He really only got going in April / May this year after Oz.

I appreciate that the fall off from Novak is more dramatic because of where he was and what he has done, but he also did 'make hay' when his primary opponent was in a slump - this context needs to be considered in the 12 month picture

 

[Shivashish Sarkar]

Murray deserves the world no. 1 rank he has 'cause he has done what is required by the ATP rankings system to be given the same. He has scored more points than anyone in the last 52 weeks. And I don't think this statement will change after WTF. When the system is there, you have to accept whoever becomes world no. 1. And, Woz's campaign was nowhere close to Murray's. After all, Murray did win 1 grand slam, was the finalist in 2 other and won 4 masters. That's a great year.

Djokovic outdid Murray by 210 points in the big 13. So, at the biggest of stages, Djokovic was better although quite marginally. So, one might feel that there should be some reward for performing better in the biggest of stages. But, Murray won 3 ATP 500s. He had to get it done while on the already stacked up and gruelling tour. Murray might have played only 1 tournament more than Djokovic but he played 2 ATP 500s more than him. Therefore, his "extra mile" helped him make his edge over Djokovic this season. So, the year-end ranking if it should go to Murray will be justified even if Djokovic closes in on the gap at the WTF.

The real anomaly is this:

Novak's grand slam points: 5290
Andy's grand slam points: 4760

So, Novak scored 530 points more than Murray at grand slams. That is some margin. This is the reason some could simply be disappointed with what is happening. Having won 2 slams and created the gap mentioned above, it would be a shame in a way if Novak didn't get the YE no. 1 after WTF which, of course, looks unlikely now.

The real anomaly is that the Olympic title yielded no points, in years gone by it would have done.... if it had your stated anomaly would disappear.

I know there might be a debate about the intrinsic value of the tennis Olympic title and justifiably so, the only point to make when comparing the respective results on the "biggest of stages" is that Novak didn't cry when beaten at a masters event - therefore I would conclude that the Olympic title would have meant much more to Novak than any other non-GS tournament. Of course you always covet what you don't have and seeing as he has almost all else it would make sense (coupled with genuine national pride) that getting beat at the Olympics was hard - and to make a long convoluted point a bit shorter - the rationale for Novak being the de facto #1 based on the performance at the big events may still hold value among debaters, but it is not as pronounced as some would perhaps argue.

Actually, and this is not pointed at you Shivashish, there has been a fair bit of analysis done on Murray cleaning up when the big boys weren't around, but there has (and wasn't at the time) the same level of scrutiny or context put upon Djokovic's start to the season where Murray himself suffered from 'extra-tennis' issues.

His wife was fit to burst in Australia with their first child, and he had the undoubted stress of his father in law being taken to hospital during the event - this would have undoubtedly contributed significant mental stress / fatigue ahead of that showdown with Novak

Then with the birth of his daughter, you could argue that he wasn't at his best for a few months after (certainly his IW and Miami results were really poor) - He really only got going in April / May this year after Oz.

I appreciate that the fall off from Novak is more dramatic because of where he was and what he has done, but he also did 'make hay' when his primary opponent was in a slump - this context needs to be considered in the 12 month picture

Hmm, Murray deserved credit for his results during testing times.

But to be fair to Novak, he was in too good a shape to lose to anyone at Melbourne. Moreover, that Murray made it to French Open finals for the first time probably means he was not in much physical or mental stress at the time. But, yeah, you can still put in an "if" and say we dont know what would hve happened if Murray was at his best in these tournaments.

I for one don't intend to take away Murray's credit. I have anyway mentioned at places that Murray deserves the ranking. I was only trying to reassess after all how much weightage is given to grand slams in the ranking system. I was trying to ask myself and others if the scores for results at grand slams are really appropriate. I reflect that its good to make masters, ISG and IS important too. They are on the tour for some reason after all. So, its alright.



Sent from my Titanium Octane using Tapatalk

 

[Mile]

The way Djoker had in fighting for No.1 and Muzza are "bit different. Djoker was passing among Best double Fedal in history, and also Muzzard get stressed sometime.

The way Muzza gain it is probably not so similar. Its like Christmas gift, when every other is away. His way wont be for rememberance, just a stat.

At this point, it does not really matter on how Murray became number 1 player in the world. In the future, nobody will dissect and say, "Well, this player became number 1 because this other player was blah blah..."

True, but paths are different, heroes are remembered, other are statistic. Its like a Titanic, everyone know 1st class passangers, 3rd class went to bottom not even mentioned.

 

[TennisFanatic7]

I don't want to make another massive post by quoting people but two things.

a) GSM - I see what you're saying but I think we HAVE learned something new about Murray. In past years he's won big titles but never had the consistency across the tour to be the number one ranked player. For example, when he held Olympics, US Open and Wimbledon after winning the latter in 2013, he was still nowhere near the top of the rankings because he wasn't backing it up with the results he's picked up in the last few months.

b) Some analysis about how Djokovic has more points in the slams and Masters than Murray, that's interesting, but I think if you take into account the fact that Murray was able to win the Olympics this year offsets that.

c) Someone made a very good point about Djokovic potentially profiting from Murray's absence/distraction during the early phase of the year and that should be just as noteworthy as Murray profiting from Novak's recent disappearance. However, it's also true that Djokovic still had to beat Federer and Murray to win Australia, and Murray to win at Roland Garros, whereas Murray hasn't had to beat Djokovic to win any of his tournaments from Queens Club onwards.

Overall, whoever wins the World Tour Finals and ends the year as number 1 will have deserved to do so, especially if they have to beat the other guy to do so which is very likely. Even if Djokovic wins and ends the year on top though, the battle will continue into next year with Novak defending Australian Open, Indian Wells and Miami, while Andy is defending very few points in February/March. Then when we get to the clay court swing it gets a bit more mixed and after that Andy has an almost impossible job for the remainder of the year to bolt on any additional points whereas Novak can do much better than he did this year at Wimbledon and the later tournaments.

 

[Rational National]

The way Djoker had in fighting for No.1 and Muzza are "bit different. Djoker was passing among Best double Fedal in history, and also Muzzard get stressed sometime.

The way Muzza gain it is probably not so similar. Its like Christmas gift, when every other is away. His way wont be for rememberance, just a stat.

At this point, it does not really matter on how Murray became number 1 player in the world. In the future, nobody will dissect and say, "Well, this player became number 1 because this other player was blah blah..."

True, but paths are different, heroes are remembered, other are statistic. Its like a Titanic, everyone know 1st class passangers, 3rd class went to bottom not even mentioned.

Unless you are equating Murray to a mere statistic or, crudely, equating him to a 3rd class passenger on a ship that sank I have to ask what is your point???? I literally do not understand the analogies within the context of Murray becoming #1

 

[El Dude]

I agree with TennisFanatic7 in that I think we're seeing a more mature, measured and consistent Andy. He's always been pretty consistent, but not he's risen to the challenge in a new way, having his best year at age 28-29. The fact that he's persevered and risen to the top is quite impressive and presents a more mature player than even the one having temper tantrums in 2014-15 because he couldn't regain his Lendl-era form.

 

[Fiero425]

I agree with TennisFanatic7 in that I think we're seeing a more mature, measured and consistent Andy. He's always been pretty consistent, but not he's risen to the challenge in a new way, having his best year at age 28-29. The fact that he's persevered and risen to the top is quite impressive and presents a more mature player than even the one having temper tantrums in 2014-15 because he couldn't regain his Lendl-era form.

Stan did the same thing; won 3 majors after 29 and got as high as #3 in the world! No biggie in comparison! :angel: