Race for #1

[Kieran]

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:

So which one of 'em is gonna be your new favourite player - Stan or Andy? :snicker

 

[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.

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

Rod Laver won the Grand Slam twice...everything else is no biggie in comparison.

Seriously, Fiero, this is silly. Of course Stan's accomplishments are impressive. In fact, he changed the idea of what is possible by doing something no one had done before. But this doesn't take away from Andy's accomplishment.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Every year ITF designates a "world champion" (informally known as player of the year).
They take into consideration only the ITF sponsored events. Obviously more weight to Slams
and less to Olympics and DC. They don't use any formula and let a board vote subjectively
on it.

It would be interesting to see as to who they designate for this year, especially if Andy
becomes YE #1 in the ATP rankings chart. Starting from 1978, there were only four occasions
when the YE #1 of the ATP and the world champion of ITF were different.

Novak has been designated as player of the year for the last five years in a row.
In particular, Novak was designated as player of the year by ITF even in 2013 when
Rafa snatched the YE #1 from him.

 

[Fiero425]

Every year ITF designates a "world champion" (informally known as player of the year).
They take into consideration only the ITF sponsored events. Obviously more weight to Slams
and less to Olympics and DC. They don't use any formula and let a board vote subjectively
on it.

It would be interesting to see as to who they designate for this year, especially if Andy
becomes YE #1 in the ATP rankings chart. Starting from 1978, there were only four occasions
when the YE #1 of the ATP and the world champion of ITF were different.

Novak has been designated as player of the year for the last five years in a row.
In particular, Novak was designated as player of the year by ITF even in 2013 when
Rafa snatched the YE #1 from him.

Everyone knows I'm no fan of Rafa's, but I have to be his PR person and correct your comment; Rafa legitimately was the #1 players with 2 majors and several Masters to his name! The ITF gave "POY" to Nole for his overall consistency and playing in every major final winning 1 "down under!" If anyone snatched anything, it was our boy Nole, getting the alternate top award from the ITF over the acknowledged top rankings of the ATP! It didn't bother me of course, but I'm sure Nadal's fans were livid! :angel: :dodgy: :lolz: :laydownlaughing

Update: BTW, I'm betting Nole still takes POY due to accomplishment of CGS and winning 4 Masters!

- - http://fiero4251.blogspot.com/2016/08/fan-page-novak-nole-djokovic.html - -

 

[Busted]

So Murray is the new #1 Last Man Standing of The Big 4, huh? :lolz: I can't remember the last time someone became #1 just for showing up at tournaments and beating less than mediocre competition, but good for him. He "peaked" at the right time. Nole's got his head up butt. Roger's injured. Nadal isn't 1/10th the player he used to be. And I'll throw in that Stan's a head case whose week to week consistency is non-existent.

No offense to Andy's fans, but I just can't be too impressed by a guy whose path to #1 consisted of finals victories over Isner, Tsonga, Agut and Dimitrov. At the China Open the highest ranked player he played was #13 David Ferrer. At the Shanghai Masters it was #12 David Goffin. In Vienna it was #15 Jo-Wilfred Tsonga. In Paris it was #5 Milos Raonic. So in 4 tournaments he played 1 guy ranked in the top 10 :eyepop- and that was before the final. Yes, he can only play the players that win, but still, I'm not impressed.

Given Murray's less than stellar history at the Tour Finals, having played in 4 straight finals the last 4 months - I'm going with Djokovic for the Six-peat and returning to #1. Even if Andy makes the final he's probably going to have to beat Djokovic - against whom he has Roger-to-Rafa-like numbers of 10 wins and 24 losses (Roger 11, Nadal 23 for the record). I think Murray's trip to #1 is going to be very brief, but at least he can say he did it. :snicker

 

[Busted]

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..."

Sure they will. That's what analysts do when they're talking about the history of tennis and the #1 players. They'll look at how briefly Murray was #1 the same way they did with Roddick and Safin - two otherwise decent-ish players who were overshadowed by Federer the way Murray is over-shadowed by Djokovic. Analysts are always trying to find ways to shade players. When you read stories dissecting who's the GOAT you see them claiming that Roger's competition wasn't as good as Djokovic's. Yet, during Roger's career he had to play 23 other Grand Slam winners while Djokovic has only has to contend with 3 for the majority of is career - leaving aside Del Po who's been out with injuries, Cilic who seems to be a one-trick pony and Stan who came late to the party. So yes, tennis talking heads will look at who Murray beat to become #1 and they'll note that both Federer and Nadal were out with injuries, Djokovic was struggling, Stan's a head case and the rest of the competition was considerably less talented - and I'm being polite about it.

PS - For the record the 23 Slam winners I'm counting are Agassi, Sampras, Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Nadal, Murray, Djokovic, Chang, Gaudio, Krajicek, Bruguera, Kafelnikov, Kuerten, Johansson, Ferrero, Costa, Moya, Rafter, Ivanisevic, Wawrinka, Cilic and Del Potro. I think that's all of them.

 

[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 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..."

Sure they will. That's what analysts do when they're talking about the history of tennis and the #1 players. They'll look at how briefly Murray was #1 the same way they did with Roddick and Safin - two otherwise decent-ish players who were overshadowed by Federer the way Murray is over-shadowed by Djokovic. Analysts are always trying to find ways to shade players. When you read stories dissecting who's the GOAT you see them claiming that Roger's competition wasn't as good as Djokovic's. Yet, during Roger's career he had to play 23 other Grand Slam winners while Djokovic has only has to contend with 3 for the majority of is career - leaving aside Del Po who's been out with injuries, Cilic who seems to be a one-trick pony and Stan who came late to the party. So yes, tennis talking heads will look at who Murray beat to become #1 and they'll note that both Federer and Nadal were out with injuries, Djokovic was struggling, Stan's a head case and the rest of the competition was considerably less talented - and I'm being polite about it.

PS - For the record the 23 Slam winners I'm counting are Agassi, Sampras, Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Nadal, Murray, Djokovic, Chang, Gaudio, Krajicek, Bruguera, Kafelnikov, Kuerten, Johansson, Ferrero, Costa, Moya, Rafter, Ivanisevic, Wawrinka, Cilic and Del Potro. I think that's all of them.

The 1 time wonders shouldn't count; PLEASE! I'll give you Sampras, Kuerten, Rafter, & Agassi; even at the end of their careers, but other than Djokovic, Nadal, and Wawrinka the comp. has been lame! :angel: :dodgy:

 

[Kieran]

Yeah, it seems a bit rich to dismiss Cilic, Stan and DP for spurious reasons and yet include Krajicek, Chang, Ferraro, Costa and a fistful of other names among the 23...

 

[TennisFanatic7]

So Murray is the new #1 Last Man Standing of The Big 4, huh? :lolz: I can't remember the last time someone became #1 just for showing up at tournaments and beating less than mediocre competition, but good for him. He "peaked" at the right time. Nole's got his head up butt. Roger's injured. Nadal isn't 1/10th the player he used to be. And I'll throw in that Stan's a head case whose week to week consistency is non-existent.

No offense to Andy's fans, but I just can't be too impressed by a guy whose path to #1 consisted of finals victories over Isner, Tsonga, Agut and Dimitrov. At the China Open the highest ranked player he played was #13 David Ferrer. At the Shanghai Masters it was #12 David Goffin. In Vienna it was #15 Jo-Wilfred Tsonga. In Paris it was #5 Milos Raonic. So in 4 tournaments he played 1 guy ranked in the top 10 :eyepop- and that was before the final. Yes, he can only play the players that win, but still, I'm not impressed.

Given Murray's less than stellar history at the Tour Finals, having played in 4 straight finals the last 4 months - I'm going with Djokovic for the Six-peat and returning to #1. Even if Andy makes the final he's probably going to have to beat Djokovic - against whom he has Roger-to-Rafa-like numbers of 10 wins and 24 losses (Roger 11, Nadal 23 for the record). I think Murray's trip to #1 is going to be very brief, but at least he can say he did it. :snicker

You make valid points but your argument is biased. Murray isn't #1 because he scored the most points in the last 6 weeks, he's #1 because he scored the most points in the last 12 months including Wimbledon, a Rome Masters win where he beat Djokovic on his weakest surface in the final, reaching the Roland Garros final, also on his worst surface, and had his own issues earlier in the year where he was absent/distracted while Djokovic was able to rack up points at the likes of Indian Wells and Miami when, similarly, he barely had to beat anyone of note.

I'm not denying that the fact Murray has won every one of his titles since Queen's Club without having to beat Djokovic, Federer or Nadal, but you have to acknowledge both sides of the coin.

 

[El Dude]

Andy is #1 because he performed much better, and played more, low level tournaments. Novak outperformed Andy at Slams and Masters, earning 10,440 points to Andy's 9410 - that's +1030. But in low level tournaments (ATP 250s and 500s, the Davis Cup), Andy beat Novak 1775 to 340.

It is also important to point out that all three of Andy's ATP 500 titles were after Roland Garros, when Novak started to struggle, and two just in the last month. So it isn't only that Andy has done better at low level tournaments, but that he's done better in the second half overall.

 

[El Dude]

Sure they will. That's what analysts do when they're talking about the history of tennis and the #1 players. They'll look at how briefly Murray was #1 the same way they did with Roddick and Safin - two otherwise decent-ish players who were overshadowed by Federer the way Murray is over-shadowed by Djokovic. Analysts are always trying to find ways to shade players. When you read stories dissecting who's the GOAT you see them claiming that Roger's competition wasn't as good as Djokovic's. Yet, during Roger's career he had to play 23 other Grand Slam winners while Djokovic has only has to contend with 3 for the majority of is career - leaving aside Del Po who's been out with injuries, Cilic who seems to be a one-trick pony and Stan who came late to the party. So yes, tennis talking heads will look at who Murray beat to become #1 and they'll note that both Federer and Nadal were out with injuries, Djokovic was struggling, Stan's a head case and the rest of the competition was considerably less talented - and I'm being polite about it.

PS - For the record the 23 Slam winners I'm counting are Agassi, Sampras, Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Nadal, Murray, Djokovic, Chang, Gaudio, Krajicek, Bruguera, Kafelnikov, Kuerten, Johansson, Ferrero, Costa, Moya, Rafter, Ivanisevic, Wawrinka, Cilic and Del Potro. I think that's all of them.

This is so selective and innacurate on numerous levels. First of all, some of those players were played by Novak as well. And some you listed Roger played seldomly and/or at the end of their careers. Novak has had to face a late-peak Roger, a peak Rafa, peak Murray, Wawrinka, and Cilic. And if you include some of those players on Roger's list, then you also have to include players like Hewitt, Roddick, Ferrero, and Safin on Novak's list.

So yeah, Roger played over twice as many Slam winners in his day, but I don't think that means he had it harder (or easier, for that matter). Different contexts of play is all it really tells us.

Also, as much as I love Roger, he didn't do what both Rafa and Novak did: dominate an all-time great in their prime. Rafa utterly dominated Roger, and not just when Roger was old. It was closer when Roger was in his prime, but Rafa still had the edge. And Novak surpassed Rafa while Rafa was still in his prime (2011). This is not to diminish Roger's greatness, for he did other things better than either Roger or Rafa (like dominate his own generation in an unparalleled way), but it supports the greatness of Novak in his own right (and Rafa, but we're mainly talking about Novak here).

 

[Kieran]

I would haggle - convincingly, mind - that Novak briefly held sway over Rafa, then Rafa rebounded and briefly held sway again over Novak, then since a certain point, Rafa has certainly not been prime, either physically, or mentally, for a long time, and so Novak has dominated him. But I totally agree with your assault on a baseless - and I'm sure, since regretted - post by busted, which seems to consist more of steam and enthusiasm, than sensible thought, and objective query...

 

[lob]

So yes, tennis talking heads will look at who Murray beat to become #1 and they'll note that both Federer and Nadal were out with injuries, Djokovic was struggling, Stan's a head case and the rest of the competition was considerably less talented - and I'm being polite about it.

So the benchmark for being a real #1 is to go through the all the big 3 in their respective peaks? Murray is not a big match player, especially in the way the big three were/are. His GS final record is 3-8. He doesn't match up well against Djokovic to whom he lost 5 of those finals. Four of them at AO, Nole's 'home slam'. One at RG, Novak's 5th consecutive run for career slam after half a decade of near misses. Roger took the other 3. Two were to TMF and in 2012 Wimbledon but people forget that Murray was very close to going 2 sets up. Murray ain't no Federer. But he ain't no Ferrer either. Who knows, had he not taken out Nadal in 2008 USO SF, Rafa might also have won 4 consecutive slams in 2009 itself. He took out Rafa in 2010, Rafa's best year, AO fair and square.

What's often overlooked is that it was extremely hard for any player to break through to the top or even become a one slam wonder when Federer and Nadal took turns dominating the tour. Only Novak managed to break through after spending 3 years sitting on one AO. He was written off by many when rose up like a phoenix in 2011. As to Stan, the fact that he has been getting possessed, for 14 days at a stretch, three years running cannot let us lose sight of his GS final record of 3-0 not 3-8. Has Stan won any ATP1000s?

 

[El Dude]

I would haggle - convincingly, mind - that Novak briefly held sway over Rafa, then Rafa rebounded and briefly held sway again over Novak, then since a certain point, Rafa has certainly not been prime, either physically, or mentally, for a long time, and so Novak has dominated him. But I totally agree with your assault on a baseless - and I'm sure, since regretted - post by busted, which seems to consist more of steam and enthusiasm, than sensible thought, and objective query...

Yes, that's the trajectory and, mind you, my point wasn't to say that Novak dominated Rafa overall, but that Novak did something that Roger didn't do: surpass the top player in the game why that player was in his prime. 2010 was, by most measures, Rafa's best year (2013 being a close second, and then 2008 a bit further behind). 2011 was essentially the same for Rafa, except for the fact that Novak beat him handily. Other than Novak, Rafa performed exactly the same.

I was curious so did a bit of research. If we consider Rafa's absolute peak to be 2008-2013, and Novak's absolute peak to be 2011-16, then their peaks overlapped by three years: 2011-13. During that time period, the h2h was 10-6, Novak's edge. Novak won 7 matches in a row, all of 2011 and into 2012, and then Rafa won 3 in a row and 6 of 7 before Novak reasserted himself late in 2013.

So while I agree with your seesaw narrative, I do think we must be honest and say that Novak had a bit of an edge during their overlapping peaks, with Rafa dominant before Novak came into his own (16-7 in 2006-10) and Novak overwhelmingly dominant since Rafa started to slip (9-1 from 2014-16). The net result is that Novak has a slight edge overall.

 

[Kieran]

Let's run a live tracker on this race, eh? As they both stand, after one match:

Andy Murray: 11385
Novak Djokovic: 10980

Or isn't it better to simply remove Andy's DC points now, and call it what it is?

Andy: 11135
Novak: 10980

ANDY LEADS BY 155 POINTS.

NEXT MATCHES:

15/11: Novak v Raonic
16/11: Andy v Nishikori

 

[El Dude]

Novak is 7-0 vs Milos. What is even more worrisome (for Milos) is that he's only lost one set. One! The set record is 17-1. Ouch.

 

[El Dude]

Andy's 7-2 vs Kei, but Kei won their last match in the US Open QF.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Let's run a live tracker on this race, eh? As they both stand, after one match:

Andy Murray: 11385
Novak Djokovic: 10980

Or isn't it better to simply remove Andy's DC points now, and call it what it is?

Andy: 11135
Novak: 10980

ANDY LEADS BY 155 POINTS.

NEXT MATCHES:

15/11: Novak v Raonic
16/11: Andy v Nishikori

Last time, you did this to jinx Fed. Now, you are trying to Jinx poor Nol2. :devil

 

[Fiero425]

Let's run a live tracker on this race, eh? As they both stand, after one match:

Andy Murray: 11385
Novak Djokovic: 10980

Or isn't it better to simply remove Andy's DC points now, and call it what it is?

Andy: 11135
Novak: 10980

ANDY LEADS BY 155 POINTS.

NEXT MATCHES:

15/11: Novak v Raonic
16/11: Andy v Nishikori

Last time, you did this to jinx Fed. Now, you are trying to Jinx poor Nol2. :devil

I just check the live ranking already: - http://live-tennis.eu/en/atp-live-ranking - :nono :angel: :dodgy: :cover

- - http://fiero4251.blogspot.com/2016/08/fan-page-novak-nole-djokovic.html - -

 

[Kieran]

Let's run a live tracker on this race, eh? As they both stand, after one match:

Andy Murray: 11385
Novak Djokovic: 10980

Or isn't it better to simply remove Andy's DC points now, and call it what it is?

Andy: 11135
Novak: 10980

ANDY LEADS BY 155 POINTS.

NEXT MATCHES:

15/11: Novak v Raonic
16/11: Andy v Nishikori

Last time, you did this to jinx Fed. Now, you are trying to Jinx poor Nol2. :devil

I kinda feel that I'm better at jinxes than making Rafa lucky... :snicker